When the debate was adjourned on Friday the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) was arguing that the fact that the number of Bantu streaming into the White areas is an undeniable proof that the principles upon which our apartheid philosophy rests have collapsed. I just want to tell the hon. member that the number of Bantu has increased but that the rate of increase has fallen off. (Laughter.) Hon. members may derive pleasure from the fact that the number of Bantu has increased. It has been the fantastic economic upsurge which we have experienced in South Africa which has given rise to the fact that the number of Bantu has increased. If the Opposition think that the increase in the number of Bantu in the White areas will contribute towards the Whites in South Africa rebelling against apartheid, they are greatly mistaken. I want to tell the hon. member for Maitland that there is the feeling on the part of the Whites who mean well with South Africa not to accept a colour policy unless that colour policy safeguards their right of existence, ensures their identity, guarantees their survival as a nation and maintains their Christian White civilization.

Throughout the country?

Throughout the fatherland of the Whites. I shall return to this point.

I want to make it clear that the White voters have come to the conclusion that the policy of apartheid is the right policy. This is the reason why, since 1948, the White voters have by means of steadily increasing majorities given their approval to this policy, not only because it is the policy of the National Party or because we have formulated this policy so clearly, but because they are deeply impressed by the fact that apartheid is nothing less than an expression of the wishes of the White nation of South Africa to maintain that White nation in its own country. That is what it means; that is why the White voters accept apartheid as being the traditional policy in this country. This is a policy which has developed from the experience which the White man has had of the Black man in this country. That is why it has such an emotional glow; it has that glow because we believe that the implementation of apartheid is inextricably bound up with the survival of the White race in our country.

What do you mean by apartheid?

There is that parrot-cry again, Mr. Chairman. That is the old cry of a human parrot who has been in a political daydream ever since the Provincial elections.

The hon. member tor Maitland cannot summarily state that the principles of apartheid have collapsed and that apartheid itself is a failure. Why does he not match argument for argument? Why does he not put his party’s policy of integration against our policy of apartheid? Somebody interjected “Throughout the country” just now. What does it avail the United Party to say that it stands for an undivided South Africa under White leadership? What does it mean by saying this? What does it gain by saying this when at the same time it also declares that it will give political rights to a numerically stronger non-White mass in a one-nation community with the Whites? [Interjections.] Yes, that is the way in which they wish to by-pass it. They do not want to match these principles. The United Party cannot deny this. Are they not in favour of the promotion of a one-nation idea which seeks to promote White-Black politics by way of a race federation in terms of which they wish to give the Bantu eight representatives in this House? Then the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) asks: “Who is going to rule South Africa?” That is a stupid question when one advocates a policy of this nature. Notwithstanding his lip-service the hon. member for South Coast will be branded in South Africa as a member of a party which has given the liberalists, the communists and others the opportunity of a breakthrough, the breakthrough which they have desired so long, by giving the non-White masses political powers by means of which the position of political power of the White man can be subverted, that position of political power which is one of the strongest anchors for the survival of the White nation as a nation. [Interjections.]

What is their policy other than a policy which has already failed throughout the rest of Africa? They are the ones who wish to place the Black mass on that dangerous road which leads to one man, one vote, and then they say that they want “White supremacy over the whole of South Africa”. [Interjections.] Hon. members will be able to shout me down just as little as they will be able to shout down apartheid in this country. At every election they smash themselves to pieces not only against this state of mind on the part of the Whites but also against apartheid. Apartheid has torn them apart.

They are already losing the support of the English-speaking people.

Yes, they are also losing the support of the English-speaking people and this is very interesting. After the results of the provincial elections had been made known, the hon. member for Maitland held a meeting. I should just like to point out that one of the underlying principles of our apartheid policy is the coming into being of an own White South African nation. The English-speaking people were ready to support us during the recent provincial elections in order to enable us to implement this policy of ours and the hon. member held a meeting on which the Cape Times of 8 April reported as follows—

Because, besides the fact that our policy led to South Africa’s becoming a Republic, apartheid contributed towards the coming into being of White unity in our country and to the founding of this own South African nationhood of English- and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans, the English-speaking people are suddenly stabbing the Afrikaner in the back! The report goes on to say—

That integrated community which will consist not only of White English- and Afrikaans-speaking people but that one-nation community inclusive of the Bantu, that “greater South African nation” after which the liberalists in this country are striving. That idea is not acceptable to us. The White voters want the White race to survive but the survival of the White race is also essential for the survival of the other races. The policy which they are following of a greater nation will not solve the problem, Mr. Chairman; it will bring the races together but the United Party thinks that by this means it will be able to solve the problems. [Interjections.] The hon. member for South Coast is unnecessarily concerned. He asks, “Who will govern South Africa in future?” I shall tell him. It will be those who retain full political power in White South Africa. There is no party which has contributed more towards the subversion of that political power position than has that party, and that is why it has been condemned to sit on the Opposition benches in this House for ever.

It is most refreshing to notice that after the hiding the National Party got over the past two days they have decided to-day to fight back. I want to congratulate the Nationalist Party on having selected such a formidable fighter as their Chief Whip to start the return bout this afternoon. At the same time, however, I want to express my sincere sympathy to the hon. the Chief Whip because he has been given an impossible task. In the process of fighting back so strenuously he has made himself guilty of one contradiction after the other. The hon. member said, for example, that they were not to blame for the increase in the flow, at a slower tempo according to him, because that was due to the remarkable economic upsurge South Africa had experienced ! What an admission, Mr. Chairman! In other words, when South Africa flourishes economically apartheid fails ! One must conclude from that that if apartheid has to succeed South Africa must suffer economically?

What does the hon. Chief Whip mean by apartheid when he gets as lyrical and as poetical about the idea of apartheid as he has just done? Those of us who are dependent on authoritative statements by leaders on that side of the House in order to determine what apartheid means may perhaps be under the wrong impression because, as apartheid has been represented by the Government, we think it means the development of certain areas of South Africa as economic and political homelands for the majority of the Natives. To us it

I suppose we are wrong again.

means a policy which, if it is to succeed, should be carried out with imagination, determination and even with willingness to make sacrifices. That is how we understand it when we listen to responsible leaders on that side of the House. Are we interpreting it incorrectly when we think that or have I given a reasonable interpretation of the policy of apartheid?

No. they are silent; they are obviously agreeing with me.

Then we have to determine how sincere our hon. friends opposite are in the application of their policy. The hon. the Chief Whip has given the game away this afternoon. They still want it provided it does not clash with economic prosperity and material considerations. Not only have we the hon. the Chief Whip as a striking witness but we have other witnesses as well. Here I have a cutting from the Natal Daily News of a speech made by the Administrator of Natal at Eshowe not so long ago. The report is dated 4 May so I take it he made the speech on 3 May. Eshowe is situated in the White part of Zululand and it is very interesting to read what this prominent Administrator had to say. He is a very faithful supporter of the concept of apartheid; he is one of the main apostels of the Nationalist Party in assisting them to effect the break through they hope to make in Natal. I trust the hon. the Minister will listen carefully to this and have the courage to get up and confirm the statement made by that Administrator because this is what he said—

[Laughter.]

Why don’t you win elections?

One can win elections if one is as dishonest as that. Anybody can win an election if he deceives the nation like this! The people of South Africa are told —as well as the people of Cologne in Germany—that their policy is one of separate development; a policy which will mean no discrimination; a policy which is aimed at giving the Natives everything which they rightly desire in their own areas; a policy under which the Native can get everything which the White man desires for himself ! But Mr. Gerdner says all this talk of development in the Bantu areas, this development which is to make that possible, is so much poppycock! That was what he said to the people of Zululand who may be affected by such a policy. What must you think of that, Sir? Is that the way in which the Nationalist Party is fighting back as far as this wonderful policy of theirs is concerned? The Administrator went further—

The time has arrived for us in South Africa to appreciate and to think clearly of what this Government is doing.

Over the past 17 years they have successfully—I grant the hon. the Minister of Information that-—advocated a policy but they are faithfully following a policy of economic integration ! Mr. Chairman, if you want to appreciate what is happening you must note how the Native reserves are being developed. The only important attempt at development in those areas takes place on the White man’s side of the border, on the White man’s side of the future Native areas; White factories are established in White areas so that they can depend on the Bantu labour from those Bantu areas. It remains economic integration; they remain White factories which are dependent on non-White labour with this difference that that Native labour will in future be directly subordinate to and dependent on a Government foreign to South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please give the hon. member a chance to make his speech.

For the rest there are more than a million Natives in our cities without the right to own a piece of ground in the areas set aside for them, without the right to live a healthy family life. They are people who are alienated from the society in which they live and from the authority to which they are subordinate.

In this connection I want to warn hon. members opposite. The hon. Chief Whip has levelled a wild and unfound accusation at this side of the House by saying that we promoted Communism in South Africa. He quoted no authority but I want to refer him to an authority. I suggest to hon. members opposite that they give some attention to a study of communist methods made by American scholars and American political leaders. That study has been condensed into a symposium called “The Strategy of Deception” under the editorship of Mrs. Jean J. Kilpatrick. She says the following in her foreword—

[Time limit.]

I do not think we have ever seen the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in a more jovial mood than this afternoon. Whether it is assumed or genuine is another matter, of course, Mr. Chairman. You probably noticed, Sir, that while the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) was speaking, one person laughed on behalf of all the others and who was it? The Leader of the Opposition. We shall probably first have to find out what has happened.

I think the hon. member for Yeoville is the last person to speak about deception in this House and about winning elections by deception. If time permits I shall go into the matter in order to show, if anything like that has ever happened in South Africa, which side of the House can be accused of that. I wonder whether the hon. member was looking in the mirror when he made that accusation. I want to return to the allegation the Opposition is continually making, namely, that we are promoting integration because there is a greater number of Bantu in our White industrial areas. I never like quoting figures but I am compelled to do so in this instance. These figures prove that there has been an increase in the number of Bantu in the White areas, but it is ridiculous continually to draw attention to the increased number of Bantu in the White areas without, at the same time, referring to the increase in the number of industries in the White areas. Before I quote those figures I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville whether he is opposed to industrial development if it goes hand in hand with an increase in the number of Bantu in the White areas?

No, I am not saying that.

Why then the accusation? Here I have the most recent and the most reliable figures one can get, Sir. I want to show how the industries have expanded in the White areas in terms of money: For 1960 the figure was R10,900,000; for 1961 it was R12,800,000; for 1962, R11,600,000; for 1963, R14,600,000 and for 1964 R17,800,000. You must bear these figures in mind, Sir, when you refer to the increase in the number of Bantu, because if you do it is ridiculous to talk about increased integration. If you view the increase in the number of Bantu in the light of the industrial expansion it is only necessary to do some simple arithmetic in order to ascertain what the true position is.

Will you also give the figures for Krugersdorp?

The number of Bantu in those industries have increased as follows: There were 358,000 in 1960; 356,000 in 1961; 359,000 in 1962; 381,000 in 1963; and 445,000 in 1964. In terms of money the industries have expanded from R10,900,000 to R17,800,000 whereas the number of Bantu have increased from 358,000 to 445,000. Seeing that the Opposition is always so clever at making sums let them do this little sum. If the hon. member wants to prove his statement that there has been integration to a greater extent let him make his little sum. Mr. Chairman, you cannot come to any other conclusion but that the industrial expansion has been the main reason for the increased demand for non-White labour. Had we not embarked on the five-year plan of separate development in the Bantu homelands there would have been an even greater number of Bantu in the White areas. Not only would there have been an increased number in the White areas but the Bantu homelands would not have been developed.

The hon. member for Yeoville now reproaches us and says that as a result of our border industries the Bantu are still dependent on White people for work. Of course, they are, but they live in their own homelands and they are consequently economically, socially and politically properly segregated and they can play their part in their own political affairs in their own homelands. As against that the hon. member for Yeoville suggests that those Bantu should be allowed to live amongst the Whites in their own areas and not only be further integrated economically but further integrated in the political institutions of the White man. What does the reproach of the hon. member amount to? That as a result of separate development we are hampering the expansion of our industries. Right from the outset they said South Africa would go bankrupt because this policy of apartheid was aimed at hampering industrial development. Now that the industries have indeed expanded the hon. member for Yeoville reproaches us because the number of Bantu have increased. However, the hon. member knows as well as you and I do, Sir, that the turning point in that flow has indeed been reached inasmuch as we now have effective control for the first time in our history. That control is so effective to-day that the White areas are no longer the homelands of the unemployed Native as they were under United Party regime. We have stated time and again that the Bantu could only remain here as long as there was work for him to do and that he could not live here if he did not work here. That is a totally different picture from the one the hon. member tried to paint for us. He wants to make the world believe that, because of the increased number of Bantu in the White areas, a form of integration is beginning to develop on a larger scale.

It is a pity one’s time is limited when one discusses these matters, Sir, otherwise one could have drawn proper attention to the consequences. If you were to review the position in ten years’ time, Sir, when the Bantu areas will be further developed and when the industries in the White areas will have brought about greater separation between the Bantu and White workers—in that process the Natives will be replaced by Whites—you will indeed find that the Bantu homelands have been successful in attracting them back, as is already the case to-day. It will only not be so difficult to prove it then because the existing homelands will have been developed further and more homelands will have been developed.

We are still faced with strenuous opposition on the part of the United Party and the big employers of labour in this country. [Time limit.]

We have listened with interest to the two funeral orations we have just had from the Government side as they stand at the grave of the year 1978. Suddenly, after two days of debate, we have a new theory in the thrilling serial of “Now you see them; now you don’t”. It used to be “Now you see them” but in 1978 you won’t. To-day we have the new theory of “keep your cities White by night”. It is all right to have the Bantu there in the day-time and as long as you don’t have them at night you are keeping your cities White and you don’t need 1978 as a date any more. That is the argument advanced by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg). The hon. member says it is not integration to have Bantu in the White areas as long as they are under control. He also accuses us of being opposed to the development of the reserves so that they will be able to carry their share of the Bantu.

I want to refer the hon. member to a statement which I have here in which the United Party was very violently attacked because it was our policy to develop the Bantu reserves. I have an extract from a statement dealing with the agricultural improvements in the reserves at the terrible cost of £120,000. The United Party had wasted this amount on the development of the Bantu reserves! The heading of this attack is “Maak ’n Einde daaraan: Suid-Afrika verdien beter”. To what must we make an end, Sir? The development of the reserves. Who said it? None other than the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development; this statement was issued by Mr. M. C. de Wet Nel, Nationalist Party, Sanlam-building, Pretoria. This Minister then attacked the United Party and the hon. member now accuses us of not wanting to develop the reserves! Let us get this clearly on record—I don’t know how often we shall have to say it to drum it into the heads of those hon. members—that the United Party always has against the violent opposition of that side of the House, stood for the development of the Bantu areas to a greater and greater carrying capacity year after year. It was part of our policy and it remains a fundamental part of the United Party policy to develop the Bantu areas to the maximum of their capacity using, in that development, White capital and White skills, and maintaining over that development the control of the White Parliament of South Africa. Our difference with the Nationalist Party and with the Government is not in the development of the reserve; it is in the control of that development. We say: Develop the reserves as part of South Africa, as an integral part of our country controlled by this Parliament. The Government says: Develop the reserves without White leadership, without White capital, on the road to self-determination and total independence, separate and uncontrolled by this Parliament. That is the direction of their policy as against the direction of United Party policy. Our difference with them is not in the development of the reserves but in the control of that development and the ultimate end to which that development leads.

In this thrilling serial of “Now you see them; Now you don’t”, having just completed a chapter of “Now you Don’t”, which ended on 24 March, I think we should have another clear chapter of “Now you see them”. Now you see the Bantustans again and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to put on record in this debate his repudiation of those who have denied that the direction of Government policy is towards the creation of separate states which can, if they so wish, develop to full independence with full control of their internal and external affairs. We want that on record; we want the statement quoted by the hon. member for Yeoville repudiated; a statement by the Administrator of Natal, a member of the Nationalist Party, appointed by that party and speaking as a Nationalist, that the policy of the party did not, in fact, mean the development of the Bantu areas . . .

It has been proved that he did not say it.

I quote again—

“All this talk of development in your Bantu areas is poppycock,” added Mr. Gerdener.

And that has not been denied.

Read it in its context.

I challenge those loud hon. members to point to any denial issued by the Administrator of Natal.

What are you reading from?

The Daily News.

Quite out of its context.

I ask the hon. Minister categorically and unequivocally, not in pretty fairy story language, but in plain straight language, to enunciate what the policy of the Government is in regard to the right of all Bantu areas in South Africa to develop to total independence. I am not asking when. I am asking him merely to reaffirm the Prime Minister’s words in clear terms. The Administrator of Natal said poppycock and these hon. members went round during the election saying “Do not worry about independence, it will never really happen; it is only for party political purposes, it is to keep the outside world quiet; we don’t intend to go on and give these areas independence.” I ask the hon. Minister to state the policy clearly and unequivocally, and I ask him further to answer the question that has been asked so often, the question of whether the Government has now abandoned the concept of consolidation in regard to Zulustan. The Minister of Indian Affairs made a statement during the election that there would be no consolidation, that there would be seven Zulustans in Natal. I ask the hon. Minister now to deal with that matter equally clearly and unequivocally, and either to confirm or to repudiate the attempt to say “Don’t fear” by the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs. We have this conflict—this attempt to make out that the total independence which is the crux of Bantustans is merely political talk, is merely a bogy set up by the United Party to try to frighten the voters. The story put across at “huisbesoek” and at meetings is that the Nationalist Party will never let the White man down.

Hear, hear!

“Of course we will never give them independece.” Say “hear, hear!” again! Sir, they say “hear, hear!” to the first part, but what about the corollary that the Nationalist Party will never give independence to these areas? Speaker after speaker, during the election said “You do not need to worry about independence.” “We will keep control, we will not lose control.”

Who said so?

If hon. members did not say it, then they will have no objection to the hon. Minister clearly and unequivocally repudiating those who have said it. Let the Minister say clearly that it is nonsense to say that the Government does not intend to give independence. [Time limit.]

In this House I have often seen the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) being appointed to scratch the chestnuts out of the fire for the United Party. I have also seen that whenever the United Party lands in trouble they push in the hon. member for Durban (Point) Mr. Raw. But I have never yet seen the United Party in such trouble that it had to rely on both those hon. members, one after the other. I have often noticed that when the hon. member for Yeoville enters the debate it is just for one object, and that is to try to reconcile the seemingly irreconcilable. That is the role the hon. member for Yeoville has been playing in this House for years, and the fact that he so suddenly participated in this debate made me ask myself: What is really the trouble in which the United Party has landed during the last few days? I have my suspicions, but I must honestly say that I thought the United Party would already have been able to solve the problems created for them by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) but now it seems to me that that party is landing even more deeply into trouble. If I look at the hon. member for Yeoville it seems to me that he is celebrating the victory in regard to the internal quarrels experienced in his party. That explains the enthusiasm with which the hon. member takes part in this debate.

Order! The hon. member must now come back to the Vote.

The hon. member alleged that the National Party only wants apartheid when it does not come into conflict with our economic interests. That is of course the greatest nonsense the hon. member has ever spoken in his life. That is precisely the policy of the United Party. The Bantu policy of the United Party is aimed at integrating the Bantu with the Whites economically because they want to make use of the Bantu— purely for economic reasons. And then he makes this further mistake: Because the economic interests are of paramount importance and control its whole policy, it tries to adapt its political structure to the economic policy of integration. That is the only reason why the United Party has its race federation plan which is aimed not only at giving the Bantu a share in the economic structure and in the future of the White man in this country, but also in this Parliament. That is the only reason.

I have been listening to this debate for a few days now. What has the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) done? He again created the impression that in recent years there has been no development in the Transkei at all, in spite of the proof submitted by he hon. the Minister. Has the hon. member not been to the Transkei recently? Has he not seen the tremendous development which is taking place there industrially, for example the phormium tenax fibre industry which has been established there and which is now being greatly expanded? Did he not visit Quamata to see the tremendous dam which is being built there with all its canals? It seems to me that the hon. member does not know his constituency. Has he not seen the tremendous progress made in regard to roads, fencing, etc.? But what is in fact the object of the hon. member for Transkeian Territories in alleging here that we are not developing the Transkei? His object is to give the Bantu in South Africa the impression that this Government does not want to do anything for them. He wants to try to ridicule the policy of separate development, and with that object he hopes to incite the agitators among the Bantu against the Government. I would not be surprised if that is the only object the hon. member for Transkeian Territories has. He wants to be the spokesman for the Bantu not only in South Africa but also for the Bantu Opposition in the Transkei, by creating the impression that this Government with its policy of separate development wants to do nothing for the Bantu.

Can they not see it for themselves?

I also accuse the United Party of doing its best to incite the Bantu against this Government. In fact, that is my big objection to the actions of the United Party. It is being said abroad: Just note that it is not only the agitator type of Bantu who is opposed to separate development, but also the United Party and a large proportion of the Whites in South Africa.

Sir, who subscribes to the trend of thought of the United Party in regard to the solution of the racial problems to-day? Not the White electorate. I think the election results have shown year by year that the Whites do not support it. But has the Leader of the Opposition ever asked himself whether the Bantu are prepared to support the policy of the United Party? What do Luthuli and his friends say about the policy of the United Party? They say they do not want it at all. The agitator type whom the Leader of the Opposition is trying to satisfy does not want race federation. What does that agitator type want in South Africa? The same that they achieved in the Congo and what they have tried to achieve in the rest of Africa. They want to grasp everything. Now the hon. member for Yeoville has tried to ridicule the speech of the Chief Whip of the National Party, in which he mentioned the United Party in the same breath as the communists. The United Party may perhaps not actually think so, but that is the implication of their policy—they are trying to create chaos in our country by wanting to give the Bantu representation in this Parliament. What they want to do follows the same pattern which is followed by the enemies of South Africa abroad, and that is to try to cause chaos in this country. Whom will that chaos benefit? Who benefited from the chaos in the Congo and elsewhere? The communists, of course. Therefore I say that the United Party should realize that the chaos which will result from its policy of integration, economically and politically, will be nothing else but a stepping-stone to Liberalism and eventually to Communism. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition should realize that. I think we in this country should seriously start thinking about our racial problems. I should like to see the United Party playing a less inciting role in regard to the Bantu’s attitude towards separate development. In this House the United Party acts as the brains of the opposition by the agitators to the policy of the Government, and of course one can understand that the agitators and the Bantu will say: “At least I do not stand alone in my struggle against the Government; at least I have the support of the United Party.” And that is what makes them persist in their opposition towards Government policy.

Your own people do not believe you.

We must start thinking seriously about our racial problem. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Middelland (Mr. van der Merwe) is a representative of South West Africa, where they have no policy as yet, and one can well pose the question whether his taking part in this debate is reasonable.

The Government side has put up two Whips to blow up a smoke-screen to cover up the complete failure of their policy. They have failed as well to put up this smoke-screen. Neither of them has said whether or not this Government is going to give independence to the Bantustans, and I am sure that that question is not going to be answered by anyone on that side of the House.

Mr. Chairman, right throughout this debate I have been astonished at the claims that the Government policy in regard to the urban Native has succeeded and that there has been no economic integration, and also at the jeers at us, our policy, and what our policy was in years gone by (when we had to win a war, of course) and I want to give some figures from a book used recently by the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, a book by Sheila van der Horst. First of all I want to read two small paragraphs from this book. I read from page 23—

We all know that the number in the Western Cape now is probably well over 80,000 and we also know that if there had not been that increase in Black workers in the Cape there certainly would not have been the economic upsurge that there has been in this part of the world. You see, Sir, the main point of the policy of the hon. the Prime Minister and that side of the House is, in regard to the town Africans, to regard the Africans outside the reserves, or outside the Bantustans, independent or otherwise, as people who can never have any political rights whatsoever in the so-called White areas, that they must always remain migrant labourers, temporary sojourners, “trekarbeiders”, and in fact foreigners in the land of their birth. Now I must say that if the Africans accepted this hypothesis willingly, then of course the policy would be a success, and because of the dream of such possible acceptance, great stress is laid by the hon. the Minister on the tribal affiliations of the Blacks and the call of their homelands. If, of course, the hon. the Prime Minister, or his willing servant and admirer, the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, could prove on investigation that this was the outlook of the Africans, criticism of their policy towards the town Native would, to a large degree, fall away, and therefore any reports or writings in support of this view would be of great importance to the hon. the Prime Minister. Unfortunately they could find none in their favour, and were reduced recently to twisting the words of Dr. Sheila van der Horst in her book “African Workers in Town—a study of African workers in Cape Town”, to help them. This work was originally undertaken under a joint committee representative of the School of African Studies and the Department of Economics of the University of Cape Town and the Department of Economics and Bantu Studies of the University of Stellenbosch which shared a generous grant provided by the National Council for Social Research.

Mr. Speaker, in previous years, we on this side of the House have drawn to the notice of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration the Seventeenth Annual Report of the C.S.I.R.. from which I am going to quote a few words—

That means that 90 per cent, Mr. Chairman, have to all intents and purposes lost any connection with their so-called homelands. I continue to read—

And in those investigations, the mine workers, the real migratory labourers of this country, were not take into account.

The hon. Minister tried to talk himself out of this difficulty by saying that he had many other reports to show that his standpoint was correct, but subsequent questions proved that he had no such other reports to support him. Now he has come across Dr. Sheila van der Horst’s book—I have got it here, and in a recent speech he actually said—

May I interpolate here that the book says that 77 per cent of those with urban wives wish to remain. Perhaps the Minister in his pseudo excitement mixed up his figures. The Minister went on to say and this was the cream of the whole speech—

He was relying on this book by Dr. Sheila van der Horst in this regard, but I am going to give a few extracts from other parts of the book after the Miniser has fastened so gleefully onto this book.

Mr. Speaker, here is the book which the hon. Minister is seeking to use to bolster up his “migrant labourer”, “temporary sojourner” policy, and this book is a book that should be read and studied by everyone. But for the Minister to pick on one small passage and quote that as justification for his Prime Minister’s Bantustan policy—

This book was produced at the beginning of 1964 and reflects the results of a survey started in 1955 and completed in 1957, long before the Bantustan policy was ever heard of. It started ten years ago, and this is what he brings forward in complete support of this rubbishy policy.

Order! The hon. member should not use such terms as “rubbishy policy”.

I withdraw. I will give some further short extracts from the book—

I suggest that most Africans coming to the Cape know that they, under the law, are going to be sent home if (I say “if” advisedly) the Government carries out its expressed policy. Then the book goes on to say—

I would like again to compare this figure with the figure of 20 per cent quoted by the Minister.

The pressure to get them out of the Western Province was so great, that the book says (on page 12)—

Mr. Speaker, there were at that time perhaps 60,000 African workers in Cape Town plus a few women and from January 1959 to March 1962, over 18,500 were kicked out as a matter of policy, and I think it is extraordinary that any of them wants to stay here on that basis. The percentages given in this book are astonishing in regard to the numbers who want to stay here notwithstanding what the Government policy has done to them. [Time limit.]

I feel like congratulating the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) on the fact that he has not mentioned the example of the factory in Roodepoort for the tenth time.

It will come later.

But this afternoon the hon. member asked us for the third time, and so did the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) as well as the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) before him, to admit openly that our policy is leading to a position in which the Bantu areas may become independent. It is rather funny that they should come along and ask this question this afternoon as though this matter has never been discussed in this Chamber and as though it has never been dealt with outside this House. I am going to reply fully to the question, but before doing so I just want to put a question to the hon. member for Benoni, and more particularly to the hon. member for Yeoville, because the hon. member for Yeoville made the remark: “If the Africans accepted the hypothesis of separate development.” I want to tell hon. members opposite that many Bantu, far and away the majority of the Bantu in South Africa, accept the policy of apartheid. There is abundant proof of that, and there are many statements that can be quoted in this connection. But now I should like to issue this challenge to the Opposition: Name me one single responsible Native leader or one single Native organization that openly acknowledges and accepts the United Party’s policy of race federation. I am not asking for 20 names— just one—the name of only one responsible Bantu leader in South Africa who has accepted that policy. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who is the chairman of their group, may perhaps reply to the question as to whether one responsible Bantu organization in South Africa has stated that it accepts race federation in toto, in terms of which the Bantu will be doomed to a state of permanent subordination as a community. I should like hon. members to give me just one scrap of proof.

I want to come back now to the question posed by the members of the Opposition as though we have never replied to it. Earlier this year I stated explicitly from this same place, and I want to repeat now, that under the policy of apartheid, of separate development. we accept that the outcome of that policy will be, or that it can lead to, independent states in South Africa. We accept that. But now they are acting as though we have never said that outside this House yet. Here in my hands I have my own notes which I used in Natal during the election campaign, and I shall read to you from my notes which I used at Stanger, Natal. I made partly the same speech at Dundee the next evening, and at Stanger I dealt with the following points: What is the United Party saying in terms of the policy of race federation? What are we saying in terms of the policy of apartheid? And I now come to a part of my notes which shows that I discussed these matters specifically in the electoral division of Zululand, where I said that we stood for the policy of separate development because it gave expression to the inborn, inherent urge to be independent which is present in every nation, and that in terms of that policy the Bantu could realize himself fully and could attain absolute independence in his own territory. I told them that we were even assisting the Bantu to develop along their own lines in such a way that they would be able to attain independence and become a separate independent small state. I openly admitted that to the voters there. And what was the result of that? Did they reject that? They did not reject it. The voters of Stanger, the voters of Zululand, accepted it like that, and here the member who has been elected to represent Zululand in the Provincial Council is to-day viewing this spectacle from the galleries of this Chamber.

Well I never!

The hon. member is welcome to look up there and then he will see the result of the election in Zululand sitting there in the flesh. We stated that policy not only at Stanger, but our speakers did so throughout the country. And let me say this to the Opposition now: That little story of theirs does not scare anyone any more, and it has never scared the voters yet.

Is that why Erasmus is so worried now?

The hon. member is inventing a story to find some consolation, and they certainly need consolation. I wish I could have all the products of the success of this policy present in this Chamber, as we already have one present here to-day.

The hon. members must realize that the public outside accepts the policy of separate development as the right one, as the natural policy which must fully unfold itself in respect of all the various Bantu peoples in South Africa. The public accepts the implications of that policy, and we as a Party accept those implications, and it would be better for the Opposition if they also came forward and stated openly that they are prepared to accept the implications and the outcome of their policy of race federation. They never want to admit honestly what the outcome of that policy would be. They ought to know, to put it in the words which the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) used here in a different context the other day, that their race federation policy would lead to the swallowing up of the White man in one communal association. The Opposition should rather admit these things.

I shall now come back to the hon. member for Yeoville, who said earlier this afternoon that prosperity and apartheid were irreconcilable. [Interjection.] Now the hon. member says that he did not say that. Let me state categorically that the policy of separate development which we have had under this Government since 1948, as well as the application thereof under the previous National Government, has always promoted prosperity, and not hampered it. It is difficult to prove the contrary, because we have not had the United Party’s policy of integration over the past 17 years, but if we had had that policy over the past 17 years we would not have known such prosperity. [Interjection.] The Leader of the Opposition says that we do in fact have a policy of integration, but that is only a cry of despair and it is untrue. We do not have economic integration. We discussed that topic at length the other day and there is no need for me to go into it again. The Bantu who are present in the White areas are not present there on a basis of potential equality with the Whites, and therefore they are not integrated, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition may just as well stop making interjections about that.

I want to deal specifically with a few points. [Interjections.] The hon. members on the other side must remember that apartheid has not hampered prosperity in South Africa, but has promoted it, and I want to illustrate that further.

Firstly, we have had tremendous development throughout the country. Money has been spent on all kinds of things which flowed from the policy of separate development. Throughout the country we have had a raising of the Bantu’s capacity to do things. Factories have been established throughout the country at which the Bantu workers have been properly housed in Bantu residential areas and not in the slum conditions in which they were housed under the United Party regime. Then we began with the development of border industries, which are a tremendous driving force which is only in the initial stage as yet. The other day the hon. member for Brakpan dealt very effectively with the position in regard to the labour bureaux. What has not been accomplished by the introduction of labour bureaux alone, so that we are placing more than 1,000,000 workers in employment regularly every year? It has led to systematization in the field of labour, greater stability and a reduction in absenteeism. All this has contributed to economic progress and peace in the field of labour. [Time limit.]

I think it should be observed that this afternoon we have had two definitions of integration, the one from the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) and the other from the hon. the Deputy Minister. He talks about “gelykheid” as if that is a factor in integration, and he talks about what he calls our “beleid van integrasie”. But we do not say that we have a policy of integration. We say that integration is a fact of economic life in South Africa, and you can talk until you are blue in the face but it will remain a fact, whatever policy you follow. As a matter of interest, let us once and for all try to persuade those hon. members that integration is a word which has been defined; it has a definite meaning and they cannot abuse it any way they like. The word, as it appears in the Oxford English Dictionary, which I think is an authority on the subject, means “the making up of a whole by adding together or combining separate parts or elements”. What do you do, e.g., in the Johannesburg municipal area when you have 750,000 Bantu and you have 500,000 Whites and Coloureds and you have a municipal population of 1,250,000? Have you got integration in the only sense of the word? I would like to ask the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) this. He is the one who told the world last year that these Bantu people were labour machines. If you take 2.000 Bantu and put them into a factory with 1.000 White people, then you have added the 2.000 to the 1,000 for a certain purpose in a certain place. Is that not the meaning of integration?

No.

I know that hon. members will say we have not added 2,000 persons to 1,000 White workers, but we have added 2.000 labour machines. That is the way the word is abused. With great respect to those hon. members, they must stop telling us what integration means because we know what it means and they have not the faintest idea. [Interjections.] I want to put this to you, Sir. I believe that the hon. the Minister is so busy with Bantu administration and development as far as the Bantustans are concerned that he is no longer aware of the existence of the urban Bantu. I do not know to whom that is left, whether it is to the Deputy Minister or to the Minister of Planning or to the Minister of Housing, as far as their housing is concerned, or to the Minister of Health as far as their health is concerned. What is this Minister doing nowadays about the urban Bantu, and what contact has he with them? He is so busy answering questions about subjects in regard to which he has made misstatements in this House that probably he has no time to think of the urban African or to realize what is going on in the cities.

What more must we do than we are already doing for them?

The Minister made a statement in the House on 6 April in a debate and said apropos of welfare organizations working in the reserves that we had accused him of prohibiting welfare organizations from entering Bantu areas, and he challenged us to say which organizations; he had prohibited one organization but he had good reasons for doing so. Did the Minister say that? Now he sits stupefied. I asked him a question as to when he banned this organization and what its name was, and this is the reply I got on 20 April: “No organizations as such have been prohibited from entering Bantu areas at all.” Then he made a statement publicly about the study he is making of racial clashes in America, as if that is relevant here. But when he is asked a question about it he says no, he is not making a study of racial clashes at all. He says: I am just finding out what is happening in other countries and every South African should do so. If it is his duty to study racial clashes in the deep south at long range, then certainly it is his duty to know what is happening in the Bantu areas of the cities and towns in South Africa. I maintain that this Minister is so busy developing other things elsewhere that the development of the urban African has nothing to do with him any more, and this is not difficult to prove. He has a problem in the Bantustans which he cannot even begin to cope with, and he knows it. He spoke to us the other day about the enormous development there; he spoke about fantastic progress in the Transkei and he referred to the fact that there was a corporation which had already gathered R1,000,000 to invest, and he asked whether that was not fantastic. He apparently forgets that his colleague, the Minister of Economic Affairs, said in this House in Hansard, Vol. 91, col. 5430, on 15 May 1956, that—

Yet the Minister, knowing that this is the opinion of the economic expert of the Government, talks about what was done in ten years and says there is a Corporation which has invested Rl,000,000. But if you need R1,000,000 to develop a certain project, it does not matter whether you get it from the Bantu or from the Chinese; you either have it or you do not have it, and in the Minister’s case he has not got it. I want to tell him something. Now that we have got to the requiem of the date 1978— I hope some composer writes a work called “Requiem 1978”, on the lines of the 1812 Overture—perhaps the Minister will now pay some attention to the Bantu in the urban areas. I want to ask the Deputy Minister what he meant the other day when he said the rate of growth in certain areas had been reduced in the last two or three years, and in referring to Johannesburg I think he said the rate of growth for 1964 was 1.6.

You are totally wrong. You did not listen properly.

I only hope this Government is as awake to its responsibilities as I am to the rubbish it talks. He said the rate of growth in the Johannesburg area for 1964 had been increased by 1.6. [Interjections.] This is the point. It is very easy to talk about percentages, and when the Deputy Minister talks about 1.6 it sounds very little, but the hard fact of the matter is that in 1964 there were 706,389 Bantu in Johannesburg, and in 1962 there were 609,100, according to the official Handbook, which means that from 1962 to 1964 the increase in Johannesburg alone had been 97,289.

They are the children born there.

I am trying to prove that the rate of growth is anything but that which the Deputy Minister told this Committee last Friday. Furthermore, when you compare the rate of growth of the Bantu population with that of the Whites an even more startling position arises; so that when we point out to the Government that we have an African population in the White areas which proves beyond all doubt that their presence there is necessary and that they are going to remain there, and that there is no turning them back in 1978 or in any other year, they should recognize that fact and not talk about statistics. [Time limit.]

We have listened for two days to figures and more figures relating to the presence of Bantu in the White areas. The argument is advanced time and again that the mere presence of the Bantu in the White areas constitutes integration. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) said just a moment ago, “Integration is a reality.” The fact that the Bantu are present here is supposed to constitute integration. I want to tell him that that is not true at all, because the mere presence of the Bantu here does not constitute integration. It could only be a test of the success of our policy if their presence in the White areas resulted in their obtaining certain economic rights; for example, if a Bantu in the White area obtained the right to own property, or if he obtained the right to trade in the White area, he would be getting certain economic rights; in other words, if he obtained economic rights here, there would be integration in the economic field, or if he obtained such rights in other fields, for example, if his presence here resulted in his obtaining political and other social rights, such as being allowed to go to our universities, etc., there would be integration in those fields and our policy would fail. But let us put that to the test. The Bantu come along here and irrespective of whether large or small numbers of them come here, and of whether there are more of them in 1964 than there were in 1962, does it constitute integration? I say it does not, because those Bantu are not obtaining any economic rights, nor are they obtaining political or any other rights. They only come here to work, and therefore they are not integrated. I want to give the opposite to that. If this were to happen within the pattern of the United Party’s policy, however, the presence of the Bantu would also be a test for their policy, because we know that the United Party has already pleaded that the Bantus should acquire certain rights of ownership here. They want to grant them rights of ownership in the Bantu residential areas round the towns, and other economic rights as well. For example, they want the Bantu to play a part in the trade unions as well. If these things were done, the Bantu would be economically integrated. I say that all these figures and the mere presence of the Bantu can never be the criterion for measuring the success or otherwise of our policy. So we may just as well forget about those figures, and the whole of this debate has been conducted purely on the basis of figures. The Leader of the Opposition and every subsequent speaker tried to prove by means of those figures that we do have integration at the moment, but our submission is that there is no integration; the Bantu are merely present here, but their presence here is no test of the success of our policy.

Our policy has three facets. The first is the development of the Bantu homelands, and I want to emphasize that by development of the homelands we do not mean what the United Party understands the expression to mean. They understand that expression to mean the improvement of those areas in the agricultural and economic fields only. That is all they want. We take it to mean the development of a national unit in its homeland in all spheres, as a full-fledged nation in its own homeland. And let me repeat that when as a people the Bantu have become ripe for it they will get absolute independence on an equal footing with the Whites. I repeat that they will get that when they are ripe for it. We cannot just act irresponsibly.

The second facet of our policy is our policy of border industries, and I want to show that that policy of border industries has thoroughly succeeded in the past few years.

Where?

The hon. member comes from East London, and if he had not walked around wearing dark glasses, he must have seen it. I myself was born and grew up in the Eastern Province, and I know that area very well, and I again visited it recently. The development of border industries which is taking place in King William’s Town and East London is simply astounding. Last year I mentioned the figures which were obtained by means of a survey made by our Department and which showed that by 1963 42,000 Bantu were already employed in the border industries, over a period of three years. Two years have passed since that time, and if we again made a survey now, we would certainly find that those figures have doubled. One can get an indication of the way in which the border industries are developing by studying these few figures that I want to mention. We have already inspected 115 sites with a view to establishing townships; 106 sites have already been approved. On more than 80 sites towns have already been established or are being developed. There are 95,000 residential plots which have all reached the development stage already. That shows that there must have been development, because nobody can go and live there without being able to gain a livelihood, and they are gaining that livelihood from the border industries. Only two or three places such as Umlazi and places at East London are mentioned, but those three places are only a few of the more than 80 which have already been completed or are nearing completion. Those are the large places, but there are many other smaller places where the people are now living in the Bantu area and working in the White area, and that is where we find the connection between the development of the homelands and the Bantu in the White areas.

The third phase of our policy relates to the Bantu in the White area. As long as they are only here to work there can be no integration. That is why we are now trying to see to it that the Bantu do not become established in the White area. We are providing housing for them in his own areas, where they can establish themselves and enjoy their rights. Another assertion which is frequently made is that the Native does not accept this pattern of our policy. That is not the case. [Time limit.]

The ideas of the hon. member who has just sat down in regard to town Natives are so confused that it is impossible to answer him. When my time elapsed, I was saying that over the period from January 1959 to March 1963 over 18,500 Africans were kicked out of the Cape and I said that to my mind it was extraordinary that there were any of them who wanted to stay here under the present conditions. In the other big towns of the country, however, there are millions, and there are something like two women for every three men. In the calculations made on the Reef, no account is taken of the mine Natives who are the majority of migrant workers. I ask the Minister, in view of what I have quoted out of this book by Sheila van der Horst, how he dares to claim that this is in support of his policy, that the Africans in the town areas are still held by their hearts to their homelands. It is utterly ridiculous. This investigation was completed ten years ago, but I am very glad to see that the last speaker is beginning to realize that he does not know everything, and that it might pay to investigate certain matters, and to find out how the people react who are directly affected by the policy of the Government. There is continuous reference to the fact that these workers are migrants. In the Transvaal, around Johannesburg, their title to their houses in Soweto is on a 30-year lease. In effect that is a lease in perpetuity, because if they behave themselves and do not come into conflict with the law, the leases cannot be cancelled. So to all intents and purposes they are there for 30 years, and they can pass their houses on to their children, and how they can be regarded as being migrants under those circumstances I just do not understand. In the Cape the man is told that he will be removed. When he arrives he knows he cannot stay, or so says the Government. In this life there are two things a man needs, namely a steady job and a home with his wife. He cannot have both in Cape Town, but he can in the other towns. The Minister relies on the report of a Cape Town Commission which is ten years’ old to justify his policies and he says this is what the Bantu want or do not want, and they cannot find a single responsible Bantu who does not agree with separate development. I said before that in Cape Town the number who are urbanized is surprising and it fully supports our view that the whole policy of migrant labour is ludicrous. I suggest to the Minister that the C.S.I.R. Report is far more important to give us the facts of the case and to tell us how these Africans feel about the matter than the Minister’s attempt to justify his policy. I am satisfied that the C.S.I.R. investigation was a correct one and to disregard it would be criminal folly. It reflects the views of the urban Africans, on the Reef anyway, that 90 per cent of them are detribalized. There is no question about that. I think the Minister is beginning to realize that he must investigate the views of the Africans themselves further. If he is serious in his contentions that this policy of migrant workers and temporary sojourners is accepted by the Africans, why does he not have a further inquiry? He has had two inquiries. One is worthless, because it was made ten years ago, on Cape Town only and that is the one he relies on. It is apparent to me and to everyone else in this House whose mind is not befogged by Government policy that the Minister does not know what the position is. Why does he not agree to have an investigation on the Reef and in the other big towns to find out how the Africans react to this question of being tied to their homelands and whether they are detribalized or not. It is no use bluffing ourselves that these people accept this policy when they do not. I ask the Minister please to agree to have a complete investigation made by the Witwatersrand University as to whether the Blacks living on the Reef and working in industry consider themselves to be detribalized or not. I would ask him also, if 70 per cent or 80 per cent of the Africans say that they have no links with their homeland any longer, will he disregard this and not be prepared to alter his policy? If he is satisfied that the real position is that the vast majority are detribalized, then I am sure that the various areas outside the big towns, like Soweto, are going to be called Bantu homelands in order to tell the Bantu that they have a stake there. The Minister also knows that his ethnic grouping policy is breaking down completely in the big urban areas because of intermarriage and hatred of the White Government. There is no shadow of doubt about that. I know of cases where representatives of the Chiefs have been up to talk to the men in these places. The older men still have respect for the Chief in their hearts but the younger men do not want to know anything about him. It is time this matter was investigated thoroughly to ascertain the feeling of the Blacks, because it is on that that the Minister’s policy must either stand or fall. Sir, I do not want to go into the question of border reserve industries but they are not border reserve industries; they are not on the borders of anything but the big towns and they are recreating in all those big towns exactly the same conditions that we had in Johannesburg during and after the war. Exactly the same conditions are being created because they are in exactly the same position in relation to these towns, geographically, as the African areas outside of Johannesburg. Sir, I appeal to the hon. the Minister; he knows that his policy is nonsensical. Why does he not tell the hon. the Prime Minister that it is nonsensical? We cannot continue with this policy based on dreams. Sir, the hon. the Minister has been greatly impressed by the book written by Sheila van der Horst. I hope he will accept my proposal that a full-scale inquiry be conducted by his Department into the views of Africans in the town areas in regard to the question of their detribalization.

Sir, I understood the hon. the Deputy Minister to say in his speech here the other day that there had been a reduction in the number of Africans by 1.8 per cent in a certain area recently. My colleague apparently heard him say 1.6 per cent.

If you cannot hear, read my speech.

Why should I punish myself like that? Sir, may I quote to the hon. the Deputy Minister from the “South African Railway News” of January 1965—

That is an increase of a modest 15 per cent and bears out what every other speaker on this side of the House has said in regard to the attitude of the Government side.

I should just like to reply briefly on a few of the matters which have been raised here. I am very sorry that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) is not here.

We will have him called.

I am just afraid that I shall perhaps have to wait a long time, but in the meantime I will deal with a few other matters. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) made reproaches here in regard to the book of Dr. Sheila van der Horst. He said that this research had been done ten years ago. He also said that he did not accept the idea that there were still bonds between the urban Bantu and those in the Bantu areas. I just want to tell the hon. member that before criticizing a work like this he should himself first go and do some research. I want to say, with all respect, that I doubt whether the hon. member has ever in his life done research, otherwise he would not have spoken like that.

Have you ever done research?

Of course. I can give the hon. member quite a number of things to read. I once did research for two years among the Bantu, not even to mention the various places where I did that research. I can give the hon. member quite a lot of literature in that regard. But I say it is not right of him to voice this kind of criticism. The fact is that every researcher of note has found that there is still a link between the majority of Bantu in the urban areas and their people in the Bantu areas. Nobody can deny that. The other day I attended the centenary festival of the Immigrant Tembus and I was surprised to see how many Bantu came from Johannesburg, Pretoria, Port Elizabeth and from Cape Town. They incurred all that expense in order to attend that festival.

I see the hon. member for Yeoville has now come back and I should like to deal with what he said. The hon. member for Yeoville is one of those persons who is fond of making a number of statements without bringing any proof for them.

Without doing research.

He described our policy as a “strategy of deception”.

No.

I will come to that book. The hon. member said that we did not state our policy honestly and sincerely, and he advised us to read that book. I must frankly say that this throws much light on the subject, because I have often in the past wondered how it was possible for an hon. member like the hon. member for Yeoville, who is a well informed man and one of the leaders of his party, to ascribe all kinds of things to the National Party, well knowing that they are not true.

Order! The hon. the Minister cannot accuse the hon. member of doing so, knowing that it is not correct. The hon. the Minister must withdraw it.

I withdraw it. I did not intend it as a insult or anything like that. I want to give a few examples. When we came along with the policy of apartheid he was the propagandist of the United Party who told the world that this policy of apartheid was a policy of domination.

And suppression.

Mr. Strijdom said so.

No, Mr. Strijdom said that the White man was the master in his own area and the Bantu in his area. There, Sir, we have “a strategy of deception”. But I go further. When we introduced the identity card system, does the hon. member still remember what stories he then told the world? He followed the same method there. Does he still remember that when we came with the Bantu Universities and the Bantu education curriculum he said that it would be inferior education? When we came along with the policy of Bantu Authorities, he and his party were the people who said that we were taking the Bantu back to the bush. Those are the stories told to the world. Does the hon. member still remember the maps he used in the 1958 election? Does he still remember, when we cleared up Sophiatown and those other places, what reports they sent out into the world in regard to the alleged injustice we were committing, to such an extent that journalists from many parts of the world came here to witness the bloodbath which it was alleged would result? Is that not the idea which emanates from this book he prescribes for us? I think the hon. member reads too many books of that nature.

We had another striking example of it this afternoon. The hon. member got up here, and to the great amusement of his party said what the Administrator of Natal had said in regard to the policy of separate development. In the meantime we got into touch with the Administrator of Natal, because I had decided in my own mind that what the hon. member had said could not be correct.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) also said it.

Yes, quite a few of them said so. I say in the meantime we got into touch with the Administrator of Natal. My colleague, the Minister of Bantu Education, spoke to him personally, and he says this is what he said—

All this talk that development in the Bantu areas will adversely affect your economy in the White areas is poppycock.

Now swallow that!

How does that sound to you, Sir? “Strategy of deception”! If one quotes an Administrator, one should at least make sure of one’s facts. Those were the words used by the Administrator of Natal.

Did he deny it?

There he is denying it now.

Where does he deny it?

I shall come to the hon. member for Durban (Point) in a moment. We got into touch with the Administrator and he denied that he had said anything like that. I have already quoted what he said. Surely it is not fair to adopt these methods here. One particularly does not expect it from a responsible person like the hon. member for Yeoville.

What is contained in that report?

What is contained in that report is immaterial; by this time we know that newspaper. That is what the Administrator said. Sir, before such an accusation is made in this House by an hon. member, he should at least ascertain whether the Press report is correct.

The hon. member now comes here with a new argument; he says that we adopt the standpoint that the policy of apartheid will only be a success if there is no economic development. Surely that is not correct. That is the sort of method prescribed in that book. We have said that this development would be on such a scale that one of our problems in the course of time would be that we would not have enough labour in the White area. I just want to say here to-day that I already have that problem. The great task we have in South Africa-—and hon. members opposite at the time agreed with me—is to ensure full employment for both Whites and non-Whites, and to-day we have it in South Africa. Is that not something to be grateful for? We have full employment to such an extent that I said here the other day, after the hon. member for South Coast had referred to the famine in Natal, which was also exaggerated, that in Natal alone there were 26,000 applications for workers which I simply could not supply. I just want to say, further, that the development in the Bantu areas is already of such a nature that there are many of those areas where we simply cannot continue with our projects because we do not have enough labour there. I can mention quite a few places where we simply do not have enough labour. Why? Because such a large proposition of the labour is already concentrated in the White sector, mostly on a temporary basis. But we should also remember that to-day we have a severe drought right throughout South Africa and that many of those people are given the opportunity to go to the White areas temporarily to supplement their incomes. Surely that is an important task and duty which rests upon us, but why is the inference now drawn from that that our policy has failed?

Must I infer from that that the Minister adheres to his standpoint that the stream will be stopped in approximately 1978?

I shall come to that. We have the position in South Africa to-day that we have full employment throughout the country, and that means much to the country. Hon. members ought to be very grateful for it. The hon. member for Yeoville says that there is only one aspect of the matter which is clearly successful, and that is the border industries. He says that there we have achieved a measure of success. Those were not his precise words, but that is what they amounted to. But what did the hon. member say here last year? I just want to tell hon. members what he said in regard to one border industry area, namely Rosslyn. He said that the industries there were being established in the bundu; that there was not even a railway line, and that there was not even a power station or anything of that nature. Surely that is not so. The railway line passes Rosslyn and within a reasonable time there will be no fewer than four lines leading to Rosslyn. But does the hon. member know that one of the largest power stations in the Southern Hemisphere has been established near Rosslyn?

Is that in the Native area?

It is in the White area, but so is Rosslyn. We are talking about border industries now. The hon. member told the House that Rosslyn lies in the bundu; that there is not even a railway line or a power station. I say that is not so. Why say things which are not correct?

I now come to the other statement the hon. member made, and which was also made by the hon. member for Durban (Point), in regard to 1978. I said that the Tomlinson Commission when it drew that graph, which does not really refer to 1978, although one can also gather from it what the position will be in 1978, set certain conditions. The Tomlinson Commission could of course not foresee the tremendous economic development which has taken place since then. But I stated very clearly that this does not in the least mean that it proves that the policy of separate development has failed. On the contrary, I want to say again to-day very clearly that 1978 is not dead.

It is buried.

No, it is neither dead nor buried. The date 1978 stands out increasingly in the convictions of the people. Why do I say that, Sir? I say it for this reason, that the process of the flowing back of Bantu settled in the White area to the Bantu areas started even before 1978; it has already started. The Tomlinson Commission said that in the whole process of the development of South Africa, particularly that of the Bantu areas, the flow back of Bantu to the Bantu areas would start approximately in 1978.

Where did the Commission say that?

The Commission did not say it in that report, but if the hon. member looks at that graph he will see that 1978 is the date indicated by that graph; but it was not said in so many words. I am quite prepared to show him the graph. What I said was that the flow back would start in 25 years’ time, namely in 1978, and to-day I am telling this House that the flowing back of Bantu who live permanently in the White areas has already started.

But many more are coming to the White areas.

That is quite correct; that is so as the result of circumstances, but it is not permanent. During the past two years, or less than two years, approximately 400,000 Bantu, between 350,000 and 400,000 Bantu who were permanently settled in the White areas have gone back to the Bantu areas. I just want to refer the hon. member for Durban (Point) to Cato Manor. How many thousands live permanently in Cato Manor?

But now they live in Kwa Mashu; they are still there.

No, Umlazi is a Bantu area. We should not be childish now.

It is a suburb of Durban.

We have such instances practically all over the country. Where were these people to go then? They went back to their own area. But I want to give another example. Take the case of Rosslyn. Many thousands of Bantu were lying around idle in Pretoria. There also they were systematically settled in Rosslyn. In this area we are at the moment busy, in one place, moving almost 60,000 Bantu to their own area, and they go there. So I can mention one example after another. Take, e.g., the number of Black spots we have eliminated. Those were people who were practically settled in the White areas; to-day they are back in their own areas. There are thousands and thousands of them. I do not want to take up the time of the Committee by giving all the figures. Can hon. members deny that this process of flowing back to the Bantu areas has already begun? They are people who were permanently settled in the White area. How many of those people who are going back to the Bantu areas are shopkeepers, doctor, industrialists, etc.? They are people who had intended staying in the White area, but they have now packed their goods and have voluntarily gone to live in the Bantu areas. One of the shopkeepers of Warmansdal is worth, I suppose, a couple of hundreds of thousands of rand. He voluntarily packed his goods and left for the Bantu area. There is the example of a medical doctor in Umlazi. Originally he wanted to practise in the White area; eventually he went to practise in the Bantu residential area, but then he left to go to the Bantu area. He told me himself that he was very happy there and that he was a fool to have remained in the White area. Some of his fellow doctors are also in Umlazi now. That is the type of person we attract, people who were permanently settled in the White areas. I repeat: Look at the number living in the Black spots we eliminated; just think of the problems they created there. Not a day passes but one sees a stream flowing back to the Bantu areas. How can hon. members opposite get up here in those circumstances and, I almost want to say, be so unscrupulous as to say that 1978 is dead? That is childish. It only means that 1978 will be a much greater success than many people realize. I will concede, as I have repeatedly done in the past, that we will still always have an influx into the White areas. We said that we would have an even greater influx than before. That is in Hansard, and I can read it to hon. members if they like. Hon. members should remember that many of the projects in the White areas are of a temporary nature. When those large dams have been finished, then the Bantu who worked there must go and live somewhere. Are they going to remain in the White area? No, they are going to stay in their own Bantu areas. I repeat that in the majority of cases in the Bantu areas to-day I cannot find enough labour to carry out my various projects. A huge task awaits those people there.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) again referred for the umpteenth time to the pamphlet I issued at the time. He did not say, however, that we objected to that waste of money. Use was made not only of White capital but also of White labour. We said that that was the wrong principle; we said that White labour should not be used in the Bantu areas, but Bantu labour.

This pamphlet does not contain a word in regard to White labour.

No, I did not say that there was reference to White labour. I said that we objected to the waste of money.

And also to the cocks and the bulls.

Yes, also the cocks and the bulls. It is no use giving those people things on a tray if they do not make use of them. Does the hon. member know that more than one bull which was given to the Bantu at the time was simply slaughtered by them? The bull was slaughtered even before it had produced a single calf.

What do they do now?

The hon. member should go and see what is happening now. I challenge any member to take me to a single place where the Bantu have slaughtered a ram or a bull which has been given to them. But I am prepared to prove that it did in fact happen in their time. Just see how the herds in the Bantu areas have improved during our regime. It is a difference in method.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition hurled the reproach at me that not much more has been done in the Bantu areas. Sir, what I refuse to do is what the British Government did in the African territories, namely to establish large white elephants there which were of no use to the Bantu. I did not saddle South Africa with that. It would have been a waste of the money of the State. We made sure that a process was followed whereby the Bantu were put to work for their own benefit.

The hon. member again spoke for the umpteenth time about the constitutional development of the Bantu areas. The Deputy Minister has already replied to that fully. How many times has this matter been dealt with here, and every time the hon. member just gets up and puts the same question again.

But how many different replies have we not had?

No, that is not so. The hon. member for Durban (Point) actually made the statement again that we had completely abandoned the concept of the consolidation of the Bantu areas in Natal. Can you believe, Mr. Chairman, that a member of Parliament, a man from whom one expects responsibility, can say a thing like that?

What are the facts?

He knows as well as I do that not a day passes when we are not trying to consolidate in Natal. Why is the hon. member creating this impression? What we have said is this. The former speaker said it, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education said it, and I have said that it would probably not be possible to consolidate all the Bantu areas in Natal in one block. We have said so quite often.

You spoke about seven blocks.

Now wait a minute. I have often said here and in the Other Place—it stands in Hansard—that it was possible that we would have two or more, perhaps five, blocks. We hope it will be fewer; these are all things we are investigating. The Minister of Bantu Education said it might possibly be seven blocks. That is only a possibility; we hope it will be fewer. After having investigated the matter very thoroughly just recently, my own conviction is that there will be fewer blocks.

How many?

Perhaps three; possibly four. That possibility exists. We must be practical. But that does not derogate from the fact that we are going to consolidate the large number of small black spots spread over the whole of Natal. We are continually dealing with it and we are achieving much success. When I leave here to-night I am again going to sign certain documents in that regard. There is splendid co-operation; nowhere have we encountered the least difficulty. Why do hon. members make this kind of accusation? Surely it is not fair.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) asked what I knew about the Bantu in the urban areas. I want to ask him what he knows about them. When he was Mayor of Johannesburg on one occasion we visited a Bantu urban area together, but after that I never saw him in a Bantu urban area again. Not a day passes on which we do not devote attention to the Bantu in the urban areas. Why does the hon. member create that impression? The Deputy Minister devotes his attention to it full time. What difference does it make whether he does it or I do it? Hardly a day passes without he and I having consultations in regard to these matters. Together with him, I give active attention to the Bantu in the urban areas.

The hon. member reproached me in regard to my reply to a question put by him in regard to the so-called banning of certain welfare organizations in the Bantu areas. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition got information from the hon. member. He originally made that reproach. I challenged the Leader of the Opposition to give me the names of those welfare organizations, and I am still waiting for him to do so. It is correct that I said that I prohibited one of them. How big that organization is is a different matter, but I shall give the facts. It is not necessary for the hon. member always to ferret out unpleasant things. Whom does he serve by doing that? He is just serving his friends with whom he is now associated.

Who?

The leftists. I just want to read what a certain gentleman, who happens to be a parson— fortunately he is not a parson in our church or of any responsible church—said. This is a letter he published in Austria and I obtained a copy of it. It is translated and it reads as follows—

He says these things merely to get financial support, and I have never before heard bigger and more blatant lies from anyone. That is the sort of thing disseminated in the world. [Interjections.] That is one of his friends whom he now protects. Should I now have allowed this man to do welfare work there? Will the hon. member tell me that? That is the sort of impression that hon. member tries to create. If there were just a vestige of truth in it I would have said that it was right to bring it to the notice of the world. This was circulated in Austria on a large scale.

Were any steps taken against the person who spread those untruths?

I prohibited him from doing welfare work there. I have not yet obtained from the Leader of the Opposition the name of the organization which I am alleged to have prohibited from doing welfare work there. I wish he would give it to me.

He said that one was prohibited.

This is the person.

The hon. member also accused me of having said at a meeting that we have peace and cooperation in South Africa. There are few countries in the world where one can find the peace and co-operation we have here. Even America, which so often wants to teach us what to do, cannot boast of it. There are often bloodbaths in certain parts of America. The hon. member now regards it as his duty to ask me in detail what precisely happens in America. The hon. member for Hospital does it with an object.

Yes, to get a reply.

I am sorry that I do not have a book here which contains a list of the riots that take place there; it is in my library in Pretoria. I wonder how many hon. members get this publication, “United States News and World Report”? It is regarded as a very reliable and impartial publication issued by a very responsible person. Hon. members can get it every week. I just want to read one sentence—

Then he says it happens in New York and those other places. Why does the hon. member now create the impression that I did something unreasonable? He now asks me where it happened. He does so to besmirch South Africa. He wants to create the impression that I am telling lies. I repeat that. I regret that. I do not have this book with me because it gives a survey of what it taking place in America. No person who reads his newspapers will deny it.

The hon. member also said there are more Bantu in Johannesburg than before, but I want to remind him that we predicted it, but that does not mean that in time there will not be a flowing back, as there already is to-day. Some of the responsible Bantu who were permanently settled in Johannesburg are now going back to the Bantu areas where there are splendid opportunities for them. Some of them are even settling permanently in the Transkei. Hon. members are very unreasonable when they make this sort of accusation. I repeat that when a responsible person like the Administrator of Natal is quoted from a paper like The Daily News, it is necessary first to make sure that the report is correct.

In the course of his speech the hon. the Minister gave us information regarding a certain publication which appeared in Austria, a publication which contained a series of lies. What I want to know is this: Why does the hon. the Minister protect a person like that with anonymity? Why does he not give the Committee the name of that person so that one of two things could happen: He could either deny that he made such statements and prove that he did not make such statements or, if he cannot do that, the public of South African can condemn him in the way he deserves. It seems strange that the hon. the Minister should make such an accusation, not reveal the name of the person and not tell us whether that person has had any opportunity of denying that statement. I want to repeat that a statement like that is unforgiveable and a man like that, if he is guilty, should be subjected to public contempt by every decent South African. I hope the hon. the Minister will still give us the information either that this man has had the opportunity of denying that that statement was published as he had written it or, if he cannot do so, he must allow South Africans to express their abhorrence of conduct like that. But we cannot appreciate why such a thing would be hidden behind anonymity.

I was very interested in the Minister’s attempt to revive the date 1978. The hon. the Minister made the surprising statement that the return to the reserves had already started. He denied that 1978 was something of the past. Does the hon. the Minister not read his own newspapers? He has often advised me to read their newspapers! Does he not consider what his own official Press which is owned by the Nationalist Party has to say? Did he not read on Saturday the very sad obituary by the chief columnist of the Burger on the date 1978? Did he not read the tribute paid by Dawie to the hon. the Minister himself? There is a glowing tribute by Dawie that at least one man in the Nationalist Party appreciates that this idea of sending the Bantu back in large numbers is no longer valid. Dawie expressed his gratitude that there was such a man in the Nationalist Party who did not believe this “poppycock” any longer. That man is the hon. the Minister himself. Dawie pays a tribute to the hon. the Minister because he says it is quite clear the hon. the Minister no longer believes such nonsense and the Minister comes to Parliament and again tries to justify that Statement! Does the hon. the Minister realize that there was more intelligence in each paragraph of this obituary by the Burger than in the entire speech he made a few minutes ago? Does the hon. the Minister realize that this man who writes for the Burger, this man who expresses the views, I take it, of a considerable body of opinion, the Cape Nationalist Party, warns the Nationalist Party that they cannot base their policies for 1965 on the events which obtained in 1955? Yet the Minister tries to-day to bring us back to the unrealities of 1955; he tries to get away from the hard realities of 1965 to which I shall return in a minute.

I was most interested in the speed with which the hon. the Minister got somebody to communicate with the Administrator of Natal. I was also most interested in the very prompt denial from that source, but I think we should note one or two things about this denial. Number one is that the speech was made on 3 May; it was reported on 4 May. To-day is 10 May. That speech was published in a Durban newspaper. I cannot believe that the hon. the Administrator’s attention was not drawn to it, but he preferred to leave it unchallenged until we raised it in Parliament. I want to say very strongly, Sir, that that proves my contention, and the contention of the side of the House, that this Government speaks with two voices. When they do not speak with two voices, they allow the first voice to remain silent when it is wrongly reported as a second voice. That is the point. Throughout the history of the Nationalist Party they have reassured the people that they must not fear the consequences of their policy. Here I have the report of the speech made by the Administrator at Eshowe. He has denied one phrase; what about the rest of the speech? The entire speech is a reassurance to the people of Zulu-land that they need not fear the development of the Native reserves in that territory. And the denial by the Administrator, as read out by the Minister to-day, is a reassurance that they must not fear the development of the Native reserves.

Read that paragraph.

I have already read it; I will not read it again.

Read the one to which you are referring now.

The hon. member was not here when I read it previously. Our main charge against the hon. the Minister is that his party is not willing to accept the logical consequences of its policy and develop the Native reserves from inside. All they want to do is to transfer economic integration. They want to transfer it from Johannesburg to Durban—Umlazi is a native reserve and that makes it very easy—and from Port Elizabeth to East London which is 35 miles off from a Native reserve. That is all they are trying to do. Then we had the amusing spectacle of the Minister claiming that Natives were already returning in large numbers to the Native areas! I want to give a concrete example: He told us about those who were going from Cato Manor to Umlazi—from one Durban location to another- He does not appreciate the fact that although the one location is in a White area and the other in a Native area, the one is a dormitory for the industries in Durban as much as the other, and that economic integration is not affected by that movement. We had a similar position in Johannesburg but interestingly different in that Natives were moved from Sophiatown to Meadowlands. That is apartheid! That was in execution of the policy of the Government. I am not talking about the merits of that case, but I say this: whether those Natives live in Sophiatown or in Meadowlands, they remain essential for the industries of Johannesburg and of the Witwatersrand; whether Natives are moved from Cato Manor to Umlazi and whether you call the one a reserve and the other not, those Natives are essential for the industrial life of Durban. They are integrated in the industrial life of Durban. The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) has put that to a simple test by asking whether, if you take them away, the industries of Durban will survive? That is the test of integration: Are they essential to industries; are they indispensable? They are.

The Government should realize this fact because as long as the Government persists to base its policy on a fallacy, a fantasy, we shall never be able to come to grips with reality in South Africa and then the prophecy which I have warned against, as given in this authoritative book on Communism, will come true, namely, that Communism breeds most readily amongst those people who are least integrated in the society or the economy which they serve. This rootless proletariat in our cities are ripe for subversion by Communism. The Government is creating the fertile soil in which that evil can flourish. I wish I could bring that one simple fact home to the Government. If only we would bring it home to the people of South Africa that this Government is deceiving the nation when they pretend that under their policy they are putting an end to economic integration! The Prime Minister may tell us that he does not want to develop industries in the reserves because that would be neocolonialism but what are you doing when you develop industries 10, 15 or 20 miles from the reserves and attract your labour for those industries from the reserves? What is the difference, Sir? [Time limit.]

It was inspiring to hear with what seriousness the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development explained this problem and expounded the policy of the National Party. But it was tragic to see what attitude was adopted by the United Party while he was speaking. It was very clear that they wanted to make a joke of the main and most serious problem of South Africa. All their front-benchers, including their Whips, sat laughing, made silly remarks and tried to make a joke of the whole matter.

Now you are making a silly speech.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) was reprimanded by the hon. the Minister because he is always making very strong statements on matters without there being any foundation for those statements. Now the hon. member for Yeoville is again dragging in the Administrator of Natal. I have been to the hon. member for Point (Mr. Raw) to read that report and I have pointed out to him that what was subsequently said by the Administrator, as published in that report, did not tally with the statement supposed to have been made by him to which exception was taken. The hon. member for Yeoville now says that the Administrator gave the people the assurance that they need have no fear that development would take place in the Bantu areas. What he did say was that they need have no fear that the development in the Bantu areas might detrimentally affect the development of the White area. Those are the exact words. I wonder whether the hon. member is not ashamed once again to put forward such a misrepresentation of what the Administrator said.

The hon. member again accused us of deceiving the people, of coming forward with a fantasy. If we are deceiving the people, why did the United Party deceive the people? I want to read what has been said by a leader of the United Party. He did not speak on his own behalf, but on behalf of the United Party Government. This is what he said—

The trend of our laws . . .

Those are the laws of the United Party Government—

The person who said that then asked the following question: “And what is wrong with that?” That person was none other than the leader of the United Party in Natal, the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). If we have deceived the people, why did the United Party deceive the people? The policy advocated and now being carried out by the National Party was endorsed by the United Party, and this was a leader of the United Party who was speaking on behalf of his party. Now they say that we are pursuing a policy which is a fantasy and that we are deceiving the people!

What is your reference?

It is the verbatim report of a speech which the hon. member made before the Natal Municipal Association.

What are you quoting from?

From Hansard.

Did he say that here?

No, he did not say it in Parliament. It is the verbatim report of a speech . . .

When did he make that speech?

The hon. member wants to waste my time now. He made the speech in 1947. The hon. member can go to any municipality in Natal and ask the town clerk to see it; they all have it in their possession.

You know that is not true; I have already denied it in this House.

Hon. members say that it must be true that the Administrator said those things, because we blow hot and cold . . .

You cannot furnish any proof whatsoever; I have denied that before. You cannot prove it and you know it.

I can give hon. members the assurance that they need only go to the municipalities . . .

On a point of order, Sir, must the hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. D. J. Potgieter) not accept the assurance given by the hon. member for South Coast?

No.

It is no use denying it here. Anybody can get that verbatim report of the meeting of thaf Association from the town clerks in Natal.

May I ask a question?

No, Mr. Chairman. Let me remind the hon. member for Yeoville of the fact that he made a speech in East London in which he promised the Bantu that the United Party would not exploit their labour, but that when the United Party came into power, the United Party would compensate them both economically and socially.

But that is untrue.

It is a pity that I do not have the hon. member’s speech with me. [Laughter.] I mentioned that statement on a previous occasion in this House and then the hon. member did not deny it. Why does he deny it now?

Because you have never mentioned it before—not in my presence.

I shall bring him the proofs.

Now I want to ask the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw)—seeing that he is the Sancho Panza of the hon. member for South Coast—whether or not he endorses that policy?

I do not believe anything you say; I first want to see it.

It has been said over and over again, but I am repeating that the United Party is running away from the policy they supported up to 1948. General Smuts supported it. In his famous speeches he endorsed precisely this policy which is being pursued by us I do not even want to repeat it, but hon. members know that even General Smuts supported it; they supported it. Why are they now making a volte-face and saying that this side of the House is deceiving the people?

You are just making wild allegations which you cannot prove.

I do not know why the hon. members from Natal are so keen to know precisely how many Bantu homelands there will be in Natal. What does it matter? What does it matter if there are two or three? I shall tell you what is behind that, Sir. The hon. members want the hon. the Minister to be so foolish and so stupid as to say at this stage already that there are going to be two or three or four, but of course the Minister is not so foolish as to act precipitately. Surely one is not dealing with bricks here, but with people, and must the hon. the Minister just say on the spur of the moment that there will be three or four, and then subsequently find that there can only be two? I know what they will do then. They will run to Natal, and if there should happen to be four, and not three as the Minister said, they will try to make the maximum amount of propaganda out of that. Why do they want the Minister to act precipitately in defining the boundaries now? I know what lies behind that. The hon. member for Hillbrow will travel throughout Natal and they will try to stir up the people by saying, “Look, the Minister is now going to give away this White land that we bought with our blood”. [Time limit.]

It is quite obvious that the Government side is in difficulties. We have had three Whips struggling this afternoon to get them out of these difficulties and not getting down to the facts of the matter. The Government are in difficulties with their policy of appeasement. Mr. Chairman, we have got to the stage when words do not mean anything so far as the Government side is concerned. It is quite clear that when the hon. the Minister earlier on indicated that there was a streaming of Bantu from the towns to the reserves, and as an illustration he gave the case of Umlazi, that he showed the Government is in difficulty. He said that the position there is different. The hon. Minister knows very well that Lamontville is less than a mile away from Umlazi, and in the days of the United Party Lamontville was quoted as integration. Now when you go over the border and you go to Umlazi, it is not integration. You see, Mr. Chairman, how ludicrous it all is. Certain negotiations are going on at the present time between the Minister and the Durban Corporation, and if it should happen that Kwa Mashu is taken over and becomes a contiguous part of the reserve behind Kwa Mashu, and the Department of Bantu Administration takes over Kwa Mashu, will the Minister then claim that as Kwa Mashu comes under his Department as part of a Bantu reserve, there has been a flow away from Durban of 250,000 people? On his own logic, he must do that. There will be a flowing away of 250,000 people from Durban to the Bantu reserve, the Bantu homeland! The whole enunciation of the policy is ludicrous. I go further, Mr. Chairman. We have the case of Clermont Bantu Township where the Bantu have home-ownership rights, on the borders of New Germany. There are discussions at the present moment to join that up with the reserve behind that, and when that is joined up, the Minister is then going to claim that there has been a flowing away from the White areas to the Bantu homeland (Clermont) where these people have been for over 30 years! It is sheer lunacy! If he does not claim that, why not? Because that is in conformity with his earlier interjection. As soon as the area comes under the Department of Bantu Administration, and becomes part of a Bantu reserve, becomes joined to a Bantu reserve and is declared a scheduled area, then under those circumstances the development is not integration but development of Bantu homelands!

I want to take the Minister to another matter. I know he is not concerned with border industries. Border industries fall under his colleague, the Minister of Economic Affairs, but I am certain—perhaps he will correct me— that he will confirm that he is consulted about border areas. And while talking about border areas, it is interesting, Mr. Chairman, that we have this state of affairs for instance at Ham-marsdale—you see the difference between a border industry and Bantu living in the towns is this: In the Bantu townships near our big towns, you find a 12-foot fence right around* and they go through certain control gates, but at Hammarsdale you have not got a 12-foot fence around the Bantu location, you have got the 12-foot fence around the factories.

You are talking nonsense now.

If the hon. Deputy Minister says it is nonsense, let him go there and see for himself. The fence is right around the factories at Hammarsdale. Will the hon. Minister deny that the first start at Hammarsdale was an accident?

Order! I do not think that is relevant to this Vote.

Sir, I am concerned with the welfare of the Bantu in the Bantu homelands, because on one side of the railway line at Hammarsdale you have a White area, on the other side the Bantu are housed. Has the hon. Minister been there recently, and has he seen what is taking place? I want to refer the Minister to a report on the question of the Indian riots at Durban, a few years ago, and I refer to a paragraph on page 20 on housing—

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that if there is trouble in those areas these words could be very well quoted “you cannot expect to get pure water from a cesspool”, because the slum conditions which are developing . . .

Order! The hon. member is attacking the location of industries at a particular place.

No, Mr. Chairman, this is not a location. This is housing in a homeland. This is not a location built by anybody.

The hon. member is attacking the wisdom of the location of a particular border industry.

No, Sir, I am not. With due respect, I am not attacking the location of industries I am attacking the conditions in the Native reserve on the other side.

But the hon. member is criticizing the creation of an industry at a particular spot.

No, Sir, I am attacking the housing in the reserves and I am asking the Minister about the position there. One side of the railway line I am not concerned with, that is not the Minister’s concern and I do not propose to discuss it. What I propose to discuss are the conditions on the other side of the line. Surely, Mr. Chairman, I am entitled to discuss slums in a Bantu reserve, and if I see evidence of slums in the Bantu reserves, I am entitled to tell the hon. Minister where that development is, and that development he can find on the border of Hammarsdale. I want to know what the hon. Minister is going to do about it. I want to know whether the Minister is going to provide adequate housing for those people or will they have to provide it themselves? Is he going to provide adequate sanitation, or must they provide it themselves. You see, Mr. Chairman, these people in their homelands have started building houses which are reducing the whole area to slum conditions which are as bad as anything we have had at Cato Manor. I have been there, and I invite the Minister to go there and see for himself. He may not have been there recently. I was there as recently as the Easter recess, and I suggest that it is high time that the Minister and his Department went to that area and have a look, not on this side of the line where there is proper control, and which I cannot discuss, but let them look at the other side, because conditions obtaining in these slum areas are such that they are going to create trouble in the future, unless something is done about it. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to this, if you talk about the development of border industries where the development of those industries encourages housing of the kind obtaining in that reserve area, then I suggest it warrants an immediate inquiry. I want to know whether the hon. Minister is going to do that, because unless the Minister does something about those conditions there, he must accept full responsibility for anything which flows from that. That brings me back to this report “you cannot get clear water from a cesspool”, and I say that the conditions that obtain in that Native reserve area have all the makings of a cesspool and the sooner the Minister and his Department get down to doing something about it, the sooner he will perhaps avoid a good deal of unpleasantness in the future.

What are those conditions in the reserves?

I suggest that the hon. member should go to that particular area to see what is taking place. You see, you do not have the same tribal control in this area that you have in the central reserve where each particular family is under its own particular headman, its own particular induna. The hon. member for Heilbron, who is a member of the Bantu Affairs Commission, should have some sense of responsibility; instead of shouting interjections across the floor of the House it is high time that he had a look at those conditions, and then perhaps he will not make so many glib remarks and he will realize that something should be done in that area, very fast and very soon.

I want to come back to the matter raised by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw). He said “our difference is not in regard to the development of the reserves, it is in the control”. Sir, surely the National Party Government has clearly said ever since 1959 that the policy it follows leads to the greater independence of the Bantu homelands. Later it introduced the Transkeian legislation in connection with which it was said that it would lead to the independence of those areas. What I want to make clear to the hon. member for Durban (Point) is that this Government has been saying since 1959 where its policy would lead to. But from 1948 to 1959, for 11 years, the United Party has opposed, tooth and nail, the National Party’s policy in regard to Bantu homelands. Now I ask him: If what he says is true, that the difference of opinion does not lie in the development of the Bantu areas but in the control thereof, what was the dispute about until 1959? Was it a bluff? No, it was not a bluff.

We never opposed the development of the reserves.

I entered Parliament in 1959 and then the Bantu Investment Corporation Bill was introduced with a view to developing the Bantu homelands, and the United Party opposed it in every stage right until the end.

You said that since 1959 you followed a policy leading to the independence of those areas.

That legislation to which I now refer, in regard to the Bantu Investment Corporation, came before the other. Nobody yet knew what was contained in the legislation which would lead to the promotion of Bantu self-government. There was no such thing when the Bantu Investment Corporation was being debated.

There are only two possibilities. Either the United Party really always believed (whether this Government said so or not) that this policy of the Government would lead to independent Bantu homelands, or else this dispute is not, as the hon. member for Durban (Point) says it is, simply one concerning the control of the Bantu homelands, as they now want to intimate, where they now come along with their “White leadership over the whole of South Africa”, so that the feature writer of the Rand Daily Mail says: The only difference now is that the United Party stands for White control over 100 per cent of South Africa and the National Party stands for White control over 87 per cent of South Africa. That is not so. This difference goes much deeper.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) and hon. members opposite have repeatedly said they believe that the influx of Bantu to the urban areas will continue. That was the whole tenor of the debate. Now, if the hon. member for Durban (Point) says he believes it will continue, then surely I must believe that his policy is based on that belief that the Bantu will continue to flow into the White area. That also links up with what they say, viz. that the Bantu homelands should not be given independence. They must be controlled. This 100 per cent control over South Africa which they are alleged to favour surely links up with their belief that the Bantu will continue flowing in to the White area.

Now what is the policy which they base on that belief? They talk about White leadership over the whole of South Africa. How do they propose to exercise it? They say that the influx will continue and that the Bantu will continue to increase numerically in the White area; they say the Bantu homelands should not be developed to become independent, and they say the Bantu who are here in the White area must be given a share in the government of South Africa. Now I want to read to the hon. member for Durban (Point), and I do not believe he will doubt my authority, what the Leader of the Opposition said in his speech at De Aar on 5 May 1962—

I would be glad if the hon. member for Pine-lands (Mr. Thompson) would also listen to this. He clearly says that these Bantu whom he believes will continue to come to the White area must be able to participate in the government of the country by being given representation in this Parliament. That is what the Leader of the Opposition says.

What is wrong with it?

Now we are being told that in the beginning it will be Whites, and the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) the other day again loudly denied that he or anyone else had said that later it would be Bantu. Now I again want to read to him what the Leader of the Opposition said on that occasion—

And what are the conditions that the Leader of the Opposition states? He says—

That is not what they tell us here, that the Whites will be consulted. Surely the whole policy of race federation rests on consultation, as they have repeatedly told us, and here the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says clearly that the date on which it will take place will depend on the leaders of the Bantu. That will determine when White representatives will be replaced by Bantu.

Where do you get that from?

The hon. member for Pinelands accused me on one occasion of giving a wrong interpretation to this word “representation”. He said the Leader of the Opposition meant representation in the local government bodies of the Bantu, and that when he talks about “a share in the government” he means there. Now I just want to show the hon. member for Pinelands how he should read the speech of his leader. I have already mentioned twice how the word “representation” is used, viz. in only one connection: representation in this Parliament, and not in those governmental bodies. Now I will give him another example. His leader refers to the Bantu in the reserves and says—

It is the reserve Bantu who is to be represented. Then he says further: “Whites and Coloureds in and out of the Reserves would have representation in this Central Parliament; similarly Bantu in the mixed areas and the reserves would have such representation.” Every time he uses the word “representation”, it refers to this Parliament. And after having used “representation” in this sense on all these occasions, he says—

I now say to the hon. member for Pinelands that if he can give me an interpretation of that speech made by his leader on 5 May 1962 other than that the race federation plan of the United Party boils down to eight representatives of the Bantu being brought in here, first Whites and then Bantu, and that they will be given much more than block representation in this Parliament, viz. participation in the Government and the Cabinet, as was stated in the Sunday Times at the time, then I should like to have that interpretation from the hon. member.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

No, I should just like to finish first. I want to ask the hon. member for Pinelands in all seriousness: Is that not how any person must logically interpret that speech? It was confirmed by the Sunday Times and the Star. I can again quote to that hon. member what those newspapers said.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) stated his basic conceptions, viz. that the Bantu here would increase in numbers and that we should not develop the homelands, and that we should give the Bantu representation here. They base their policy of giving the Bantu a share in the Government on that, but then they say that the crux of their policy is “White leadership over the whole of South Africa!” Surely that is grotesque! Surely adults should not talk that way. Surely it does not reveal much maturity and sobriety to continue to talk such nonsense.

If the hon. member for Pinelands, on the basis of these facts, can tell me how they will maintain White leadership, I am prepared to listen to him. If he does not want to accept this interpretation of his party’s policy, then he should tell me what interpretation he gives to it.

I want to deal for a moment with the allegation that was made by the hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. D. J. Potgieter) in regard to a meeting which I was alleged to have addressed, the Natal Municipal Executive. I want to say, speaking from memory, because I think it is about five years ago now, that I last heard that story which the hon. member was so proud to quote this afternoon, that at that time the hon. Minister of Transport who made the allegation contained in that story, quoted from a newspaper cutting, which he was courteous enough to let me have. I took it here and I explained that this had appeared as a news item, that no name of the paper was given, no date, nor was there a date line. In other words, it was a little story that somebody had picked up somewhere and that it had appeared in a newspaper. On that basis serious charges were made against me. Now the hon. member for Vryheid knows as well as I do that at all these meetings that I addressed when I was Administrator, there were minutes kept of those meetings. Why does he not produce one of the copies of these minutes? If he says that every town clerk in Natal has got the evidence in regard to this particular matter, then it is easy enough for him to get a copy of the minutes of one of those meetings.

I have.

Where is it?

Unfortunately I have not got it here, but I have raised this on several occasions.

Let me say that the Administrator who was my predecessor, the late Mr. Heaton Nicholls, said “it ought to be our policy, it should be our policy that the Bantu came in as sojourner”. He was the first man I ever heard to use that word, and I have heard him use it many times. He said that we ought not to try and build up a population away from the Bantu reserves. That was his idea. He did not say that that was the policy of the Government. That was his idea. It was his idea that that was the line that should be followed, but if the hon. member has got a copy of the minutes of such a meeting, then I hope he will produce it, but that until that time comes, he will not persist in alleging a thing which I have disputed and denied and in respect of which no evidence has as yet been produced.

When I first read out the verbatim report, your answer was in 1954 “wat is verkeerd daarmee?” That was your answer. You did not deny it then.

You see, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member may be quoting one or two lines of Hansard. I do not know. I would certainly have to go through it and see what it is all about. I have learned to be extremely suspicious of quotations from Hansard by hon. members opposite. But he must produce the evidence, not my response the first time that he is alleged to have put that point to me.

But I want to go further than that, and I want to say this that I listened this afternoon with very great interest to what the hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development had to say. Here is beyond any shadow of doubt a policy of appeasement, which is the policy of this Government appeasement to the Bantu. The policy of the Bantustan of the Government is a policy of appeasement. To keep the Bantu auiet we are prepared to cut off big chunks off South Africa, and hand it over to the Bantu people, and they clothe it in various names-—they call these pieces homelands, “stamlande”, this is where the soul of the Bantu is resting, and all this kind of thing. It is a policy of appeasement, and that is why they will not accept our policy of White leadershio over the whole of the Republic. They are utterly opposed to it, and they have been driven to accept the position of running away from the cardinal principle observed by every White government in South Africa ever since Union: That we preserve it. I want to refresh the hon. member for Krugers-dorp’s memory. In 1949, when the late General Smuts was sitting here and he asked him “wat is u beleid, is dit baasskap?”, General Smuts said “Ja, dit is baasskap”. Does the hon. member remember?

No.

Yes, yes, would he like me to show him in Hansard? He repeated it. He was not satisfied, and the oubaas said again “ja, dit is baasskap”. He was speaking in Afrikaans, but that is precisely what happened when General Smuts was still alive. The hon. member put that question. But now hon. members come along and say that what they are doing was really General Smuts’s policy too. General Smuts’s policy to cut off chunks of South Africa and hand them over to independent Bantu states, what arrant nonsense! Undreamt of. And it was undreamt of by the Nationalist Party leaders of those days. Completely undreamt of. They would have shaken with rage had it been suggested as a policy. Sir, this is a policy of appeasement and it was forced on the Prime Minister, as he said, by outside pressure. He said so himself in 1961. Outside pressure. This policy of appeasement, of giving away chunks of South Africa to the Bantu is a policy of appeasement they now follow because they are completely opposed to the United Party policy and completely reject the idea of White leadership over the whole of the Republic.

It is inherent in our policy.

The policy of appeasement has inherent in it the giving away of large sections of our country. I want to ask the Deputy Minister: If I bring him the document issued by the Minister of Bantu Administration in 1947, dealing with the way that the United Party Government in those days was squandering millions on the Bantu and put that against the speech he made this afternoon, we will have his speech this afternoon and the speech of the hon. the Minister made a year or so before the present Government came into power about the squandering of millions upon Bantu education—yes, the hon. Minister smiles. He recollects so well that statement . . .

It was a wrong approach.

Mr. Chairman, now the hon. Minister says that document of his was the wrong approach. The hon. Deputy Minister was right. I have lived to see the day when a Nationalist Minister gets up to say: We have spent millions more Rand on the Bantu than any government in South Africa before us. A Nationalist Minister making such a statement ! But that statement by the hon. Minister in 1947 was “die ware Nasionale beleid”. But now as a result of a policy of appeasement, they want to give away chunks of South Africa. Sir, the Bantu do not want to be appeased. They want to live in harmony with the White man and the Coloured man here in South Africa. They have lived with us in harmony for the last half century and more. Why disturb it? They do not want a change. The Bantu are prepared to live with us without this policy of appeasement directed to them. It is not their policy and they have never asked for it. The agitators among the Bantu will never be bought with half a loaf of bread, or the half of South Africa. They will take the lot before you are through with it, and the hon. Minister knows it. The policy they had up to 1948 was the true Nationalist Party policy and they are running away from it now when they do not stand with us and say: “With you, we will stand for undivided White leadership over the whole of the Republic.” As long as they run away from that, they are sunk and they will take South Africa with them. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has just demonstrated exactly how ridiculous a politician can become who has nothing else in mind but the achievement of a position of power. He says that we want to make concessions in order to bribe the Bantu and in order to have peace with the Bantu. What has the most important point of attack been? One was in regard to the question of numbers, to which I shall return just now, but another was that it was basically wrong policy on the part of the National Party to deprive the Bantu of civil rights in the White 87 per cent of the country and only to wish to give them these civil rights in their own 13 per cent of the country. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross), who wants to sit down and who does not want to “march”, continued in this vein and the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) said precisely the same. This hon. member who marches but who does not get anywhere did not repudiate what had been said by the hon. member for Benoni. This hon. member, who now wishes to make South Africa understand that they do not want to make concessions to the Bantu but that they are the angry men who are in favour of White supremacy over the whole of South Africa, is the man who, when we reached the crux of the problem of the increasing numbers of Bantu in the White cities last year, and that crux lead back to the presence of the Bantu woman in our urban locations, was utterly opposed to us in regard to this matter. The hon. member for South Coast was then the champion of the right of the Bantu woman to come here and to marry every Bantu who was legally here. But the manner in which he couched his plea indicated his consanguinity with the hon. member for Houghton and proved that it was pure political opportunism which made them drive out the progressives at the time, just as they may now again wish to drive away a more liberal wing. What did he say at the time? This is what he said (translation)—

That is where the difference lies between the capitulators on that side and us on this side. Our point of view is that the Bantu is constitutionally a subject of the Republic, but in the sense of nationhood they are not citizens of the nation of which we are members. They are members of nations in the making. The Zulus are a nation and the Xhosas are a nation, and we shall give those nations in the making the opportunity to develop their nationhood. Once they have developed to the necessary extent and the time for doing so is ripe, they will earn their citizenship.

Are the Bantu of the Republic not citizens of South Africa?

The hon. member was not listening. I said that the Bantu are subjects of the Republic of South Africa in the constitutional sense and, if the hon. member will brush up on his long-forgotten classical history, he will again see the distinction which Rome drew between her Cives Romanum and her Colonii, the inhabitants of Italy. This is basically the same as our position and this is the situation in regard to which we are unflaggingly attacked by the hon. member for Houghton, as well as by hon. members of the United Party. The difference between them is this: Hon. members there share the point of view of the hon. member for Houghton that the Bantu have a basic civil right to live in our White cities here in South Africa and to multiply here.

Has the hon. member not read the Citizenship Act?

The hon. member is now trying to raise a legal point—that there is no distinction in law drawn between the formal citizenship qualities of the various types of subjects of South Africa—but I am dealing here with the real national characteristics which we have to attach to citizenship of this country. Is it not a particular attribute of citizenship that we Whites have the franchise and the Bantu in general not, and that, even in terms of the policy of the United Party, all the Bantu will not have the vote or will not have the right to join the Public Service? Or does the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) now want to give us to understand that it is their argument in law that the Bantu as a citizen has the right to become a member of the Army and the Police Force and of the Public Service? I repudiate that misconception. I make the accusation that that party holds precisely the same basic point of view as do the Progressives against the National Party in that they say that the Bantu in South Africa ought to be able to exercise every civil right in the White areas, but they do not have the moral courage of the Progressives to say it because they are afraid that they will lose their seats. It is only in idle moments, when he forgets about the election, when all the big talk about the placation of the Bantu is not being indulged in, that the hon. member for South Coast speaks from his heart and tells the hon. the Deputy Minister and me that the Bantu man, and the Bantu woman who comes here to marry the Bantu man, are our fellow-citizens.

Whom are you quoting?

I am quoting the hon. member for South Coast from the Hansard of 18 March of last year, column 3312.

They railed against the date 1978, when the Bantu people will return to the reserves, as though they wanted an economic dissertation to prove that in 1978 the economic situation will be such that there will be more employment in the reserves for the Bantu than in the White areas. We do not have the time for an economic dissertation of this nature now, but let me indicate a few of the main points on which this removal of the Bantu population will depend. It is not simply a question of economic factors; it is also a question of the distribution of population. What about the old people in our urban areas to-day who may leave? What of the children who are being educated in the urban areas to-day? What about the women, who are the crux of the problem? As I indicated last year, a large concentration of Bantu women has resulted in an abnormal increase in the Bantu population. The increase in Bantu employment is relatively small in comparison with the total increase in population in the White areas because there are already large numbers of Bantu women here. If only the Bantu women were to be removed and if the Bantu labour force were to be reduced to actual migratory labour, one could perhaps reach the 1978 figures within one decade. But these are factors which hon. members do not want to appreciate—that a structure has been built by means of which the living pattern of South Africa can be changed. The numbers of Bantu in White South Africa are not simply dependent upon the number of Bantu who are employed in White South Africa but are primarily affected by the surrounding social structure of those Bantu workers because of the women and families here and because of the absence, thus far, of a fixed migratory labour system. But if that fixed migratory labour system is introduced, the whole position will change. In this pattern the development of the Bantu homelands and their political development is not simply an economic measure. Undoubtedly, the economic facets of it are very important because employment has to be found for about 130,000 people in South Africa annually, including 80,000 Bantu, and this employment has to be found to an increasing extent in the reserves. But the importance of the reserves is that they establish a homeland which makes it possible to change the social pattern of living in White South Africa without creating a morally unacceptable situation for the Bantu. [Time limit.]

I enter this debate because of the tone that has been set by the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter), the Chief Whip of the Nationalist Party. As the debate progressed this afternoon I would say it was a debate not revolving around the handling of the racial problem, but it is a debate on the method to be adopted for White survival in South Africa. I think that was the main point made by the hon. member.

That is the basis of our policy.

That is my whole point. The hon. member now tells the non-Whites of South Africa that there is a large section of the White population that is prepared to sell White interests down the drain and is also prepared to submerge the interests of White South Africa completely in the mass of Black Africa. That is the crux of the issue which we have to decide. We must now accept it from the mouth of the Chief Whip that it is the ultimate aim of a large section of the White population to submerge itself completely among the Bantu people.

I said that would be the ultimate result of your policy.

It is no use the hon. member trying to run away now. He must accept full responsibility for the allegations he has made here to-day. What is the hon. member really doing? He is really giving an incentive to the agitator elements of Black nationalism within the borders of South Africa. He is offering every encouragement to those extreme elements of Black nationalism, because if you follow the logic of the hon. member’s argument, that he is prepared to bring into doubt the fundamental principle which I believe motivates every White South African, and that is our right of survival and our right to maintain our identity as a White nation. If he is prepared to bring that into dispute, it can have only one result, namely that he is offering ammunition to the real enemies of White South Africa, the Black nationalism we see on the African Continent to-day. In other words, by such allegations the hon. member is making himself and his party guilty of what one may almost call treacherous acts against White South Africa. The hon. member does not show the degree of responsibility in these matters that one expects him to show. Surely we can at least expect in a debate of this nature dealing with non-White issues and the Bantu problem and the future of our country and its Government—(I do not want to bring the Government’s objectives into disrepute, I accept that it is the object of the Government’s policy to maintain White South Africa) that we can expect the same degree of honour from him in regard to our objectives as White South Africans with similar aims. The issue is which is the right way to achieve that end.

That brings me to the hon. member for Innesdale (Mr. J. A. Marais). In dealing with the policy of this side of the House, he made the allegation with no degree of shame even that it is our clear policy to have the Bantu people represented in this House, immediately on our election to power, by Bantu, the hon. member well knowing that that is not the policy of this side of the House. It has been said over and over again. The policy of this side of the House is to give expression to the wishes of non-Whites and the Bantu people of South African through their elected representatives in Parliament, who will be White, so that the Bantu can feel that they have direct expression in the highest legislative body of our land. And we say further, but this the hon. member for Innesdale conveniently forgets to state, that having been elected to power on such a policy to give direct representation to the Bantu people in this House on the old Hertzog principle of separate representation of the Bantu people, a principle which was enshrined in our constitution for more than two decades. Having said that we would stand by such a principle, we give the further guarantee that there will be no change unless the White electorate of South Africa has taken a decision in regard to the principle and have given a clear mandate either by a referendum or in a general election.

The White electorate only?

Yes. That has been stated many times. I do not know why the hon. member asks that question.

But it does not stand in your written policy.

Then the hon. member should make a deeper study of the policy of the United Party. You see, Sir, we have these kind of tactics in this debate. I wonder whether those hon. members realize what the people outside think when they make these cheap allegations. I wonder whether they realize that what they say in this House is not only carried out to the White electorate but also to the non-Whites. When the Bantu people listen to such a debate and hear that the Government is prepared to sell off parts of South Africa, what must they think? The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) says it is appeasement of the Bantu, but I think the Government’s policy is much more than appeasement of the Bantu; it is appeasement of the Black nationalism of Africa, and hon. members should realize that. It is appeasement of the Black nationalism over which the Minister of Justice in the last years has exercised considerable control—of the saboteurs who have exploited that nationalism within our own borders. Hon. members forget their sense of responsibility when they make these wild allegations across the floor. Why do hon. members opposite not rather adopt the approach: We are prepared to accept that the United Party, the Official Opposition, wishes to see the maintenance and the survival of the White nation on the Southern African continent just as much as we do. Then we can have a debate on the merits of the policies concerned. But for years we have had this exploitation of the race fear of the people of South Africa by the presentation of half-truths in respect of the policy of the Opposition, but the moment we adopt the same kind of political tactics adopted by the Government members both in this House and outside, we are accused of playing “kafferboetie” politics. Then they squeal. But some of the hon. members sitting on the back benches opposite should have a look at the record of this House and see the type of speech the hon. the Minister used to make in 1948 and in previous years. I say this to the honour of my party, that we have never descended to the levels that they descended to in those days. How easy it is for us to stand up to-day and play upon the White man’s fears and talk about the millions that have been spent on the development of Bantu townships. [Time limit.]

The last speaker almost accused me of treasonable action because I made the accusation that their policy would lead to the destruction of the White race in our country. I want to tell him that I shall not withdraw one word of what I said because I want to prove my statements. The hon. member must not think for one moment that he is correct when he says that our policy is a policy of placation as far as the Bantu are concerned—this is in regard to our Bantustan policy. Is it not true that it is a primary claim of the Bantu throughout Africa to have political freedom? We are not placating them. As their Christian White guardian we are canalizing this primary right or claim of theirs and Bantu nationalism in such a way that we as a White race can also retain our identity -and so that they can also survive as non-White nations. I want to be very frank with the Opposition. They have issued a challenge to us. They have tried to give the public the impression that there is confusion in our ranks and that we are afraid, and that some of us say that we do not believe in independent homelands for the Bantu. They are trying to create confusion. I just want to tell them that in this regard they are barking up the wrong tree. We are at one in regard to our Bantustan policy. The Bantu homelands form an inherent part of our policy, and what is wrong with that? Is it wrong for Britain to give independence to Basutoland and Swaziland and to all the others? What is wrong in this Christian White guardian’s setting in motion an emancipation process, a development process, in order to give those people the opportunity to make use of this process in every sphere and to become specific nation? This is the basic difference between ourselves and that side as far as policy is concerned. As I have already said, the United Party have in mind the idea of one nation. That is what they want—one nation, and not a White nation. They issued a manifesto in 1947 to the effect that it was their policy to give the vote to everyone, irrespective of race or colour, on a merit basis, and the Crown Prince of the United Party, Mr. Hofmeyr, stated on the occasion of the by-election in the Hottentots-Holland constituency at the time that it was their policy to allow Coloureds to be represented by Coloureds, Asiatics by Asiatics and Bantu by Bantu in this Parliament. Can they deny that? The Opposition cannot deny that by giving the Bantu eight representatives in this Parliament they are trying to place us on the dangerous road to one man, one vote. That is the difference. The United Party say that they are also White guardians. We say the same, but they make the mistake of regarding guardianship as a relationship between individuals, of a Bantu towards a White individual, while the National Party states that it is a relationship between the White nation, the only nation with the right of self-determination in South Africa, and the various non-White races which do not have that right of self-determination. They want a political process in terms of which the non-Whites will be emancipated in such a way that they will eventually be placed on the road to one man, one vote, when they will have a co-say in the Government of the Christian White guardian. This is the policy which will lead to genocide for the White man in our country. The manner in which the United Party with its policy is seeking to bring about the emancipation of the non-Whites will be one man, one vote, the reverse of guardianship, while under our policy it is apartheid.

Is it not the policy of the Nationalist Party to have one man, one vote, as far as the Bantu are concerned?

Of course, but then he will have the right of self-determination in his own homeland and he will have no authority over me or over the hon. member. Numbers will be decisive in the Parliament of a common fatherland and this will lead to the destruction in the political sphere of the right of self-determination which the White man as the Christian guardian enjoys to-day. By asking that question the hon. member has pronounced judgment upon his own policy. I think that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) gave him bad advice when he advised him to ask that question. Why is it that hon. members opposite cling with such longing to the idea of eight Bantu representatives in Parliament? I shall tell the House why this is. They are thinking of the election in 1948. Let us imagine that we had the position where there were eight Bantu representatives. The result of that election was that 79 Nationalists were elected—I think that there were 70 Nationalists and nine Afrikaner Party members. We were on the one end of the political springboard and on the other end there were the 65 members of the United Party. They looked to the left and saw the six leftist labourites; they looked again and saw the three Bantu representatives, including Mrs. Ballinger, the leader of the liberalists, and when all of these had climbed on to the springboard, they were 74 against our 79. Let us imagine that there had also been these eight Bantu representatives and that they had also climbed on to the springboard, or three Asiatic representatives, who then would have governed South Africa? It would not have been the majority of the Whites but a minority of the Whites in an alliance with the common vote of the Bantu.

The majority would have ruled.

There you have it. What majority? Their policy must eventually lead to political domination by the non-Whites because they are giving the political power into the hands of the eight Bantu representatives.

And you would have turned to the labourites.

Yes, but some of them were conservative. But what about the Lovells and the Davidoffs? Those were the people on the United Party’s political flank at the time, and we know what happened. They say that I have acted treasonably. It is hardly permissible to say so, but I say that the United Party’s policy of wishing to make a break-through for their eight Bantu representatives is an attempt to put White and non-White into the same parliamentary mechanism which will result in demands being made. The greater the demands, the more concessions will have to be made, and, eventually, there will be no race peace but such tension that race friction and even bloodshed will result in South Africa. Our whole policy is aimed at the survival of the White nation and its right of self-determination in its own area. It is also aimed at giving the Bantu the eventual right of self-determination in their own areas.

And you do not know where.

To the Whites in civilized White South Africa. Does the hon. member know where that is? Where he is sitting forms part of it. But if their policy is followed, the hon. member will not be sitting there for long.

Do you know where the borders are?

They are following a policy which will lead to the breaking-down of all barriers. That is why they opposed the Mixed Marriages Act and the Immorality Act and the Group Areas Act. They want to break down these barriers. They are heading for a one-nation State and a one-nation community. It does not help to say that they are in favour of White leadership. That is just lip-service, but when the United Party has to translate its words into actions —as happened when it was in Government in this country—what happens? When they were in Government they gave the Asiatics three representatives in this Parliament. The Black man was originally on the Common Roll, and they persuaded General Hertzog to give the Bantu three representatives in this House. He did not want them; it was a compromise. I think one of the greatest achievements of the National Party in safeguarding the position of power of the White man in this country was when the present hon. Prime Minister had those three Bantu Representatives removed from this House. The United Party now want eight Bantu representatives. Where will they ever receive support for this policy in South Africa? Hon. members opposite say that we are divided on our colour policy, but what have they been doing? They have been in caucus for a full week and they have only been adjourning in order to attend sittings of this House. I should like to give those hon. members some advice. They have accused us and the Administrator of Natal of being politically dishonest. Sir, this is a case in which the Opposition have been lying like cheap watches! I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw that remark.

I hope the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his broad spectrum of the political scene in South Africa. I would like to say one thing to him however before I come back to other matters which I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister and the Deputy Minister and that is that when there is any talk about the fulfilment of the national aspirations of the Africans in South Africa for nationhood, for independence and so on, the Bantustans are apparently the Nationalist Party’s final offer. I would ask the hon. the Minister whether he can explain to us on logical grounds, within his own concept of fulfilling demands and natural aspirations, what he is going to do about the two-thirds of the African population that does not in fact live in the reserves. I know that one-third of those people live in the towns, and one might say that some of the one-third are still migratory; I am prepared to agree with the hon. member on that score. It is not a tendency of which I approve because I think it is very bad from the economic point of view and from the sociological point of view, but let us not argue about that. The facts are that of the one-third of the total African population living in the urban areas, some are still migratory, I concede that. But I think equally he will concede that a large and ever-growing percentage is not in fact migratory because there is, of course, a natural increase in the urban population; there is the self-generating process, to use the term often used by the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn). Those people therefore are not migratory; they do not continue to have lasting bonds with the tribal areas. Whatever bonds they have, lessen as the years go by, as they become more and more permanently urbanized. And amongst those people, after all, there are those who, even in terms of Nationalist policy, are allowed to occupy their houses for 30 years on leasehold in the urban areas. Sir, that is a generation. How does the hon. member for Brits in any way correlate his idea of nationalism and the realization of the demand for nationalism on the part of the urbanized African, who will have occupied their homes in the urban areas for 30 years when their leasehold is up . . .

Have they the option to resume their own nationhood?

They may have the option but they have lived there their whole lives.

If they do not desire their own nationhood, that is their affair.

Sir, I think this is pure sophistry.

They are not even aliens.

Will the hon. member for Kempton Park tell me what he proposes to do about the other third, the rural Africans, living on the White farms? They have been there for generations already and they are likely to be there for generations in the future.

Most of them are closely connected with the chieftains of the reserves.

They might be living hundreds of miles away from their homeland: they may have been living hundreds of miles away from the reserves throughout the whole of their lives, throughout the lives of their fathers and throughout the lives of their children. Can the hon. member for Brits tell us, as far as the rural Africans are concerned, the second third I am talking about—I concede that one-third of the Africans live in the reserves although many of them are migratory, of course, and move out for a good deal of their working lives—how he correlates his idea of fulfilling the aspirations for nationalism of the rural Africans living on White farms, who have lived there for generations and who will live there for future generations? Can he honestly and truly convince himself, and anybody else for that matter, that he is thereby giving what he would call a fair deal to the African people with their natural aspirations for nationhood? I believe that it is completely ignoring the realities of the South African situation . . .

Apply that argument to the Basutos.

. . . and the realities of the South African situation are that two-thirds of the African population do not live in the reserves. They either live in the urban areas . . .

Apply your argument to the Basutos.

I do not have to apply my argument to the Basutos because it is not a true analogy.

They have been living here for ages already.

But it is not a true analogy.

Why not?

Because these people are citizens of our country and hon. members cannot have it both ways. If they want to have it both ways then they must pass a new Citizenship Act; they must give independence to the existing reserves, and those who can only become citizens of those areas and all who live here must then go back and live in the reserves. [Interjections.] Basutoland does not belong to South Africa.

But hundreds of thousands of Basutos live there.

I say that Basutoland does not belong to South Africa and it never has belonged to South Africa and it is unlikely ever to belong to South Africa. Even the hon. the Prime Minister has now given up his claims to the High Commission Territories, although at one time when the Tomlinson Commission was sitting, those three territories were calmly included in the calculations in respect of the Bantustans although they never belonged to South Africa at all.

May I now come back to some other matters that I want to raise with the hon. the Minister and the Deputy Minister. Sir, the hon. the Minister made some very wild statements when he replied to the debate on Friday afternoon. Unfortunately I was unable to be here, as he knows, but I did read a report of his speech in the newspapers. It appears that when I raised the issue as to why Proclamation 400 was still in force in the reserves, which Chief Matanzima himself says has never been so peaceful, and which the New York Times advertisement tells us is an area where people are enjoying full civil rights, the hon. the Minister actually said, “At one stage the position was that wherever Patrick Duncan had slept in the Transkei, a murder was committed the next morning”.

That is true.

Well, it seems to me that one must put up plaques all over the Transkei, “Patrick Duncan slept here; do not come near the place”.

That would be a good idea.

Sir, it is a long time since Patrick Duncan was in the Transkei; it is several years ago to my knowledge and whatever Patrick Duncan did or may not have done in the Transkei, surely that is not for ever going to be regarded as a reason for continuing with one of the most drastic restrictions of ordinary freedoms, the freedom of movement, the freedom of speech, association and gathering, ever to be employed in any so-called free and almost independent country, where Proclamation 400 has now been enforced for several years. Sir, this is the most fatuous excuse that I have ever heard of.

They want it themselves. They discussed it and asked for it.

The hon. member says that they want it themselves. I have a cutting here showing that the entire Opposition in the Transkei do not want Proclamation 400, and the entire Opposition in the Transkei consists of a majority of elected members.

Does an Opposition govern a country?

Well, if it is an Opposition which consists largely of the elected members, one would say that it should be governing the country if that country is to be considered an independent country enjoying all these great civil rights that we hear about. What is the need for this proclamation? Sir, if the hon. the Minister wants to talk about incitement I can quote speeches to him made by the Chief Minister of the Transkei, the most inciting speeches of all times. Why does the hon. the Minister not move against him? Why does the hon. the Minister not move against the Whites whom he says are inciting people in the Transkei? He must have proof of his wild allegations. Why does he not charge these people? We have lots of laws in this country against incitement. Why does the hon. the Minister not take steps against these people instead of just making these vague accusations on which one can never pin him down, because he never gives people a chance to defend themselves in the courts of law. Sir, I am not prepared to accept the explanation that because some years ago Patrick Duncan, according to the hon. the Minister, was moving around the Transkei, there was a murder the next morning wherever he had slept the previous night. For goodness sake, how many murders have there been in the Transkei? The hon. the Minister makes this statement, but if I had made it I would have been accused of “beswaddering” South Africa’s name in the outside world, giving people the impression that there is a bloodbath in the Transkei every day. What a lot of exaggerated nonsense. I say that if the hon. the Minister wants to prove that the Transkei is free, is nearly independent and is looked upon by the Africans as their national home, then he should withdraw Proclamation 400; then he should not require it. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) said that one of the basic features of their policy was the fact that provision would only be made for White representatives for the Bantu under their race federation plan. He refused to commit himself with regard to the future but his Leader did commit himself.

And so did Marais Steyn on the Rand.

Sir, I want to read out something to the Committee but before I do so I want to link it up with the main attack of the Opposition under this Vote. I refer to the allegation that the White areas are supposedly becoming blacker and blacker. That was their main attack, viz. the ever-increasing numbers of Bantu within the White economy.

Supposedly becoming blacker and blacker?

This phenomenon (which we regard as temporary) of ever-increasing numbers of Bantu within the White areas and therefore within the White economy is used by the Opposition as the basis of their argument. They accept this phenomenon as proof that integration is an accomplished fact. On the basis of this proposition of theirs that this phenomenon is proof of integration, they come along and plead for certain rights for the Bantu. That is the basis of their proposition, that the Bantu have acquired certain rights here. Sir, these rights that they claim for the Bantu in the White area consist of the following: They claim the right of land tenure for the Bantu in the White areas. That is a claim that they inevitably have to put forward and they will have to continue putting it forward. Furthermore, they claim the right of participation for the Bantu in capital control in the White economy, and they also claim certain franchise rights for the Bantu of the urban areas, as the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) did here. I say unequivocally that if the time ever comes when my party accedes to these demands put forward by the United Party on the strength of the fact that we have a certain number of Bantu in the White areas, we will have reached a situation of integration. This is where the cardinal difference lies between the two parties. The United Party demands certain rights for the Bantu because he happens to be here in the White area. They demand representation for the Bantu in the White Parliament by means of White representatives, but the hon. member does not even go as far as his Leader does. In the Friend of 7 November 1963 the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself wrote about “the devolution of powers to different groups”. I quote his own words—

And then he goes on to say—

Here the hon. the Leader of the Opposition admits that those rights cannot be withheld indefinitely. The Opposition are pleading for certain rights for the Bantu on no other ground than the fact that the Bantu happen to be here in the White area. We dispute that; we say that the mere presence of the Bantu in the White area does not mean integration. Numbers do not count as far as I am concerned. What counts as far as I am concerned is what rights these people acquire by virtue of the fact that they happen to be here in the White area and that they are employed within the White economy. We say that if there is any question of the Bantu acquiring rights, they can acquire those rights within their own areas. Mr. Chairman, what right has the United Party to come here and demand rights for the Bantu? After all, this is our country. It is a historical fact . . .

Where is their country?

It is a recognized historical fact that the Whites throughout the whole of their history have never committed any act of aggression as far as the territory of the Bantu is concerned. What was formerly Bantu territory is still Bantu territory to-day. Sir, it is a remarkable historical fact, one which is unequalled in the colonial history, that over a period of 100 years, particularly up to 1775, in an era of conflict between the Bantu and the White man, not a single square inch of land has ever been taken from the Bantu by the White man and that not a single act of aggression has been committed against the Bantu. What formerly was Bantu territory is still Bantu territory to-day and what was formerly White territory is still White territory to-day. On what ground does the United Party base its claim that the Bantu should be given certain rights within the area of my racial group? We did not run to the Bantu; they came here to us. I want to ask you, Sir, what the position of the Bantu would have been to-day in his own area if we had not assisted him, if we had not given him employment and food and medical services and education? And on the strength of the White man’s kindness to the Bantu, the United Party now demand certain rights for the Bantu; they demand certain sacrifices from the Whites, and they base their demand on one fact and one fact only and that is that numbers of Bantu happen to be here in the White area.

Sir, I oppose and my party opposes the claims put forward by the United Party on behalf of the Bantu for certain rights which, according to them, the Bantu have allegedly acquired here. But quite apart from the kindnesses shown by the White man throughout our history to the Bantu, this phenomenon of the presence of Bantu within the White economy brings with it certain benefits for the Bantu, and I want to mention a few of them. In the first place the Bantu learns here that Uhuru, freedom, cannot be sustained by slogans only: secondly that work, organization and knowledge are essential pre-requisites for the building up of a well-ordered State. That is something that they learn from the White man in the White area, so that when the turning point comes and they go back to their own country they will not rely on slogans only but they will go back well-equipped. That is another benefit which accrues to the Bantu as a result of his presence in the White area. Bur, Sir, there is another benefit. The presence of the Bantu in the White area and their participation in the White economy will promote the sound foundations which are essential for the building up in the future of harmonious relationships between the White man and the Bantu. It emphasizes a cardinal fact and that is that future relationships between White and Black will be based on the acceptance of one outstanding political concept and that is the concept of political separation between ourselves and the Bantu, as the hon. the Prime Minister put it here the other day. The whole thing centres around that fact. The presence of Bantu within the White area does not mean integration. It is a phenomenon; it is not a fact. One cannot build a proposition on it, as the United Party is doing, and then demand certain rights for the Bantu on the basis of that proposition. What is ours is ours and what is theirs is theirs. [Time limit.]

I shall deal with the remarks of the hon. member who has just sat down in the course of my speech, but before I do so I want to put certain questions to the Minister, and I am afraid that I may not get time to do so if I first deal with the matters raised by that hon. member. First of all, when I first spoke a few days ago I asked the hon. the Minister to give us certain information about the people who have been ordered to move from their homes to other places in terms of Section 5 of the Native Administration Act. The Minister showed me a list the other day containing certain particulars but, as I told him then, that was not exactly what I wanted. I have not had anything further from him, and at this late stage it is too late to take the matter any further, but I do want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to prosecute these people, whether it is not possible to charge them with some offence or other. Surely there is a multitude of laws under which they could be prosecuted. If it was found necessary to banish them from their homes and to order them to move elsewhere in terms of the Native Administration Act, one would have thought that it should have been possible to charge them under some law or other. Sir, many of these people have spent years away from their homes; others are allowed to go back without their neighbours or anybody else knowing why they were removed. We do not know for what reason they were removed. I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to stop banishing people in terms of Section 5. I know that it is an old section which was also applied by other Governments. Large numbers of people have so far been banished. I think there are over 200 banishment orders in operation. There is no doubt about it that this sort of thing does the country untold harm, not only in South Africa amongst the Africans themselves but in the outside world. Great harm is done to the country by banishing people from heir homes without trial.

Then I should like the hon. the Minister to tell me what the position is in the Transkei with regard to zoning. We see in the Press— and I may say that I did not see this in the Despatch; the Minister blamed the Despatch for all the false reports—that the Chief Minister in the Transkei said that Port St. Johns and Matatiele would remain White but that he wants Umzimkulu to be zoned Black. Sir, the position is that Matatiele, Port St. Johns and Umzimkulu were the three towns left out of the area which the zoning committee had to visit for zoning purposes. We know that Port St. Johns has been described as a White area; it is permanently a White area. The committee was not sure about Matatiele, although assurances had been given to Matatiele that it would remain White. Umzimkulu felt that they had been given similar assurances, mainly because they received a letter from Mr. Smuts on behalf of the Secretary last year advising them that Umzimkulu was not a Bantu area. Strictly speaking Umtata is not a Bantu area nor is Willowvale nor any other of these towns. But the impression was given that Umzimkulu would remain White, and that is why it did not fall within the terms of reference of the zoning committee. But with this statement made by Chief Matanzima that he was going to press the Government for the inclusion of Umzimkulu in the area to be zoned black, I want the hon. the Minister to tell us what is going to happen to Umzimkulu because naturally the people there are very worried. I have had queries from them about it already and I shall be glad if the Minister will tell this Committee whether he is changing his policy with regard to Umzimkulu and whether he is going to accede to the request of the Chief Minister of the Transkei that Umzimkulu should also be zoned black. Sir, one can appreciate why the Chief Minister makes this claim. He makes this claim because he was promised that the whole of the Transkei, except for Port St. Johns, would fall under his domain. Originally it was only Port St. Johns which was kept out. The Chief Minister, when the Transkeian Constitution Bill was passed, made a speech in which he said that he wanted Port St. Johns as well; that he was not satisfied to have Port St. Johns left out of the area to be handed over to the Transkeian Government. I can quite understand however why he has now given up this idea of getting Port St. Johns because when he visited Johannesburg last year he said to the Africans up there in the course of a speech that if Port St. Johns could remain a White area, why could a huge native township up there not remain black areas. He has also told the Africans in other speeches that they should be allowed to own the land on which they live and the homes in which they live. The fact that he is now prepared to concede Port St. Johns to the permanent White residents there, would strengthen his claim for the Native townships to be declared black areas where the Africans can enjoy home ownership and the other rights of citizenship. Sir, when we consider what happened at East London, where Mdantsane which was not a Native reserve area, was specially bought to be made into a reserve where Natives could own their own property and work in East London, I say it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that this Government will still make the large Bantu townships in the European areas Native reserves so that they can exercise their political and other rights there.

I should like to know a little more about the zoning. I had just touched on this matter the other day when my time expired. I want to know from the Minister whether, if a village in the Transkei is zoned black, the Government is going to offer to buy all the properties in that area from the Whites and the Coloured people. I mentioned the other day that if this does not happen that Africans are allowed to buy plots in the areas zoned black and the Whites and the Coloured people are unable to sell to anybody except Africans, and there are not sufficient Africans to buy the position will be that you will be forcing these people to live together and residential segregation will then go by the board. Sir, some people cannot live with other races, and you may be forcing together people who are not suited at all to live together, with resultant friction between the races, which could only do us more harm than good. I should like to know from the Minister what his policy is going to be in that regard. I also want to know what is going to happen to the Coloureds. We know that the Heckroodt Commission had to investigate the position of the Coloureds in the Transkei. The majority of the Coloureds there are not traders. They are employed as tradesmen and in other capacities. The Heckroodt Commission only dealt really with the traders. It recommended the appointment of a commission to value trading stations. The Government accepted that recommendation and appointed the adjustment committee. But what is to happen to all the Coloured people living in the Transkei. What is to happen to those living in areas which have been zoned black and those who live in the Native locations themselves? Has the Government formulated any further policy in this connection? Did the Heckroodt Commission make any recommendations that we do not know about as to what is to happen to the Coloureds, or has the Minister any other idea as to what he is going to do with the Coloureds? We know that the experiment of taking them from the Transkei down to the railways has not proved a success; many of them have gone back again; I do not know how many—the Minister of Railways will know—but we know that they were dissatisfied with the conditions down here and that numbers of them have gone back to the Transkei.

I want to get back to this question of Bantustans and the attack made upon us by the hon. member for Innesdale (Mr. J. A. Marais.) He wanted to know from us why, if the fundamental difference between us was the question of independence for the Bantustans, we opposed the Bantustan concept before independence was accepted in 1959. The hon. the Prime Minister admitted last year that there had been a change in the policy of the Nationalist Party; he admitted it in the Other Place. He had never denied that there had been a change in the concept of Bantustans. Originally they were to remain under the control of the Central Government and in 1961 he stated in this House that the Bantustans would be allowed to develop to independence and he explained why he had made the change. The point is this that when the Nationalist Party came into power in 1948 with their policy of apartheid we questioned them as to whether their policy was to be one of complete territorial segregation. I am not going to go into the dispute between Dr. Malan who was then Prime Minister and the then Minister of Native Affairs, the present Prime Minister but we foresaw then that if you were going to have apartheid it would have to be “algehele apart “heid” and that you would have to follow it to its logical conclusion. [Time limit.]

I should like to deal for a moment with the extremely unfair attack made by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) this afternoon on the Administrator of Natal. It was very clear from what he quoted that the Administrator could not have said what he sought to attribute to him—that the development of the Bantu areas as such is “poppycock”, because the Administrator went on to say, according to the hon. member for Yeoville, that the people of Zulu-land had nothing to fear in regard to the development of the Bantu areas. What is wrong with that? Who has anything to fear in regard to the development of the Bantu areas? The more the Transkei develops, the more I shall welcome it; the more industries are established there, the more I shall welcome it. But it suits hon. members opposite, who go through the country saying that the development of industries in the border areas and in the Bantu homelands will constitute a danger to existing industries. This is the most arrant nonsense imaginable. The more Rhodesia develops in the industrial sphere, the happier we feel; the more we develop, the happier they are. The more Moçambique develops in the industrial sphere, the happier we are. The same thing applies as far as these Bantu homelands are concerned. Nobody has anything to fear in the White area as far as the development and the industrial development of the Bantu homelands is concerned.

The hon. member who has just sat down was apprehensive of the fact that it is an accepted principle on the part of this side of this House to permit the Bantu homelands to develop eventually into independent States. Why are they so terribly concerned in this regard, Mr. Chairman? Why do they not evince the slightest degree of concern in regard to the development of the Protectorates into independent states?

That has nothing to do with the matter.

It has a great deal to do with the matter. Does the hon. member want to tell me that it has nothing to do with the matter because the Protectorates belong to another country? I want to ask the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) whether he knows that in the Schedule to the Constitution of the Union it was stated that England should at a later stage give the Protectorates to the Union of South Africa? Does he not know that it was the policy of his party that those Protectorates should be incorporated in the Union? That was their policy; that is what they wanted; they still want it to-day. But England has accepted a policy which makes the implementation of this policy of the United Party completely impossible. In other words, England has given independence to Basutoland, Swaziland and Bechuanaland. [Interjections.] We are in agreement with that. The hon. the Prime Minister has said that this is in conformity with our policy. It conforms to the pattern of our policy and that is why we have departed completely from the idea contained in the Schedule to the Constitution of the Union of South Africa that the Protectorates should be incorporated in the Union, or, as it is now, the Republic of South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister has departed from that idea but those hon. members have not yet done so. This was their policy until recently, but now the British Government has made the implementation of that policy of the United Party completely impossible. I am still waiting for any hon. member opposite to utter one word of protest against the independence of Basutoland, Swaziland and Bechuanaland. Not one of them has said that those countries are now going to become independent States within our borders and that they are going to become a breeding-ground for Communism, which they have said will happen in regard to a possibly independent Transkei in a number of years’ time. The difficulty as far as that party is concerned is that they are the Rip van Winkel Party of South Africa. Their trouble is that they are still living in the Africa of 15 years ago; they are completely blind to everything that has happened over the past 15 years. They are completely blind to the hard, undeniable fact that we have experienced a development which we can never reverse. This development will result in the fact that South Africa will within a number of years be the only independent White Republic on a Black Continent. Hon. members opposite are living completely in the past; they do not want to face up to the fact that one of these days we shall be surrounded by independent Black States, whether we like it or not. Our only neighbours will be Black independent States. Hon. members opposite overlook this fact completely. The Protectorates are now becoming independent and this is a hard political fact which we must accept. We can no longer ignore it and, because we have to live with it, we shall also have to live with the idea of the development of the Bantu homelands even though they develop eventually into independent States. [Interjections.] What difference does that make? What difference does it make if we have to co-exist with them throughout the Continent of Africa? We are following a system by means of which we are safeguarding our own position as Whites. Why cannot we do this? If there is such terrible danger inherent in the becoming independent of Black States, then the Republic is doomed in any case. What hon. members opposite lose sight of is this: They lack the ability, the political ability to realize and the confidence which will enable them to realize that we can co-exist with these people. There is every hope that we will be able to co-exist peacefully with these people. The signs of this in the Protectorates are most hopeful. Hon. members do our country no service by suggesting that when the Black nations become independent it will be impossible to co-exist with them prosperously and peacefully. They tell the people of South Africa that it is impossible to co-exist with an independent Transkei because the people there are undeveloped. Communism will take root there! What must the countries which are on the point of becoming independent think of these insinuations? Must they believe that we are such terrible people that we cannot coexist with them? The fact of the matter is that we shall simply have to co-exist with them. What is more, we are going to co-exist with them; we are going to co-operate with them, and I want to tell the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) that the becoming independent of the Protectorates and the becoming independent of the Transkei and Vendaland and all the others is going to be the start of a break-through on the part of the White man in South Africa in respect of the other countries on the Continent of Africa. It is going to be the start of a break-through not only to them but also to hostile world opinion which is based on nothing but ignorance of the actual developments in this regard. I wish hon. members opposite would face up to this matter and be far less of a brake on South Africa than they are at the moment.

Wishful thinking!

Everything in this country was wishful thinking to those hon. members. Iscor was wishful thinking, the Republic was wishful thinking and the Transkei was wishful thinking. No, it is not wishful thinking; it is our only chance to make sure that there will be a future for the White man in South Africa.

We have also had the complaint that because there are large numbers of Bantu in the White area they should be entitled to certain political rights! Sir, there is not one single Bantu who is in the White area against his will. There is not one single Bantu who cannot leave the White area if he wants to. I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) why she does not apply her argument to the Basutos, the Bechuanas and the Swazis, to the Bantu from Moçambique and to the Bantu from Rhodesia who are here in our country in their thousands? When I put this question to her she first mulled it over and then said: “Those countries do not belong to us”. Sir, there are some Basutos who have been living here for generations. Does the hon. member want us to give them political rights here? She said the other day that they have been compelled by economic circumstances to come here. The position is simply that these Black people must decide for themselves, just as I have to decide for myself if I am in the same position, whether political rights are more important to them than economic factors. If the Bantu in the White areas consider their political rights to be more important than economic prosperity here, the remedy is in their own hands. They can return to those countries where they can enjoy political rights. I want to give the hon. member another example. If economic or other circumstances compel me to go to Zambia to work there, I shall go there with my eyes wide open and I shall know that I shall have to obey the laws of Zambia. And if I am not settled there and my family is not there and I am not going to stay there for the rest of my life, must they then give me political rights? What utter nonsense! No country would give these rights to Whites from other countries. What nonsense it is to say that we should do it here!

We have now been discussing this Vote for three days and during the whole of these three days I have not heard a single word about the policy of the United Party. I challenge hon. members opposite to go through Hansard and to show that what I am saying here is incorrect. Sir, this is the first time in the political history of South Africa that a Party has been afraid to state its policy. This is the first time in the history of this House that we have witnessed such a spectacle. Not a single hon. member on the other side stood up and said a single word with regard to their policy. After all, one of the basic principles in every democratic country in the world is that an Opposition is expected to put forward its alternative policy.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? Did the hon. the Minister’s party tell us what their policy would be while we were in power?

Yes, there is Hansard to prove it. I could quote speech after speech to the hon. member. We criticized them when they were in power, but we also stated our own policy. I always did so. At that time I was the Leader of this particular group of the party, and I can tell the hon. member that I often criticized him when he was Minister of Native Affairs, but he will admit that I also stated my party’s policy.

What was it?

Apartheid, of course. We have never had any other policy. But I have never seen the sort of situation that we have here to-day, and I do not think it redounds to the credit of the United Party. I understand that hon. members opposite have been and are still quarrelling amongst themselves . . .

You are wrong.

. . . such a serious quarrel that many of them hardly found time to have lunch to-day; they were almost late for lunch.

The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hope-well) put certain questions to me with regard to the Hammarsdale problem. Sir, I must honestly admit that here we are struggling with one of the classic examples of United Party policy; it is a mess. I put a magistrate on to this job on a full-time basis for months to go into this matter in an attempt to find a solution. I can only say to the hon. member that we are now making good progress, and I hope it will not be very long before the whole of this area will be planned and a proper town established in Hammarsdale.

But you have been in power for seventeen years. Have you done nothing yet?

No, do not let us talk too much nonsense. Hon. members must not forget that it was only recently that Hammarsdale . . .

You say that we are responsible for this situation!

We have been struggling there all these years; we first had to clear up other places.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) is unfortunately not here, but he again came forward with a pamphlet that I published in 1947 or 1948. Sir, I have said here repeatedly that we attacked the method, the approach of the United Party. I said that it was ridiculous to use White capital and White labour in those areas. We were not opposed to the development of the Bantu areas as such, but money was being wasted there and look what the United Party accomplished. Absolutely nothing. When we came into power we had to build up all those things from scratch. I was the secretary of the committee which worked out he details of our policy in 1947. Here I have it; it was published at the time. It was my privilege to draw up the summary, which was accepted as it stood by our leaders. How can we be accused of having deviated from our policy? Every principle of our policy is set out here, but it would take too long to read it out again. [Interjections.] Even if I did give it to the hon. member to read she would not believe it.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) has again referred to Proclamation No. 400. I must say in all honesty that the hon. member’s knowledge of Mr. Patrick Duncan is greater than mine. I am quite prepared to accept that Mr. Patrick Duncan did perhaps sleep in Pondoland on more occasions than I am aware of. I cannot help wondering whether she sometimes accompanied him because she knows so much more than I do. I say again that Proclamation No. 400 was promulgated with the sole object of keeping certain Whites out of Pondoland and Mr. Patrick Duncan was one of them. The fact of the matter is that we know that at every place where Mr. Patrick Duncan slept—I was told this by the Bantu—there was a murder or an assault the following day. I was told this by the Bantu and they asked me to give them the opportunity to catch him. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton wants to know why I did not prosecute him, but that is not so easy. There are some people who do certain things and then flee, leaving the poor Bantu to bear the brunt of it. Certain Bantu were arrested and the reproach with which they came along was this: “Why is the White man going free whilst we are prosecuted?” The fact of the matter is that the Bantu in the Transkei are at liberty to repeal Proclamation No. 400 at any time they wish to do so. They debated this matter the other day and the vast majority of them decided that that Proclamation was there for the protection of the Xhosa in the Transkei. They themselves decided to keep it in force. The hon. member wants us to intervene there. I am not prepared to do so. But I will tell you, Sir, why she wants us to intervene. The hon. member has many friends who, if there is no Proclamation No. 400, would want to make propaganda there. That is one of my difficulties.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories asked for certain information with regard to people who have been banished. He wanted to know who they were and where they came from. I told him that it was impossible to obtain that information at once but in spite of that he has again levelled the reproach at me that I have still not given him this information. [Interjections.] The hon. member made an accusation against me and he must not try to run away from it now. He said that about two hundred people had been banished. I told him that there were still about 68 people under banishment orders but the position is reviewed every three months or so, and most of these people have been allowed to come back. But I am not prepared to bring about any change in this regard, because here we have the same position and that is that certain people do certain things and it is just impossible to convict them. I then consult the Bantu and if they agree I banish the person concerned. I just want to refer again to the case at Nongoma, where we have started with developmental works. What happened there was that one of the hon. member’s friends went along with his team of oxen and indiscriminately ploughed up the land and destroyed everything that we had tried to do. I was then approached by the chief together with his councillors and asked to do something about it. Well I took him away and look at the developmental work that has since been done there.

The hon. member wants to know what is to be the future of Umzimkulu. Umzimkulu was not zoned by the zoning committee because part of it is still a White area. It adjoins the White area. There are many valuable farms there. In the meantime practically all those farmers have been begging me to purchase their land. This is practically just a White spot in a black area. This was long before Matanzima had said a single word with regard to this matter. They are begging me every day to buy these farms and in principle I think the right thing to do would be to buy this land and to zone Umzimkulu as well. There are one or two Whites there who are not anxious to sell but who have said that they will also be prepared to sell. The people concerned are mostly elderly folk who say that they are no longer interested in farming.

The hon. member wants to know whether we are going to accede to Matanzima’s request to declare Soweto and other similar areas to be Bantu areas. Sir, the fact of the matter is that any report which is published in these venomous liberal newspapers is pounced upon and exploited against Matanzima. I have often asked hon. members first to make sure whether he in fact made the statement attributed to him before they believe these reports. This matter was recently debated in the Transkeian Parliament. It was raised there by one of the Opposition members. Matanzima stood up and stated unequivocally that he was not going to poke his nose into the affairs of the Republic. He stated that perfectly clearly, but no reference is made to that fact in this House. I just want to say that it is not our intention to declare those areas to be Bantu areas, but what would they become other than Bantu areas under United Party policy, because the United Party wants to give property rights and all those things to the Bantu in the White areas. What is the difference then? Sir, I do not think that the Opposition has been fair in its attitude in this debate. They should rather pay some attention to their own policy.

In conclusion I want to avail myself of this opportunity to express a few words of thanks and to pay tribute to my retiring Secretary, Mr. Young. Mr. Young will be retiring in the near future, after having devoted his whole lifetime to the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, and everybody will admit that he has done excellent work. I have no hesitation in saying that I regard Mr. Young as the greatest expert that the Department of Bantu Administration and Development has ever produced in its whole history. He is really one of our outstanding figures. He has a thorough knowledge of his subject. In addition to that he has earned the respect of both the Bantu and the Whites. He was loved by all sections. I think it is only right that we should pay tribute to him for the great work that he has done for South Africa.

I wish to associate this side of the House with the hon. the Minister’s remarks in regard to Mr. Young. Mr. Young, of course, comes from an old Transkeian family. We know that his fahter had a long record of service in the Bantu Administration Department. Whether we agreed or not with the policy that he was carrying out is beside the point. He was a civil servant and it was his duty to carry out the policy of the Government and he did it. We wish to associate ourselves with the remarks passed by the hon. the Minister.

The hon. the Minister said here that we on this side had never stated our policy whereas they were always prepared to state theirs. I ask him; Did Dr. Malan not ask for a blank cheque before the 1948 election? Was there a single word in that policy about Bantustans? Was there any suggestion that certain areas of land would be handed over to the Bantu and that they would be given sovereign independence?

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 20.—“Bantu Administration and Development”, as printed, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote N.—“Bantu Administration and Development”, R43,302,000, put and agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress.