With your permission, Sir, I would like to clear up a misunderstanding which arose yesterday evening when the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) moved the adjournment of the debate. I must say that I was under the impression that the seven o’clock rule did not apply until next week. Hon. members will know that the new rules only came into operation last session. I was also under the impression that it was customary to adjourn the debate before seven o’clock. As a matter of fact I was so sure of that that I even took exception to the fact that the Whips of the Opposition called for a division on the motion to adjourn the House. I find that I was under an erroneous impression. I want to give hon. members the assurance, however, that there was no intention or desire of any manipulation so that a member on our side could be the first speaker this afternoon.

I would like to say that we on this side readily accept the explanation of the Leader of the House that he was genuinely under a misapprehension.

I move—

That a Select Committee be appointed on Public Accounts, the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.

Agreed to.

I move—

Agreed to.

Select Committee on the subject of the Bill reappointed, the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers, and to have leave to bring up an amended Bill.

The speech made by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) last night was easily one of the most irresponsible speeches ever made in this House. Rhodesia finds itself in a very difficult and delicate position and the hon. member knows that, but he does not hesitate to exploit Rhodesia’s delicate position ruthlessly in order to catch a few miserable votes, in which he will fail anyway. What is his charge against the Government? His charge against the Government is that the Government is adopting the wrong attitude towards Rhodesia, that it is leaving Rhodesia in the lurch, and that what this Government is doing is not in Rhodesia’s interest. Mr. Speaker, if I want to know whether this Government is adopting the right attitude towards Rhodesia, if I want to know what is in Rhodesia’s interest, I shall most certainly not go to the hon. member for Yeoville for advice, and I shall most certainly not ask the opinion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I shall go to the man who knows best what is in the interest of Rhodesia, and that is Mr. Smith, the Prime Minister of Rhodesia. He is quite satisfied with the attitude of this Government. He has said so, and nobody asked him to say so; nobody challenged him on this point, and Mr. Smith did not say so in private. The Prime Minister of Rhodesia said of his own volition over television that he was completely satisfied with the attitude of the Government of South Africa. And if Mr. Smith is satisfied, who are those two hon. gentlemen to be dissatisfied? What does the speech by the hon. member for Yeoville really amount to? It is nothing but a blatant slap in the face for Mr. Smith. He is telling Mr. Smith: “If you are satisfied with South Africa’s attitude, if you say that it is in the interest of Rhodesia, then I, Marais Steyn, am telling you that you do not know what you are talking about. It is not in the interest of Rhodesia. The Government of South Africa should have acted differently.” I shall give the hon. member for Yeoville this advice: Let him rather concern himself with the difficulties his own party is experiencing, and leave Rhodesia to Mr. Smith. Mr. Speaker, what else could this Government have done? There have been no suggestions from that side of the House. I notice that there is a campaign afoot to send free petrol to Rhodesia. I just want to say that as for me and my house, we will support that campaign to the utmost, and if the hon. member for Yeoville really wishes to help Rhodesia, he will do the same and keep quiet and not embarrass Mr. Smith with his affected love for Rhodesia. His affected indignation impresses nobody. I think in these days Mr. Smith is offering a silent prayer in which he says: “Lord, I can deal with Wilson, but save me from my friends in the Opposition of South Africa.”

What is the Opposition’s second charge against the Government? Their second charge is that we have put a stop to prosperity—“we bungled the boom”—and that we did so because certain steps had to be taken against inflation. But that is what has been done throughout the Western world; it has been done throughout Europe. Here is an article which appeared in the Rand Daily Mail of 17 December last year, in which the following is stated—

Then the article goes on to deal with the position of West Germany—

Have they also bungled the boom? What is the position as regards France? I quote again—

That is what has happened in those countries. Have all those Governments bungled their booms? Is only this Opposition clever enough to maintain a boom without running any serious risk of inflation? So it seems, for at one of their congresses they adopted this slogan for the next election: “We can govern better.” Govern better than what? Mr. Speaker, they are governing two things at present. They are governing their Party at present, and if all the disasters which befell their party during the past 17 years had befallen South Africa, I wonder what South Africa’s position would have been to-day. But they are governing something else as well. They are governing the largest city in South Africa. They are governing the city of Johannesburg, and what are they doing there? They are building a parking garage for hundreds of thousands of rands, a parking garage which is useless. If you park your car in there to-night, you cannot be sure that you will get it out next week. That parking garage is a white elephant and I believe the latest suggestion is that it should be converted into a chicken coop. But another responsibility of theirs is the Johannesburg zoo. At the end of last year two of the zoo’s leading scientists resigned on the grounds that Johannesburg had never known such a mess as the management of that zoo. One of the scientists then said that there was a poor orang-outang that had had a toothache for three years and that they could not cure his toothache. The poor orang-outang eventually died of that toothache. Now, if they cannot cure an orang-outang’s toothache, how can they cure South Africa’s toothache? And the biggest disaster that could befall South Africa, the worst toothache it could have, is a United Party Government. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing at all wrong with our economy. In support of that I do not want to quote authorities from our circles; I want to quote authorities from their circles. This is a report of the Assocom Congress—

During 18 of which we were in power—

A world record, and this comes from Assocom. What better testimonial could we have to the way in which the Government is managing economy? Measured by all standards our economy is extremely sound. As far as I am concerned, it is almost too sound in certain respects. Our economy is exactly like certain men and women; it has begun to develop rolls of fat where there should be none. But to give you some idea of how our economy is doing, here is the Star of 6th January—

Does that look like an unsound economy, and does that look as though there is poverty in the country? Here is an article in the Burger in which Dr. Rabie, the Director of Exports, states that our target of raising the value of South African exports by 1970 will be exceeded by far and the Government’s development programme will be fully realized if the progress made in 1965/6 can be maintained. Does that look like an unsound economy? Does that look like a boom which has been bungled? The share market is good. The one criterion for any economy is whether there are any unemployed persons in the country, and there is no unemployment in South Africa. There is a shortage of manpower and a shortage of unskilled labour. That shows how sound our economy is, in spite of the incredible drought we have been experiencing in South Africa. If all those factors are taken into consideration, this Government’s economic record is almost a miracle. Judging by the way the Opposition is behaving, one would think there was poverty in the country. They talk about serious economic problems, but our economic problems are those of prosperity and not of adversity. Here I want to read to you a brilliant summary made by Mr. H. A. Williams, Managing Director of Union Acceptances Limited, in an article in the latest edition of The Condenser. This is what he says—

And then he concludes with the following—

This is the testimonial we received from their ranks and that is why I say that on 30 March we are going to ask the people for a mandate to continue with this type of economic development.

What is their second charge? It is that this Government is responsible for South Africa’s bad name in the world, and for the disfavour we encounter in the UNO. Yesterday the hon. the Prime Minister dealt with the circumstances under which we may leave the UNO, and then it was said by way of interjection: “Yes, that is as a result of your policy.” Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition spoke of so-called petty apartheid, of the Independence incident, and he said that this is the type of thing which gives us a bad name in the world. What a childish analysis of the position! Take the case of Rhodesia. If Rhodesia had a harbour, they would have admitted the Independence. They would have allowed Negro airmen to land anywhere. If Rhodesia had a tracking station, they would have allowed Negroes to go there, and if they had Springboks, Rhodesia would have played against the Maoris. But what would that have helped Rhodesia? Even before Rhodesia became an independent state, it could find only two countries in the UNO to stand by it, and they were Portugal and the Republic of South Africa. Now that they have declared themselves independent it is still only the same two countries which are standing by Rhodesia. All the others are seeking only to destroy Rhodesia. And Rhodesia has already made all the concessions the Leader of the Opposition wants us to make in this country. The Federation made all those concessions, and many more than the Leader of the Opposition is at present prepared to make. But what became of the Federation? There it is, in fragments. Two-thirds of it has Black governments. Rhodesia itself has 15 Black persons to represent Black people in its Parliament. Is that of any help to Rhodesia as regards popularity in the world? But that is what the Leader of the Opposition offers us. What he so tragically fails to see is that the fight against South Africa is not a fight against the policy of this Government or a fight against apartheid, but a fight against the continued existence of a White nation in Africa. The world has decided once and for all that a White minority should simply not be allowed to govern a Black majority. That is the challenge we are facing. Now I want to know whose policy will best meet that challenge, the policy of the United Party or our policy? Mr. Speaker, I suggest they make up their minds, they should stop trifling with the public. They see the race problem in South Africa in only two possible ways. The first—and that is their real viewpoint—is that they regard the survival of an independent White nation in Southern Africa as something temporary. If that is not what they stand for, their policy implies mastership over and suppression of and discrimination against the Bantu and the Coloureds and the Indians for all time. They must decide which one they want. Their real policy is founded on the belief that a White nation in South Africa will at best survive only temporarily and will then be absorbed by the Black majorities, and I say that for two reasons. In the first place I say that as a result of statements made by the hon. member for Yeoville and by the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member for Yeoville said the other day: “We of the United Party guarantee White leadership for at least the next decade.” The hon. Leader of the Opposition said: “We guarantee White leadership for at least the foreseeable future.” That is the entire basis of their approach and their policy and their plans; that is the entire basis of their approach to this problem, that the White nation in South Africa will survive only temporarily. That is why they have no objection to integration. That is why they have no objection to gradual integration in all fields, whether in the economic or the political or even the social fields. The second reason why I say it is their policy that the White nation will survive here only temporarily, is that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) said last year that if the United Party came into power, they would abolish compulsory apartheid at least as far as the Coloureds were concerned. What does that mean? It simply means that one should give the Coloureds absolutely equal rights, whether on a separate roll or on the Common Roll. And if one grants equal rights to the Coloureds, one should also grant them to the Indians and to the Bantu. I submit that it is inherent in their policy that the Bantu will be represented in this House by Bantu. It is inherent in their policy, because they said that they will allow it if it is decided by referendum. If it is not inherent in their policy, why do they speak of a referendum? If they do not envisage Bantu sitting in this House, why do they speak of a referendum? Then surely they could just keep quiet; then they simply do not hold a referendum. But it is inherent in their policy that Bantu will be represented in this House by Bantu, and if one has Bantu in this, the highest council in the country, how will one exclude them from the lower councils such as the provincial councils and the party councils? I make this statement more in sorrow than in anger. Put the Leader of the Opposition into power to-morrow and within ten years South Africa will have a Black prime minister. Not because he wants that, but because they offer exactly the same policy as that which Sir Roy Welensky offered Rhodesia it will have a Black prime minister, not because they are so anxious to have one, but because their policy must inevitably lead to it.

What is the viewpoint of the Nationalist Party? The Nationalist Party totally rejects the philosophy of the temporariness of the White nation in South Africa. We reject the idea “let us try to survive as long as we possibly can”. We reject the idea of “let us survive as a White nation for the next decade or for the foreseeable future”. The National Party believes that the White nation of Southern Africa has an inalienable right of survival here, like any other nation in Africa and in the rest of the world. And these are the merits of the Nationalist Party, that we are the only Party which faces the inexorable facts of Africa squarely. We are the only Party which realizes that with the possible exception of Rhodesia and the Portuguese territories, the Republic of South Africa will within five years be the only independent White nation on the entire Continent of Africa. We must accept that. That is not our choice, these are the facts of Africa. Now, what is the Nationalist Party’s vision for Africa and for Southern Africa in particular? As I said last year, I do not believe the Protectorates are ready for independence, but that is no concern of ours. The Prime Minister suggested something else in that regard. But I believe that the assumption of independence by the Protectorates which is now imminent will within the first year establish a totally new order in Southern Africa. We shall have to live with those people as good neighbours and in peace. But it is equally important that they will have to live with us as good neighbours and in peace, because we are interdependent. As was outlined to us by the Prime Minister, we envisage a loose association of Southern African states which could negotiate with one another on matters of common interest. The hon. member for Yeoville was wide of the mark yesterday when he said that the Prime Minister did not think it would work. The Prime Minister said exactly the opposite. He said it would work. But if it developed along the same lines as the other Commonwealth did, we would not allow ourselves to be pushed around. That was the Prime Minister’s attitude. In this loose association of states in Southern Africa, the Republic of South Africa would remain the leader, not because it is White and not because it would force its leadership upon the other states, but because Southern Africa would want it to remain the leader. It would be the leader on the basis of merit. It would remain the leader because it would be in the interest of those states as much as in our own interest. Actually it is self-evident that the Republic of South Africa should remain the leader, since we are by far the strongest in all fields, the strongest both in the military field and in the field of economics, and we have the most highly developed civilization on the Continent of Africa. We are the most advanced country in the fields of science and education. But at the same time that imposes a tremendously heavy responsibility upon us. We are to retain leadership on the basis of merit, it imposes on us the responsibility of making the largest contribution to the spiritual and material welfare of Southern Africa, and we are going to make that contribution, as the Prime Minister has demonstrated time and again. We shall do our best to assist our under-developed neighbours by word and deed, and that applies to the Protectorates and to our own Bantu homelands. It applies to Rhodesia, to Zambia, to Malawi. It applies to the Coloureds and also to the Indians. Mr. Speaker, I am filled with hope, for the Prime Minister of Malawi has already said that he will have nothing to do with boycotts against Southern Africa. The Prime Minister of Zambia has already said that he is too dependent upon South Africa to take part in boycotts. So the signs are there. Whether they agree with our policy or not is of no significance. England does not agree with France’s policy. France does not agree with Germany’s policy. Germany does not agree with Italy’s policy. But that does not mean that they cannot co-operate in one Common Market. In the same way we shall co-operate with these countries. That is our task. That is the challenge we see, and for that we shall ask the people for a mandate. Here in Southern Africa we shall build the most prosperous, most orderly, most developed and most peaceful country on the whole Continent of Africa.

Mr. Speaker, will that make no impression on the world? Will that not enable us to break through to the other countries in Africa? Will it not enable us to break through to the rest of the world? That is why I maintain that we shall not make the fatal mistake which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has made. We shall not try to buy the favour of the world by making concessions which must result in the ruin of the White nation in South Africa. That is the course being adopted by the Leader of the Opposition. We shall compel the favour of the world—not buy it, but compel it—by proving that our policy is the only one which can bring about a peaceful, orderly, prosperous Southern Africa. The only policy which can ensure that is the policy of separate freedom. That is by no means an easy course to follow. It is a course which will present us with problems, but not problems arising out of the policy of this Government. They are problems we will be faced with in any event, irrespective of which party is in power, because we are surrounded by Black states, a state of affairs for which we are not responsible. These problems will arise out of the fact that we are the only White child on the Continent of Africa, and we shall simply have to face those facts.

That, Sir, is why the Nationalist Party’s message is one of hope and courage. It is one of hope, one which faces up to the facts of Africa, and that is why on 30 March the National Party will return to this House with its biggest majority ever.

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) started off his speech by saying that he had never heard a more irresponsible speech than that of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). I will deal with his remarks about the hon. member for Yeoville in due course. He then went on to show how responsible he himself had become. We had heard that he was going to stop his irresponsibilities in the House because he was the next in line for promotion to the Cabinet. All I want to say, Sir, is that we much preferred him as he was in the old days when he sat on those benches over there, attacking this side.

Then at least he was natural.

He was natural then, yes. The hon. member started off by saying, in reply to the hon. member for Yeoville, that the test of the Government’s Rhodesian policy was whether Mr. Smith was satisfied, or not. He said Mr. Smith was satisfied, and therefore the Government’s attitude must be the correct one. But I should like to put the following point to him. Mr. Wilson is also satisfied with this Government’s attitude. Now, what is the test? Mr. Wilson is satisfied and Mr. Smith is also satisfied.

Zambia is also satisfied.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, even Zambia is satisfied. Indeed Zambia is more than satisfied after the hon. the Prime Minister made it quite clear that, irrespective of what Rhodesia thought, he would supply them with coal and any other commodity they might need. So. Mr. Speaker, all the warring parties are satisfied.

Do you want us to apply sanctions to Zambia?

No. I am replying to the member for Vereeniging. The only reply the hon. member for Vereeniging made was this: That the test was whether Mr. Smith was satisfied. That was the only test. The Prime Minister, too, gave no other reply. He offered his sympathy, yes, but he gave no other reply than the hon. member for Vereeniging has given. Now, this is an obvious reply: We knew they were going to say that Mr. Smith is satisfied and, therefore, it is the correct attitude to adopt. Well, I say what about it? Wilson is satisfied, Kaunda is satisfied. The hon. member for Vereeniging said that we should keep our mouths shut, the hon. member for Yeoville should keep his mouth shut, because it had nothing to do with us. We say, Sir, we are vitally interested. That is our complaint against the Government, against the hon. the Prime Minister, against the Nationalist Party as a whole. It means so much to us that the Prime Minister should have done something more. He should try to use his influence to bring about a settlement of the dispute in Rhodesia. It is idle for him to say he will not take part in their dispute, because he has done so already. He has condemned the British Government’s attitude, its policy, with regard to Rhodesia. And once he did that he was taking sides. I say, Sir, it is not too late. The hon. the Prime Minister must still try and use his good offices. Because somebody has to intervene in this situation to avoid chaos.

The hon. member for Vereeniging then dealt with the economic position. He quoted several extracts from speeches and articles saying that the country’s economy had never been better, that the boom was still in full swing. Well, I should like to ask the hon. member for Vereeniging whether we are imagining the application of a credit squeeze at the moment. Do we imagine that?

The economy is sound.

The economy cannot be anything else but sound, bearing in mind all our mineral wealth. It has been mismanaged, mismanaged by this Government. And what does the hon. member for Vereeniging, the responsible member who now wants to get into the Cabinet, then do, Sir? He criticized the Johannesburg United Party City Council. He tried to persuade the electorate that the United Party could not manage the economy of this country. He referred to a muddle in the zoo. I did not know there was a muddle in the zoo up there. He mentioned some muddle in a zoo. He referred to some parking muddle. That, Sir, is how far his intelligence goes: To parking muddles and zoos! And now he is trying to get into the Cabinet!

I do not have sufficient time to reply to all the misrepresentations of our policy. I can forgive some of the hon. members for misrepresenting our policy, because they are used to saying those things. But the hon. member was once a member of our Party, Sir, and he knows what our policy is, he knows what our attitude is.

And because I did not like it I resigned.

I am sorry, that is not the reason why the hon. member resigned. I am not going into the whole history, but the hon. member did not leave the United Party because of our Native policy. I want to remind the hon. member that when he broke with us the policy of the Nationalist Party was one of apartheid. In 1948 the slogan was apartheid. At the time we asked what it meant, and there was a difference of opinion between the present Prime Minister and the then Prime Minister, the late Dr. Malan. We tried to find out what it meant. Mr. William Stuart who was then a member representing the Natives said that, as far as he could see, apart from hate it meant nothing. And, Sir, we have not been able to find out yet what apartheid means. What was the policy of the late Mr. Strydom? It was one of baasskap. The hon. member for Vereeniging fits easily into either or both—apartheid or baasskap—and now that those words are both taboo he fits in with separate development! When the hon. member made his maiden speech he put up a tremendous plea, a good plea, a sound plea, for the retention of proportional representation when electing the executive committee of the provincial council.

I never did.

But of course the hon. member did. I read it again this morning to refresh my memory. Because, Sir, what surprised me was when the Government abolished that representation we did not hear a single word of protest from the hon. member. Again he changed over. It is so easy for him to change from one policy or view to another.

The hon. member dealt with the Native policy of the Government. We now have separate development, ostensibly development of the different race groups to a state of complete equality. Except, of course, for the Coloureds and Indians! I am sorry, Sir, that the hon. member did not tell us more about the Coloured and Indians when he dealt with their policy. The Black and White groups will develop alongside each other in separate states, but with this difference: In a Black state there will be no White people, and in the White state the majority will be Black people. They pay lip service to apartheid by passing laws. Laws are passed so that in theory the Black people will be in the Black areas whilst all the White people will be in the White areas. And to prove to the people that they are in ernest, they pass laws every year. Many laws are passed to send the Africans away from the White areas back to the Native areas. But, Sir, if anybody believed that these laws—and some of them are harsh and harshly applied— are effective, he must indeed be blind, because all you have to do is walk down the street in any town in South Africa, of drive anywhere in the platteland, and you will see Africans predominating where there were no Africans in 1948.

Every year the Government itself, through its own recruiting agencies, imports more and more Africans from the reserves into the White areas. In fact, the latest tendency has been that more Natives were recruited within the first three months of the year than in the whole of the previous year. And, Sir, we find now that so many of these Africans are coming into the White areas, into industrial areas, that the mines have had to take more foreign Native labour and less local labour. That is because the Africans first go to the industrial areas because the industries can compete better than the mines on the labour market. We have fishing and diamond projects in the Cape using Native labour where Natives were never seen before! These companies obtain special permits to enable them to do so, as hon. members on that side can tell you, Mr. Speaker. They obtain special permits for Natives to come down and work in these diamond and fishing concerns. There is no shortage of Native labour, no shortage at all. And why, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is there no shortage of Native labour? Because of the failure of the Government’s policy. The Natives in the reserves are compelled to leave those areas to seek work, otherwise they would starve in the reserves. And that is the result of the government’s policy of refusing to allow White capital and initiative to enter the reserves to create a market for the Natives in the reserves. Why is there such a call for labour, why is there such a shortage of labour? Why is there such a demand for labour? Again because of the folly of the Government’s policy. It is a result of the Government abolishing our immigration policy and scrapping the Smuts plan. And now we find there is a shortage of all types off labour.

What was the criticism of the Nationalist Party and the present Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in 1948? We are facing an election again, and I want to go back to the year 1948 when they won their first election. What were the hon. the Minister’s criticisms then? He accused this side of being “kafferboeties”. How they squirm when they hear that word now! They alleged that we were spending too much money on improving the quality of the stock. They accused us of spending too much money in developing the reserves. I have here a photostatic copy of an election manifesto put out by the hon. the Minister. I see him smiling. No doubt he remembers and he is now ashamed. I quote from the heading of the manifesto—

The third subject dealt with is immigration—

We did not have to spend money running all over the world looking for them. We did not have to send our Ministers on joy-rides overseas looking for them. They came of their own accord and, what is more, they paid their own passages. I quote further—

Item 6 refers to the future of workers—

Now, where are these “gevestigde werkkringe”? The manifesto goes on to deal with money spent on education under the heading—

The item deals with education, pensions and improvements. Of the latter it is stated—

We were criticized for spending too much on these and other services. And now, Sir, money is being poured into the reserves. Why, the Transkei has become a bottomless pit. It is swallowing millions and millions of rand every year. Some of the money is wisely spent, but some is not so wisely spent. The hon. the Minister will know. And now, Sir, after these attacks on us for being “kafferboeties”, the chickens are coming home to roost. Their followers became indoctrinated and built up a resistance against spending money on Africans. And now the contemptuous term of “kafferboetie” has boomeranged and is being used not by the United Party but by their own followers! They were taught to throw that boomerang by their masters here, and now it is coming back to them. The hon. the Minister has been attacked as Minister, and I say that it is to his credit that he can take it no longer and now he is getting out. He does not see why he should get all the blame. Why should the hon. the Prime Minister and other hon. Ministers, those who sit back and say nothing, not take some of the blame with the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration? It is quite wrong that he alone should be made the scapegoat. There sits the hon. the Prime Minister, the real originator of the plan. He rather than the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration should be banned.

The United Party Government were developing the reserves in the face of objections raised by the Opposition of the time. We were going to develop industries in the reserves and did not merely pay lip service to it. No, Sir, we did things. We acted. We were “kragdadig” and not this Government. We built a large textile factory, the Good Hope Textile Factory, at Zwelitsha. And would you believe it, Mr. Speaker, to-day it is the showplace of this Government. They take Africans from other parts of the continent and all our foreign visitors to that factory to show them what they are doing to the reserves. I remember the time when this hon. the Prime Minister was still Minister of Native Affairs. He was going to excise this factory to outside the reserve because it was wrong to have it located inside the reserve! He was going to put it back into a White area. But he has not done so yet. I do not know why not.

They are now building a dam at Qamata in the Transkei. And they are very proud of it too. It is in fact a beautiful scheme and has many potentialities. A huge area in the vicinity can be developed agriculturally. But the fact is that this scheme was thought out in 1945 already. In March 1948, the final blueprint was prepared by Mr. Fox-Smith, the engineer of the Bunga at the time. That was just before the election. But do you know, Sir, the Government kept quiet and did nothing about the scheme until about 1960 or 1961. I am not quite sure about the year when they started the scheme. Over ten years they wasted. Another Orange River scheme blunder! All that land could have been under cultivation by now. We would have had many more Africans subsisting on the land had they carried on with our suggestions and our policies.

What has taken place under this Government? How are they going to take the Natives back to the reserves? The hon. the Minister himself admitted, when replying to a question last year, that since 1948 they have supplied work, additional work, in the Transkei for only 1,089 Natives. That is over a period of 17 years. That does not even take care of the natural increase in one district. Admittedly they are now busy building a meat factory which might, according to a reply given by the hon. the Minister last year, employ between an additional 200 and 400 Bantu. Over the period of 18 years of rule by this Government the reserves have stagnated. Admittedly money has been poured into those territories in recent years, but it has happened too late to have any effect on employment offered to the increased and still increasing Bantu population. In the result, therefore, the economic development has been a failure.

And what of the political developments? The Bantu Authorities policy was applied. It was introduced in the Transkei by the present Prime Minister as an experiment. A revolutionary change was brought about in the Transkei, and this has now become the Nationalist Party policy. We have the establishment of Bantustans which will eventually be granted independence. But this revolutionary change was brought about without any mandate from the people. The people were never asked whether they agreed with this policy. That was not that party’s policy when the hon. the Prime Minister won the 1961 election. Neither was it the policy in 1958. Had the electorate been consulted they would have rejected the scheme. And this Government knows that one of the main differences between it and its followers to-day is this policy of granting self-government to the Transkei. I am not going to deal with all the dangers inherent in the policy because I have not the time. But I do want to deal with a few things which we mentioned when the Act was passed.

I want to know, Mr. Speaker, how differences between the two governments are going to be solved? We were not told when the Act was passed. I want to know now. Can the hon. the Minister tell us, now that the Act is in operation? Can he tell us what has happened to the Liquor Act passed by the Transkei Government in April or May of last year, but which has not yet been proclaimed? And it has not been proclaimed for obvious reasons. Because in terms of that Liquor Bill there are no prohibited persons. Discrimination is done away with. Black and White can all go into the same hotels. But until that Act is proclaimed the present liquor proclamation in respect of the Transkei applies. In terms of that proclamation no Bantu may own an hotel. He may not even sell liquor. At the present time he may not even get accommodation or refreshments.

Now, Sir, with the zoning that has taken place a number of hotels have been zoned within Black areas. There were two hotels situated in Black areas before zoning took place. They were in rural areas. In one case the owner, a widow, wanted to sell, but she was unable to sell because the Department concerned would not agree to a White man buying it. The Bantu Investment Corporation offered to buy it, but, of course, they cannot as the law does not allow it to buy hotels. So there the poor widow is sitting, unable to sell to anyone.

Then we have the case of Mr. Ndamse, the former Fort Hare lecturer. He has been banned and cannot teach. He is confined to the municipal area of Umtata. Yet the Transkeian Government has appointed him to a very senior post. What is going to happen if the Transkeian Government says he must take up his appointment whilst this Government says he dare not because it has banned him? I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us something about this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I say the whole Transkei plan was badly conceived. It was rushed through without due consideration being given to all the difficulties which could arise. And the biggest headache of all now is the zoning of the villages. All the difficulties facing the Government are because of the White man, because they do not know what to do with him. They want him there because his presence is essential. But all their laws and our traditional way of life have to go by the board if their policies are carried out. I will tell you why.

Yesterday the hon. the Prime Minister said nobody could be more sympathetic towards White people whose position is threatened than members of this Government. What nonsense, Sir! What nonsense! What sympathy has he shown towards the White people in the Transkei? There has been no sympathy from this hon. Minister nor from the hon. the Deputy Minister. He said through the years the Opposition had been attacking them when they defended the White man in Africa. I say: What rot! Can he give us any instance? I asked him, and he could not give us a single instance. But we can give him instances where he has neglected the White man, where he has sold the White man down the river. When we asked him about the Transkei, he gave us no reply yesterday. He asked how anyone could dare to try and impress upon the public of South Africa that the Government believed people to be expendable. I said to him, “What about the Transkei?”. For obvious reasons he did not answer me. He said the hon. member for Yeoville had made a dastardly accusation. Well, Sir, I say there is nothing dastardly about it. Because it is quite true. The hon, the Prime Minister said the following:

If the hon. the Prime Minister believes that, well, then that is his belief. But why then does he want to bring chaos upon the Transkei? Why does he want to bring chaos on all the other reserves? Why is he offering to give Black rule there if he thinks it can only end in chaos? He says it does not apply only to the immediate future but also to an undefined future time.

Part of the Prime Minister’s dilemma over Rhodesia, of course, is also this matter, Sir. Because he and Mr. Wilson have the same policy! Mr. Wilson wants to give his colonies independence, and so does this Prime Minister. At present Mr. Wilson does not want to apply the principle of “one man, one vote” in Rhodesia. But this Prime Minister has already done so. How can that side then attack the policy of “one man, one vote”, when the Prime Minister has already applied it? The only instance of “one man, one vote” ever being accorded in South Africa is in the case of the Transkei. Why does he hate the Transkei so much, as to want and bring about chaos in that territory? His own words were that it will result in chaos if control is given to the Black man.

Mr. Speaker, what are they going to do about the areas now zoned for black occupation? The smaller villages have been completely zoned Black and the larger villages in part. In Umtata a huge residential area has been zoned Black. We have waited years for this zoning. It is not something which has been sprung upon us. Once the hon. the Prime Minister made his statement in 1952 the question arose of how the villages were going to become Black. He said they were going to be zoned. From that time onwards, Sir, the villages languished because there were no property sales. When the Transkei Constitution Act was passed in 1963 special mention was made of zoning. Special provision was made for it. And yet nothing was done. And the villagers sat, unable to sell their property. Eventually, on the last day of last year, three weeks ago, the zoning plans came out.

Now, Sir, how are the White people in the villages to be compensated? In terms of the White Paper the hon. the Minister, the Government, has undertaken to compensate the people in black zoned areas, to assist them in disposing of their property. They should be told at once. These people are sitting there in the villages, knowing that only Natives can buy—unless the hon. the Minister gives his approval—in the Black areas. Natives can buy anywhere in the Black areas. Why should we in the Transkei be a sacrifice? Because not only do we have to sacrifice our businesses there, but we are also sacrificing our way of living. Under this policy, Sir, unless the Government buys up all the properties in the areas zoned Black, it will be forcing residential integration on the people there. It will be compelling White and non-White to live alongside each other. Because if a Black man buys and a White man living alongside him cannot sell, he will have no alternative but to live alongside the Black man.

There are many people living in these villages who do not want to leave. They are old; they have spent all their lives there. They put all their savings into buying their little properties. And now they find their traditional way of life has been swept by the board, and this Government is forcing integration on them. Therefore, Sir, they must be given an opportunity to go elsewhere.

Now, it must be remembered that if those people have to sell their homes they must be enabled to buy homes elsewhere. So I hope the hon. the Minister is going to compensate them generously and enable them to establish themselves elsewhere in a White area where they can choose the people with whom they want to live.

There is an inordinate delay in compensating the traders. Every hardship that the trader suffered, has also been suffered by the villager. But his position is worse. The trader can never be compelled to live alongside a man of a different race. He can live out on his trading station if he is not prepared to accept the Government’s compensation. But the villager is not in that position. He is compelled to stay where he is unless this Government offers to buy his station.

Why couldn’t the Government have told us when they published that proclamation how they were going to compensate? At the present time negotiations are taking place for the sale of properties. Some villagers are worried that they may not be able to sell their properties. The Natives have not much money, although some are going around making offers for property. And the ordinary villager is inclined to accept anything so that he can at least get something from the wreck. If the Government does intend stepping in eventually and compensating people, it should tell them now before the sacrifices are made instead of waiting for a couple of years. Let the Government tell the villagers now how they are going to be compensated so that they will know where they stand. There are not sufficient Africans with money to buy up all the areas zoned Black in the Transkei. The Africans cannot afford to buy; they can only buy with the assistance of this Government. They cannot even get loans from building societies because their salaries are too small to repay the loans. It is essential therefore for this Government to come to light at once. Sir, as I have said, this thing was not sprung upon them overnight. The Prime Minister spoke about it fourteen years ago, and this Minister made provision for it in the Constitution Act in 1963. They should have known what the position was. They should be fair to us and tell us at once what they are going to do.

The hon. the Prime Minister referred to Chief Victor Poto yesterday and suggested that we had the same policy. That, of course, is not true. I want to warn the Prime Minister that he is going to have much more trouble from his protegee than we will ever have from Victor Poto. The Prime Minister is already having the troubles about which we warned him. The impression is now being given to all African political leaders that if they want to get anywhere they must accept separate development. Chief Kaiser Matanzima is an example. The other Africans notice that V.I.P. treatment is given to him. He goes to cities like Port Elizabeth, Durban, Johannesburg and then all the apartheid laws go by the board. Mixed parties are not banned then. In the case of other people mixed parties are banned but not in the case of the cabinet of the Transkei. [Time limit.]

I can honestly say that I have been most disappointed at the performance of the United Party since yesterday afternoon. We are on the eve of a very important election, and in the case of all the Oppositions we have ever had in this House we found that the Opposition Party at least placed its colour policy before South Africa prior to elections and were not afraid to do so. We have now had a few speeches by leaders of the Opposition Party and not one of them had the courage to get up here and to make a positive contribution in respect of their policy in connection with this great problem.

But that is not true. Did you not hear what my hon. Leader said?

The hon. Leader of the Opposition said nothing. He did not state his policy in connection with this matter. I say that this is the first time that we have found an Opposition Party to have so little courage before an election. However, I have observed a second phenomenon here this afternoon: The election has not even started yet and the hon. member for the Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) is already overcome by fear, for the speech he made this afternoon is nothing but a speech of fear. Even now he is afraid that he will not make the grade in the Transkeian Territories.

I am afraid for the unfortunate Whites of the Transkei.

No, he is afraid of losing his seat. I should like to say immediately that there are very few people in the Transkei who have done the Transkei a greater disservice than the hon. member for Transkeian Territories, not only the Whites of the Transkei, because you should not forget, Mr. Speaker, that he did everything in his ability to intimidate the Whites, to encourage them to make irresponsible statements, to drive them out of the Transkei as soon as possible.

Everything I said was correct.

I shall deal with that presently. The hon. member did not only render the Whites of the Transkei a disservice, but also the Bantu of the Transkei. There are few people in the Transkei who have done as much as that hon. member to disturb the good relations between the Whites and the Bantu in the Transkei. I could furnish you to-day with a long list of the nasty things the hon. member repeatedly said about the Bantu and the Transkei, of the wild accusations he made against Kaiser Matanzima and George Matanzima and Heaven knows who else, except, of course, against Poto. Poto has now told him quite frankly what his policy is. I should like to add immediately that I do not for one moment believe that the speech made here before the Race Relations Institute reflects Poto’s views. No, in that one heard the voice of Jacob but one saw the hand of Esau. I have no doubt that that speech was inspired by the Institute of Race Relations, of which the hon. member also happens to be a great supporter.

That is an untruth; I am not even a member.

I should like to pause briefly to deal with my own election manifesto of 1948. I still abide by every word I said there and for the following reason I shall say it again: In the first place, the policy of the United Party was the following: Everything they did at that time, they did for the Bantu; they did nothing through the Bantu themselves, with the result that it was a total failure. They achieved virtually no results from the number of bulls they had purchased. Many of those bulls were slaughtered within a fortnight. That was the result because the Bantu had no idea as to how to set about things—not to mention the cocks and things of that nature. On the contrary, we were successful because we allowed the Bantu to share in this process of development; that was the key to our success. Hence one sees these fine results in the Bantu areas to-day. One sees these fine results in all spheres and not merely in respect of stock. Without fear of contradiction, I should like to say this afternoon that the results achieved by this Government in the development of the Bantu areas really are far better than the results achieved in the rest of Africa. I challenge any person to deny this. Our results in the Bantu areas, in every sphere, are simply fantastic. Take the Transkei, for instance. We are not proud of the Transkei only, but also of the Ciskei. We are proud of the results we achieved there in the development and the conservation of the soil and the improvement of stock. Those results are wonderful.

After 18 years.

The hon. member should not forget that those were difficult years. We were faced with one major problem and that was that many of the Bantu expected us to do the same as the United Party had done, and that was to pursue a policy of spoon-feeding the Bantu. We simply could not continue that policy because it did not yield results, and for that reason we adopted this policy through which we have achieved these excellent results. I maintain that we have every reason to be proud and grateful throughout South Africa to-day. I do not want to occupy the time of the House unnecessarily by pointing out all the results we have achieved, but one may go to Zululand, to the Northern Transvaal and to any part of South Africa to see what has been done there. Take the Northern Transvaal, for instance, where we had a state of emergency; terrible drought conditions prevailed there, and in spite of that I am able to boast to-day that through self-help we have built more than 100 dams in the Bantu areas of the Northern Transvaal, dams which are beautiful pieces of workmanship and which bear testimony to the grand results which we have achieved. At present, after the rains, most of those dams are full. There are many White parts which cannot boast of such an achievement.

It is for that very reason that we are complaining.

These results were achieved because the Bantu in those parts were taught to co-operate; because they practiced self-help. We achieved that with the minimum of expenditure for South Africa.

The hon. member for the Transkeian Territories said here that our entire economic development was a failure.

No, I did not say that.

If he did not say that, he implied it. He said that they, the United Party Government, had acted with vigour.

Yes, that is correct.

Their vigour consisted in buying a few shrivelled up bulls and building three or four dams—and very small dams they were at that. They could not show any results. I should like to give the hon. member this reply, and I challenge him to deny it: Never before in the history of South Africa has so much been achieved in the field of economics in regard to the development of the Bantu areas as in the past decade.

But you spent a great deal of money.

Nobody can deny that; everybody who visits those areas admits that. I should like to return to the hon. member’s accusation in connection with the Transkei. I repeat that the part he played in this affair was not a pretty one. The hon. member knows our policy in the Transkei; it was put very clearly by the hon. the Prime Minister and it was also put very clearly here when we adopted the Transkeian Constitution; there was no doubt about it. We stated throughout what treatment both the Whites and the Bantu were going to receive in the Transkei. For the information of this House I should just like to say to-day that the co-operation we received in the Transkei, on the part of the Bantu as well on the part of the vast majority of the Whites, was of such a nature that we have reason to be very grateful. I shall presently mention a few examples. But the hon. member did everything in his power …

That is not true.

The hon. member has not even heard what I want to say, but it is out of sheer jumpiness that he makes such remarks. He did everything in his ability to wreck that co-operation.

That is not true.

Allow me to mention just one example. When we sent the zoning committee to the Transkei, the hon. member went along and made a moving appeal to the Whites not to co-operate.

That is not true.

That is so. What about the Daily Despatch?

What about the Daily Despatch? Prove it.

I can prove that; I proved it last year. In the Daily Despatch the hon. member appealed to the Whites not to co-operate. I shall get hold of the Daily Despatch in question and read it out once again. I say that on the part of the Whites and on the part of the Bantu we received co-operation that was really an inspiration to us. Mr. Speaker, a committee appointed for the purpose and on which two White representatives of the Transkei served, paid a visit to the Transkei. They were responsible people who enjoyed the confidence of the people of the Transkei. This committee visited all these places, and in spite of all the predictions made, this matter went off beautifully throughout the entire investigation. In all the cities the best of co-operation was to be found between the Whites and the Bantu. Eventually the committee brought out a report. That report was signed unanimously, with the exception of Umtata where one person brought out a minority report because he did not want to zone off a larger part of Umtata for the Bantu; other than that, that report was entirely unanimous. I merely say this in order to give the House an idea of the propaganda made there in connection with the zoning in the Transkei. In particular one should have a clear picture of the smaller towns in the Transkei. The hon. member ought to know that the position in the smaller towns at present is that there are mixed living quarters. In virtually all of those towns Whites and Bantu have been occupying mixed living quarters all these years. The hon. member cannot deny that. What we are doing here at present is to put a stop to that residential mixing of the races. The accusation was made here that we are now integrating the Whites and the Bantu. This accusation was once again made here this afternoon. No, the position is just the opposite.

For the first time we are now getting proper separation between the Whites and the Bantu in the Transkei. With the exception of a very small percentage of the Bantu, they all come along thanking us for the steps that were taken. It was decided that a number of these smaller towns should immediately become entirely Black zones, and that was done because in practice it is absolutely impossible to zone them White and non-White. This residential mixing of the races is of such a nature that it would only mean the greatest disruption if one zoned the towns for Whites and non-Whites; it would mean disruption for everybody. But this is the best part of all; in regard to this matter both the Whites—and not only the people who gave evidence before this committee—and the Bantu were absolutely unanimous.

I do not dispute that.

The impression was created here and in the Press, too, that we were making the integration between the Whites and the Bantu compulsory. It was said here a moment ago. As far as Elliotdale. Flagstaff, Libode, Lusikisiki and Ngqeleni are concerned, the local authorities as well as the White and Bantu taxpayers and the Bantu of the districts asked that these towns should be set aside in their entirety for Bantu occupation or ownership. In regard to this there was absolute unanimity amongst all the Whites. There was not a single White person who objected to this. As far as Cala is concerned, all the White taxpayers—and there was a multitude of them at this meeting—requested that the entire town should be set aside for Bantu occupation or ownership. However, the municipality was of the opinion that a part of it should not be set aside. Cala is a town in which the Bantu and the Whites have been occupying mixed living quarters for many years, and it would be unrealistic not to set it aside in its entirety. Eventually unanimity was reached even on that point. In the case of Mount Fletcher the chairman of the town council as well as all the White and Bantu taxpayers and inhabitants who gave evidence, requested that the entire town should be set aside for Bantu occupation or ownership. That is the natural course of events.

As far as Nqamakwe is concerned, the local authority requested that a very small part of the town should be set aside for the Whites. Three Whites living in that area came to the meeting and said, “For Heaven’s sake, include us, too, so that our part may also be set aside,” and then there was absolute unanimity. Only in the case of Umtata was there a difference. We investigated this matter very thoroughly and we zoned it so that we were quite convinced that it was in the interests of both the Whites and the Bantu. We therefore have no difficulty here.

The hon. member wanted to know what our policy was going to be. He made the accusation that we were going to treat the Whites in the Transkei as the Rhodesians are to-day being treated by Great Britain. What an unfair accusation! This very same accusation was levelled at us in the case of the traders. Hon. members will remember the cutting attack the hon. member launched on me last year when he said that we were leaving the Whites living there in the lurch. I told him then that a number of the Whites had already been bought out. And after that we bought out most of the traders there—most of those who asked for it. Most of them were aged widows for whom one felt very sorry.

But it took three years to decide.

No, the hon. member must wait awhile. They did not complain. Allow me to tell you this anecdote, Mr. Speaker: The hon. member went along, after the session of Parliament last year, and in the Transkei he launched a bitter attack on the Government because the Government was allegedly leaving these people in the lurch; because it did not buy their properties. And do you know what happened then? One of the people came and corrected him.

Who?

One of those aged widows.

Where?

The hon. member might as well read the Daily Despatch again. She wrote a letter to him in the Daily Despatch: “Mr. Hughes, you do not know what is happening in the Transkei. Most of us have already been bought out, and we are all not merely satisfied, but very satisfied.”

Is that one of Umzimkulu’s farmers?

I shall deal with Umzimkulu. I say that they are very satisfied. One or two of them asked me whether they could not have a slightly higher price, but the others accepted the position and wrote letters of thanks to me and to the newspapers to the effect that the Government had not left them in the lurch. They fought our case for us, there—against the hon. member.

That is not true.

That is the absolute truth. When that letter appeared in the newspaper, the hon. member made a speech in which he said that he was very deeply concerned about the fact that the Government was taking so many traders out of the Transkei! How should one deal with such a man? One day he reproaches us that we are not buying out the people, and the next day he reproaches us that we are in fact buying them out. I can only state that up to now we have also achieved very good results with the Bantu. Quite a number of these shops have already been handed over to the Bantu, and they are doing very well.

What are you going to do in the towns?

I shall deal with the Whites in the towns. In this regard, too, we shall look after the interests of the Whites.

When?

At the right time. The hon. member would render his people a very great service if he would rather keep quiet about that, for even in this regard we could not proceed with undue haste. In the case of the traders we had to be very thorough in the way we tackled the matter; as a result we are making such a great success of it. One cannot set about matters precipitately. At the right time the necessary adjustments will be made even here, but I should like to say that a start has already been made. Many Bantu are buying properties in the towns. In the regulations we stated very clearly that that area would remain under White control until all the Whites or the vast majority of them had been bought out. An advisory Bantu committee will be appointed at a later stage, but the entire administration of those towns will still be managed by the Whites until all the land has been purchased. Only when all the land has been purchased, the administration will be transferred into the hands of the Bantu. The people are therefore properly protected; there will be proper administration. I am asking the hon. member whether he thinks it is fair to make accusations of this nature here?

Yes; surely, we do not yet know what you intend doing. How do you propose paying out the people?

The basis is there already. At the moment there are people who have been given the opportunity to sell to the Bantu and there are quite a number of cases where the Bantu Trust will of course also buy, and so will the Bantu Investment Corporation. The purchases will take place on the usual basis. I may just add that up to the present some of those people are not at all dissatisfied; on the contrary, some of them have thanked us for the steps that have been taken there. Is it just and fair of the hon. member to go to the public and to run to the newspapers with talk of this nature? The hon. member denies it here …

He is merely stirring up suspicion with a view to the election.

I repeat that we have reaped the gratitude of both the Whites and the Bantu in the Transkei with this zoning. They are grateful to us for the way in which we acted. Furthermore I should like to say this in connection with this matter. I have always said this and the hon. the Prime Minister also supported this view: The entire development of the Transkei in the past was wrong. This has always been my view. I should like to admit immediately that the Whites there rendered a very great service. I am the last person who would not pay tribute to the services rendered there by the Whites, but at the same time we must realize that the Transkei will follow the modern course of developed countries, namely that one would have Bantu cities in which the greater percentage of the Bantu would be concentrated—something the Transkei does not have at present. Only on that basis, the development of full-fledged cities and then the development of agriculture and other things, can the actual development of the Transkei take place. At this point I may add that the economic development of the Transkei shows promise of very great possibilities. Very fine results have already been achieved and very great things are in the offing for the Transkei to strengthen its economic position. That also applies to the Ciskei. The hon. member rose and spoke about Zwelitsha and said that it was a creation of the United Party. Mr. Speaker, I was there at that time; I saw Zwelitsha, and if I should offer the hon. member some advice, then it is that the less he talks about Zwelitsha as a creation of the United Party, the better it is for his own Party. I was there. There were many luxury homes on that hill, and not one of them was occupied by a Bantu. On the lower slopes of the hill there were a few homes which were less luxurious, in which a few Bantu lived. The entire set-up was an economic failure, and then this Government, my predecessor, gave special attention to this matter. We revised the entire policy in regard to Zwelitsha. Take a look at that model town to-day; see how the Bantu themselves are building there. To-day they themselves take the initiative there. Today one would find a fine hotel in Zwelitsha. I do not know whether King William’s Town has such a fine hotel. These are the results, and these are things the Bantu themselves built there, but this only became possible when we introduced this policy that they themselves should do this work on an economic basis. After that Zwelitsha became a success; only then did it become the pride of a large part of the Ciskei. I shall now deal with the factory at Zwelitsha. We had only just come to power when we discovered that that factory was virtually on the brink of bankruptcy— nobody can deny that—and it was only the good policy of this Government that converted that factory into one of the most prosperous factories in South Africa to-day, a factory which renders wonderful service.

Tell us something about Cyril Lord.

The hon. member can obtain all the facts about Cyril Lord, from my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. That is a further achievement of the policy of the Nationalist Party. East London stood there, a ghost town; it was on the down-grade; there was no growth and it was the Nationalist Party that once again brought life to East London. As a result of that one finds to-day that East London has one of the finer Bantu townships in South Africa, a township of which the Bantu living there are very proud and for which they are very grateful, a township for which the inhabitants of East London in particular are very grateful to-day. It is the policy of this Government which has made those things possible. The hon. member on the opposite side ought to rise and to testify to the honest truth of what I am saying here; he ought to say thank you. I know that the electorate is very grateful for what we have done there. Hon. members may not level such accusations at us here.

The hon. member also quoted the example of Ndamsa. At this point I may add that that is a matter which rests with my colleague, the Minister of Justice, from whom the hon. member may obtain all the information. Unfortunately this is a delicate matter. This is not a matter which concerns me.

The hon. member also said that the Transkei was a failure politically, and he created misconceptions of that nature here. Mr. Speaker, I challenge hon. members to show me one state in Africa where the results achieved equal those we have achieved in the Transkei. There is not one such state in the whole of Africa. The state for which we had the highest hopes was Nigeria, and what happened there? Eventually it also turned out to be a failure. Last year I predicted in this House that Nigeria would be just as great a failure as the other states in Africa because it was organized on the wrong basis. There one finds a form of acknowledged chieftainship, but a fact which they did not acknowledge there, was that there were three different peoples and that those three peoples were embittered against one another. One will never be able to bring about peace between the Hausas, the Ibo and those people; each national group wants to have its own identity and peace will only be established when this is brought about; and this is what we have brought about in the Transkei. As far as the national groups are concerned, we have unity there. In the first place there was the registration. This astounded the world. Then there was an election and I remember how hon. members on the opposite side rose and made predictions—and the hon. member for the Transkeian Territories was one of the ringleaders. They prophesied clashes which would take place here in South Africa, not only in the Transkei but also in the White areas. Some of the nastiest ill-omens were voiced in that respect. The election took place, and what a great success it was! People from abroad came to congratulate me and said that the results achieved in the Transkei could not be equalled in the whole of Africa. I shall go further. Up to now the Transkei has been a great and brilliant success. Up to now they have acted with a great deal of responsibility and considerable sense of duty, and we have enjoyed co-operation which really is a pleasure to all concerned. I shall go further. Even towards the people of the Transkei the attitude of the Opposition was really very unfair. What is being done here, is that words are being put into the mouth of Matanzima, in many cases words he never uttered, or which he used in such a manner that they were open to another interpretation. It is in this regard that in many cases the Press once again played a nasty and unholy part, and then hon. members, the hon. member for the Transkeian Territories in particular, vent their spleen upon Matanzima for what he is reputed to have said, instead of giving a true report of the words of Matanzima. [Time limit.]

I would like to devote a few minutes of my time to dealing with some of the points made by the hon. the Minister who has just sat down before I go on to more general matters. I would like a little later to comment on the speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday. Firstly may I say to the hon. the Minister who has just sat down that when I hear of all the wonderful work that has been done and the money that has been spent on the Transkei, I begin to wonder whether there is not some truth in the story we have heard that a very strong deputation of farmers recently waited on the hon. the Prime Minister and suggested that the Minister of Water Affairs should be put in charge of Native Affairs, and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration should take over the problems of agriculture. I notice the envious look on the face of the Minister of Water Affairs when the Minister of Bantu Administration tells us of all the dams built in the Native area.

That is the ordinary type of farm dam that people can build themselves.

That completely cuts the whole of the ground away under the feet of the Minister of Bantu Administration. Here he is taking a great deal of credit to himself and he tells us what they have done, but the Prime Minister says it was done by ordinary people for themselves. [Laughter.]

He was talking of co-operation and self-help.

From which I take it that the Prime Minister is saying that the farmers are not prepared to help themselves? So much sympathy do they get from the Prime Minister! But my sympathy in this case is with the Minister of Bantu Administration. He has been sadly let down.

I want to deal with another aspect of this peroration we have just had. I realize that the hon. the Minister will perhaps not be with us very much longer. We regret his going. This is probably one of his last speeches, but I want to say in all seriousness that when I hear this panegyric we hear from time to time from the Minister in this House about the excellence of his administration and what he has done, I want to ask him firstly what money he has spent? Last year it was R13,000,000, and this year it is R13,000,000 again for the Transkei alone, plus other incidentals—money, money, money. Why does not the Minister tell us that he is building up a viable economy in the Transkei, and what the value of their exports is? What are they producing? Any Government can go on pouring in money, but what is the economy of South Africa getting out of it? I will deal with this question of the economy in a few moments. But the Minister talks about everybody living together in harmony, co-operating with one another, this beautiful picture which is continually being presented. Why does he not repeal Proclamation 400? [Interjection.] The Minister says he has often told us the reason, but he does not tell us that that is the basis of the peace and harmony, and that it is enforced by White policemen and White public servants and a White administration. Had there been a Proclamation 400 in force by one of the metropolitan powers in some of the Central African Territories, there would have been more peace there. I seem to remember a case there where two of the newly emergent African states did not hesitate to appeal to Britain to send troops in a last effort to get back some law and order in their countries. The Minister has never let go of law and order in the hands of the White man in the Transkei, and the whole of this picture he is presenting to us is otherwise completely baseless; it is a fraud. If the Minister withdraws Proclamation 400 and takes out his White police and lets the Transkei govern itself, and lets them maintain the first primary function of any Government, to preserve law and order, where is a single member on that side who will say that it will exist for six months?

But surely we are the guardians of those people?

Here is now the best opportunity I have had of asking the Chief Whip opposite to come and sit here as a fully-fledged, hard-core United Party supporter. We are the guardians of those people, but here is the Prime Minister’s policy of separate development leading to sovereign independence. [Interjection.] The Minister of Community Development says we want to make them partners. Sir, that is a lie.

On a point of order, is the hon. member allowed to say it is a lie?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it and merely say it is untrue. There is not a tittle of evidence anywhere to bear out such an assertion. The Minister, who is an excellent organizing secretary for the Nationalist Party, gets away from the truth. He said we were out to have them as partners, that our policy was one of partnership. That is not true, and the Minister knows it.

What is your policy now? [Interjections.]

Order!

I hope some of the Ministers will come in and make their speeches presently and not take up my time. I just want to say this in regard to the Transkei, that what we are concerned with here is one of the cardinal principles on this side of the House, and that is one economy for the whole of the Republic of South Africa. That is a basic principle. I have already asked whether the economy of the Transkei is viable. But the Prime Minister’s plan does not stop at the Transkei. This is only the first crawling infant in swaddling clothes. There are still seven more to come, plus a Hindustan. The Minister of Indian Affairs must not forget that he is also the father of one of these crawling infants, the Hindustan concept with an Indian parliament and an Indian prime minister which he promised us only last session. Perhaps he will bring it forth to comply with the request of the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration who wants each of us to produce a baby for the celebrations later on. Perhaps he can produce his baby under those circumstances. Then there is also the Colouredstan, and every one of them is to be viable. Well may the Minister of Transport sit there with a smile on his face.

I am just thinking of your race federation plan with a parliament for every race.

If we are prepared to go on spending R13,000,000 per annum on the Transkei alone, how much will it cost us by the time we have created all the various Bantustans and the Hindustan and the Colouredstan? Are they all to be subsidized at the same rate? [Interjections.] I referred to the Minister of Transport just now because in thinking over some of the remarks made by the Prime Minister yesterday in regard to the development of South Africa, he dealt with the railway to Richards Bay from Vryheid. Most of the area traversed by that railway is at present scheduled Native area. I would like some Minister to tell us about the future of that railway. Is it to remain in a Bantustan?

Why not?

Then I take it will be so. I am grateful for the assurance by the Minister of Transport that the railway from Vryheid to Richards Bay will continue to run through a scheduled Native area and that there is no intention of any of that area being proclaimed White.

Not as far as I know.

That is quite all right and I am prepared to leave it there for the moment. I want to go a step further.

Recently we had the chairman of the Rand Water Board dealing with the shortage of water on the Rand and elsewhere and suggesting that water be taken from the Tugela and pumped into the Vaal River for the purpose of development of the Witwatersrand area. This matter was again dealt with by the Prime Minister yesterday. He said there would be an inquiry into the whole of the water resources of the Republic. But here is the chairman of the Rand Water Board suggesting that water be taken from the Tugela to the Vaal. For the major portion of its distance the Tugela runs through a scheduled Native area, and again the same question arises. Is the development of the Tugela, including the taking of water in a scheduled Native area, part of the plan, and what is the position so far as the Zulu Territorial Authority of the future to be, in regard to the taking of the water from their major river?

It is not their water.

The Minister now says it is not their water. I want to have that on record. I want the Bantu people to understand exactly where this Government is taking them, when it comes so cleverly with the story we have been hearing from the Minister. Now that it comes to pumping the water of the Tugela into the Vaal basin, the Minister of Bantu Education says it is not their water.

That is not part of any Government policy.

Another Minister shot down in flames!

Just let me explain. You are asking about a statement made by Dr. Bruwer. I just say it is not a statement inspired by the Government and it does not reflect Government policy. It is just an individual opinion.

I am grateful to the Prime Minister for what he has said, but it is very negative. He must tell us how they are going to make up the shortfall. But the Prime Minister notwithstanding, the Minister of Indian Affairs categorically stated that the water in the Tugela did not belong to the Bantu people.

Because the main sources of the Tugela are in the White areas.

What absolute nonsense! I wonder whether the Minister has ever been to the sources of the Tugela. Why does he not look at the map? [Interjection.] The position then is that already the Prime Minister is seeing us negotiating on a treaty level, as an international agreement, with the Bantu states.

We will have to do it with Basutoland and Swaziland.

And in Zululand?

Not as long as Zululand is in its present position.

And Pondoland?

If it has a different Government it will certainly have to be done. What are you suggesting?

I am asking whether there will be international agreements. I am taking the statement of the Prime Minister that there will be international agreements in regard to matters of this kind. He agrees that international agreements will be entered into with states such as Basutoland, Swaziland and Bechuanaland. What about the Transkei?

If those matters have not been settled before, certainly, if they are already independent by that time.

And you foresee that that stage will be reached?

I foresee that those matters will be settled before then. I have often said that is possible.

The Prime Minister is extraordinarily coy about these matters. Why does he not see the end of his own policy?

I have given that information over and over again.

The Prime Minister made it clear that the water of the Tugela, when supplied to these states, would form the subject matter of an international agreement. But I want to go a step further. Of course the Prime Minister sees the stage being reached when these various states carved out of the body politic of South Africa will have their independence, because he foresees the Commonwealth, when he will sit there as Prime Minister of one small White state and eight Black prime ministers representing the Bantustans, and an Indian representing the Hindustan, and a Coloured man representing the Colouredstan. They will sit around one table. [Interjection.] The Prime Minister used the word “Commonwealth”. He must not run away and say “some consultative body”.

I gave it as an example of consultative bodies.

If the Prime Minister no longer thinks along the lines of the Commonwealth but merely of a consultative body, he must tell us so openly. [Interjections.] The Prime Minister is now running away from the idea of a commonwealth. I would not be surprised if it becomes like the word “apartheid”, a sort of swear word as far as the Nationalists are concerned, and before long we will not have one of them using the word “commonwealth”. But last session the Prime Minister was at great pains and very verbose in explaining what was meant by the Commonwealth, the only man on that side of the House who has ever done that. But now the Prime Minister runs away from it. He will not use the word “Commonwealth” any longer because he has seen the implications of that word. [Interjections.] The Prime Minister sees that the Commonwealth we left is in a mess and so he sees this commonwealth getting into a mess too, and now he runs away from that concept altogether. It is a consultative body very much like the UNO.

I want to deal now with this very delicate subject, this question of Rhodesia, because I want to say to the Prime Minister that I hope that even at this late stage he should take the request made by my leader in regard to the part he should be playing in trying to negotiate a coming together of the people who are at arm’s length at present. He painted a picture yesterday of the grave consequences to everyone concerned, and also for South Africa, but as Prime Minister of this great nation, a friend of both parties, I hope he will still make up his mind and take his courage in both hands and see whether he cannot give them, as my leader said yesterday, back again to the dialogue, where both sides are able to talk once more. I suggest that there was no substance whatsoever in the reasoning given by the Prime Minister yesterday as to why he should not play that leading part. What are we going to do if perhaps the Prime Minister of Russia comes along and says he will act as a mediator, or one of the Black nations acts as mediator? Is the Prime Minister going to abdicate his position, his proud position as Prime Minister of South Africa, to somebody else who comes along, as possibly someone will come along one of these days? Sir, fingers are being pinched, and when you reach a certain stage you will always get somebody who will try to come along and make peace. The peacemaker will be forthcoming. That should be not only our duty but our privilege. I say to him again, although it is late, that we do not want this matter to be a matter of party politics. Why does he not get together with the Leader of the Opposition and try to work out a White man’s policy in South Africa towards the White man of Rhodesia—not a policy for the Nationalist Party or for the United Party, but a White man’s policy? [Interjection.] I must admit that if one listens to the interjections of hon. members opposite, the last thing in the world they want to see is a concise and generally accepted policy by the White people of South Africa towards the White people of Rhodesia. They have made that abundantly clear, but fortunately I am not appealing to them; 1 am appealing to the Prime Minister to think again in regard to this matter and see whether this matter cannot be kept out of party politics.

Your leader brought it into party politics.

If that is in the mind of the Prime Minister, I suggest that this is no time for petty thoughts of that kind. What he should try to do is to take the big view not only in the interests of Rhodesia but also of South Africa, because I cannot emphasize how important it is for this fracas to be handled delicately and diplomatically at present. I make that appeal to the Prime Minister and I hope that even at this late date he will listen to it. There must be many people far more important than I am who are trying to persuade him in the same direction. I hope he will hearken. If he is not prepared to be a peacemaker, somebody else will be, and if by chance those operations should fail it is as bleak a day for us in South Africa as it is for those in Rhodesia. I have said that this is a delicate matter and therefore I do no propose to pursue it any further.

I want to deal now for a moment with this question of the compensation being paid by the Department of Bantu Administration which is proclaiming certain towns in the Transkei to be partly Black and partly White. I want to deal with the question of compensation because the matter has now gone much further afield; it has gone to Umzimkulu, where certain farms are now hanging in the balance. The farmers have been told that they are likely to lose their farms although they can keep them if they are prepared to be surrounded by Bantu. It is in my own province and the point I want to come to is this, that no boundaries are being given to us. The Minister of Bantu Education last year stated that in Natal the Bantustans would be one in number, but in geographical portions, perhaps up to seven in number. There might be seven different pieces, but it would be one Zulustan. Where are the boundaries? And when the Government comes with these proposals as it is doing in the Transkei, will it come at once when the proposals are published and offer straight compensation to the White people who are being displaced? I suggest that it is the only fair way of dealing with it. I suggest that the moment a White man’s property is placed in jeopardy because of a proclamation, the full valuation under the terms agreed upon should be offered to him and that it should be paid out at once. That does not only go for the White people. The Bantu Affairs Department takes care of it when it works the other way, against one of the Bantu. Then they have to get other land equal in value, and it must be provided beforehand. We are not objecting to that, but we say that in regard to compensation, when you are taking away a man’s property, he is entitled at any rate, because his skin is white, to exactly the same treatment provided for in the law for the man whose skin is black, and that the Government should realize that.

But, Sir, I say in these matters compensation should be forthcoming at once, at the moment the proclamation places a man’s home and property in jeopardy. He can then sell out and get out, and not have to hang on as is happening at present in my own province and elsewhere in the country, including the Transkei. For two years and even more, not knowing what the final outcome is going to be, not knowing whether he is going to receive anything, not knowing whether he himself has to find a buyer for his property, people have been living in a state of uncertainty. I make this appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister, because it obviously is no use appealing to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

I say, Sir, this question of boundaries is becoming a burning issue, if for no other reason than because of the fact that the brother of the Prime Minister of the Transkei —and the Prime Minister himself lately—laying claim to land from the Umtambula up to the Tugela rivers. They are making these claims because of the promise made by the Prime Minister in this House that he will return to the Bantu people areas which were historically tribal lands, areas which were historically theirs. It is on that basis that they are claiming these areas. Until these boundaries are fixed, until it is definitely and categorically stated where the boundaries of these Bantustans are going to be, we are going to have these boundary troubles. We are having boundary troubles with one Bantustan. What will be the position when the others are established? If in Natal, as stated by the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs and Bantu Education, there are to be seven geographical units carved out of Natal for the purpose of creating one single Bantustan, what boundary troubles will not flow from that set-up? It does not require great imagination to realize exactly what will happen. I say, Sir, that until such time as the Government comes clean and tell us exactly where the boundaries of the Bantustans will be, it has no right at all to appeal to the people of South Africa to support it in this policy. The policy must be based on the clear-cut issue of what land is going to be given to the Bantu, precisely where the boundaries will be, so that the White man will not be prejudiced and feel that a sword of Damocles is suspended over his head. The Government is not fair in this matter. [Time limit.]

I want to deal with two matters only. The first is to reply to the questions put by the hon. member with regard to the railway line between Vryheid and Empangeni. He asked whether the railway line would pass through a Bantu territory permanently. My reply was in the affirmative. Why not? There are railways in the Transkei which are going to remain under the control of the South African Government, whether or not the Transkei becomes independent. A railway passing through Bechuanaland belongs to Rhodesia. The former is also going to be completely independent territory. And what is wrong with that? Those territories need transport. Therefore it is obvious that they have to be provided with transport. Actually I do not know why this question was asked. What is wrong with that? I do not know whether the hon. member wants to frighten people by pointing out to them that a railway is passing through a Bantu territory. I think it is foolish to try and gain an advantage in such a manner.

The other matter I want to deal with, Sir, is the ridiculous proposal made by the Opposition, that the Prime Minister should now act as mediator between Rhodesia and Britain. I simply cannot understand how sensible and intelligent people can make such ridiculous proposals! Let us consider what the role of a mediator is. His task is to try to effect a compromise between the two parties. And what is actually the nature of the compromise to be reached between Rhodesia and Britain? Is it desired that Rhodesia should be prepared to abandon its independence? Is it desired that Rhodesia should be prepared to achieve independence on the basis that there should be Black majority rule within a year? Mr. Speaker, it is ridiculous to expect that the Prime Minister of South Africa should act as mediator between Mr. Wilson and Mr. Smith and should try to effect a compromise.

It is of no use to be a mediator merely in the sense of saying that the two parties should reopen discussions. The Rhodesian Prime Minister has said repeatedly that he was prepared to have discussions with anybody. But what was the British Prime Minister’s attitude yesterday? He said that he was not prepared to have discussions with Mr. Smith, who is the Prime Minister of a so-called independent country! But hon. members on that side slipped up badly. Immediately after the declaration of independence they committed the rash act of urging that this Government should recognize the Rhodesian Government immediately. And now that they realize what a blunder they made, they are trying to pass the buck to the Government. Their action was nothing but political opportunism. They simply wanted to be the first on the band wagon. They knew very well where the sympathy of the South African people would lie in this dispute. They thought that their action would possibly gain a few extra votes for them. That is why they came to light with the hurried and premature decision taken at their congress immediately after the declaration of independence.

I must repeat, Mr. Speaker, that I have never heard as ridiculous a proposal as this, namely that the Prime Minister of South Africa should now go to Mr. Wilson. We know only too well in what light our policy is regarded by the British Government. How can it be suggested that the South African Prime Minister should say: “I shall now act as mediator in an endeavour to bring you and Mr. Smith together so that discussions may be reopened to see whether a compromise cannot be reached.”

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that that is the only proposal that has been made by the hon. Opposition in connection with the Rhodesian issue. They have been crying that we should grant more assistance to Rhodesia, but they have not had the courage of their convictions to say what kind of assistance we should grant them! Why do they keep so quiet about that? Not one of them has stood up to say what kind of assistance, apart from playing this ridiculous role of mediator, this country should grant to Rhodesia. I want to predict that they will not make any proposals in this connection during this debate either, because, Sir, they simply do not have the courage to do so. They want the Government to take certain steps, steps which might harm South Africa and even land it in serious difficulties, merely to be able to prey on that when difficult times befall us. That is their whole idea. One should not think for a single moment that they are so much concerned about Rhodesia. Oh, no! They are merely concerned about their own skins. They want to save their own skins in the election to be held on 30 March! And I shall proceed to prove that now.

The hon. member said that they were not the people who dragged this issue into politics. Well, the proof that their actions have been for their own political gain only, is to be found in their own official paper, namely Ons Land. I want to read to the House from this paper so that hon. members may realize what the United Party’s view of and approach to this matter is. I do not know the name of the author of this article to which exception is being taken. I do not know whether the author is the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan). In any case, the article bears the stamp of his style. It is an anonymous article. The article states, inter alia, why the Government does not want to play a more active part as far as sending assistance to Rhodesia is concerned, and then continues as follows:

The hon. Leader of the Opposition, who usually strikes a high note, should listen to this dirty rubbish, rubbish which appeared in his own newspaper:

Mr. Speaker, have you ever read anything dirtier than this? I wonder whether the hon. member for Orange Grove is responsible for this? I say that, Sir, because it is customary for him to be guilty of this type of thing, as the hon. the Prime Minister indicated yesterday. This is the type of propaganda dished up by their official newspaper, and then those people have the cheek to say that they have not dragged this matter into politics! I say it is scandalous and they ought to be ashamed of it. I do not know how they can look decent voters in the face when they say such dirty things.

Do not get too carried away!

I beg your pardon? What did the hon. member say?

He will not repeat it.

Mr. Speaker. I repeat: This was nothing but a political manoeuvre. They think that they can gain a few votes by playing on the sentiments of the electorate of the Republic. But I want to tell them in advance that it is going to be of no avail to them. The public knows them and is going to reject them. They are not going to gain one single vote by adopting this sanctimonious attitude.

Mr. Speaker, Government members are fond of pointing out that they have now won quite a few elections; that that is proof of the support of the majority of the voters; and that for that reason the Government’s policy is right. There are even some hon. members on that side who suggest that for that reason the United Party should accept the Government’s race policy and should concentrate only on criticism of the administration of the Government’s policy. That kind of argument has no validity at all. Because, Sir, if the argument is valid that any majority is right merely by virtue of the fact that it is a majority at any particular time, there would have been no development in the world. Then mankind would still have been exactly where it was a million years ago. Then every minority faith—and that includes the Christian faith—would have had to close the doors of its churches. Then, Sir, the Government would also have had to accept the majority resolutions of the UNO!

There is such a thing as a national blunder. In our own times we have seen how large masses of the people can be led astray for a long time by shrewd leaders, and how the country finally has to pay a high price for that. And South Africa is passing through such a period at present. The system of compulsory apartheid, which has been substituted for the customary segregation we have always had and which is accepted throughout the world, that system of compulsory apartheid, coupled with the self-glorification of the Whites, the breaking down of ordinary human relations, and the methodical humiliation of whole generations of people on the ground of their colour, has no future in the times in which we live. Its downfall is a matter of time. That is why the Opposition has such a sense of its duty towards the nation, rather than the party, that it spends its time preparing the White public of South Africa for the time of change which must come. Because, Mr. Speaker, as sure as we are sitting here, a change will have to come. Reasonable people on that side of the House realize that too, and that is why we now hear the propaganda on the part of the Government that the National Party is actually the party of change, of renewal and of adjustment; that it is actually a party of radicalism! I am prepared to accept their admission that there will have to be a change in South Africa, a change in the attitudes of people in human relations. But, Sir. if one looks at the results of their 18 years of government, then it is clear that their changes in the field of human relations are, with some exceptions, going in the wrong direction altogether. Their changes are in the right direction in only one important respect, and that is in respect of the development of the Bantu areas. But even in that field they have added so many indigestible ideological spices to the dish, that South Africa will simply not be able to eat the food. But I shall come to that.

I first want to deal with the gravamen of our charge against the Government. In the first place, as far as the White man is concerned: As regards the White man and his future, Mr. Speaker, the Government has in effect done nothing to prepare him spiritually and mentally for the changes due to come. Take the mental aspect of the matter. Look at the educational system we have at present. The basic attitude to teaching and education is still exactly what it was a hundred years ago. We are one of the richest countries in the world to-day. We are capable of great things. And what is the attitude still adopted by that side of the House? I shall tell you, Sir. If my father is a rich man, all doors are open to me. Whether I am dull or clever, I can receive all the training I desire. I can get full university or college training. All doors are open to me. But, Sir, if my father is a poor man, I can be as clever as can be; if I am one of the fortunate few I can get a bursary; or if I go begging and manage to find two guarantors, I may get a loan. But the large majority have to reconcile themselves to their fate without receiving any planned assistance from the State. It is high time we adopted a new attitude towards this matter. Every man with the necessary ability should be assisted by the State. If necessary, he should be able to rely on the State to help him through his higher education. A tiny South American country, Costa Rica, did away with its army and instituted free university education for everybody with the necessary ability. We cannot disband our army of course, because the Government has created so many dangers and so much tension for South Africa that we simply cannot do a thing like that. But, Sir, our country is rich enough—ours is one of the richest countries. When we make such appeals the Government usually asks us where is the money to come from for such free training. It is one of the most typical characteristics of the Government that each time anybody has got up in this House and pleaded for larger expenditure in respect of education and similar things which are of lasting value to South Africa, they have asked where the money was to come from. But in the 16 years I have been in this House I have not once heard them ask where the money was to come from when they wanted to implement their apartheid measures or to create white elephants with no future, or when they wanted to appoint legions of officials to administer their apartheid measures.

Mr. Speaker, it is time the Western world and we ourselves took cognisance of what is happening elsewhere. We have a great deal to say about fighting communism, but what is being done in those countries? At present Russia is spending 12% of its national income on education, and that is why it is one stride ahead of the West every so often. In our case the figure is slightly higher than 4%, and ours is one of the richest countries in the world. I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that under this Government the old-fashioned norm still applies: Whether or not I will receive a higher education depends upon whether my father is rich or poor. We have the money. If only the Government would spend a bit less on ideological measures and on futile projects! And I want to add: If only it would act slightly less extravagantly.

I regret to say it, but we have never had a government in this country which developed such a big-car mentality as this Government has done. They have become fond of ostentation and extravagant. They are dissociating themselves from the people more and more. We have just had the case here in Cape Town where flats which are situated too close to the Administrator’s residence have to be vacated. The people are a nuisance when the Administrator has a garden party! Houses costing R40,000 and R36,000 each are given to the members of the Executive Committee of the Provincial Council. The money is there, Sir. All the Government has to do is to see to it that it spends the country’s money on things which are of value to the nation instead of on the lavish extravagances on which it is being spent at present. My first charge against the Government is therefore that it has not equipped the White man mentally for the difficult times lying ahead for him.

But quite as bad is the fact that is has also failed to prepare the White man spiritually for the changes to come. It has been in power for 18 years, and in that time it had 1,262 Acts passed by Parliament. Ninety-two of those are Acts which are directly connected with the implementation of its apartheid policy. I am not even mentioning the multitude of regulations and all the other Acts containing apartheid provisions. There is hardly any Act which does not affect our race relations on some level. It has piloted 92 principal Acts through this House in implementation of its apartheid policy. And after all that, Mr. Speaker, I ask you: What has been solved? Simply nothing! Because session after session it has to bring up more and more trifling little Acts which have no connection whatsoever with the major problem of White survival. They do not really solve anything. In fact, they merely create new tensions and problems for the future. And nobody feels the least bit more secure.

The total effect of all these Acts is that in actual fact 10,000 fronts of future resistance against the Whites have been created, because there is no single nation on earth—and this was also the case with the Afrikaner nation—whose children will be prepared to be permanently humiliated by others in the way compulsory apartheid humiliates the non-Whites. Far from having solved anything, the Government has, through its surfeit of racial legislation, created consequences which will cost South Africa dearly.

The first consequence is that the Government has brought the White man under the totally false impression that he can be saved by laws, and that his security and salvation lie in legislation only—and, what is more, in legislation devoid of any equitable or moral basis. In our young South Africans an attitude has been fostered, to their own detriment, of looking down upon non-Whites and feeling humiliated whenever they come near non-Whites. Mr. Speaker, just look at the wild campaign which broke out recently when a Christian church in Cape Town allowed non-White Christians to enter its doors on a certain occasion. And that is happening among the descendants of the Voortrekkers, who never held a divine service without including the non-White members of their household in that service! That attitude has developed as a direct result of the Government’s legislation and the climate created by the Government. I submit here to-day that that is the greatest harm done to the White man by the apartheid policy, namely the harm done to his humanity and to his soul. The Government has also associated the name of South Africa for all time to come with a political concept which will always be rejected by the majority of mankind as an objectionable concept. I do not think we shall in our time outlive the volume of hate we are building up around us. That volume will not decrease, but will rather increase, until an eruption takes place. That, Sir, is why I am justified in saying that another consequence of the Government’s policy is that it has in actual fact undermined the security and safety of the White man. That is why to-day we virtually have to keep our arms at hand. That is why at present we need a larger army than that which General Smuts needed when he fought against Hitler in a real war. That is why we have border posts, police reserves, military reserves, and home guards. Mr. Speaker, one realizes the full impact of what is happening when one listens to speeches made by leaders on that side. There is the hon. the Minister of Defence. At the latest Transvaal Congress of the National Party he painted a picture of what might happen in South Africa. He warned that no one should get the notion that it would be easy to subjugate South Africa. Not “easy” … What a consolation! If we are attacked—

What a prospect! Has the hon. the Minister ever considered what the position in South Africa would be if we really became involved in a guerrilla war? What would be the attitude of the Coloureds, the Indians, the Bantu, after the treatment they had received at the hands of his Government? Has he ever considered what their attitude will be if the day dawns when the White man has his back against the wall? Mr. Speaker, I do not think the White man will have to fight only in front; it will be a fight in the front and in the rear. That is why we maintain that the Government’s policy, with the attitudes it has created, is the one factor which more than anything else has created a dangerous position for the White man in South Africa.

When the new Commander-in-Chief of our Defence Force, General R. C. Hiemstra, was interviewed by the New York Herald-Tribune he said that—

When asked to elaborate, he said—

He says in effect that it would in fact be an easy operation—merely a wild adventure, inspired by either Communist Russia or China, could bring the whole world down on South Africa, and if that were to happen, Sir, where would South Africa be, with a government which has not a single ally? We cannot even get arms from the West. And if any of the Western countries had to come and help us against the communists, would they stay to uphold the present Government and its policy? Who is prepared to believe that?

Mr. Speaker, as regards this Government’s claim that South Africa is safe in its hands— it claims that the White man would be unsafe in the hands of the Opposition, but is safe in its own hands—the fact of the matter is that nobody in the history of South Africa has created so much unsafeness and insecurity for the White man as this very Government of ours. There is the harmful anti-White spirit inspired by its policy. There is the mental captivity it has brought upon itself as a result of its petty apartheid; its inability to enter into even ordinary friendly relations with non-White states. Members of the Government cannot even attend ordinary diplomatic functions as a result of its petty apartheid policy. I repeat the charge, Sir: As far as the future of the White man is concerned there is not a single factor which has undermined his security as much as precisely that policy of the Government.

Let me now come to its programme of big apartheid, its so-called Bantustan programme. Let us see the issue in its real perspective. At the time of Union, statesmen visualized a highly centralized Southern Africa. Provision was made in our constitution for the incorporation of the three Protectorates. It was expected to happen shortly afterwards. In 1915 we conquered South West Africa. It was expected to become a fifth province of the Union fairly soon. But this vision of a highly centralized political union faded more and more as time went by, and the actual political development in South Africa was in the opposite direction, that is, in the direction of decentralization. But this was not as a result of any doctrinary race policy; on the contrary, it was the practical result of practical politics. As we all know, the chances of incorporating the three Protectorates became more and more remote as time went by. The most they were prepared to do was to enter into an economic federation with us, and at present they are on their way to sovereign independence, and the old idea of incorporation is as dead as a dodo. In South West Africa the tendency was eventually also away from the idea of incorporation on the basis of a fifth province. When this Parliament gave the territory a new constitution in 1949, the constitution was much closer to the concept of federation than to the concept of union. Administratively the territory is divided in two, even within the boundaries of South West Africa, with Ovamboland and the part outside the police zone separate and with its own peculiar character of a tribal state; in contrast the south which has a predominantly White character. This decentralization, this devolution which took place in South Africa was not part of a doctrinary race policy; it was good practical politics. Even within the four provinces a similar political devolution took place. The Bantu areas were marked out; the Transkei came into being, growing out of the Cape Province with a political character of its own. Even at an early stage it received its own Bunga. The interesting point is this, that even without its being associated with a doctrinary policy as objectionable as apartheid, we experienced a political devolution which created spheres of interest that are predominantly White in character—the four provinces and the southern part of South West Africa—and spheres of interest that are predominantly Black in character, like Ovamboland and the areas outside the police zone, the Transkei and the other Bantu areas within the Republic, and Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland, which, as far as the South African territories are concerned, cover approximately 50 per cent of the surface of the country. All that was needed was the proper development of those parts which were predominantly Black, and a political pattern would have developed in South Africa which would have effected adequate partition to ensure that one race would not dominate the other, and would yet have ensured enough cooperation to preserve the essential unity and security in South Africa. That is why in 1955 the Tomlinson Commission emphasized so strongly the utilization of all means and of free capital for the development of the Bantu areas, and for a decentralization of industries which could relieve the Black pressure on our cities. The United Party has supported that from the outset, and in its election manifesto of 1961 the United Party put it very clearly—

within the federal concept of the Party, of course. But what did the Government do? It went ahead hastily and distributed flags and anthems in the Transkei and made promises which would amount to complete disintegration of South Africa in to a multitude of dissatisfied, disgruntled and underdeveloped states, a patchwork of states in South Africa; and to this very day the Prime Minister has not once explained to us how he is going to overcome all the practical problems. How is he going to give those states political viability without large-scale consolidation? And yet that is the policy; it has been declared by Ministers that there would not necessarily be consolidation before independence. They will remain so many shattered fragments. Mr. Speaker, how is he going to give those states economic viability as long as free capital is prohibited there? And if through his border industry policy he is in fact destroying all hope of any real industrial development ever taking place within those territories? How will our troops move in times of trouble; or is he going to infringe the sovereignty of others where and when he pleases? How will our police services and security services operate? How will our air services operate if what was done in the rest of Africa is done there and they close their air space to us as a result of a quarrel with the Government of the Republic? How will we organize our roads and our train services?

You are seeing ghosts.

No, those are the actual practical problems. The Prime Minister is so far from a practical plan, that it is no wonder that his own friends are nowadays snapping at him. The latest is Professor Johannes Bruwer, who was a commissioner-general in South West Africa and one of the Government’s star witnesses in The Hague. In an article in Dagbreek he complains about the Government’s lack of a practical policy and writes that territorially the Government’s policy — I quote him — “remains unbalanced, immature and incomplete.” We know that there are two schools of thought on that side; Mr. Willem van Heerden admitted that himself. One of them adheres to the Prime Minister’s policy of total disintegration, but the other school, the other group, is in favour of large-scale development, the maximum territorial segregation — but accommodation in our own institutions of the settled minority of urban Bantu, and always a sound link with the centre. That is also the standpoint adopted by the Leader of the Opposition—decentralized development, but the link with the centre should remain. There is at present no writer or thinker of any standing on that side who does not advocate this course. I could name them in a row: Mr. Willem van Heerden; Professor Johannes Bruwer; Professor Wouter de Vos, Dr. H. J. J. M. van der Merwe, Dr. S. P. Cilliers, Mr. Dirk Hertzog, Mr. Alexander Steward, of radio fame, Professor L. J. du Plessis, Ambassador F. S. Steyn, Mr. Jan Smith, who is a writer and the National Party’s candidate in Turffontein … and then there is also the Tomlinson Commission on which the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development sat. That Commission never said a word about the disintegration of South Africa. No, the concept they had was the concept of development advocated by us. of a maximum of decentralization, but always with a link in the centre. Mr. Speaker, the position of the White man in South Africa is not as black and gloomy as implied by the policy of that side. There are three minority groups in South Africa. The Whites total three million and that number may be augmented by immigration. Then there are 1 1/2 million Coloureds — half-Whites — and then another half-million Indians, altogether five million. With a powerful policy of political decentralization and the development of the Bantu areas for those who live there and who can be drawn there, one could in fact create a position in South Africa where the majority of the Bantu would be settled and contented in separate political institutions of their own, for instance in the Bantu areas, in nearly half of South Africa; with accommodation of the minority — the developed and urban settled class — in our common institutions. That is the only course which will succeed in South Africa and that is the course which will be accepted by the vast majority of the Bantu. I am convinced that, if in this way one creates a reasonable degree of contentment for the majority, foreign dissatisfaction would have no leg to stand on. But I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister this: There is not the slightest hope that the Bantu will ever accept the Prime Minister’s idea of selling their birthright as South Africans for the joy of being an impoverised Transkeian of Tswanalander. I know the Prime Minister is fond of telling us that under our policy the Bantu would make demands; the he would demand more and more. But would he demand more than he is demanding at present under this Government? The truth is that under this Government the demands have multiplied more than under any other Government. There will always be demands, but the difference is that under the present Government policy the demands will have so much moral force and validity that sooner or later they will inevitably change into revolutionary ardour. Under a United Party Government there will also be demands: there will always be demands, but with this Party in power there will be so much contentment amongst the majority that the demands will never reach the stage of revolutionary ardour, and that is why I say that it is indeed here that the White man will find security, and that is why we shall continue, despite the vicissitudes of elections, to found the Second Republic of South Africa on the lines I have set out here

Before dealing with the speech by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson), I want to deal with something in connection with what the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) said here this afternoon. The hon. member for South Coast was attacking the hon. the Prime Minister in consequence of his statement of Government policy as regards our relationship with non-White groups. I then said to the hon. member that their policy was a policy of partnership with non-Whites. The hon. member went out of his way to be insulting and to tell me that it was a lie. He was called to order and then said that it was untrue.

But it is untrue.

I now want to put a question to the hon. member, and it follows from what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has just said. Is it not a fact that under United Party policy it is possible for a Coloured person to become the prime minister of South Africa?

He will not reply.

No, he will not reply, and neither do I expect him to reply, but his Leader has replied.

If he does not reply he is saying “yes”.

His Leader granted an interview to the representative of a Natal student paper Beacon as recently as June last year. There the question was openly put to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: “Is it possible for a Coloured person to become the prime minister of South Africa under United Party policy” and his reply was “It is highly unlikely but it is not impossible.” Now, that is the first difference; in a moment I shall go somewhat further. From a statement in writing by the Leader of the Opposition we learn that under his Party’s policy it is possible for a non-White person to become the prime minister of South Africa.

A Coloured person.

But a Coloured is a non-White. If it is possible for a Coloured it is also possible for an Indian. According to this statement it is possible for a Coloured person in the first instance; the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that it was possible. In contrast to that policy, I say that it does not obtain under our policy. Under our policy a Coloured person cannot become the prime minister of South Africa. As regards the coming election, this is the first major difference between the two Parties. The hon. member held it against me when I told him that they were advocating a policy of partnership. I now want to ask him what his Leader meant when, at the same interview, he gave the following reply to the question whether there would be greater satisfaction under United Party rule and whether he could satisfy the world—

Let us analyse this somewhat. We know that it is the United Party’s policy that as a start, at least those Coloureds who were removed from the Common Voters’ Roll will be restored to the roll. But in addition we also know that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said that only as long as compulsory education for Coloureds did not exist would they withhold the vote from Coloured women. In other words, once there was compulsory education, then this too would be considered. As a matter of fact, in this article he says that it will be considered. But then he immediately couples the urban Bantu people with the Coloured people and he says that if he should come into power, one of the first Acts which he would repeal would be the Population Registration Act, which distinguishes between the Coloured, the White and the Bantu. Now, if one restored the Coloureds to the Common Voters’ Roll, and one said that under one’s policy it was possible for him to become prime minister, and immediately classified him with the urban Bantu in one’s political ideas, and if one repealed the measure distinguished between the Coloureds and the urban Bantu, namely the Population Registration Act, how is one to distinguish between the Coloureds and the Bantu? That is why I am saying that the United Party’s policy does not merely lead to a Coloured person possibly becoming prime minister, but that as a result of the repeal of the Population Registration Act they are going to create a real mixture in this White South Africa as a result of which the hordes of urban Bantu will eventually swamp the Coloureds Voters’ Rolls.

The Coloureds have always been on the Voters’ Roll without the Registration Act.

Precisely, how much bitterness did this not create amongst the Whites in South Africa for the very reason that we found the Whites witnessing to an increasing extent how their final vote was being smothered.

How did you distinguish between the Bantu and the Coloureds?

That was the positive danger.

How many Bantu were on the Voters’ Roll?

Does the hon. member still not realize that that was the positive danger? How is one going to distinguish between the urban Bantu of Cape Town and the Coloured person if one is no longer going to classify them and if one grants the Coloured person access to the Common Voters’ Roll? How is one going to distinguish? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said: “We are going to give satisfaction to the Coloured person and to the urban Bantu”; why does the Leader of the Opposition detach himself from the Bantu in the Bantu areas? Because he wants to grant them rights; he wants to grant political rights to them; he wants to grant them “partnership”. He wants to grant them representation, even if he only begins with a few White representatives for them. The person who conducted the interview with him then asked him: “Why does the United Party not give the details of their policy of race federation?” His reply to that was: “No, we only lay down broad principles. We shall only give the details when we are in power.” He has already laid down the principle that the urban Bantu and the Coloured people should be fenced off from the rest of the non-White population of South Africa, and this is one of the things about which details will have to be furnished. That is why I am saying to the hon. member for South Coast that his policy is headed for partnership, in the first place with the Coloured people and in the second place with the urban Bantu on a political basis in White South Africa.

That is untrue.

Here the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is saying so.

I now want to come to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He said that one of the biggest evils which came about under this Government was compulsory apartheid, referring to the measures of compulsory apartheid. I trust that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout will now help me a little. One of these measures of compulsory apartheid is separate residential areas in South Africa. When this Government came into power, one found the greatest mix-up of all race groups in the urban areas of South Africa.

How did Athlone originate?

In the first place one had Windermere; one had Sophiatown; one had Cato Manor—hotbeds of evil, disorder and crime. One found the most pronounced intermingling of race groups under conditions of dilapidation and poor sanitation. In the second place one found as a consequence, that where these conditions were not at their worst, it was especially the White worker of South Africa who landed in the position—because he did not have money in his pocket to buy apartheid—of having to be satisfied with living in areas where non-Whites were his neighbours and where his children and the children of non-Whites played in the same street, That was the position between Bellville and Maitland; that was the position in Salt River and Woodstock; that was the position in the heart of Johannesburg, in Durban and everywhere in our large cities and towns. One of the compulsory measures introduced by this Government was to say to the White worker: Whether people like it or not, we are going to create conditions where the State is going to see to it, by way of compulsory steps, that there is going to be separation between the White worker and the non-White.

We had no trouble doing that without legislation.

No, you would not do that.

Explain Epping Garden Village.

Epping Garden Village was a private undertaking by a utility company, but there was nothing to prevent a non-White person from buying pr renting property in any of the White areas and taking up residence there.

In the second place, he knows that the rich man could live in residential areas where the non-White person could not afford to buy or rent property, but the poor man simply had to live wherever he could find accommodation. This Government came along with this compulsory measure and created large urban residential areas—White community life in all its forms: its education, its health, its ecclesiastical life, its cultural life. It made it possible for those White communities to live as self-respecting communities. But where the Government reserved for the Whites that primary right to cultivate their own community life, it simultaneously created the opportunity for the non-Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians, to build up their own community life, and it afforded them protection. It was not only compulsion direction as the hon. member wants to make out. It was not just compulsion aimed at protecting only the White man. It was also a compulsory measure aimed at perpetuating the rights of the Coloured and the Indian people.

Your method was wrong.

What right does the hon. member have to give this distorted and ungrounded picture of the Government’s compulsory measures? What right does he have to do so if it is not his intention to create unrest? The hon. member speaks of creating unrest. He asks: “Where will the Coloureds and the Indians stand if South Africa gets into danger?” I shall tell them where they would have stood if they had remained the residents of the Cato Manors, the Sophiatowns and the Windermeres where communistic agitation and crime reigned supreme; then the danger would have been much greater than those dissatisfied elements would have chosen sides against one. But if one brings about self-respecting communities, as this Government has done, peaceful communities who can live life to the full in every sphere, then the chances are much greater that they will be calm and reliable when danger comes. It does not become the hon. member to prompt non-Whites in this manner; he made a dangerous speech; it is a speech aimed at creating uneasiness amongst the excitable masses.

But this was not our only compulsory measure. Another compulsory measure was that steps had to be taken to ensure that this would be a White Parliament, and this was in the spirit of the Constitution of 1910 when the basic principle was accepted that Whites only would sit in this Parliament.

But who is opposing that principle to-day?

Since that time it has been the National Government and the National Party that have consistently taken positive steps in one direction or another to retain that basic principle in South Africa, namely that this Parliament should remain in White hands. Where did the hon. member’s Party stand in respect of each of those steps taken over the years? With each one of these compulsory measures applied over the years—Native representatives and Coloured representatives—that Party squarely took up a stand against the will of South Africa’s Government to remain true to that cornerstone of our Constitution laid in 1910.

General Hertzog was the party’s Leader.

To me it does not matter who the Leader was. The point is that the United Party time and time again offered resistance to the spirit laid down in the Constitution that only Whites would sit in this Parliament. The hon. member cannot deny that. As a matter of fact, he himself said that here. One should never change one’s loyalty towards one’s White race

One should only change one’s electoral division.

Yes, one can change one’s electoral division.

In the third place the hon. member said that this Government from time to time came with Act upon Act and he asked what problems we had solved. I in turn want to ask the hon. member: “Is it not a fact that as a result of the legislative steps which made administrative action possible”—it does not help to rant against laws, because without laws one cannot act administratively in an orderly fashion …

No.

Very well then, then that entire argument has no grounds. From these laws followed administrative and other measures as a result of which it was possible to perpetuate the safety of the Whites and to protect their rights, while at the same time giving the non-Whites opportunities which they would otherwise have been denied or begrudged because the Whites regarded them as a danger. The fact is that the willingness of the White population to give positive help to the non-White in their own community life, to help them with their education, with their sanitary services, with their own local authorities, and its origin in these measures taken by the Government. All these measures created a better disposition among the Whites as guardians, precisely as a result of these measures applied by the Government. In the first place the Government created a shelter in which the Whites felt safe, and the Whites then became prepared to make a positive contribution to the welfare of those people, something they would not have been prepared to do should there have been any feeling of danger or threat. The hon. member cannot deny that. It is a direct result of these measures. In this sense South Africa really has a message to bring to the rest of the world, because the basic mistake other nations make in dealing with non-Whites is that they think that one can put a lot of money into a bag, then empty it out and say to the non-Whites: “Here is money for you, and now you must be eternally grateful”. The basic principle upon which this Government has built, is the following: Where it is taking these legislative and administrative steps, there it is giving the non-Whites the first principle of self-respect and that is self-help. Let us now take the example of local authorities for Coloureds. Under United Party rule and under the old policy of South Africa followed by it, the Coloured simply was in the position that he had the municipal vote if he could qualify, but a Coloured person has never succeeded in the history of South Africa to become mayor of any city or town. Why? Because he has always been kept out of that post by all sorts of subterfuges and “tricks.”

That was justified politics.

That is typical. Now we have come to the heart of the matter, and that is the basic difference between that side and this side. What this side says it does, but one has no certainty about the professions of that side. It is still prepared to outwit the Coloured, and that is why its Leader said: “It is highly unlikely but it is possible”. We shall still swindle the Coloured even though we may subsequently have him as a member of our Party. That is the mentality. This Government’s attitude is that the Coloured and the Indian should be trained to understand local government in its essentials.

He passed that stage a long time ago.

He has not passed that stage a long time ago. But here we have the wise man from the East and he knows better than even the Natal Provincial Administration which subscribes to his Party’s policies, and which says that one must proceed slowly in this respect. The hero of Bezuidenhout knows better. What are the facts? The facts are that this Government piloted legislation through Parliament against tremendous opposition in order to enable those people to obtain the basic rights of local government for the first time. That side opposed it.

Subsequently the provinces also offered cooperation, and in the Cape Province to-day there are dozens of these local authorities in the form of managerial committees and consulting committees where these people are trained and are slowly prepared for full local government over all their own affairs. The first number of these bodies have been established in Natal, and one has been established in the Transvaal. But the hon. member said that our compulsory measures are merely destroying the human values of these people. This is one example I can point out to him where the human values are recognized, and where they are given the opportunity of doing something for themselves.

In the second place, in the field of education under United Party rule, the non-Whites has been in an inferior position for many years, also as regarded his education. Now for the first time he has been given the opportunity of having his own inspectors of schools. Now for the first time they have the opportunity of getting administrative, professional, and skilled posts in which they can serve their own people —in the Departments of Coloured Affairs, of Bantu Administration and of Indian Affairs. Is this the destruction of human values? For the first time these people have been given the opportunity of graduating to the highest posts in their own educational institutions. But what that hon. member wants, is that the old system should continue, the old system of sending the non-White to the White university where he is a cause for offence and where he is allowed into the classrooms but not into the swimming pool and not onto the same dance floor, and where one can cheat 200 or 300 of them to keep them from university—deceit politics, which according to the mentality of the hon. member is justified.

I want to deal with only one more point. The hon. member went very far this afternoon and asked what this Government was doing for the White man. On the one hand we are depriving the non-White of his human dignity, but on the other hand we are doing nothing for the White man. [Interjections.] I am quite prepared to discuss education, but there are others who are more closely concerned with education. But I prefer to confine myself to my own territory. I want to ask the hon. member what happened under their rule in respect of the proper care of the White family in South Africa in his own home, which is the basic need of any self-respecting human being. I shall tell you, Sir. They left it to the provinces, and the provinces did nothing because they did not have the necessary funds. It was this Government which for the first time in the history of South Africa placed housing on a proper scientific basis by establishing a proper revolving fund which has increased annually until its present value has reached the R500,000,000 mark and which annually contributes between R14,000,000 and R15,000,000 towards housing, apart from the contribution made by Parliament. This was done by this Government and I may speak about it because it was not done in my time but under one of my predecessors, the late Dr. Stals. But it was this National Government which gave a new concept of housing to the White man in South Africa. Here in my possession I have a very interesting letter written by a very well-known person in South Africa who has no connection with this Government, an authority in the field of housing. This person has attended an international conference on housing in America. This person wrote quite voluntarily to us that he merely wanted to say that the experts present at that conference all said, after he had discussed the housing measures of South Africa with them, that it was a model for any civilized country. The hon. member asked what the Government has done. Furthermore, the Government, through my predecessor, did not merely create that principle and have not only given a new concept to housing for the White man in South Africa, but it also turned it into reality with the funds it made available annually. It did not do as the United Party predecessor—I nearly said the late Mr. Harry Lawrence, but I meant politically speaking.

Harry the house builder.

He spoke about houses, one after the other—and you know how we ridiculed him—about he would stack them one on top of the other, and to-day one can go and look at the small schemes carried out by them here and there. [Time limit.]

I want to put a case of my own, but before I come to that I want to refer to a few points dealt with by the hon. Minister of Community Development. Earlier in the debate he told us in strident tones that it was now the policy of the United Party to promote partnership in South Africa. I hope the hon. Minister is listening, because on two occasions he raised the point very emphatically that the United Party stands for “partnership”. The hon. Minister used the term in the political sense. The Minister, political student that he is, knows exactly what the policy of the United Party is. He knows that the policy is to give the Bantu White representation in this House; but he calls it partnership. Now I want to ask the hon. Minister this: He has representation for the Coloureds in this House. Is the Nationalist Party in partnership with the Coloureds? Does it advocate a policy of partnership with the Coloureds?

Surely that is a foolish question? I do not want them on the Common Voters’ Roll.

The second point is this. He made a terrible “song” about the United Party now being able to foresee a future state of affairs where it would be possible for a Coloured person to become Prime Minister of South Africa. To that he added that he admitted it was highly unlikely. But I want the hon. Minister to consider this: If his party remains in power for a few more years it is very likely that the chairman of the Commonwealth foreseen by the hon. Prime Minister would be a Black man. I wonder whether the hon. Minister is not worried about that, too? 1 am talking about the Commonwealth of South Africa with eight to ten Black members and one small White member, the Chairman of which was a Black man. But the hon. Minister has no fears on that score. He states that they have always fought for a White Parliament, and no representation whatsoever by other races. Now I want to ask the Minister this: Does he want to allege that when Sabra requested the Government to obtain representation of Coloureds by Coloureds in this House, Sabra stood for the destruction of the White Parliament? The hon. Minister is probably not listening now, but that is the logic he used. The Minister wants to allege by implication that when some of the leading intellectuals in South Africa, the people from Sabra, wanted Coloureds this House, it would have destroyed the White Parliament and that is the reason why the Nationalist Party did not want it.

The Minister spoke about housing. Let me tell him that in my own electoral division there are numerous people who do not have houses, and that the Minister will have to build at a great pace if he wants to give every White person in South Africa a proper house. I am thankful for the houses that have been built, but before the Minister repeats his boast I nevertheless want to tell him that where, fifteen or twenty years ago, it took nine months to build one house, technological developments have now made it possible to build 30,000 houses in nine months. The Minister should therefore not boast at all. I think he should do his level best to go very much faster in order to ensure that there is proper housing for the Whites of South Africa.

The Minister told us about all these things, but do you know what he did not tell us about? There are two matters in regard to which I wanted to listen with great interest to what the Minister would have to say. I have an idea—I might be wrong, and in that case the Minister can correct me—that the Minister is chairman of the various committees which have been appointed in regard to the removal of the Bantu from the Western Cape. It is a major task.

You have hold of the wrong end of the stick!

But is it not taking place under the direction of the hon. Minister?

I gave my reply to the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) last year, and you can go and read it.

What other Minister is it? I am convinced that the Minister has a great deal to do with this matter, and as he has the interests of the Coloureds so much at heart I find it surprising to see that thousands of Bantu are still pouring into the Western Cape each year to take the Coloured’s work.

I also want to ask the Minister why he did not tell us something about his political policy in regard to the Coloureds. He remained quite silent about that. This afternoon he depicted a paradise for the Coloureds, but he knows, and the people know, and the Coloureds know that as regards the key to all rights, i.e. political rights, he remains quite silent, for he knows that, politically speaking, he has sent the Coloureds into a blind alley. He does not tell us what the Nationalist Party’s policy is. He boasts of many things, but he remains quite silent about the one thing which we want to know from him and for which he is primarily responsible. I think it is a pity that he did not avail himself this afternoon, on the eve of an election, of the opportunity of enlightening the people of South Africa in regard to the policy of the Government towards the Coloureds. This is a matter which has always worried me. The Nationalist Party has a policy in respect of every issue, but upon close examination there is little in respect of which they really do have a policy, and this afternoon 1 want to deal with one of those matters.

Yesterday I listened to the hon. the Prime Minister and he stated unequivocally that if the people had to choose, they should choose the Nationalist Party, as that party allegedly had a policy which would ensure the continued existence of the Whites in South Africa. With all respect, I want to state this afternoon that over the years the Nationalist Party has come up with a number of sly moves which gave the people the impression that they had a policy, but that in reality they have a policy to-day which is twice as dangerous even than the policy which existed in 1948, and I shall try to prove this.

Recently they have had a number of clever things to say. The first clever thing was said last year in regard to the year 1978. I must repeat it here. Here we had the case of a date. On the one day the Minister of Bantu Administration was extolling this year with all his might as the year of wonders, on the next the Burger had it buried. But I must say this for the Minister of Bantu Administration: On the day after that he had the whole transaction unearthed again and had the date revived, and to-day it is once more the date of wonders. The wonderful thing about this date is that it is already dead, but that the Nationalist Party has with political cunning succeeded in keeping it alive.

I want to come to another point. You know, Sir. I can forgive the hon. members when they try to get away with these cunning manoeuvres, but something I cannot forgive them for is that they are trying to deceive the people in regard to a point which is fundamental to their policy, and I now want to deal with such a point.

All these years the approach of the Nationalist Party has undeniably been that one should have the greatest measure of territorial separation in South Africa. There was no doubt about that. Territorial separation was pre-eminently what these people stood for. I can give you examples of how statements were made in order to reduce the number of Bantu in the so-called White South Africa. I remember how the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration himself set an example to the housewives of South Africa as to how they should do their work themselves. I remember how the local Press wrote in headlines about certain students who were allegedly making their own beds. I remember how the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais) referred reproachfully to the north of the Republic because the black stream flowed so heavily there. It was announced on a broad front that as long as the White man was dependent upon Bantu labour, his future in South Africa was insecure. Now the Nationalist Party can argue whichever way it likes; the fact that the Bantu had to be removed indicates indisputably that all those years the Nationalist Party foresaw the greatest degree of territorial separation in South Africa. As a matter of fact, this was also the whole spirit which the Tomlinson Commission breathed, and this afternoon I was astounded when the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration stood up and told us about a small number of dams. Why does he not tell us about the hundreds of black spots which have to be eliminated as a pre-requsite for Bantustans? According to the Tomlinson Commission, however, territorial separation was the heart of the matter and nobody can get away from that fact.

Unfortunately the facts of South Africa were not consistent with this approach. Those facts were that the economic activities of South Africa were busy destroying the policy of that party piece by piece and step by step. Instead of the White man becoming less dependent upon Bantu labour, he was becoming more and more dependent upon it.

Because this was the way things were going, the Nationalist Party had to come up with a new plan, and the new plan was announced last year by the Prime Minister. Prior to that, one had never heard a thing about it. At the beginning of the session last year the hon. the Prime Minister gave the key words, and they were then propagated by members opposite, by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. G. F. Froneman) as the new view, the new vision, the new vista, as the Deputy Minister called it. Let us see how the figures have increased. I have a number of figures here and I want them placed on record in order to show how the whole trend of the Nationalist Party throughout was in the direction of territorial separation. That has always been there policy; we must establish separate states, for if we do not remove the Bantu, White South Africa will be in trouble. I may just mention that the former member for Kempton Park, Mr. Fritz Steyn, admitted in the House that unless the number of Bantu in White South Africa were reduced to a number considerably less than that of the Whites, apartheid could not succeed. He said it was a pre-requisite for apartheid. Let us see what progress has been made with his pre-requisite. I want to mention a few figures. In 1960 there were 344,000 Bantu in the manufacturing industry. Four years later, in 1964, there were 444,000.

We expected it; the turning point is still coming, however.

I shall ask the Chief Whip whether or not it was expected in a moment. I first want to give all the figures. In 1960 there were 78,000 in the building industry and in 1964 there were 106,000, a major increase. Let us see how this Government put a stop to the influx of Bantu. In 1960 there were 105,000 in the employ of the Central Government, and in 1964 there were a 129,000. What a magnificent decrease! Take the Railways, in order to give a better indication. During the last 10 years Bantu passenger services in South Africa have more than doubled.

What does that prove?

It proves that the fundamental principle of that party, the principle of territorial separation, has been totally destroyed.

They are only with us temporarily.

Temporarily, for ever. I remember a civil servant who asked the farmers whether it was temporarily permanent or permanently temporary. The hon. member can decide which one of the two it is. But I was saying that it was the hon. the Prime Minister who gave the answer. For the second time in their political history he provided the Nationalist Party with the key when he declared here one day that the heart of the policy was not territorial separation but political separation. This is the new view. It was a total rejection of the old policy of that party, and the hon. member for Heilbron put the matter much more clearly when he said that they were not importing Bantu, or labour in the form of people—they were only importing labour. He said, “let them come”; he almost said, “the more, the merrier.” He said it did not matter whether there were 5,000 or 5,000,000, just as long as they could not vote here. The hon. Deputy Minister clinched the matter; he made the matter quite clear. The Deputy Minister did this with reference to the key announcement made by the Prime Minister and I would like to read his words. He said: “I want to say that our policy, in this regard particularly, opens new vistas, and that is to associate candidly—the Bantu’s presence here with their necessity as labour.”

Now the question occurs to me: Where precisely do we now stand with the Nationalist Party? Of course they do not know themselves, but we want to analyse the matter. The old policy of territorial separation has been destroyed, or does the hon. member for Moorreesburg still want to say it exists? The old policy has been shattered on the rocks of economic forces, as the United Party has been saying would happen all the time. Now there is this new vision in respect of the increasing numbers of Bantu. It does not make any difference; they may as well come. [Interjection.] The Chief Whip is talking about the turning point. Yesterday I listened to the Prime Minister announcing the most rose-coloured plans for South Africa. Now I want to ask the hon. Chief Whip who, apart from the Bantu, are going to do that work? And if it is done by the Bantu, do you think there is going to be a turning point in 1978? No, 1 think the Burger was correct when it buried that date. It can never arise again. This is only political glib talk but the Nationalist Party cannot get away with it. But what is more, they now have a reply to the United Party which criticized them.

This was in reality the greatest wile of all. We now have a reply to the United Party who say that the Bantu are streaming in by the thousands. For what they are saying now is that the Bantu can just as well come, but that they must not be able to vote. But, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion this type of attitude reveals a deadly dualism at the heart of the Nationalist Party. We are dealing here with a number of people and a small political party who fear the Bantu politically and who exploit that political fear to the utmost. On the other hand there is that same Party which covets this labour and manifests all possible manner of wiles in order to obtain that labour. I say it is a deadly dualism, Mr. Speaker. It is a deadly inconsistency at the heart of the National Party. Here you have a political party who want to remove the political danger of the Bantu, providing the Bantu themselves are not removed bodily. The Bantu can stay, they can come, and they can go. As long as they do not vote. That is the reply.

Mr. Speaker, surely this is a gross misinterpretation of the real facts in South Africa when one is dealing with the preservation of the White man. Just what is the Nationalist Party now trying to prove to us? They are trying to make us believe that one can separate economics from politics. They are trying to persuade us that one can divorce economics, of which labour is the mainstay, from politics. Eighty per cent of the labour in South Africa (the economy) comprises black labour. And it is that eighty per cent which the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Heilbron and the hon. the Deputy Minister wish to divorce from politics. (There is, of course, the hon. member for Edenvale who has always been an advocate of territorial separation. The few other members which I have just mentioned are protagonists of political separation.) Here in South Africa, as in the rest of the world, it is equally impossible for one to divorce economics from politics as it is to sweep the sea back with a broom. In the same way one cannot divorce politics from economics either. There are laws, made by this House, which directly affect the worker. It is only a fool who would maintain that you could continue making laws affecting the worker for the duration without the worker himself being consulted in that regard. This, however, is what the Nationalist Party advocates. The political behaviour of this Government towards the worker, the Black worker, will also affect the approach of these people to their work. These people do not come to South Africa as migrants. They come here as people who aspire, who think, and who desire. But this is as the Nationalist Party want to see the matter at the moment and it forms the basis of their new approach, If they should continue with this approach, I want to tell you that we are preparing South Africa for an explosion unparalleled in its history. I say that it is dangerous nonsense, this dualism in the Nationalist Party policy. Unfortunately it does not remain at that, nonsense; it goes much further. We already know that the Bantu have been promised independence. We know that the Transkei is proceeding rapidly along the road to that independence. And I tell you this, as these states are created, so the Bantu will succeed in drawing their racial nationalism from those states. The Bantu will then succeed in using those states as an inspiration to them for the political attitudes which they must adopt in white South Africa. And this Government, Mr. Speaker, is going out of its way to cultivate Black nationalism, Bantu nationalism. It is giving the Bantu political awareness and it is teaching the Bantu the power of the ballot-box.

What do you want to do with a Black majority?

If only that hon. member would listen.

He does not have the sense to listen. Leave him alone!

The main point I want to make here is that it is giving the Bantu rights, rights the responsibilities whereof are not yet valued and appreciated by thousands. What is far more important, Mr. Speaker, it is giving these Black people the right to seek affiliation with greater Africa with its dangerous Black nationalism. The Nationalist Party, having done all these things, having inspired the Black people in those states to the heights of nationalism, then say that those people with their political insight and knowledge must come and work here in their millions, but must put an immediate stop to their political thinking as soon as they have crossed the border. They must become political automatons. They must come here and exist in a political vacuum. The future will teach South Africa that the most dangerous thing the Nationalist Party did for South Africa was to create this political consciousness in the Black man at such tremendous rate. I have no doubt whatsoever about this. What do we now find in South Africa? We find a state of affairs which is a very deterioration of the state of affairs existing in 1948. For, Mr. Speaker, we find a state of affairs in the so-called white South Africa where the Government, through their own fault, allows thousands of Bantu to stream into our country. They are doing it because they are afraid to disturb the established labour pattern in South Africa. The preponderance of the number of Bantu, the nucleus of the danger in South Africa, is therefore becoming greater by the day. Nothing is being done about this. That preponderance is continually increasing. The danger which has been held before the people by the Nationalist Party all these years, is therefore greater to-day than it has ever been here in white South Africa. Over and above these dangers they went and created those states which the hon. the Prime Minister spoke about yesterday when he said that there were dangers lurking in this as well. In other words, there are two sets of dangers. The dangers which would be unleashed in white South Africa and the dangers as they would arise from the black states. And apart from that, one is still left with the other, and in my opinion most danmning, fact that the Nationalist Party comes to the people with this clever talk and says that it has a solution for them, while every rational person to-day knows that the Nationalist Party is destroying the fundamental principles on which its solution ought to rest. I say that they are leading the people astray. The people believe we have a solution while there is no solution. The sooner the people of South Africa realize this, the better it will be for their future. I want to say this to the hon. the Prime Minister: Once the people have realized this, they will agree one hundred per cent with the motion of no confidence as it has been put by my hon. Leader.

The hon. member who has just sat down really echoed a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, a statement with which I also want to deal this afternoon. In the first place I want to deal with his statement that the policy of the National Party was total territorial separation. If by total separation he means that all the Whites in South Africa will be segregated in one part of the country while the Bantu will be segregated in another part of South Africa. I want to tell him that even in their time the late Dr. Malan and the late Advocate Strijdom said that such a policy, although it represented an ideal, was not practical politics. It has never been the practical politics of the National Party to propagate that. One has to take the people of South Africa with one step by step. The ideal must be achieved step by step, an ideal which is possible beyond reach. That has never been the practical policy of the National Party, and if he wants to attribute that to us this afternoon he is making a mistake.

I was talking of “the highest measure” of separation.

That is precisely what I want to reply to, seeing that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition again made the reproach yesterday—a reproach which was repeated by the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) this afternoon—that there were allegedly more Bantu in the White areas than in 1948. He mentioned the former member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn), who made a speech on that matter here the year before last. It is a pity that he did not read that speech more carefully and that he did not study it more thoroughly, because he would have noticed that Adv. Steyn’s main thesis at that time was that in proportion to the number of White workers, the number of Bantu working in all the industries of South Africa had decreased since 1948. The hon. member can take any industry. For instance, if he compares the number of Whites and Bantu employed in the building industry in 1948 with the number employed in the building industry at present, he will notice that there are proportionally fewer Bantu in the building industry to-day than there were in 1948. Adv. Steyn proved that statement with chapter and verse in this House at that time by quoting figures for the various industries. I am sorry that the hon. member now comes along and quotes Adv. Steyn without touching on the essence of the whole of his speech.

May I ask the hon. member why they stressed last year that it did not matter whether you imported 5,000 or 5,000,000 Bantu?

I shall deal with that. I want to deal with that matter specifically. Mr. Speaker, we have never contended that we would remove all the Bantu from the White areas. Nor have we even said that we were going to reduce the numbers immediately. We said our policy was one of separate development, and in the application of that policy we are creating a pattern in terms of which the influx of the Bantu into the White areas will be reduced, and according to calculations that curve will start showing a downward trend in the year 1978. One of the fundamental principles of the policy of the National Party is that any Bantu who finds himself in a White area should be there merely to render a service, i.e. to sell his labour. The National Party has never suggested that it will see to it that not a single Bantu labourer will be able to sell his labour in South Africa. As a matter of fact, the policy of the National Party as applied by us during the past two years or, let us say, during the past five years in terms of the various Acts passed in this House, was nothing but control of that labour, because the labour which flows into the White part of South Africa does not form an essential part, i.e. it should not be integrated with the White part of South Africa. That is precisely where our policy differs from that of the United Party. The United Party does not regard the Bantu in the White areas as a labourer who goes there to sell his labour, but regards him as a citizen of the White area. The United Party wants him integrated in every sphere, not only in the political sphere, but also in the social, economic and every other sphere. We say our policy should be such that the laoourer who comes to sell his labour here should merely sell his labour and should never be integrated with the White society in the White areas. I think that is as clear as one can possibly state our policy on that point.

I now come back to the number of Bantu in the White areas of South Africa, and in this connection I want to make the following statement here: In 1948 we inherited something from the previous Government, an inheritance which opened the doors to the Bantu to enter, not in small numbers, but in their thousands and in their millions, the White part of South Africa, as indeed they did. Under United Party rule they poured into the White areas, in consequence of which slums appeared in squatters’ settlements on the perimeter of the major cities of South Africa. The fact of the matter is that even to-day there are thousands and millions of Bantu in the White part of South Africa, Bantu who are there not merely to sell their labour. Those are the Bantu whom I describe as the redundant Bantu, to whom our policy must be applied in the first place in order to return them to their own areas. We maintain that the Bantu does not constitute a danger to our policy as long as he only sells his labour here, because we do not regard him as being integrated. We are only concerned with the fact that no integration should take place between Bantu and Whites in South Africa. As far as that principle is concerned, numbers do not matter, provided labour is supplied by the Bantu who find themselves in the White areas and provided that labour is controlled. There are thousands of Bantu in the White areas who do not work there, and those are the Bantu to whom our policy must be applied in the first place. Firstly, there are the inhabitants of black spots. The hon. member even mentioned the thousands of black spots in South Africa.

Hundreds.

Well, say hundreds. It is indeed hundreds. I can give the hon. member the exact figure if he wants it. There are hundreds of black spots in South Africa, i.e. free-hold land in the possession of Bantu in the White areas which is not scheduled as Bantu land. The land is situated in a White area but it is occupied by the Bantu; it is land which wrongly came into the hands of these Bantu. As the hon. member said, there are several hundreds of those black spots. These black spots cover no less than 366.000 morgen. I visited many of those black spots myself. They are among the most densely populated parts in South Africa. According to a conservative estimate those black spots are inhabited by approximately a million people. Hon. members must remember that those Bantu are staying in the White areas, but they are not there for the purpose of selling their labour The policy of this Government is therefore aimed at removing these Bantu from the White areas, because we only allow the Bantu in the White areas when they sell their labour there. What has the Government done in this regard since 1948? Let me furnish the hon. member with the figures. Since 1948, 125,000 morgen of those black spots, i.e. more than one-third of the total have been cleared in terms of the policy of the National Party. During the first eleven years until 1959 approximately 12,000 morgen were cleared; in 1960, 26,000 morgen were cleared, in 1961, 9,000 morgen, in 1962, 28,000 morgen, in 1963, 15,000 morgen, in 1964, 3,000 morgen and in 1965 up to the month of September, 32,000 morgen. In other words, we have cleared more than one-third of the black spots during the period in which we have been in office. I can also give the hon. member another piece of good news. In terms of our programme the remaining two-thirds will definitely be cleared during the next five years. We are conducting surveys of each of those black spots. When all those black spots have been cleared approximately 1,000,000 Bantu will have been removed from the White areas. This is in accordance with our policy. Those Bantu are not here to sell their labour. Those people entered the White areas under the laissez-faire policy of the United Party. Those evils, which we are eliminating at present, developed under the policy of the United Party Government. The example of squatters is a second example I want to quote to the hon. member of Bantu staying in White areas without providing any labour. No single Government has ever tackled the problem of squatters in South Africa as effectively as the Nationalist Party Government has done, particularly during the past five years under the leadership of the present Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. A Commission of Inquiry into squatters and labour tenants in South Africa has estimated that these people, including their families, number nearly 1,000,000. The South African Agricultural Union has expressed itself against this system of labour tenants, and the necessary measures were adopted in this House the year before last by this Government to deal with labour tenants in South Africa in an endeavour to have the whole system abolished. I may inform the hon. member that these measures will be applied and that the necessary regulations have been promulgated and that an end will also be put to this state of affairs of having aporoximately 600.000 squatters in the White areas of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, these redundant Bantu in the White areas of South Africa do not only include inhabitants of black spots or squatters and labour tenants; they also consist of the families of labourers, or let me rather say, members of the same kraal under the guardianship of the same headman of the kraal, for example, pensioners, unmarried women, etc., attached to the headman of the kraal who works in the White area. I now want to explain to the hon. member how this Government is dealing with this difficult problem. The Government keeps that particular problem in check by establishing townships in the Bantu areas. Let me also furnish the House with those figures: the pensioners and the unmarried women, etc., to whom I referred a moment ago will all be accommodated in those townships. At present approximately 104 townships, Bantu townships which are being established in the Bantu areas, appear on the Estimates of the Bantu Trust. Some have reached quite an advanced stage, while others are still in the planning stage. One-hundred-and-thirty townships have already been planned for the next five years. A reasonable conclusion to be drawn from this is that we are going to provide accommodation for those redundant Bantu in these townships. I now come to the point I wish to stress: The following is envisaged by our policy; we are going to accomplish the following through our policy of the development of Bantu homelands as this policy of the development of Bantu homelands is being carried out. It is unnecessary for me to quote all the figures here; I can keep the House occupied for the rest of the afternoon by quoting figures to show what development has taken place in the Bantu areas, but I do not consider it necessary. I merely want to make this statement, that it is obvious that by extending our policy of Bantu homelands, more and more Bantu labour will be needed in the homelands themselves and that the Bantu labour in the White homeland will be reduced in the same measure as that in which more Bantu labour will be needed in the Bantu homelands. The peak of the curve will be reached in 1978.

Who is then going to do the work in the White areas?

The hon. member for Maitland is possessed with only one idea; he does not see a matter as a whole. I also want to stress this point, that the economy of South Africa is an indivisible one, but if one observes the economy of the world one will find it indivisible too. That is proved by the fact that boycotts to-day can no longer be made effective between one country and another. The entire economy of the world has become a unit.

That is beyond his comprehension.

I think it is absolutely nonsense to say, as the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) did, that every state must have a “viable economy”. Does Basutoland have a “viable economy”? Does Bechuanaland have a “viable economy”? Does Malawi, to take the best example, have a “viable economy”? What about Britain herself? Does Britain in itself have a “viable economy”? Certainly not. She is dependent upon other states. As far as the economy is concerned, there is an “inter-dependence” between countries at present. What will it matter to the independence of Basutoland or Malawi if they do not have a so-called “viable economy”? We are all dependent upon one another in the economic sphere, and if the matter is viewed in that light there is nothing wrong with the Transkei becoming independent; the Transkei may become a state without its having a “viable economy” in the sense that it should be independent from the rest of the world and that it should be self-supporting. No single state has ever at the time of its coming into being been absolutely independent and self-supporting in the economic sphere. I do not know why hon. members opposite keep on raising this matter.

Let us once more return to the question of labour. The hon. member for Maitland asked me who was going to do the work in South Africa if we did not have Bantu labour. We will always be using Bantu labour here. As a matter of fact, our policy is aimed at that. We shall make use of Bantu labour, but it is in this essential respect that our policy differs from that of the United Party as far as labour is concerned: we say that we shall not use Bantu labour in the White parts at the expense of the White man, but that is not the attitude of the United Party. Their policy is “the rate for the job”. The person who is able to do the “job” should receive the “rate” whether he is black or whether he is white. In other words, if the Bantu is fit to do the work in the White areas, he should get the “rate” and the “job”, irrespective of whether or not there is a White man to fill that position. That is the real difference between their policy and ours. We shall use Bantu labour in the White part of this country for many decades to come, but there are two things we shall take care of: we shall see that the Bantu will not become integrated with the White society, with the White part, of South Africa, and on the other hand we shall see that White labour in the White man’s own homeland will not be replaced by Bantu labour.

We have no more White labour.

If there is no White labour the Bantu may come, but he shall not become integrated with our society; we simply do not want integration. In terms of the policy of the United Party integration will indeed take place. They say that the Bantu becomes a citizen of the White area as soon as he finds himself in those areas. As a matter of fact, they see South Africa as one society; it does not matter whether it is black, or white or yellow. They are all citizens of one country. That is the viewpoint of the United Party; we do not view it in that light. We say the Bantu have their own homelands and that they come here to provide their labour. They may come here to provide their labour when no Whites are available to perform the work. As far as the principle is concerned, it will make no difference whether there are a hundred thousand or a thousand or a million Bantu in the White areas. There is no integration at all, and what does it matter if there is no integration and the Bantu do not replace the Whites in their own homeland? The essence of our policy is that we will simply not tolerate integration. Our policy is that we want separate development.

I should like to deal with one other subject, and that is the question of border industries. Yesterday, the hon. the Prime Minister mentioned border industries and furnished very interesting figures. I hope hon. members listened to that. I mentioned it here last year and I want to repeat that the border industries are not what the Leader of the Opposition tried to make them out to be yesterday. Yesterday he said we now had border industries where job reservation did no longer apply because the Bantu may perform the work of the Whites and the Coloureds there. I do not know where he got that statement from. In any case, we know why we have those border industries. We are training Bantu there to do certain skilled work. However, those Bantu, after having been trained to perform skilled labour in the border industries, are not brought here to come and work in a factory in the heart of the White part of the country in the place of the White man. Those trained Bantu in the border industries are employed to perform the work in the industry in their own areas. But up to the present there is not one single Bantu in any of the border industries who has replaced White labour. I do not know where he got that statement from, neither do I know why he has made that statement. It seems to me that statement was made solely to sow suspicion about the whole concept of border industries. The concept of border industries originated with the present Prime Minister. When he raised the concept of border industries, many people laughed at him: they said it was unpractical and could not be carried out. But the fact of the matter is that more than R100,000,000 has been invested in the border industries up to the present. According to the figures I have, 49.000 Bantu were employed in those industries up to the end of 1964, and everyone of those workers stands at the head of a family. We have often made the statement and I wish to repeat it, that the labour force now stays in the Bantu areas but works in the White areas; we can accept that a family consists of an average of five persons and we can take it that by employing one Bantu in the border industries, we have placed five Bantu in their own homeland. On the strength of that argument, the position is that if in 1964 there were 49,000 Bantu in the border industries alone, that figure should be multiplied by five, giving a total of approximately 250.000 Bantu who had been resettled through the border industries or who had been settled in their own homeland. I may add that this figure does not include the Bantu employed in industries in Durban. Although Durban’s labour force is settled in a Bantu area, but works in a White area, it is not included under border industries for the purposes of these figures, because, in terms of the concept of border industries, certain benefits are to be granted to border industries while those benefits are not granted to the industries at Durban. However, that does not mean that the industries around Durban are not border industries. When those figures for Durban and Pinetown are added one finds that a further 45,000 Bantu are employed in the border areas; the total figure can then be doubled, which means that we have settled at least 500.000 Bantu in Bantu areas through border industries.

Border industries have yet another advantage which should be kept in mind, because border industries create tertiary industries for the Bantu in their own townships. They are the traders, the professional people and the hairdressers. They carry on all the tertiary industries in their own townships through which even more labour is provided even more Bantu. In this way the figure of half-a-million is increased even further. I believe the hon. members of the Opposition talk about these matters regarding the increase of numbers merely to create a smoke-screen behind which they can hide the bankruptcy of their own policy, because what is their policy and their solution as regards this matter? Why do they not talk about their federation plan any more? Has it become a swear-word in our politics? Why do they not talk about their federation plan? Why do they not say their federation plan does not mean seven Bantustans, but seven black parliaments, the representatives of which will sit here in a federal parliament?

That is untrue.

They said their federation plan did not mean a territorial federation, but that they would have a federation of races. That means every race will have a separate parliament of its own. and in a federation the representatives of those black parliaments must, indeed, be represented in the federal parliament. That is how they put it. That is what the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) told us in the Sunday Times at that time. Are they who have now become the champions of the Whites in South Africa, afraid of that? No, they are looking for a smoke-screen behind which to hide their own sins.

Allow me to begin by telling the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) that during the last three minutes of his speech he told at least five political untruths. The first is that under the United Party policy there will be eight black parliaments in South Africa. That is utter nonsense. That is totally and infinitely untrue. The most we made any mention of was that there will be communal councils. Under a United Party Government there was a communal council, such as the old Bunga.

The second untruth is this, that it is United Party policy that eight black members of parliament will sit in this House. That is totally untrue. The truth is that we say that if we come into power there will be a maximum of eight Whites—and let me underline that— as representatives here in the House of Assembly and only afterwards, if another election is held, or a special election or a referendum, then those hon. members and we on this side can decide whether there will be fewer or more of them, or whether the nature of representation will be changed, or what have you. But there is no doubt about it whatsoever that in terms of our policy there will be eight White members, and that will not be changed unless it is the will of the people.

Now we come to this basic difference between us and the policy of that side of the House. We are prepared to go to the people after five years of United Party Government and to put it to them that we are asking for a further mandate. If perhaps it appeared that our policy had not succeeded, then the people could say: Very well, let us change it at the referendum. But what is the difference between that and the policy of the Nationalist Party? Once they have transferred sovereignty to their Black Bantustans, only blood and armed force could bring about a change. The United Party says that if its policy does not succeed, we leave it to a referendum or a special election to change it, but if the Government’s policy does not succeed, our country will be doomed by it forever; there can be no change.

The hon. member for Heilbron raised a miserable old skeleton from the grave. That skeleton is the date 1978, the great, wonderful day, when the Bantu will begin to flow back to the Reserves. He tried to revive it. At his Transvaal Congress the Prime Minister tried to revive it, but it has been buried and done with, and who buried it? None other than the official organ of the Nationalist Party, the Burger itself, when they wrote in May last year—

That is what the Burger wrote, but now the hon. member tries to revive it! It is clear that there is a split from top to bottom in that Party as regards their Bantu policy, in so far as such a policy exists.

I particularly regret that the hon. the Prime Minister is not here to-day, because I want to repeat to him a challenge issued to him by my Leader and to which he has so far declined to reply; a challenge which I issue to every member on that side of the House. This is the challenge: Tell me and tell the country and tell the people what Nationalist Party Congress it has ever been decided specifically and in so many words that the Bantustans will receive full independence? There are 100 members on that side. Tell us why their Party has never held a Provincial or Republican Congress on this issue to decide specifically and in so many words that the Bantustans can receive independence? At our Bloemfontein Congress we issued that challenge to our Prime Minister. The Nationalist Party papers were silent on the issue; they have dodged it, cowardly as ever. But this is the opportunity—let the Chief Whip pass it on to the Prime Minister so that he may tell us where and when and at what Congress his Party specifically decided that those Bantustans can achieve independence. I give the hon. members another chance. Name one date or one place. There you are, Sir. The Prime Minister forces a policy upon them which was not approved by their ordinary members in so many words. But they have changed their policy as regards these Bantustans so frequently.

Nonsense!

The hon. member says it is nonsense. Let me read to him what his own paper, the Burger, said on 3 June 1964. They quote two extracts from speeches made by the Prime Minister himself, in the first of which the Prime Minister states that the Bantu homelands will not achieve independence, and in the second of which the Prime Minister says that they will in fact achieve independence, the first dating from 1951 and the second from 1960, and then the Burger says—

In other words, one who does not change his policy is a fool, and those wise men on the other side who did change their policies are the great intelligentsia of modern politics. The trouble is that one never has the slightest notion what political capers they will perform. That is why I tell that hon. member that here is the reply to him, from his own paper, that they have changed their policy.

There is the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration. In one of the official publications of his Department, BaNtu, I read that the Tswana tribes call him by such a fine name. They call him the rhinoceros. I think it is a fine name. We regret that we will not be seeing him here for many years to come, and I think we all agree that this very fine white rhinoceros has a very nice black heart. But has he not also changed his policy? In the Volksblad of 5 September 1955, it is reported that he addressed the youth congress of the Nationalist Party in Bloemfontein, and there he said—

Then who are the people who nowadays accept this Bantu policy? Are they agitators? Are Prime Minister Matanzima and his brother George agitators? Where have they suddenly sprung from. Why did they despise it and why did he agree that it was a despicable policy? No, the hon. member’s interjection means absolutely nothing. They have changed their policy continually. Where they once said the Bantustans would never become independent, the Prime Minister to-day emphasizes that it is their policy.

Over there is the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter), Chief Whip of that party. Last year my friend on my left asked him in the House of Assembly whether he had ever told his voters in his constituency that the Bantu states would become independent, and what was his reply? His reply was: “Yes, of course, that is the charm of truth.” Will the hon. member again tell his voters during this election that the Bantu states can become totally independent, which to him is the charm of truth? [Interjection.] I am glad to see the hon. member has again said. “Yes”.

We told them what the consequences of their policy would be. Some years ago the hon. the Minister of Defence already envisaged what may happen. According to the Vaderland he said at a Nationalist Party Congress—

The Transkei will be able to enter into treaties with foreign powers and we in South Africa will be unable to say anything about it. Will it be with Russia or with other communist countries, or with Indonesia? We do not know, but the Minister of Defence, who is charged with the defence of the country, says “Yes, they can do so.” Then he added that we would at least be able to defend ourselves, but it could be that there would be a period of four or five years of guerilla warfare in South Africa. Guerilla warfare means that one has to fight the war from the mountains and on the plains, and that there are military troops in the cities, Black troops who have conquered them. What will become of the women and children of South Africa in a guerilla war? But that is a possibility which the Minister envisages. He says that such a danger does exist. The Commissioner-General for the Transkei, Mr. Hans Abraham, recently made a speech in the Transkei before senior officers of the South African Air Force. He said—

Why should they learn to know every inch of the Transkei, the soft under-belly of South Africa? Why should we learn to know what is happening in the Transkei? Is it not because the hon. members on the other side realize what dangers may arise from their policy—as the hon. the Minister of Defence admitted himself?

I still regret that the hon. the Prime Minister is not present, because I should like to reply to an attack which he launched against me personally the other day. It is in connection with an article I wrote in Ons Land. [Interjections.] I am glad to see that article of mine in Ons Land had so many readers. Now I want to say that the facts of the matter are the following: Firstly, that the person who was stopped by the police at the Basutoland border, Chief Khakhetla, is a member of the secret council of King Moshesh the Second. He was appointed by the leader of Basutoland personally, by Moshesh himself. That secret council consists of three persons only, and this person who has been appointed, that is, Khakhetla, is the one person who was nominated by Moshesh the Second himself. He is therefore not just an anybody. He is a person who enjoys the confidence of the Basutoland with which the Prime Minister is prepared to negotiate. Now, I do not know what Khakhetla’s politics are. Some of the hon. members on the other side know more about that. He may be a communist. I am not saying that. I do not know whether the hon. the Prime Minister says that. I do not even know whether the hon. the Minister of Justice will perhaps say that. I know that in his speech the Prime Minister spoke of the Basutoland Congress Party. That is in fact a communistic party and the Basutoland Congress Party is the communistic opposition in Basutoland. This person, Chief Khakhetla, who is a member of the secret council—whatever his politics may be; communistic or not—is a member of another party, the Marematlou Freedom Party, the same party which Chief Jonathan at one stage wanted to take into his own government and to whom he offered Ministerships. That is the same Chief Jonathan with whom this Government would like to negotiate.

The next fact is this, that that person’s car was stopped at the Basutoland border by the South African Police, or by members of the Security Police. What I say now is based mainly on a report of the Argus News Service which appeared in The Friend. Certain documents were found in the car. One of those documents purported to be—and I use the word “purported” deliberately—a letter from Chief Jonathan to Commissioner - General Papenfus, in which he set out possible agreements in connection with the conquered territories in the Orange Free State and the possible transfer of parts of those territories to Basutoland itself. [Interjections.] Now the hon. the Prime Minister tells me that that particular letter was a forgery. Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister says so, I readily accept that that letter was a forgery. [Interjections.], but then I want to ask the following question. Months ago this report was broadcast far and wide by the Argus News Service. The hon. the Prime Minister had an opportunity to repudiate those letters. I myself never saw it repudiated in any report in any paper. The Prime Minister said it was repudiated by Mr. Papenfus and by Chief Jonathan. I want to ask, in which newspapers was it repudiated? In my article I did not write that the hon. the Prime Minister had said that that letter was authentic. I wrote that it should be ascertained whether or not the letter was authentic. But let us continue.

What I wrote there, however, was not written merely against the background of that alleged letter. No, it was written against the background of many other things which occurred during the past years as regards the conquered territories in Basutoland, inter alia also against the background of one point which I mentioned in my article and upon which the hon. Prime Minister was silent when he spoke on the matter.

Surely you know it is a lie.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

The hon. the Minister must withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, on a point or order. The hon. the Minister said that he knew that letter was a lie, and the hon. member himself stated that it was a lie.

Mr. Speaker, may I say that that remark by the Minister is aimed at creating a totally false impression. Let me tell him exactly what the position was. In my article I wrote that it was still to be ascertained whether or not that letter was a forgery. I now say, after having heard the Prime Minister, that I accept that the letter was a forgery, and I ask the hon. the Prime Minister to see it in that light. But now I ask him to listen some more. In his speech the hon. the Prime Minister said this:

I quote that from the Prime Minister’s Hansard. He said he never had the slightest intention of entering into negotiations on the conquered territories. But let us have a look at what I shall call the hon. the Prime Minister’s memory. Here I have a publication issued by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. It is the November 1963 issue of BaNtu. In this the photograph of the hon. the Prime Minister appears together with an article “Pad na Vryheid vir Britse Protektorate”. Let us see what the hon. the Prime Minister said, not only with regard to all the Protectorates, but more specifically with regard to Basutoland. And not only with regard to Basutoland, but with regard to areas which at present fall within the Republic of South Africa and which he would have been prepared to give to Basutoland. [Interjections.] I shall read it with the greatest of pleasure, for I want it to be recorded where everybody can read it. The hon. the Prime Minister said he was going to indicate what offers he was prepared to make to Basutoland, to Bechuanaland and to Swaziland, provided that they accepted the Bantustan policy. That those offers are still standing to-day is evident from the speech made by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee), who set out the Nationalist Party policy in this regard this afternoon. It concurs with what the Prime Minister said in this article. The Prime Minister’s words read as follows:

He does not say elsewhere in South Africa, but elsewhere in Africa, which includes, for example, Ghana, Nigeria and Malawi. Under the Prime Minister’s plan they are going to receive independence similar to the independence of those countries. [Interjection.] I want that hon. member who made an interjection a while ago to the effect that the Prime Minister’s statement applies only to Swaziland, to listen, because he must not go and tell that story in the Free State again. The Prime Minister then said:

[Interjection.] That is their policy in a few words.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

That is their policy in a single sentence, a larger Basutoland and a smaller Basutoland.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I am sorry, my time is limited. The Prime Minister said:

Mr. Speaker, and still we have not reached the end as regards that party with its larger Basutoland policy. On 3 November, 1965, a report on Basutoland appeared in The Friend in which a debate in the Basutoland Parliament was reported. Now, I do not want to rely on The Friend only, and I have already written for the Hansard of the Basutoland National Assembly. Here is the report as published by The Friend. The communistic Basutoland Congress Party requested the British Government to negotiate with South Africa without delay in connection with the return of those so-called conquered territories. The Basutoland Government under Chief Jonathan, the hon. the Prime Minister’s confidante, replied through its Minister of External Affairs. His name is Chief Maseribane. Maseribane replied as follows regarding the conquered territories and their return. He said: All political parties in Basutoland, including the Basutoland National Party, are unanimous in giving the negotiations for the return of these territories top priority. The Government feels, however, that it is necessary to wait until the Basutos have achieved control over their own external affairs, so that they can negotiate directly with the Republic about the matter. If any repudiation was ever issued to Basutoland in connection with this matter, why did the Minister of External Affairs get up in the Basutoland Parliament only a few weeks ago and say that he was waiting only until they achieved control of their external affairs, and then he would come and negotiate with the Prime Minister on the return of the conquered territories? This again should be seen against the background of the Prime Minister’s words when he said: “I never gave the slightest indication, or had the slightest intention.”

Mr. Speaker, one never knows where you stand with this Government, because we know that in the past promises were made which were not kept. Look at the case of Umzimkulu. While the hon. the Minister of Bantu Affairs was speaking, he was asked: “What about Umzimkulu?” And he said he would come to that. He was asked a second time, “What about Umzimkulu?” and again he said he would come to that. At last 28 and 29 minutes of his speaking time had run out, but he never came to Umzimkulu. Why not? Because he once gave the farmers of Umzimkulu the assurance that their farms would not be taken over or sold, and shortly afterwards he changed his decision. I maintain that the Prime Minister’s promise in connection with the conquered territories is worth no more and no less than the Minister of Bantu Affair’s decision in connection with Umzimkulu, and it is no use his sitting over there grumbling. [Interjection.]

Mr. Speaker, they have no policy. They have no policy in connection with Rhodesia, unless it is a policy which also has to please Kenya and Rhodesia, Zambia and Malawi. Surely a policy which cannot please one side or the other is no policy. But let me repeat clearly that if as a result of the action or inaction by that side of the House as regards Rhodesia a calamity or a catastrophe occurs in Rhodesia, every member on that side of the House, from the Prime Minister all the way down, will carry the blame for all time to come. They are divided on Rhodesia, they are divided on Bantustans. Throughout last year we saw the signs of discord. They are divided on nominations. Has there ever been such a bloody battle over nominations as that which has been waged in that party during the past six months? There are members here who are still smarting, Mr. Speaker, and there are even legal actions in the offing. Die Beeld said that the nomination struggle was the most vehement struggle ever to take place in that party. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, where the greatest and hardest battle of the coming election will take place, according to one of the Nationalist Party papers? It will be in Uitenhage, amongst the Nationalists themselves! They are fighting harder among themselves than against us. And that is called a harmonious party.

North and South in the party are at loggerheads. I wish I had the time to tell you the story of the two representatives of Nasionale Koerante who were summoned to Pretoria and who thought they were going to be told top secrets in connection with party policy. They found, however, that the Prime Minister sitting behind that table was not the Prime Minister of the country at that moment; he was chairman of Dagbreek Pers and Dagbreek Pers newspapers. He demanded that they tell him why they were publishing another newspaper, the Beeld, in opposition to Dagbreek en Sondagnuus. Where is their unity? See how quiet they are now.

They are trying to bring about the unity of the Afrikaans and English speaking peoples. I think the list of names, Smith, Ivor Benson. Stirling and recently also Mr. Stuart-Corsen of Pietermaritzburg, who was forced to resign all his posts in the Nationalist Party on account of what he called a power group in the Nationalist Party. Think of the 22 members who were suspended in Wonderboom after the nomination struggle there in the constituency of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. Think of the hon. the member for Edenvale (Dr. P. G. J. Koornhof) who called the Burger “cold-blooded” and “desperate” because the Burger dared to be critical of his beloved anti-communistic congress. Not only are they divided, Mr. Speaker, they are also ridiculous. There is a long, long list of ridiculous cases. I mention only the Dusty Springfield case, the “Independence” case and the case of the sun-tanned Cypriot … [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) is the best contradicter of his own speeches. We on this side of the House have hardly anyone who can contradict his speeches better than he does himself with the inflated exaggeration with which he tackles everything. I am going to deal with a few of the points he raised. In the first place I want to tell the hon. member that he should not think that he can delude people who are intelligent readers—even if it is only of Hansard—into believing that his party gives a firm guarantee to South Africa that under race federation they would have only Whites as representatives of the Bantu people in this Parliament. That is something which was proved beyond any doubt last year by no less a person than the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) when he openly and plainly admitted from his bench, after I questioned him in connection with the television talk, that he had said in that talk—and he will be hearing more about that from me—that if the United Party came into power they would allow eight Whites to represent the Bantu, and that they accepted that subsequent Parliaments would be free to admit Bantu to Parliament to represent Bantu. The hon. member for Yeoville confirmed that last year in this Parliament, and here in the Minutes of Proceedings of 5th February of last year it is recorded that the United Party’s policy of race federation opens the way for the Bantu of South Africa to have Bantu representatives sitting in this Parliament in due course. [Interjections.] It has been irrevocably recorded in Hansard, and that member cannot make anyone believe anything to the contrary.