I have to inform hon. members that on my instruction, given in accordance with the recommendation contained in the final paragraph of the report of the Select Committee on a Question of Privilege presented to this House on 29th September, Mr. H. Jones in his capacity as Editor of the S.A. Film Weekly has published the Committee’s report in full in the issue of that journal for 6th October, 1966.

In his address to Sabra the hon. Minister expressed a few thoughts which I have found stimulating and to which I should like to give a little attention. Actually I first of all want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not take the Committee into his confidence and inform them how he regards the entire situation of the ethnic concept in regard to the Bantu, as he expressed it briefly in his Sabra speech. There the hon. Minister drew a very clear dividing line and stated that the Bantu as such should not be regarded as one unit but that the Bantu population of South Africa consisted of different nations. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not, at a later stage, inform us in regard to this matter. I think it holds very interesting possibilities if it could be developed further.

Arising from that I want to begin with this hypothesis and I want to put the following question: Suppose somebody, no matter who, were to be given the White map of Southern Africa at this stage and were also given the particulars in regard to the population groups and nations of South Africa and Southern Africa as they are at present situated in that territory and he were to be asked to position those nations in the country as he thought best. I know that this a hypothesis. Then I want to say at once—and I think that everybody will agree with me, even the severest Opposition critic of the Government’s policy—that such a person would place those groups of nations, the 3,000,000 Xhosa, the 2,800,000 Zulus, the 1,200,000 Sothos and the 3,250,000 Whites and all the various other groups separately in separate areas, each to its own. No person in his right mind would integrate them and go and place them together because one is aware of how that creates problems in daily life. I am glad that the hon. member for Transkei, the main Opposition speaker on Bantu Affairs, is present. I want to ask him whether he agrees that that would be the ideal state of affairs, if one were able to bring it about? Would it be the ideal state of affairs to place each group apart.

All the groups completely separate?

Yes. Does the hon. member agree?

Yes.

The hon. member agrees that that would be the ideal state of affairs. I am very glad that he agrees with me because I now want to argue further from that point.

Of course it is quite impossible.

The hon. member must kindly not waste my time now; I only have ten minutes. If the ideal state of affairs is that every group must be placed altogether separately, isolated, completely separate as far as territory and everything else is concerned, then I want to put this question to the hon. member since it is the policy of this Government to develop step for step in that direction and so ultimately arrive at that ideal state of affairs—and the hon. member has acknowledged that I am right about that being the ideal state of affairs—why are we being opposed at every step when we move in that direction? In those areas one could have each group with its own independence; each group could fulfil its highest national aspirations there; it could be fully self-governing and self-sufficient there; it could have its own industries there; it could ultimately have its own agricultural industry there, its own constitutional systems, its own self-respect with a few points of contact and, for that reason, few points of friction. On the borders it will of course have points of contact with its neighbours. Mr. Chairman, why does the Opposition not try to strive to attain that ideal, which it has itself admitted is the ideal?

It is impracticable.

The hon. member says it is impracticable. Take the situation as we have it here to-day. What can be more important for each population group in South Africa than the achievement of that ideal? What could be more important for the survival of each group as a separate entity than the achievement and realization of that ideal? The hon. member says that our standards of living would suffer. Our standard of living might suffer because we would have to eliminate certain people and others would have to be incorporated, and that would create problems. Is a higher standard of living worth more to us, even if it means no chance of survival? I then come to the next argument that it will cause the cost of living to rise tremendously because we will have to do our own work and that will create problems. Is a higher cost of living and a lower pattern of living, if that is necessary, not better than having no pattern of living and no safe future whatsoever? The next argument is that the rate of economic growth in South Africa will decrease because we will not then have Bantu labour at our disposal. Mr. Chairman, is a slower rate of economic growth not more beneficial to us than ultimately having no economic growth at all? We will not go under as a result of that. What is more important for South Africa at the moment than striving after and achieving that ultimate ideal? For a nation which is in earnest about its future, nothing can be more important. I want to take the idea expressed by the hon. the Minister that we are dealing with different Bantu nations a little further. In that composition we also have this situation which is very interesting: In that composition we inevitably find that the White group is the largest majority population group. If one views it in this way, then the White population group, with its 3,500,000 to 3,750,000 people, is the largest single population group in South Africa, and then it is probably in the eyes of the outside world, since they adhere to the idea of majority rule, entitled to majority rule in its White area.

In the same way the Zulus are entitled to majority rule in Zululand the Xhosas are entitled to majority rule in Xhosaland or in the Transkei. But the United Party does not accept it like that. The United Party does not see the Bantu as comprising separate nations; they see them as a unit, as one majority unit, and because they see them thus they automatically accept that as a majority unit they will ultimately find themselves in the situation in which they will have a seat in this House, or wherever it might be, according to the race federation policy of the United Party. If time allows we can go into the details of that later on. If the United Party also wanted to accept this idea of separate nations, then they should have adopted the attitude in their race federation policy not that eight Bantu representatives must have a seat in this House and six in the Other Place, but they should have said that there will be one representative here for the Xhosas, one for the Zulus, one for the Swazis, one for this group and one for that, and by so doing have given representation to the various Bantu nations. They accept that the Bantu are a unit, a majority unit, and on that view their whole policy is based. But in the meantime we have interim period. I want to state right here and now that this is no new wild notion; it has already been propounded by various leaders. Dr. Verwoerd propounded it best of all and said that the total ultimate separation of the various population groups and nations was the ideal which we were striving to attain; it was the ultimate criterion against which we would test every measure before placing it on the Statute Book, and when one makes that ultimate ideal one’s criterion then it is obvious that while striving to attain that ideal one will have to follow the right course because the question is simply: “Is the legislation aimed in the direction of that territorial separation or not?” If the reply is “yes” then one proceeds with it and if it is “no” then one does not proceed with it.

Sir, I have already said that we have found ourselves in an interim period, a period in which we have not yet attained that ideal but in which we are moving towards it. The Opposition now comes along and states that the Bantu homelands must be developed at a tremendous rate. We agree with them there, but we differ from them in this respect: they say that White capital, White initiative and White endeavour should be ploughed in there to develop the Bantu homelands. But let us test it against that ultimate ideal, which the hon. member for Transkei also accepts as the ultimate ideal: Surely one immediately mars that ideal state of affairs if one ploughs White capital into the Bantu homelands and if one grants the right of settlement to the Whites in those areas? Surely it clashes with that ideal because one will then once more have established White interests there? Therefore I cannot agree with the Opposition on that point. In the second place the Opposition maintains that the Bantu must have right to establish themselves permanently in the White area; that they must have the right to own land here; that they must be able to build up a middle class here. But surely that cannot be allowed if we are striving to attain that ultimate ideal, because one is then giving the Bantu permanency in the White area which makes it difficult, in fact impossible, to arrive ultimately at that ideal of total separation which the hon. member concedes is the right thing. Therefore that does not work out either. That is the second point, but the third point is this: The standpoint of the Opposition is that the Black people must, in terms of their race federation policy, have representation in this Parliament—a matter in regard to which we differ from them fundamentally and are grateful for the fact that we differ from them. Surely it must be clear to the hon. members of the Opposition in that case as well that, tested against the ideal state of affairs, what they envisage here, namely to give the Blacks representation in this House, is incompatible with that ideal, for one is then telling those people that they must realize their political aspirations here in the White territory. It is incompatible with that ideal and if we are striving to attain that ideal then we must simply keep to our course in the same way as railway lines move towards their terminal point without changing direction or moving onto a branch line. [Time limit.]

Let me say at the outset that we of the Opposition also await with bated breath the hon. the Minister’s reply to the questions put by the hon. member for Randfontein. Let me say, further, that we agree with the hon. member for Randfontein that the ideal he has put is the perfect ideal, but it is impossible of practical application. Let me say further that this, as we understand it, is not the policy of the Government. This Government does not intend giving such groups as the Coloureds and the Indians their own areas, nor the Chinese and the other groups, and therefore I am afraid we cannot accept the argument of the hon. member.

However, I want to get back to the point we debated last night. I had just got to the stage of saying that a large percentage of the Bantu employed in the Hammarsdale industrial complex do not live in Hammarsdale but in townships in the urban White areas of Pine-town, Durban and Pietermaritzburg.

Pine-town?

To my mind this is the application of the principle of border industries in reverse. This principle was enunciated and explained by the hon. the Deputy Minister yesterday, that the Bantu people would live in their own areas and will cross the border into the White areas to work. But what do we find happening in practice? These people are living in the White areas and move to the border to work in the border areas. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister knows this.

But there is no housing at Hammarsdale. [Interjections.]

Let me say further that it appears from the Deputy Minister’s comments yesterday that he wants to extend this principle even further, in the light of the threats he made yesterday to industrialists and the big stick he wielded last night. What did he say in his radio talk on 28th August? He said then, talking about the limitation of industries in the Transvaal complex, and dealing with the stopping of the flow of Bantu to the urban areas, that this can be done “without undue or any interference with normal economic growth and industrial development in those areas”. But what did he say here last night? He said that if necessary the Government would introduce legislation, and he threatened us even further, because he said this would be coming soon—next session. I think last night we saw the Deputy Minister in his true colours and I am just wondering what will happen to the industries that are there to-day. I want to come back once again to this radio broadcast by the Deputy Minister where he said that these Bantu workers sleep with their families every night and they are in their own cultural environment and therefore they are happy. Sir, what have the Bantu got out of this? They have a shanty town, and if the Deputy Minister thinks that at Hammarsdale they are living in their own cultural environment he is sadly mistaken.

Are you not ashamed of yourself?

I say they do not live in their own cultural environment because this is not their area where they are living. If the policy of this side of the House had been followed and those industries had been placed in the centre of the area, and if proper control had been exercised, which has not been done, those industries would have been in the centre of the area, the people would have been able to stay in their homes and they would not have had to migrate nearer to the industries and there would not have been any necessity for establishing this shanty town which has sprung up there where hygiene does not exist at all. And there is an influx of strange Bantu into the area, with the development of gangs of tsotsis and the protection racket is rife. Ask the Bantu landowners, those who were there before this happened, whether they are happy with the conditions as they are to-day.

No, of course they are not.

They are not happy. They may have a little more money to spend, but that does not compensate them for the other disadvantages they have to suffer. What is more, there is no control of the influx of Bantu. There is a labour bureau at Camper-down, but this is not used by the industrialists because it is impractical, and when the officials of this Minister’s Department asked for the establishment of a labour bureau, head office, in its wisdom, declined to do so. That is why to-day more than half of the people employed in that area are not the people for whom the industry was established there, namely the local people. The second reason why they are unhappy is that these industries are too far from their homes, as I said earlier. The third reason is the failure of this Government to provide some amenities for those Bantu. We have heard since 1960 about the establishment of a Bantu township. The hon. the Deputy Minister said yesterday that we must have a look at Hammarsdale in two years’ time and see what will happen. But in six years they have established only 89 temporary wooden housing units. The Minister talks about two years, which will make it October, 1968. I put a question to him on 16th September this year, and in reply the Minister told us in Col. 2183 of Hansard that the development of Hammarsdale area would probably take place in the latter half of the 1967-8 financial year; then it will begin. How much development will we see by October, 1968? We await this with interest.

Another thing is that in the figures quoted by the Deputy Minister he claimed that rounhly 41,000 Bantu were employed in the border industries.

That is an understatement.

I am afraid the report of the I.D.C. says that it is 17,800, but I will not argue about that now. He goes further and claims that secondary employment accounts for twice that number. I am afraid I must disagree with that, but even accepting that, he claims that this means that there are 120,000 Bantu workers for whom opportunities for employment have been created and who otherwise would have found their way to the Witwatersrand and other areas. Then he goes further and says that working on a basis of five per family unit it means that approximately 600,000 Bantu have been kept out of the urban areas. Sir, the Deputy Minister knows that there are more females, in the ratio of three to one, employed in the factories at Hammarsdale in particular, and also in the other border industries, so that all the Bantu employed there are not family heads. This means that the figure of 600,000 Bantu being kept out of the urban areas cannot possibly be correct. [Time limit.]

In a moment I shall respond briefly to what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) said. Let me first touch on some personal notes struck here. Firstly, I want to respond to a personal note that was struck, most courteously and quite fittingly, by the hon. member for Pinelands last night. The hon. member told me briefly that he wished me, as new Minister in this portfolio, all the best in my work. I want to tell him that I appreciate that coming from him, the only one on the other side of the House from whom it has come. I have always known him as a courteous man who can still show humane courtesy towards colleagues in the midst of disagreement and our mutual opposition, and I thank him sincerely for that. I say I have come to know him as a courteous man, and he has furnished further proof of that during the past few months in that he assisted by his wife—and he is perhaps the only one on the opposite side— responded to my appeal of November last year and produced a baby. [Laughter.] Although I have congratulated him personally, I should also like to have it recorded here.

Then there is one other personal note I want to strike here. This is to record the very high appreciation I have and have always had for the work done in this portfolio by my predecessor. We know that my predecessor, Mr. de Wet Nel, made this work of Bantu Administration his life’s task. We know that the concepts and beliefs which he holds and still cherishes as far as this matter is concerned, are a creed with him. As Deputy Minister and as a Party colleague of his I was privileged to work with him for many years and under him for five and a half years. I derived a great deal of inspiration from him, and I learned a great deal from him, and it is now my task, in which I hope hon. members will assist me, to carry on his work and to bring it to completion.

After these few personal notes, I just want to devote some attention to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District), and in respect of one aspect only, because he as well as my good friend, the hon. member for Pinelands, made the unfortunate mistake, in referring to Bantu housing at Hammarsdale, of presuming that that was the kind of housing we envisage at border industrial townships like Hammarsdale. On the contrary, it is not at all. The hon. member for Pinelands is not very well informed, and what he said in that regard yesterday was incorrect. I want to correct my friend. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) has just said that all the Government has achieved in the development at Hammars dale is that there is a small number of huts. Sir, we have accomplished a tremendous achievement, not through our Department, but through Economic Affairs, and that is that an entire factory complex has been built up from the barren earth. I know Hammarsdale well and I visited it again only recently. Our Department is charged with the task of obtaining housing for the Bantu on the other side of the borderline, and if ever there was any place in South Africa where it was and still is difficult to manage that, it is there, as a result of the fact that the area where the housing is to be provided belongs to a large number of land owners. We do not even know who all these owners are, and it is very difficult to get hold of them. A couple of years ago we had to pass an Act here to have that land declared a released area, in order to enable us to buy at random wherever we could trace the owners. Now the hon. member is nodding in agreement. Now he suddenly recalls the facts.

It took five years.

Not five years. I have just said that it was two or three years; I am not sure whether it was in the Act of 1963 or in the Act of 1964, the Acts I handled here, for two years successively. I think it was in 1964.

Mr. Chairman, we could by no means establish the Bantu Township for Hammarsdale before we had declared the area a released area. We could not purchase the land because it did not adjoin a Bantu area. Only now are we able to do so, and even now it is extremely difficult, because it has been subdivided many times and it is not easy to trace all the owners. We find it difficult to get hold of them, but we are making progress and we shall build that township, and it will happen before long, before the cows come home.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

I am always thinking of the limited amount of time available, but I shall answer a reasonable question.

I just want to ask the hon. the Minister when the first White factories were established at Hammarsdale, more or less when they moved there from Johannesburg.

Yes, it was more than three years ago. I cannot say exactly when, but it was somewhat longer ago. In any case, I do not really consider that a good question. With that I leave the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) where he is. I give him the assurance that if he lives long enough, and I hope he will, I shall show him the Bantu township for Hammarsdale before he has become much older.

Mr. Chairman, in the course of this debate yesterday there were several references from the opposite side to various aspects of our policy. The hon. member for Transkei and the hon. member for Pinelands in particular referred repeatedly to a speech I had made before Sabra. The hon. member for Pinelands had difficulties with a newspaper report, to such an extent that I eventually helped him and sent him the full text of my speech, because it seemed to me that he had a poor newspaper report. He could not really tell me what he wanted to criticize and what he wanted to say in connection with the speech.

Was it the Transvaler?

No, it was an English language newspaper. I want to tell the hon. members that in the speeches from the opposite side there were several references to what I had said, and this afternoon the hon. member for Randfontein also elaborated on what I had said at Sabra. At that Sabra Congress I tried to set out very fundamental matters with regard to our policy and with regard to much wider issues than our policy as a party and as a Government, namely in respect of the implementation of Bantu administration and the development of the various Bantu nations in South Africa. For that reason I consider it most appropriate that hon. members have taken some notice of it, and I hope the hon. member will now read that speech of mine—it will make excellent reading for him.

I should like to come back to this, in pursuance of the questions put by the hon. member for Randfontein and of several remarks made by hon. members on the opposite side who referred to that speech of mine, and I now want to say this—I repeat what I said before Sabra—I consider it our main task (and when I say “our” I do not mean only those of us who belong to this Party or we as a Government, but I mean we as Whites and we as Bantu and we as Indians and we as Coloureds), the task of all of us, and I also regard it as my specific task, to differentiate the separate nations here in South Africa properly and to distinguish them properly from one another. As regards the Bantu nations, the task to which I have been assigned, I consider it my specific duty and task to do everything possible to help to establish the various separate Bantu nations, to help to settle them, to help to mould them and to help to develop them as separate nations, in order that they may form a spiritual and national haven to every member of those various Bantu nations in South Africa. It should be clearly understood that we are dealing with a number of Bantu nations in South Africa, a considerable number of them, and if we add South West Africa, then even more Bantu nations. There is no need for me to list them, I need not play the schoolmaster; hon. members know the Bantu nations in South Africa. As the hon. member for Randfontein rightly said, it is a fatally erroneous idea to regard the entire mass of Bantu as one nation, and it is even more erroneous to lump together the entire mass of people in South Africa, the Bantu nations, the Indian nation, the Coloured nation, the White nation, as one potential people or nation, as the integrationists and the liberalists are doing.

Do the Whites not derive from many nations?

Yes, we as a White nation derive from various nations, and as a nation we are still developing in South Africa, just as the Bantu nations, the Indian nation, the Coloured nation are still undergoing the arduous process of becoming a nation. No nation is ever fullgrown. It is a perpetual process. But I am not going to talk about the White nation now, I am talking about the Bantu nations. The hon. member and I must discuss the other point some other time. Let it be clearly understood that all the various nations in South Africa are in a process of formation, the Whites just as much as the Coloureds, just as much as the Indians, just as much as the seven or eight or how many Bantu nations there may be in South Africa and South West Africa.

In saying that I regard it as my specific task to help to establish the Bantu nations as nations, and to help them to develop as nations, I mean that we should try to foster their solidarity as people who belong together in one entity. We have to foster the solidarity of the separate Bantu nations, no matter how scattered the individual members of the Bantu nations may be over the surface of South Africa—and some of them are scattered far and wide. The fact that a nation is scattered must not be regarded as a stumbling-block. In our time history has shown how a nation that was scattered all over the globe can come into its own and build itself a homeland. That should be our vision in building and establishing the Bantu nations in South Africa. We need not gather them from all over the globe: to a large extent we have them in their homelands and near their homelands in South Africa. In this task of establishing the nations we should do everything possible to arouse and stimulate the specific self-esteem and pride of the Bantu nations, pride and esteem not in respect of us as a White nation, but pride and self-esteem in respect of their own nations. If they have that in respect of their own nations, they will also acknowledge it in us and grant it to us, because that is the normal process by which reciprocal esteem develops among people. In the task of establishment we should see to it that we consolidate the Bantu homelands, that we bring the isolated units together in entities, more closely linked to each other. We can better succeed in doing so if we view the matter on a national basis, if we regard it as a national task, not as a party matter, but if all of us co-operate without trying to make political capital out of it. That is the proper approach to adopt in order to achieve that.

Then we should also develop the homelands internally, develop them in all aspects of the economic sphere, economically, commercially, industrially, agriculturally, and in any other way, as well as socially, culturally and educationally. Thus the homelands should be developed internally. And perhaps the most important of all is that we should see to it that we activate the organized authorities of the Bantu nations, develop them to the point of active participation in their activities and in leading their nations, with recognition being accorded to their own traditional institutions, such as their tribal authorities and chieftainships, because those are the most typical and the most distinctive elements of those nations as such, and one does not want to deprive a nation of its root, of its marrow, if one seeks to develop and stimulate the self-esteem and pride of that nation.

In saying that we should activate the Bantu nations, that we should activate their authorities, I mean that we should help them—-and I am going to do that specifically, and I am already doing so—to create a proper, orderly national economy in their own context, in their own areas, for their own nations. We should let the existing territorial authorities and the regional authorities and the tribal authorities existing under the present authorities system do more. We should employ them to a larger extent to do their own work, the work that has been done by the Trust, the Department, the officials over the years. That work should be done by the authorities themselves to a much larger extent, because it remains an eternal truth that a nation can work out its own salvation much better than some other nation can.

Mr. Chairman, we should actually convert and develop those territorial authorities into national authorities, because this does not concern only the territories in which those people live, it also concerns the Bantu who are in those territories and the other members of the nation who are outside those territories. I therefore say that we should develop and activate the regional authorities to the point where they will be of more service to their own people, and in saying that I am going to endeavour, as soon as it is physically possible for me to do so, to transfer more powers and functions to those authorities, functions that have so far perhaps to a large extent been performed by the South African Bantu Trust, which in the course of years has perhaps come to be regarded too much as “the Whites” by the Bantu, and not as they themselves. The Trust is the guardian, the Trust is the leader, the Trust is the patron, the trustee of the Bantu, but we must draw the Bantu into the activities of the Trust and we must let the Bantu do more and more for themselves and entrust to them what is their own and what is in their interests. Therefore the South African Bantu Trust must continue acting as the guardian of the Bantu, but we have to see to it that it does not become an end in itself; it must become a means of service to the Bantu. Financial responsibilities will also have to be transferred to the Bantu authorities on a very large scale, because there is nothing that brings the responsibilities of a nation home to it, that makes it aware of its duties in developing itself as an orderly national society, as pertinently as handling and attending to its own financial affairs itself. For if other people draw up your financial statements for you, if other people pay your accounts for you, and keep your receipts for you, and draw up your estimates, you do not actually make much progress with the development of your sense of responsibility in respect of your own people. This is a task that I intend implementing as soon as possible, and I am in fact engaged on it even now. It all forms part of the great process of establishing the Bantu groups as nations in their own areas and as national societies in their own national context. In the process they will of course have to be provided with reinforcement, reinforcement in the form of personnel for administrative purposes, and what I want to mention in inverted commas, “departments”, branches of activities will have to be created, call them what you will, sections of activities, carried by officials—Bantu officials as far as possible, but probably for a long time to come assisted and guided by the White officials who have to assist them and lead them and support them in the execution of their duties to their own people. There will have to be a full-time ever-present executive committee of the Bantu in those national authorities, or an authority council, call it what you will, which will have to supervise their activities and which will not leave them exclusively to Whites. In the first place it must be made their own responsibility, guided, supported by the Whites. Centres will have to be established where their government buildings will be erected, where their administration will be situated and from where their administration will be guided and directed in respect of their area and on behalf of the members of their nation, wherever those members may be. In this entire process of establishing the Bantu nations, the Bantu authorities in the Bantu areas, we must not lose sight of the Bantu outside the Bantu homelands, we may not forget him. We must bear him in mind as fully as we do those who are inside the Bantu areas. The Bantu in the White areas must be linked more directly than hitherto to these authorities, to these national authorities in the Bantu homelands. The present position, which we have had all these years, will have to be taken into review; the present position, created and furthered by too many liberalists who comment on this from an integrationistic point of view, will have to be taken into review to prevent false hopes among the Bantu in the White areas. The false hope that they may strive for integration with the Whites in the White homelands, in the White Parliament and in the White authorities that we have in South Africa, must not be aroused in them. I say that that position we have had in South Africa until now will have to be taken into review, and it will be taken into review in due time. [Interjection.] I think the hon. member should rather ask me that question in a speech, to enable me to give a better reply to it. This national concept, this concept of separate nations among the Bantu, this national entity of the Bantu, is now crystallizing more and more. Many signs of that may be seen by those of us who live with it every day. It is crystallizing more and more, in substitution of the old striving among the Bantu to become more and more strongly anchored in the White community, in the White context, in the White governmental bodies.

Now, Sir, what is the implication of all these things I have said? They imply decentralization of various things. They imply, for example, decentralization to the Bantu authorities of activities or powers which until now were perhaps carried out or exercised by our Department or by the Trust or even by other bodies. They also imply transferring functions to the Bantu authorities. They imply, as I said, decentralization of administrative responsibility to the Bantu with a staff of his own which he has to build up, with an executive body of his own. They imply transferring to them financial administration and the handling of finance. And all this, Mr. Chairman—I want this to be understood quite clearly by all— does not imply in one single respect that other systems similar to that of the Transkei have to be established immediately. Because in the first place I regard it as absolutely essential that the Batu authorities we have at present —and that we have had in South Africa for years—should first be given more work to do. that they should be entrusted with more functions and duties, and that they should be activated to a larger extent before they can undertake any further steps. In fact, as they become entrusted with more functions, as they become better activated with duties, they will be better able to progress to higher levels of self-government.

Now the question may occur to you: What am I trying to achieve by all these things? Briefly, what is actually the object? In brief, the object is simply the following. I want to give definite shape—together with all those of us who are concerned in this; it is not a one-man task, and I therefore ask the co-operation of everybody—to every Bantu nation in accordance with its own national character, ordained to it by God. I want to give definite shape to that. I do not want to make common cause with other people and join in the attempts of men to violate that national character of the Bantu, to do away with it and to make him something different from what God created him. If people do not believe in the work of God in this context, they should not laugh at me. Then they should rather be silent.

Mr. Chairman, I say it is in accordance with the specific character of those Bantu that this shaping of the Bantu nations should be carried out, that their establishment as nations should be carried out, and that we should continue building on the basis of these separate national identities that they have towards the fulfilment of their own destinies, in this arduous process of attaining nationhood, as I called it a moment ago, this arduous process of attaining true, separately independent nationhood as Bantu nations— independence in varying forms, independence to a lesser extent, to a greater extent, to an ultimate extent. Independence is also a relative concept, but the sooner we grasp the concept of independence for these Bantu nations and attune our entire administration to that, the better for all of us—best of all for the Bantu in South Africa. We must therefore understand very clearly that in speaking of independence I am not thinking of it as something with a purely political meaning. Independence has a much wider meaning than the purely political aspect. It includes the economic, it includes the educational, the health, the social the civil or political aspects, it includes all those manifestations and all those facets of the activities of a nation.

Industries on the other side as well …

Everything, Sir, everything. It includes all those things. The hon. member should acquaint himself with what we are doing and with what we are still contemplating with regard to activities of that nature, and in particular he should bear in mind that no nation has ever achieved full maturity in one century, not to mention a few years.

And he should not interrupt a good speech.

I thank you, Sir, for the disciplinary assistance I am getting.

Apart from these Bantu nations we also have, as I said just now, the other nations in South Africa, which I may not discuss now. of course—nor do I want to do so. In passing I just want to bring a most interesting point to the attention of all of us. As regards all the various nations we have here, the White nation, the Coloured nation, the Indian nation, the various Bantu nations, something to which we have given too little regard is the fact that numerically the White nation is superior to all other nations in South Africa. And what does that mean? It has a very wide implication for us. Firstly it demonstrates our duty as guardians very clearly. But in the light of these policies, as I have now presented them to you, of the establishment of each nation as such—and the White nation, too, must still be established; also the Indian and the Coloured—it also demonstrates the utter folly of saying that a minority government is ruling others in South Africa. That is absolute nonsense. Surely there is no such thing as a minority government in South Africa. Nor. by any means, do we as a National Party advocate a minority government. The policy of the National Party is a most explicit policy of separate national government for every separate nation. Then there can be no question of a minority government over a majority of people. Then there is no question of that. The hon. member for Yeoville is shaking his head so hard we can actually hear it.

Mr. Chairman, let me tell you where there is in fact a possibility of a minority government over a majority group, or over a group of other people who are numerically superior. Do you know where there is in fact a possibility of such a minority government? If it ever happened that the United Party came into power, with their race federation or their “White leadership”, then you would have a minority government in practice. For then they would regard the entire mass of 16,000,000 people, or how many million there may be, as one potential unit, and then they would want to appoint the Whites over all of them. Then you would find a minority government in South Africa. Then you would have it. If there are still people left in this modern age of national government, of separate independence for small communities even of a few hundred thousand, as in Lesotho or in Botswana—who think they can govern by minority government in that way—and the Opposition of South Africa are such people—then it is a very pathetic phenomenon. And for that they plead world support, or support from abroad. If ever people will be pilloried in South Africa and pilloried before the world tribunals for their policy, it will be the Opposition of South Africa, it will be the United Party. Because they advocate a minority government over a great diversified mass entity. Indeed, they are advocating something which may also be called a master-race complex.

But of course we no longer hear anything about race federation, we no longer hear anything about “White leadership”. We no longer hear anything about that. I wonder whether those things still exist. We did hear a weak note from the hon. member for Yeoville last night, when he spoke of their community councils. Apparently there are therefore still a few tattered shreds left of their race federation scheme. There are still a few loose shreds left. I get the impression that the “race federation” and the “White leadership” are things we no longer hear of. The Opposition may just as well take us into their confidence now and tell us whether the “race federation” and the “White leadership” have died, have died unsung. The Opposition may just as well tell us that, because we should like to know.

I have replied briefly to a very comprehensive question. I have replied briefly to a question by the hon. member for Randfontein; I have responded briefly to points raised by members on the opposite side during the debate. What I consider to be our fundamental task as regards this concept of the many nations in South Africa—the multination concept of our policy—is the establishment of each of these Bantu nations. I make an appeal to everybody with a view to this …

And what about geographical separation?

I am coming to that. I am not going to evade anything. I enjoy nothing as much as responding to the remarks of hon. members on the opposite side, particularly the hon. member for Yeoville. Now there are still some isolated points to which I want to respond. Yesterday the hon. member for Transkei and the hon. member for Durban Point spoke of integration. They spoke of it in different contexts.

Economic integration.

Economic integration. yes. Quite right, thank you. You are helping me more and more and yourself deeper and deeper into your grave. The hon. member for Transkei said that integration was a fact and not a policy. That is some kind of excuse—I do not know what for.

It is no excuse.

Well, it is an explanation or an “I-am-simply-saying” sort of statement.

It is simply a fact.

I am so grateful for the assistance from that quarter, too—that “it is simply a fact”. But if it is a fact, if integration should be a fact, it is a very universal fact. It is not a fact only in Cape Town or only in South Africa. It is a universal fact, throughout the entire world even. But why cannot one acknowledge a fact as one’s policy? We take the greatest pride in acknowledging a most fundamental fact as our policy. Our policy is based on the facts I have just set our very sketchily, i.e. the separateness and the diversity of the various Bantu nations and other nations in South Africa as separate national entities set on separate courses to separate destinies. This is a traditional reality in South Africa. It is a hard, bare fact. It is an immutable fact, and we say proudly: This fact is our policy. Why will the hon. Opposition not commit themselves to the fact that is their policy? Why not? They are either afraid or ashamed, I do not know. Perhaps those are the few steps they are staggering away from their position, as the hon. member for Krugersdorp put it yesterday. But be it a fact which is ever so universally known, if it is in one’s favour and one is honest about it, surely one should accept it? I want to take up this question of integration more fully with the hon. members. I shall have to repeat what I have said here before, what other members have said here before, and what the late Prime Minister said here before. It cannot be avoided, however, because it is necessary to say it again. Thus the hon. member for Transkei and the hon. member for Durban (Point) spoke of integration. The hon. member for Durban (Point), in particular, spoke of border area industries and said that what one found there was shifted integration; that it was integration which had shifted from one place to another. As regards the place aspect, the hon. the Deputy Minister gave an adequate reply to that last night. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate it if hon. members would help me; I could then finish my speech quickly, and they could get their turn sooner. The hon. member for Durban (Point) is making an error in premise if he says that it is integration that is taking place in the border areas. We have explained this matter time and again, and I am now going to say something which will again evoke a chorus of shouts from the opposite side, and that is the following: The presence of the Bantu on the basis of our policy in our White areas is not integration. [Laughter.] Do you hear the chorus, Mr. Chairman?

If it is not integration, what is it?

Some of the sounds from the other side of the House sound more like death-rattles than a chorus. It is quite wrong to regard the numerical presence of the Bantu here as integration; we have dealt with this matter time and again, and if it is necessary, as it seems, I am going to deal with it again.

Please do so.

Do you know what is so pathetic, Sir? I shall have to come and do it 20 times more, and others will also have to do it again. I want to deal with this question of integration in a wider context. I want to deal with the Bantu’s presence in our White areas in the wider context. It is too frequently suggested by hon. members on the opposite side and by certain Press organs that we as a National Party and as a Government are in despair about the Bantu in the White areas; that we do not know what to do with them; that we do not know where to go with them; that we have no political solution for them; that we have no social and economic solution as regards the Bantu. This is very far from the truth.

Economically in particular.

We have a very sound economic solution which differs radically from that of hon. members on the opposite side. We do not regard the Bantu, in respect of their presence here in the White areas, as people who are present here on an equal footing with the Whites, and for that reason they are not here on a basis of integration. They are not to be integrated, they are not to be assimilated, they are not to be unified with the Whites in one economic context, in one social context, in one educational context, in one political context, and that applies to all the various contexts encompassed by the ordinary activities of people in all facets of their lives. They are not to be integrated here on an equal footing with the Whites in any of those contexts or facets. In terms of the United Party policy of integration they are in fact associable on an equal basis on all those various levels, and this is a most fundamental difference. This is a world of difference. [Interjection.]

Order! The hon. the Minister is quite capable of making his own speech.

Mr. Chairman, we know that the Bantu who are present in the White areas are present here, in terms of our policy, for a limited, clearly defined, statutorily determined purpose. They are not here under a false impression, as far as we are concerned.

What is the purpose then?

The purpose has been set out very clearly in all our laws, in all our declarations of policy and in all our statements. The Bantu in the White areas are here for the work we have to offer them, and which they also need. That is the purpose for which they are here.

Who else can do that work?

In South Africa a great deal of the work performed by the Bantu can be done by Coloureds, by Indians and by Whites, and by means of improved methods and industrial techniques and by rationalization and by mechanization and all those things. But in South Africa we have built up an economy and an industry based on a vast fallacy that there is a multitude of non-White helpers and workers and that we may therefore carry on haphazardly. These are techniques and ideas that we shall have to revise and do away with, and the sooner all the hon. members on the opposite side help us to do that so that we may have one united front, the better for all, including the Bantu.

Must the White man do the work of the Bantu?

If only we would inscribe these concepts I tried to set out a moment ago, these concepts of separate national identities and separate Bantu nations, quite clearly in our memories and assimilate them in our minds, we would realize that they must form the basis to our entire approach to this matter, and we would understand, when we say that the Bantu are here in the White areas to work, that they are present here in a casual capacity; that they are not here to anchor themselves, as I said earlier to-day; that they are not here to root themselves and inter-weave themselves in our existence in all the various spheres of social life, but that they should still endeavour to maintain their national ties with their own nations. We must help the Bantu to maintain their national ties, their language ties, their ties of origin, family life, tradition, customs and material connections with their homelands and their families, even if they were born here in the White areas. They still have all those ties and connections with their people in their own areas, and it is the task of all of us, and pre-eminently the task of my Department and myself, to trace those ties, to stimulate and strengthen them and not to relax them, as is the object of liberalists and integrationists in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I have already mentioned the purpose of the Bantu’s presence here, and if hon. members cannot understand it if I say that they are here for their labour, on an unequal footing with the Whites, let us then try to analyse it somewhat more closely and let us realize what the position really is. By tradition, by convention, by custom, the Bantu who enter the White areas have through all the years never participated freely with the Whites in all the labour opportunities, all the economic opportunities and all the social opportunities there. The Bantu has always been subject to restrictions in all those spheres. Why is he subject to restrictions? He is subject to those restrictions not because we regard him as an inferior being; not because we regard him as someone with a dark skin; not for some sinister reason or other, which is so frequently attributed to us; no, those restrictions to which he is subject here in our areas are imposed on him for one sole reason, and that is that we regard him as being present in another man’s country. Just as the hon. members for Transkei and Yeoville and I myself, as Whites, are subject to restrictions if we want to go and settle in Zululand or in the Transkei, so too, is the Bantu subject to restrictions here in the White areas. [Interjections.] They are not necessarily parallel restrictions.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Gardens, an old parliamentarian, probably expects me to continue the debate on the Vote of the Minister of Coloured Affairs at this stage. I would be only too pleased to do so at an appropriate time.

He was afraid of taking part in the Coloured debate.

We know that by virtue of tradition and by virtue of regulation by law, regulation by industrial agreements, etc., the Bantu does not enjoy equal participation with the Whites in the economic possibilities in the White areas. That is why the Bantu youth cannot become an apprentice here in Cape Town or in Kroonstad or in Johannesburg. He cannot become an artisan here in the White areas; he cannot later become a foreman; he cannot later become a manager of that firm of engineers; nor can he become an entrepreneur in those engineering works; he cannot become a partner of the White entrepreneur in that firm. He cannot become the owner of the land on which those engineering works stand; he cannot have a share in those engineering works along with the Whites who work there. This is a restriction imposed on him just as a similar restriction is imposed on the Whites in the Bantu areas in terms of our policy, a kind of parallel restriction. That is the essence of the difference between the presence of the Bantu here in the White areas on our basis of separate development, and their presence here on a basis of integration, for on a basis of integration all those doors are open to them; then they can become all those things in due course. How long it is going to take is a secondary matter.

Confusion worse confounded.

The Bantu working in the factories are not integrated with the manager of that factory, with the owner of that factory or even with the shareholders in that factory, as little as the farmer on his farm and his son are integrated with the ten or 12 Natives who work on that farm, because they are not equals. The Bantu are not integrated with them, because they cannot become the equals of the Whites. That is the difference. I notice that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is so convinced by now that I fear we shall see him break away from his friends on the opposite side one of these days, because I see that he agrees with me. That is the essential difference between integration and the presence of the Bantu here on a basis of apartheid.

That is absolutely ridiculous. When did the Leader of the Opposition ever say anything like that?

No, I did not say that he said that. I said he was listening so attentively that it seemed to me as though he was agreeing.

But you do want to become Nationalists, don’t you?

Very well then, if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not agree with me, it is a pity. Mr. Chairman, the things I am saying here I am not saying merely for your ears or for those of the Whites: the things I am telling you I have told the Bantu themselves innumerable times. Since I started in this office as Deputy Minister, I have made a point of it to say nothing and write nothing about these aspects of our policy in public, in front of Bantu or in front of Whites, that could not be heard by White as well as Black; it must be such as may be heard by both.

What is the Black man supposed to do?

The hon. member must give me a chance to present my case. [Interjections.]

Order! I shall be glad if the hon. members over there will stop conversing so loudly. The hon. the Minister can make his own speech.

I have discussed these matters with Bantu leaders and with Bantu bodies and with large masses of Bantu innumerable times, and this was how I put it to them. These things which the hon. member for Houghton regards as discrimination and as suppression, things like influx control and the presence of Whites and of Bantu in another man’s country, I discussed with them fundamentally, and they understand them, because the Bantu is a fundamentalist. The Bantu understands matters if one presents them to him candidly and in good faith, but the Bantu does not trust one if one will not commit oneself. That is what hon. members on the opposite side are doing when they tell the Bantu about “White leadership”, which in actual fact means that one will always play second fiddle even if one is in the majority.

The hon. member for Transkei says he tells that to the Bantu. What does he tell them? His policy? I shall now repeat what I have probably said on six previous occasions in this House. If it is true that the hon. members on the opposite side do explain their policy of integration and of White leadership and of race federation to the Bantu, then I ask them, and I challenge them, to show me one responsible Bantu body or leader and to bring me proof of the fact that they accent White leadership and the race federation. But now they have been silenced. The hon. member’s second question was how many Bantu accepted our policy. Let me answer him. There is an entire Government in the Transkei that subscribes to our policy. Throughout South Africa there are a large number of Bantu authorities that subscribe to our policy. [Interjection.] Whether they are elected members or chiefs, there are thousands who support us, and there are hundreds of bodies that subscribe to our policy, even school boards. I wish members of the Opposition could undergo the good influence of seeing two things I saw in the past few months. They are, firstly, the large number of Republic Festival speeches made by Bantu leaders. The other day I received a report from our Department in that regard, and it is so important that I should like to see hon. members on the opposite side peruse it. There speeches were made by the Bantu intelligentsia, such as lecturers at colleges, and Bantu leaders and Bantu authorities. When I speak of that, the hon. members on the opposite side sneer at it.

One cannot quarrel with one’s bread and butter.

The hon. member eats the bread and butter of the United Party, and there is therefore no need for me to reply to him. I have given the hon. members the example of the Republic festivities in which the Bantu participated in their tens of thousands, but I want to mention a second example of a quite recent nature. Now, at the change in the premiership, the Bantu—not isolated ones, but dozens—sent written professions to the Prime Minister, through my office, of their loyalty to him in which they subscribed to the policy of the Government, over and above the dozens of speeches that were made. No, that second question by the hon. member for Transkei was a very stupid one.

From what I have said here with regard to the Bantu in the White areas, it should be clear to all that it is our endeavour, and why it is our endeavour, that the number of Bantu in the White areas, as the Deputy Minister said last night, should be curtailed continually and should be reduced as much as possible. That is why we have measures like influx control, but that is not enough. We must be more fundamental and we must therefore also see to it that the opportunities created by labour in the White areas are controlled, because the people who create the opportunities have regard to one thing only, and that is their balance sheets. We must control those things properly. It is unwise to allow labour to enter and remain in our White areas without proper rationalizing of such labour in order to manage with as few Bantu as possible. But it is equally unwise, as we have been doing all these years, to allow industrial land to be made available indefinitely in the cities, and to allow factories to establish themselves freely wherever they wish, no matter what their labour composition may be, and to allow factories to expand. It is therefore quite correct, as the Deputy Minister said last night, that the Government is at this stage giving very serious consideration to ways and methods of placing these matters under statutory control. I invite hon. members on the opposite side to consider these matters calmly and to support us in this regard, because it is in the interests of all of us, bearing in mind what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said at Britstown, that the number of Bantu in the White areas should be kept as low as possible for the sake of the ratio between Whites and Bantu. There is no need to mention facts to show what the result would be if the unoccupied industrial land in the cities were to continue being occupied by factories that establish themselves there on the same pattern as those that are there now. I shall skip that, because the Deputy Minister dealt with it last night.

To realize themselves politically and civilly the Bantu in the White areas must therefore be integrated with their nations, with their national authorities, and we must therefore review the position that has existed all these years and on which the wrong construction has been put. We have already made some progress in that direction. We have developed a system whereby the Xhosa of the Transkei can realize themselves politically in the Parliament they have in the Transkei, and we must bring about a similar integration in respect of the other Bantu, even if they do not yet have forms of self-government like those in the Transkei. [Interjection.]

The hon. member seems to be afraid that I shall forget something. I can assure him that I shall not forget to deal with the geographic aspect. Since he is in such a hurry about it, I shall do it for him quickly. I dealt with it in the speech I made before Sab: a last week, and it would be best if I read to him what I said there. After I had dealt with this concept of the multi-nationality of South Africa, I said the following (translation)—

I then continued and said the following—

Thank you for the opportunity you have afforded me. It is something the Opposition seldom gives one. In the final instance our work is directed at eventual geographic partition. And then I said—

That is what I said. What did I mean by that? That it is essential and that it is inevitable that those Bantu homelands should be consolidated into units. I said clearly that our work was directed at eventual partition, and we have been saying that all these years, through the mouths of Dr. Malan and Mr. Strijdom and Dr. Verweerd. Our present Prime Minister says that too, that our work is directed at eventual partition. That is the course we are taking. That is the road we are following. That is the beacon-light for the future on which we have set out sights. [Interjection.] No, it is not a will-o’-the-wisp as the hon. member says, but it is the will of a resolute party and a resolute Government. But this is the great difference. A moment ago the hon. member for Randfontein asked the hon. members on the opposite side: If we start from scratch and there are seven or eight nations in South Africa and you have to find geographical sites for all of them, will you scramble them or will you give them separate sites? Then two members on the opposite side, the hon. member for Transkei and later the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District), said: Yes, of course we agree that separate placement would be the ideal, but we surrender. They are defeatists. They are afraid of what is so essential to us in South Africa. We say we want to correct gradually what has gone wrong gradually in South Africa. For 300 years things have developed along the wrong lines, and over a long period we want to make them develop along the right lines. That is our course, and that is why I said there that the enthusiasts want immediate partition, but I prefer willingness to do the correct thing which will lead to eventual partition, to immediate partition, which we cannot bring about immediately, for many reasons: and there are actually three large groups of reasons that I gave to a newspaperman afterwards, when he asked me for them. The three groups of reasons are the following. Firstly and above all, there is the financial aspect. A great deal of money is needed to do what is necessary; and it is not only what we have to do in South Africa, and therefore one cannot put all those things into effect in one day. But we also have to deal with the willingness, or rather the unwillingness, of certain White people who do not see matters in the correct perspective and whose co-operation one needs in order to acquire their land or to have certain adjustments of areas made in their districts, and in the third place we also need understanding on the part of the Bantu themselves, who have to move from those Black spots to the compensatory land. Those are the three groups of considerations we have to take into account. That is the answer to the allegations of hon. members on the opposite side, and let me now tell the hon. members this, and now I want the hon. member for Yeoville to listen, because he has now come along and said, as he also did some while ago. that the late Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, had changed his mind …

That is true.

That is absolute nonsense. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, what stunned me in this House was that the hon. member said the same thing even a fortnight ago …

I quoted him.

Do you know, Sir, what stuns me is this, that Dr. Verwoerd, our beloved leader, has not been in his grave a full month and yet they are already jumping on his back, just as they jumped on the back of General Hertzog, as they jumped on the back of Dr. Malan, as they jumped on the back of Adv. Strijdom, to make policy interpretations by means of which they hope to embarrass us. I want to predict that we shall see it many times more, perhaps in this very session, but particularly in years to come. But I did not think that it would happen within a month of his passing.

Scandalous!

I want to proceed. Hon. members on the opposite side raised some other matters to which I want to refer briefly. The hon. member for Transkei said yesterday, with regard to our policy in respect of separate development, or apartheid, Bantu areas development, that they were opposed to it that the Bantu areas and the Bantu nations should become independent. Unfortunately it is a negative word in English, not a positive word like “selfstandig”.

What about “autonomous”?

Very well, “autonomous”. They are opposed to their becoming that. Now I want to ask him: How does he reconcile his words with the words used by the hon. member for Pinelands—by implication, not directly. I do not want to put words into his mouth that he did not use. Let me first ask the hon. member for Transkei this: If he is opposed to it that the Xhosa in the Transkei, or the Tswana, or the Swazis or anybody should attain independence under our policy, eventually, is he also opposed to the fact that Botswana and Lesotho have become independent states?

We can do nothing about that.

No, I sympathize with the hon. members on the opposite side. I cannot do anything about it either, but that was not my question. My question was whether the hon. member was opposed to it.

Are you glad that it happened?

I shall answer the hon. member, but at the moment I am putting the questions. I first want to hear whether the hon. member is in favour of or opposed to the fact that Lesotho and Botswana have become independent countries?

I am not in favour of it.

The hon. member is not in favour of it. Then I want to ask the hon. member a second question to relieve him of his difficulty, but this time he should think more carefully, and perhaps his reply will be such that he can extricate himself. But as regards the answer he has now given, that he is opposed to it, I want to say that the hon. member for Pinelands said last night that he accepted it and that he wishes them all the best.

Of course, we accept it.

That brings me to my second question. The hon. member is opposed to it, but does he accept it?

I do not accept you as Minister.

Order! If the hon. member wants to ask a question, he should do so in the proper way.

The hon. the Minister is asking me questions, and I am trying to answer them.

The hon. member answered my second question before I had put it. The second question was whether the hon. member accepted the fact that Lesotho and Botswana had become independent states, and he shouted: “Yes, we accept it.” Now I want to tell him that we accept that they have become independent states, and we also approve of it. We are not negative about it, as the hon. member was negative with regard to my first question. It is fully in accordance with our policy of separate development.

Why do you not give it to the Transkei?

They will get it in due course.

Why only in due course?

Why should we give it at the wrong time? The hon. member can rise after me and try to reply to this as much as he likes.

Hon. Members will get an opportunity to make their speeches. They must please not interrupt the hon. the Minister continually. That also applies to members on the Government side. They must please allow the hon. the Minister to continue uninterrupted.

On a point of order, may I please ask for an explanation? If the hon. the Minister persists in asking members on this side provocative questions, are we allowed to reply to them or are we not? I should just like to have your guidance, Sir.

The hon. member can reply to the Minister when he gets the opportunity. When the hon. the Minister has completed his speech, the hon. member can reply to it.

The hon. the Minister persists in asking questions and provokes us to reply to them immediately. I should just like to have your guidance.

The hon. the Minister may continue.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member seeks your guidance in his distress. The hon. member complains that I am asking them provocative questions.

We want to reply to them.

Does the hon. member not know that there are such things as rhetorical questions? Let him regard them as rhetorical questions to which he need not reply at once, if that will be more convenient for him. The hon. member says my questions provoke him. That reminds me of the woman who complained that she was so easily assaulted. The hon. member on the opposite side is so easily provoked. I beg his pardon if I provoke him so easily. Let us come back to Lesotho and Botswana. Lesotho and Botswana have become independent and hon. members on the opposite side say they accept it; the hon. member for Pinelands gave it his blessing. The hon. member adopted a positive and logical attitude, in contrast with the other hon. member. Let us suppose the British Government had acted more logically in 1910, although erroneously from our point of view, but more logically than they did in fact act, and let us suppose the British Government retained all the Bantu areas under its jurisdiction in 1910 instead of transferring them to us. There would then have been some eight protectorates. I also dealt with this matter in my speech before Sabra. Let us suppose they took all the Bantu areas. Do you know what the position would have been to-day? To-day Tswana in the Transvaal areas would probably have formed part of an independent Botswana state, and in due course that could have happened with all the other Bantu, and then the hon. member would have said here that he accepted it, and the hon. member for Pine-lands would have said that he gave it his blessing. But the division in 1910 having been made in the way it was in fact made, so that a number of Bantu groups remained with us and that it is now our duty to lead those nations to independence, it is wrong if we want to do that. But it would have been right if the British Government had dealt with those areas in the same way it dealt with Botswana. That is the kind of illogical thought one finds on the part of members of the Opposition.

May I ask a question?

You can deal with the matter in a moment, and do more than merely ask a question. If we want to lead the nations to independence it is wrong, but if Britain does it it is right; then it is accepted and then it receives a blessing.

You said it was right.

Of course, I said it was right that Botswana had become independent. The hon. member for Transkei referred to White capital in the homelands. I have dealt with that in part. Our policy in this regard has always been very clear, and there is no deviation from it in this case. Our policy is very clear that there should be no entrenchment of individual White interests in the Bantu homelands or reserves. As regards the economic development we therefore say that as far as the Bantu themselves are not capable of it, their development should take place on a corporative basis, and that has been going on for many years, much longer than the hon. member may realize. I shall give you an example in a moment. Or else the economic development there should take place with the assistance of White capital on a basis of agencies. Our late Prime Minister also dealt with that repeatedly in this House, and I think hon. members on the opposite side approve it. In this regard, too, a great deal has been done.

Let us now ask the question: What else is the Trust than the realization of the corporative principle? The Trust was established as long ago as 1936. What else is it than the corporative concept? A body was in fact created. It is the State President with the authority delegated to the Minister, with all the officials at his disposal. What else is it than a substitute body for the Bantu, to do that work for them? We extended that concept even further by establishing a Bantu Investment Corporation, by establishing a Transkei Development Corporation, and let me inform the hon. members here and now that we are going to establish further development corporations when we consider the time ripe for doing so. That is the corporative concept, and secondly there is the agency concept. But let me also say this as regards the corporative basis …

Corporative or cooperative?

C-o-r-p-o-r-a-t-i-v-e. I have been using this word for the past three or four years, and then some poor newspaperman misunderstood it, like the hon. member, and he wrote “co-operative”. It is “corporative”, that is, the “body”. It will be canalized through a body. Now the Trust is the prototype of that development. And do you know what? This development procedure is in accordance with the Bantu’s economic philosophy. Completely. Because the Bantu believes that economic realization should take place communally, in a communal form. The very first form of economic life the Bantu nations knew in South Africa was land tenure. How did they organize it? On a communal basis, by means of tribal tenure—with a few exceptions, that I know.

The second line of development I mentioned is the agency basis, and there we also have old prototype, old examples, and that is that we use the Forestry Department as an agent for our Department to promote our forestry, for example, in those areas. This concept of the agency development by means of Whites and with the assistance of Whites will be expanded even further as it becomes necessary.

Last night the hon. member for Transkei tried to mock at our supposed failure as regards the development that should have followed upon the Tomlinson Commission’s report. He even said we had rejected the Tomlinson recommendations. On the contrary, in case the hon. member’s memory is failing him, a White Paper was published which set out explicitly what we accepted and what we had to say about the recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission. But what is the crux of that? What is the essence of the undertakings we tackled after the recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission? Immediately afterwards we voted a large amount, I think it was R7.000,000, for development. Then we established the Bantu Investment Corporation, and subsequently we drew up a five-year development plan. And you know, Mr. Chairman, that in terms of that five-year plan we initiated development in the Bantu areas at a rate that exceeds by far the recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission in that regard? Up to last year we spent almost R6,000,000 more a year on development in the Bantu areas than had been recommended by the Tomlinson Commission. That does not include the money spent on purchasing land from Whites for the purposes of consolidating the Bantu areas. Therefore hon. members should not come and deride what we did after the publication of the report of the Tomlinson Commission, because we exceeded the recommendations of that Commission in our undertakings.

Did you spend £110,000,000 in ten years?

The Tomlinson Commission recommended £105,000,000 over ten years. As against that, we spent R135,269,000 over five years, i.e. about R27,000,000 a year. I regret having to make Sub-A sums here. In contrast with this, the Tomlinson Commission recommended that an average amount of R21,000,000 a year be spent. Do you see, Mr. Chairman, what simple things we have to explain to people who refuse to think? But, as an hon. member behind me says, that is how they also miscalculate the votes at election time.

The hon. member for Houghton asked me certain questions with regard to Sekhukhune-land. She asked me whether I had perused the document sent to members of the Government as well as members of the Opposition. Well, I did peruse it, and I want to use this opportunity to give some kind advice to the hon. member for Houghton as well as hon. members of the Opposition. Last night the hon. member had very little to say about this matter. In fact, she merely mentioned it and therefore I do not really know yet what her attitude is in this regard. She may therefore still save her own skin. The advice I want to give hon. members of the Opposition is to view this document with the utmost caution. I know much more of what lies behind that document than hon. members on the opposite side, and I also know much more than the three or four signatories to it themselves know, and also than others concerned with it.

Tell us too.

There are very good reasons why I do not want to tell everything I know at this stage. In fact, hon. members on the opposite side are not so inexperienced that they do not know why everything cannot be told. But in general I just want to say that certain leftist elements in South Africa are behind that document. For that reason certain most unfortunate and questionable things happened to this petition before it was prepared for despatch. Unfortunately they implicated certain Bantu who were unaware of these things, and made victims of them, perhaps as a result of ignorance. Therefore I do not want to elaborate too much on this matter. Those leftist elements, however, tried to foster grievances in that part of Sekhukhuneland where there was unrest some years ago, but where there is now peace and quiet, thanks to our good administration and thanks to the fact that we had the same team of officials in that area for a long time. That was something that did not please those leftist elements, hence the fact that they again tried to stir up grievances and to rip up old sores. I have studied the relevant document very carefully in conjunction with other documents of the Department in that connection. I may give hon. members the assurance that there is not one statement in that document that is not larded with all kinds of distortions and misrepresentations. The stamp that was used on the document is that of a chief who is dead, and even the signatures on the document give rise to a good deal of doubt. I therefore do not want to say any more in this connection, than merely to give the warning I have already given. We are giving the necessary attention to it, however, and hon. members need not think that matters like this and alleged dissatisfaction in Sekhukhuneland pass us by unnoticed. There are some statements in this document with which I want to deal briefly. In paragraph 16. a shooting incident involving a White youth and a Bantu youth is mentioned, and it is alleged that nothing came of it. But that is utterly untrue. It occurred years ago, but that incident was reported and there was a court action as a result of it. The White youth involved in the matter received a suspended sentence. I mention this merely as an example of the misrepresentations and lies employed by leftists to incite people against White authority and White officials. Elsewhere in the document it is alleged that certain complaints were lodged with the Commissioner-General and also with officials and that nothing came of that either. What did in fact happen, was that a court action followed and that the judge summoned the leftists involved, cautioned them and discharged them. Now it is alleged that no attention was paid to those complaints. We must therefore treat allegations of this nature with the greatest caution, and that is why I ask hon. members on the opposite side to be very cautious with petitions of this kind, nameless petitions, and not to lose their heads about them. I have now given the hon. member for Houghton timeous warning, and I therefore hope she will watch her step from now on.

†The hon. member also raised certain other points. For instance, she welcomed the reference in my department’s report to the fact that we look upon the Bantu as human beings. But. of course, we do regard them as human beings and so have we all the years up to now and so shall we all the years to come. I think, however, that it is pathetic for the hon. the member to insinuate that we did not do so in the past or, at least, that some people did not do it in the past. Well, as I have said, we do regard them as human beings and I submit that it is not fitting for the hon. the member to take up an attitude like this. We have always explained why it is necessary for the Bantu to accept certain restrictions in the White homelands in the Republic. We have explained that in the past and we shall explain it in future. I have also explained it to Bantu people themselves and they understand it, while many of them appreciate it and subscribe to it. But in the same way the Whites have to contend with certain restrictions within the Bantu homelands. The hon. member also dealt with certain alleged difficulties Bantu were experiencing under Section 10 of the Act. But I know that we on this side and the hon. member for Houghton differ on this matter fundamentally and it is just as impossible for us to think on the same lines as it is for day and night to unite. We on this side regard registration as necessary and in terms of our policy it is necessary that we have influx control. Moreover, the Bantu themselves benefit by these procedures.

Then there must be something wrong with your administrative machinery.

The hon. member is quite wrong when she tries to create the impression that we are not treating the Bantu in a human fashion when we deal with him in connection with these matters. We know there are many amenities within the White areas which the Bantu cannot enjoy.

The hon. member also dealt with the question of escorts. She alleged that Bantu were being escorted back to the areas from where they came, by armed escort. But what are the facts? The fact of the matter is that these escorts are not always armed escorts. In fact, they are mostly not armed at all. But what is more, mostly they are not even members of the Police. Almost always these escorts consist of ordinary people and in addition they are Bantu themselves.

You are missing my point entirely.

If a Bantu person has to be escorted away from a place where he is not supposed to be and these escorts consist of Bantu people, what is wrong in it? The fact of the matter is that we and the hon. member will never agree on this point. As I have said, we on this side of the House and the hon. member for Houghton differ on this fundamentally.

With this I think I have replied to all the important points.

There are other hon. members on this side whose reactions to the hon. the Minister’s speech will be awaited. In the ten minutes at my disposal, however. I want to deal with a few points. We found the speech made by the hon. the Minister very interesting. It is good to see that the hon. the Minister is enjoying good health and that he has good stamina, something which in the light of the policy which he has just announced, he will need in the time to come! I can see that we will also have to have good powers of endurance! The hon. Minister dealt with one point after the other and I should like to reply to many of them but there is a whole pile of my notes here which I have had to put to one side whenever a more important point came up. Therefore there are only a few points to which I can reply within the time at my disposal.

Something which strikes one the most is that the policy which the hon. the Minister stated here is based on wishful thinking. It sounded fine—if one could only escape from this world and go and live in a dream world of one’s own. We agree with him completely where he says that there must be the greatest possible measure of unanimity we are able to achieve in order to be able to solve the Bantu problem. But we on this side would not be serving our country if we were also to indulge in wishful thinking; we would certainly not be doing our country a service. I just want to refer to the views of a man who has been described as perhaps the brightest star in the South African firmament of historians. I am referring to Dr. De Kiewiet. I quote what he has said about this policy—

He says further—

I want to begin with what the hon. the Minister has said in regard to the expenditure on the reserves. He said that the Government, as far as expenditure is concerned, has already gone further than the proposals contained in the Tomlinson Report. He said that in a period of five years R135,000,000 has been spent. Here we have one example of wishful thinking. Together with other hon. members on his side he is staring himself blind at the fact that this money has been spent and he thinks that everything is or will be all right, but he forgets to look and see how little has been achieved with this expenditure. He forgets what Dr. Rhoodie said as recently as this year, i.e. that if the carrying capacity of the reserves remains unchanged there will be 15,000,000 Bantu in our urban areas by the year 2000. Hon. members on that side adopt the attitude that since they have spent that money they can now sit back and think that they have done their duty and that all will now be well, but that is precisely where they are making themselves guilty of wishful thinking.

The hon. Minister and, before him, the hon. member for Randfontein also spoke about ultimate geographical partition and said that they are moving in the direction of an ultimate ideal. But surely that is not so? The ideal is more apartheid, more segregation, more separation of people, but the real facts of the matter are that there is an ever-increasing degree of integration, that there is an ever-increasing flocking together of the different races in the same country. Those are the facts. It might be their ideal but nobody can say that they are moving in the direction of realizing that ideal. We are definitely moving in the opposite direction. A party which states that it has a certain ideal and which does not then move in the direction of realizing that ideal, is making itself guilty of wishful thinking.

You are now back in 1948.

No, it is the hon. member who is still there. In 1948 there were 2,000,000 Bantu in the urban areas; today there are 4,000,000. That hon. member is prepared to say that he is still moving in the direction of his ultimate ideal. If he continues moving as he is moving now, there will shortly be 6,000,000 Bantu in the White areas.

Where do you get that figure of 4,000,000 from?

How can a party say that it is moving in the direction of ultimate separation when it is moving in a northerly direction and the realization of its ideal lies in a southerly direction? The desire which they are nursing is to bring about separation between the races, but the fact of the matter is that they are succeeding to an ever-decreasing extent in doing so. Nevertheless they say that it remains their ideal and that they are moving in that direction.

Where do you get that figure of 4,000,000 from?

Order!

I was sorry to hear that the hon. the Minister continues to adhere to the idea that what is happening today is not integration under their policy but that it would be integration under our policy. I want to say at once that we see the various groups in our country as groups. It is absolutely untrue that we are striving after biological integration and all that kind of thing. It is well-known that we stand for residential area segregation and segregation in other spheres, but we cannot get away from the fact that we will have to make a plan to live with the people who find themselves here. We have said that we want to restrict the numbers to a minimum, but that does not mean that it will justify the wishful thinking policy of the Nationalist Party.

But you want greater economic progress, based on Bantu labour.

I think the hon. the Minister and his party accepts that there is always going to be a majority of Bantu in the so-called White area, but they say that it does not really make much difference because the Bantu here will have secondary rights. I just want to remind them of one of the cornerstones of their policy. The corner-stone of their policy is non-intervention in the affairs of other people. The state of affairs they want to create is one in which they will have millions of citizens of other states within their own state. How do they know that that state is not going to interfere in our affairs when it affects the interests of those millions of citizens of theirs? That is a point they will have to ponder. They think that they can get away with this idea of non-intervention, but it will nevertheless be the task of the Bantustans of the future to look after the interests of their own people and they will definitely intervene in our affairs where it affects the interests of their own people.

What about Lesotho and Botswana? Many of their people are working here.

The hon. the Minister spoke about the maintaining of bonds. I just want to read to him what Dr. Rhoodie said about that matter. The hon. the Minister wants strong national bonds between the Bantu in the reserves and the Bantu in the so-called White area. That is more wishful thinking. I want to quote what Dr. Rhoodie has written (translation)—

But the Government persists in clinging to that idea that the bonds will remain strong ones. There is no proof for that happening but they cling to that idea.

In the last few minutes I just want to return to the hon. the Deputy Minister. On the one hand he said that work has been found for 42,000 Bantu in the Bantu areas as a result of an investment of R300,000,000. On the other hand the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs told us that these avenues of employment had been furnished by means of the investment of a smaller amount, i.e. R200,000,000. In regard to those figures the hon. the Deputy Minister now maintains that he should really have put them higher but I would first like to check these figures before I accept them. Time limit.]

The speech made by the hon. member for Pinelands presents fresh evidence of the United Party’s political bankruptcy. He said that there was not one party in this country that was moving towards the ideal of total territorial separation which the National Party had set itself. By saying that the hon. member admits that they are therefore not moving in that direction either, and that they are thinking negatively. In the brilliant speech by the hon. the Minister we had excellent proof of how positively the Government is moving in that direction. If the hon. member alleges that no party is moving in that direction, he displays abysmal ignorance of National Party policy arid he admits that they take a negative stand in respect of this matter, or that they are moving in the direction of integration. It can only be one or the other; either one moves in the direction of this ideal, or one moves away from it, and it has been proved once again that the United Party is moving away from separate development. In any event, there are indications of an evolutionary process of repentance on the part of the United Party if one considers the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition at Britstown and also the opinions expressed by the hon. member for Pinelands—he is the most level headed member of the Opposition—who said last night that we were entering a new era. He said that on the part of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development a new approach was evident to which he subscribed readily. In reply to a question by the hon. member for Randfontein, the hon. member for Transkei admitted that territorial separation of the various race groups would be the ideal position. These things prove that the United Party is coming to its senses, and any decent human being welcomes any sign of improvement in a person who has been suffering for a long time from a grave chronic disease, but I fear the temperature is so high again to-day that all those signs are fading, and that we shall nevertheless witness the political funeral of the United Party within the foreseeable future.

Last night the hon. member presented us with a gloomy picture of the blackening of our industrial areas. In doing that he is actually doing us a favour, because it merely serves as a stimulus to the Government to take even more drastic measures to counter that blackening. We on this side admit that it is irrefutably evident that the growing demand for Bantu labour and the phenomenal natural birth-rate of the Bantu in the urban areas form the two main corner-stones of the problem. The Opposition knows the problem, but it has no solution. We know the problem as well as the remedy. The Government appreciates the fact that as a result of the socio-economic and political character of the problem it is striking incisively at the basic principles of a sound and viable population equilibrium in the cities, and that it is striking at the survival of the White population in this country. The Government knows that; we know that unless exceptionally realistic and revolutionary measures are taken to restrain and turn the growing trend drastically, it will soon have implications that will make outflow and resettlement physically and economically impracticable. Within the framework of legislation and the measures that we have taken, we have achieved great success in countering it. We have effected a suction-force to the homelands. This was effected by the establishment of border industries, by the establishment of the Bantu Investment Corporation, by accelerating the development rate of the homelands, but it is clear—I admit that—that even the most intensive implementation of the above mentioned existing measures will not bring about the desired and most essential speedy —and I emphasize the word “speedy”—turning point of outflow and resettlement in contrast with the demand for labour and the natural birth-rate. For this, however, the Government is not to blame. It is due to the suction-force exerted by Bantu labour through the phenomenal industrial growth in and around our larger urban complexes. But the Government is considering drastic measures. For example, there are plans and additional measures that may be put into operation to accelerate the process of countering the blackening of the urban areas. I shall mention three of the most important of these, but in the short period at my disposal I can amplify one only, and that is the introduction of a more realistic and imaginative migrant labour system for male Bantu labourers in our static industries and in the immovable labour intensive complexes.

In the second place it may also be done by the introduction of a form of licensing or registration of Bantu-labour intensive industries, in order that the Government may obtain control of the establishment of such industries. But of that the Deputy Minister presented a very clear picture last night. Thirdly, it may be done by considering more extensive financial support for the resettlement and transfer of existing Bantu-predominant industries to the border industries, but this was also explained by him. Because the migrant labour system is such a bogyman to the United Party and particularly to the hon. member for Houghton, I want to mention a few points in its favour. I put it to you that if a systematic migrant labour system is applied gradually it would reduce the housing shortage in the cities drastically, because male migrant labourers could be accommodated in modern compounds and hostels at more places, which would require much less space. Secondly, by shifting families to the homelands, it would effect a rapid swing in the Bantu-population predominancy. Thirdly it would bring about a healthy inter-action of labour flow to the industrial centres and capital flow to the homelands, and because the principle of long-term recruitment may not be permitted under this system, it would have the result that the worker would retain his family and ethnic cultural ties. The essential constant contact would be retained, because under such a system only the most essential key-men would be allowed inside the industrial areas on a family basis. Fourthly, it would serve to retain labour continuity because the work teams could be organized and recruited in consultation with the homeland authorities on a rotating or relief basis. In my opinion shifts should not last longer than eight or nine months, and a compulsory return of three to four months to their homes should be an integral part of such a migrant labour system. This would cause the family ties and the contact to be retained. Admittedly, this would demand a high initial outlay and a great deal of adjustment, but the urgency of the problem, as is also admitted by the hon. member for Pinelands, is patently clear. This means that there should rather be a more realistic adjustment in the attitude of the employer to the employee than the other way round. The urgency of the problem demands this. The migrant labour system is a well-known system in Europe. The mines apply it in one form. It was also known in the squatter system formerly applied on farms. Migrant labour is also true to the Bantu. I spent many years in the Transkei and in Pretoria and I noticed and admired this system in the Baca tribe, which handled the sanitary night services of the Municipality for many years and which applied such a rotating relief-system. They monopolized the work for themselves, and what they did on a small scale can be applied to a larger extent by the Government as an additional measure to solve this most urgent problem. [Time limit.]

I am afraid I will not have time to argue with the hon. member for Marico about the system of migratory labour, but I hope to have another opportunity to discuss that system before this Session is over. I just want to tell the Minister that he completely misunderstood two points I raised. Firstly, I was not quibbling about the sort of escort provided for the man who had been arrested under a pass law offence and had been fined.

We have no pass laws.

Let us not argue about words. I call it a pass law offence. You may call it influx control regulations or anything you like. I was not quibbling about the fact that the man had been sent back under armed escort or whether he was sent back under the escort of a Bantu or a White man, but what worried me was that even after the man had paid his fine he was kept in gaol for two or three weeks until an escort could be found, whether armed or unarmed or an African or a White man. This is the problem and I hope the Minister will examine it from the correct point of view, i.e. despite paying a fine the man nevertheless goes to prison and sometimes for a period even longer than the term of imprisonment he would have had to serve had he not paid his fine.

The other point the hon. the Minister did not get was that I was not arguing the principle of influx control. As he rightly said, we differ fundamentally on this subject and there is no point in arguing it now, especially in such a short period of time. It is the administration of the system that worries me, the many wasted man hours and the difficulties encountered by people who try to be law-abiding citizens under the Minister’s own system. My argument is that his administration is not coping adequately with the ordinary implementation of this system. There are people who line up at 8 a.m. outside the pass office and when the office closes at 5 p.m. the same people are still waiting in a queue, and that happens in Johannesburg and in Cape Town and in other urban centres.

The last time I was in Johannesburg the whole queue had been dealt with by 11 a.m. They have a new system there. When last were you there?

I was there this year, but the Minister must have a magic wand because every time I have been there, as any housewife who tries to get registration papers for domestics can bear out, they wait for hours. When I was there a few months ago the queue was around the block. If the Deputy Minister will come with me, heavily disguised, he will see what happens. I say “disguised”, because I do not want his officials to recognize him. I want him to see a normal working day in those offices, and not to go there when everything is laid on for him. That is what I am arguing about, and not the system of influx control itself.

Let me come to another matter altogether. The hon. the Minister may have seen an article in the Cape Times this morning about the banished Bantu people. I want to ask him please to devote a little of his valuable time to re-examining the cases of people who have been in banishment now, some of them, for more than 12 years.

We review those cases constantly.

I cannot imagine how men, after they have been banished for 10 or 12 years, and some of whom are old and sick, cannot now be released so that they can go back and spend the last remaining years of their lives among their own people.

But in many cases their own people do not want them back.

Whether their people want them back or not should surely not be the consideration. I know that many of these cases arose out of tribal disputes.

Yes, all of them, and the tribes do not want them back at all.

I think it is terrible that they should spend the last declining years of their lives in far distant places just because some people of their own tribe do not want them back. They were never tried in a court of law and I think amnesty should be granted to them on compassionate grounds, if for nothing else, just as common criminals are granted amnesty sometimes. Let the Minister look at it from that angle to see whether he cannot lift the banishment of some of these people anyway. I think it is high time the whole system was reviewed and that leniency be extended particularly to old and sick men.

I want to come back to the question of the method of administration of the Bantu Urban Areas Act. I wonder whether the Minister is aware that, apparently as the result of a recent court case, a new ruling has been given which gives an effect to the Act which the Minister may not even have intended at the time the Act was passed. Unless an African can prove that he registered in June, 1952, within 72 hours of coming into the city, any years that he may have spent prior to registration are completely discounted for qualification purposes. Let me give the example of a man who has been in Cape Town since 1950. Unless he registered within 72 hours in June, 1952, he does not qualify in terms of a person who can stay in the urban area because he has been there for 15 years. He loses his qualification.

Whose word must be taken for the time he entered?

Even if a man can prove by means of all sorts of documents, like letters from previous employers, and letters even from the township officials, that he has been resident there, unless he actually registered, all the years which would have enabled him to qualify fall away, and as far as women are concerned the date, I believe, is 1954. There were no avenues whereby women could register before 1954, since registration of women was not demanded until quite recently. This makes it extremely difficult for a woman to prove that she qualifies to be in the urban area. As far as married women are concerned, the difficulties of proving that they ordinarily resided with their husbands and qualified are innumerable. There are cases of women who are unable to live with their lawfully married husbands simply because they cannot prove their pre-1954 registration. I think the whole system is being implemented with far too little discretion on the part of the authorities. I believe that those people who have been living here as law-abiding citizens and who are lawfully married people should not be separated, even in terms of this over-all policy of the Government.

I hope the Minister will see to it that some leniency is exercised in applying the law or. if he cannot ignore the law, to amend it. I want to point out, also, that a woman who qualifies in Langa in her own right may not join her husband if he lives in the adjoining township of Nyanga, because the one falls under the divisional council and the other falls under the City Council. This means that an African has to choose a woman qualified to live in exactly the same urban township as himself if he is to be allowed to live with her as a married couple. If the woman does not happen to qualify in exactly the same township, she may not live with her husband as man and wife. [Interjection.] I believe it would be better to scrap Section 10. but I told the Minister in the beginning that I was not trying to discuss the principle of Section 10. I feel that South African Africans should have the right to live where they like. [Time limit.]

I hope the hon. member for Houghton will pardon me if I do not follow her in her argument. I want to use this opportunity to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his clear and lucid exposition of the National Party policy with regard to the Bantu homelands and Bantu administration. The hon. the Minister has made a great deal of progress, and our party has made a great deal of progress. As far as we are concerned, the Transkei has been established, and I also want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the progress that has been made in the Transkei. [Interjections.] None is as blind as he who will not see. The fact of the matter is that a great deal of progress has been made in the Transkei, and I can affirm to-day that the Transkei, of all the African states, is perhaps pre-eminently the state which is making economic progress. Under the guidance of the National Party Government the Transkei is making progress. But I challenge the hon. member for Transkei, who during the previous Session made the allegation here that the Whites in the Transkei were in a poorer position than the Whites in Kenya under the British Government, to come to the Transkei constituency and repeat that. A part of the Transkei falls in my constituency, and those people whom I visited 14 days ago are contented. Now the hon. member is paying no attention to me. I say that those people who come under my constituency are contented under the National Party policy. They are quite contented. They are so contented that the hon. member for the Transkei will most certainly not return to this House next time.

They will no longer be there. They are all running away under your policy.

No, there is peace in the Transkei, not only among the Blacks, but also among the Whites. All of them are making progress. Furthermore, the White in the Transkei is enjoying economic security at present, more economic security than the White businesses in the White areas, because they at least have the assurance that the National Party Government is looking after their interests and will not leave them in the lurch. But the hon. member does not care what happens there. It is of no interest to him, as long as he can stay there and carry on himself. However, I shall say nothing further of what I know about him.

I should like to come back to what the hon. member for Pinelands said last night. The hon. member for Pinelands said that only 13 per cent of the total land area in South Africa is occupied and owned by the Bantu. In 1959 there was a congress at Bloemfontein. On that occasion there was a split between the United Party and the Progressive Party, and the Progressive Party walked out. Was it not in fact the United Party that said on that occasion that they did not want to purchase any more land? The hon. members on that side broke with the Progressive Party—the Progressive Party can help me. The Progressive Party said that they agreed with the National Party and that they wanted to buy more land for the Black man, while the United Party said that they did not want to buy any more land for the Black man. To be precise, it was the hon. member for South Coast who said that.

Under what circumstances?

The circumstances were the same as now. If the Black man alone owns only 13 per cent of the land in the country, why is the hon. member for Pine-lands complaining that the Black man cannot get any more land? How will the United Party obtain more land? There is no logic in their argument. It is a pity that the hon. member for Pinelands is not here. He spoke on a subject of which he knew very little, because he knows very little about the Bantu homelands. After he had had his say, he made off. Are we implementing our policy at present with the object of discriminating against the Black man? Are we creating the Bantu homelands in order to discriminate against the Black man? Under no circumstances do we discriminate against the Black man. We do not discriminate against the White man. We do not discriminate against the Coloured, nor do we discriminate against the Indian. The National Party policy is an honest, sincere, unequivocal policy.

It is an equalization policy.

Yes, by your standards. The National Party, however will most certainly never consent to equalization. That is why we have the four-stream policy, whereas the United Party has a one-stream policy. We are not creating the homelands because we believe in discrimination. We believe that the Black man should develop there on his own to achieve his own maturity, while the other races have to achieve maturity in their own areas. We shall assist the Black man in his development as far as possible. It is in the interests of us as Whites to help the Black man and to see to it that he develops in his own areas, and not in the White areas, as advocated by the United Party. I want to say this to-day. We as the National Party believe that South Africa is the only country where there is no discrimination against any race. No race is discriminated against. We believe that every race should be treated fairly, in order that it may develop in its own area and come into its own in that area.

Mr. Chairman, it was interesting to hear the hon. member for Aliwal on the new policy of equality of the Nationalist Party. If there is no discrimination there must be equality. One cannot have no discrimination and not have equality with it. They mean the same. My hon. friend must either now say that he accepts the policy of the Liberal Party—a policy of equality— or there must be discrimination. Discrimination means differentiation, making a difference between the one and the other. If that hon. member stands for a policy of no discrimination which means no difference—no discrimination, no differentiation …

I did not say that. I said every one would be able to develop in his own area.

My hon. friend used the words clearly and unequivocally: “Ons diskrimineer nie tussen die rasse nie”. He named the races. He named the Bantu, the Indian and the Coloured.

You are splitting hairs now.

And he said that they did not discriminate.

Against—“teen”.

In other words, you do not treat them any differently. The hon. the Deputy Minister accepts that he does not treat any race differently.

You do not understand Afrikaans.

This is inescapable. If one does not discriminate, one must treat people in the same way. One cannot say that one does not discriminate but one does not treat people the same. Immediately one ceases to treat them the same, one is in fact discriminating. The hon. the Deputy Minister has said himself that he treats them all the same.

We are moving away from discrimination.

Now the hon. the Deputy Minister is only moving away from discrimination. So he is moving towards equal treatment for the races.

Quite right.

This is what happens when you come into this “Alice in Wonderland” world. Each one has to add a little bit of his own castle. Now the hon. the Minister for Community Development is adding his little wing to the castle. And so you go on. One says “no discrimination”. The other says: “Ah, but that does not mean that you treat them the same. It does not mean that they are equal”. And the next one says: “Oh no, but that is only in their own areas”. Where do you end up? Either you discriminate, you treat one race differently from another race, or you have no discrimination—you treat them equally. The Government has made a choice. It has decided to treat them equally. That is the goal to which it is moving. I want to make this very clear, because the point that I am leading up to is what happens to the majority of Bantu people still resident in so-called White South Africa, in other words mixed South Africa, after this never-never land of Bantustans has been achieved.

The same as happens to the Italians who work in Switzerland. They cannot obtain citizenship there.

The hon. the Minister is of course quite wrong. They can obtain citizenship.

How?

By applying as any other immigrant into Switzerland can apply to become a Swiss citizen. And once they have lived there for the requisite period …

They are forced out before they can apply.

They can extend their length of stay: The difference is that the Italian worker working in Switzerland can go to the Italian Consulate if he is wronged or aggrieved, and his Government looks after him. I want to know whether the hon. the Minister then accepts that once this never-never land of Bantustans has been created, the Bantu citizens of the Transkei working, say, in a White area in Durban, if they feel aggrieved, can then go to the Transkeian representative and the Transkeian representative then will deal on a nation-to-nation basis with their complaint against a White South African citizen.

Do you not know about the existing laws falling under the Department of Labour?

Yes, I know about the Commissioners-General, I know about the representatives of the tribal authorities in the urban areas.

The hon. member wants to do away with all of that. He wants to exploit them.

Do you not know about the laws falling under the Department of Labour? You do not know about it. Sit down, if you do not know about it.

Is the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development now prepared to hand Bantu Labour over to the Department of Labour?

That has been so for all the years.

His Department has taken the Bantu away from the Department of Labour, has taken control of the Bantu Labour Bureau, and now he wants to shield behind labour legislation from which the Bantu is specifically excluded.

Before I am led too far off my course, I want to deal with one remark which the hon. the Deputy Minister made last night. I understand that he made a mistake but I think it is necessary that we should have this on record. The hon. the Deputy Minister said last night that he had had discussions with the Transvaal Chamber of Industries who agreed with him in his plans to reduce …

I did not say that.

Well, the implication was that the Transvaal Chamber of Industries supported him and was co-operating with him in regard to the removal of Bantu from the Witwatersrand.

Here are my exact words.

I will leave it to the hon. the Deputy Minister to give his exact words. The point is that I wish to give him the opportunity to clarify the fact that there were no official discussions …

You are right there.

… no official discussions with the Transvaal Chamber of Industries, and that there has been neither negotiation nor agreement either with the Transvaal or the Federated Chamber of Industries in regard to this matter.

I am still discussing it with them.

There are individual members who are trying to avoid a confrontation, as they call it, who are trying to avoid compulsory legal steps being taken by legislation which will affect the position.

Who told you that?

I have my sources of information. I will leave the matter there and give the hon. the Deputy Minister the opportunity to correct the statement which he made last night. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to spend much time on the point made here by the hon. member for Durban (Point) because the hon. member for Aliwal allegedly said that we on this side did not wish to discriminate. As regards the standpoint of the Government and of the National Party, I just want to point out to the hon. member that when we say that we do not wish to discriminate and that we want to grant every race group—especially the Bantu race groups —the same privileges we grant to the Whites, we mean that we want to grant them those privileges in their own homelands. We want to grant them in their own homelands what we demand for ourselves in our homeland. If we demand universities for ourselves in our homeland, we say that they, too, may demand their universities for themselves in their homelands, in contrast to the United Party who wants them to have their university training in our universities here in our White areas. I think this should be clear to the hon. member and it will not help him to want to profess now that there will not be any discrimination on our part against any race, even within the White area.

However, I did not rise to speak about that. I actually want to come back to the hon. member for Transkei, who has already spoken for 40 minutes during this debate, virtually as long as the hon. the Minister. The hon. member for Transkei said last night that “boundaries must now be defined for all times” and he also said that the necessary development was lacking.

I did not say that.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER: The hon. member must now give me an opportunity to speak. I do not have 40 minutes at my disposal as he has had. He said that the necessary development to enable them to absorb the increase in the population, was lacking in the Bantu homelands.

In speaking about the boundaries of the Bantu territories I want to refer to a remark made here by the hon. member for South Coast during the discussion of the Prime Minister’s Vote when he said that we must accept each other’s bona fides. I now want to make an appeal to the United Party. We want to accept their bona fides but then they must act in such a way that it will, in fact, be possible for us to do so.

As regards the Government’s policy concerning the consolidation and the clearance of Black spots, we are engaged in implementing the 1936 Act. But whenever land is acquired under the 1936 Act we hear the cry from the Opposition: “It is once again White land which is being transferred to the Bantu”. We witnessed that yesterday afternoon. We also witnessed that the afternoon before last. I want to refer to the amendment which the hon. member for Transkei, too. supported here yesterday afternoon when certain forest reserves had to be transferred from the Department of Forestry to the Department of Lands, simply because they had heard that that land could eventually be transferred to the Department of Bantu Administration. The person who made the biggest fuss, was the hon. member for South Coast, supported by the hon. member for Transkei.

I did not speak yesterday.

You voted for it. The hon. member even demanded the division. What does that constitute if it does not constitute support? But then I am pleased to know that he did not agree with the hon. member for South Coast. I want to refer to the following point, Mr. Chairman. Under the 1936 Act certain quota land must still be acquired in the province of Natal, namely 123,000 morgen. In an interview which the Minister and I had with the hon. member for South Coast, he said it was no longer necessary to acquire more White land as quota land in the province of Natal because there was sufficient State-owned land which could be transferred to make up those 123,000 morgen. Yesterday afternoon when the first 8,000 morgen of State-owned land was to be transferred from the Department of Forestry to the Department of Lands and when there was only a notion that this land could eventually be transferred to the Department of Bantu Administration, whereupon it would become quota land, we once again heard the cry here that that land was being taken away from the Whites and being given to the Bantu. Even if it is Forestry land and that land is transferred to the Bantu Trust, that land may immediately be regarded as forming part of Natal’s quota, and it will not help the hon. member to want to profess now that they opposed that for the special reason that the forests would be withdrawn …

Is it going to be a nature reserve?

The hon. member was given the answer to that question yesterday afternoon, namely, that it was going to remain a nature reserve, that it was going to be protected. But he now wants to lead me away from the point which I want to make, namely, that each time land is acquired under the 1936 Act it is professed here … The hon. member for Durban (Point) is not one of the innocents in connection with this matter. He is as guilty as the rest of his party.

The afternoon before last we also had a division here because a small piece of land, 55 morgen at Turton, which is a White spot within a Black area, was to be included in a Bantu area. Once again we immediately had the cry: “Here we once again have White land which is being granted to the Bantu.” Now, the United Party should tell us what their standpoint is in connection with the consolidation of the Bantu areas and the acquisition of quota land as provided for by the 1936 Act. If they now want to persist with this type of argument that no White land should be acquired for the Bantu, the United Party must suggest that the 1936 Act should be amended.

It is an Act of the United Party.

Very well, it is an Act of the United Party, one which the National Party is implementing at present, and when we do so it is said that it is the National Party Government which is transferring the White man’s land to the Black man. No, Mr. Chairman, as long as they proceed in this manner we really cannot accept their bona fides and we shall have to show them up time and again.

The hon. member for East London (City) is not present at the moment. In a speech I made here last year I referred to the number of badly situated Bantu areas and the number of Black spots in the Ciskei. At that stage these amounted to a total of plus-minus 100,000 morgen. After I had furnished those figures here, the hon. member exploited them and said it was this Government’s aim to acquire 100,000 morgen of land in the Ciskei to be transferred to the Bantu. Now I want to ask: “Is the United Party also sincere in wanting to consolidate our Bantu areas? Are they also sincere about wanting to clear up Black spots?” We often find questions on the Order Paper: “Are Sheshego and Patoskop Black spots? When are they going to be cleared up?” Yes, the hon. member for King William’s Town is concerned in this matter. I wish he would ask me about Wartburg, Heckle and Umgwali and also other places. They must tell us whether we must acquire land from Whites for the Bantu in order to clear up those Black spots or whether they will continue telling the story that it is this Government— as his predecessor said—which is transferring White land to the destroyers of soil? I should very much like to hear whether that is also his point of view.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that the 1936 Act is an Act of the United Party and obviously the United Party stands for the implementation of its own Act. I want to address myself to the hon. the Minister. This afternoon we listened in great expectation to the statement of policy by the hon. the Minister. He placed a great deal of emphasis on what he called the “will of a determined Government” in respect of carrying out the task it had set itself. However, what struck one most was the lack of practical results. I am not denying the “will” of the hon. the Minister and his objectives. But ten years, virtually 11, have elapsed since the publication of the report of the Tomlinson Commission. And what do we have at the end of ten years? It is a long time. At the end of a period of ten years we only have one territory in South Africa which has the character of a self-governing unit, namely, the Transkei. A number of years ago already the previous Minister of Bantu Administration told us in an interview he had with a newspaper that the next territory would be given its self-governing character within a year or two. I am now referring to Tswanaland. Since that time two years have elapsed and nothing more has been said or done in connection with this step as regards Tswanaland. We have been hearing for several years that Zululand was ripe for its next major political step. But the hon. the Minister remains absolutely quiet. The years have been passing since the publication of the report of the Tomlinson Commission but results are lacking. And this was what struck one most this afternoon. I had great expectations. However, the lack of practical results remains. I think the time has really arrived for the hon. the Minister to give us an indication of what further political developments we may expect in the near future in connection with the Bantu territories. If we come to economic development, the picture is even more discouraging than that of political development. I do not want to create the impression here that nothing is being done. That would not be fair. I am quite prepared to concede that there are improvements. There are attempts at development. But it should be clear to everyone that the development is minimal, and I really cannot see how the course the Government is following at present in the development of the Bantu territories can lead to those territories becoming viable units, units capable of affording a decent livelihood to the people living there. As long as those territories—and this is the basic principle—cannot even offer a living, a decent living, to the people living there it inevitably follows that they can never serve to attract Bantu from the metropolitan areas. This is the essence of the matter. And until such time as steps are taken to develop these territories as centres which can attract this policy will to a large extent remain a policy on paper and one without practical results. I think that the time has arrived for this Government to realize that what the Tomlinson Commission said ten years ago is much more true to-day than it was at that time, namely, that the Bantu territories can only be developed on a large scale and that they will only develop the power to attract if the Government allows them to be developed with free capital. This may be Bantu capital; it may be foreign capital; it may be White capital, but the principle is that it must be free capital. This was confirmed by Chief Minister Matanzima himself. He said that it was of no avail to expect that the Transkei, which is the best of the Bantu territories, could be developed on a large scale with Bantu capital. This was also confirmed by the author, Paul Geniewski, who wrote a book in favour of and was impressed by the Bantustan idea; but two years later he returned and in an interview expressed his great disappointment about the lack of development in the territories and virtually wrote off the entire idea. He found that the basic shortcoming was development within the territories. Border industries may be a good thing from the point of view of decentralization of White industries, but from the point of view of the development of the Bantu territories themselves, they are rather a disadvantage than an advantage, because an undertaking which is on the border is not going to develop a similar undertaking within the territory even if it would be possible to do so. This is also confirmed by the fact that Lesotho has called in a person such as Dr. Anton Rupert—for what purpose? What is he going to do there? He is going there to help them to attract foreign capital and White “know-how” to Lesotho because they realize that otherwise they have no chance of becoming a viable territory. I must honestly say that I, as a South African, was astonished to hear the hon. the Deputy Minister saying yesterday evening that something like that was “economic colonialism”. This is not language which South Africans should use when we are dealing with developmental assistance. If foreign capital is attracted to South Africa to assist us in building up industries, does that constitute colonialism?

Ours is a developed country.

No country is ever fully developed. But even so, if we with our high level of industrial development need foreign capital, how much more does a territory on the lowest level of development need foreign capital? This is not colonialism. I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that I think that his argument is a strange one. As long as White political imperialism is absent, there cannot be any question of colonialism in the sphere of development and capital; and furthermore there are, after all, ways of protecting the Bantu’s interests in the territories.

How?

What is important is that history has proved time and time again that no young country can develop properly without outside capital and skills. This even applies to our Republic. But now I want to adduce very interesting proof to the hon. the Minister. A number of years ago when Indonesia became independent under Sukarno all Dutchmen were driven out. They nationalized all undertakings and prohibited foreign capital from entering Indonesia, and what was the immediate result? The immediate result was absolute economic chaos and recession, and in their desperation the Indonesians invited Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, who is one of the world’s greatest economists, to make an analysis of Indonesia’s problem. What was Dr. Schacht’s findings? He describes them in “My First Seventy-Six Years”. He presented a memorandum to the Indonesian Government and I quote what he recommended—

And then he comes to the point—

[Time limit.]

The hon. member who has spoken just before me, referred to matters to which the hon. the Minister and also the hon. the Deputy Minister gave him the answers last night. He made the statement that development was required for attracting people to the homelands. We wholeheartedly agree with him. He also said that one could not achieve such development without capital.

Free capital.

This is one of the most elementary of economic concepts and we also agree with that, but the hon. member knows that we disagree with him as regards the method of mobilizing such capital. He was given the answer by the hon. the Minister yesterday evening as well as this afternoon and I do not know what more he desires from the hon. the Minister. He also asked what the political developments in the homelands would be. Perhaps he did so with a guilty conscience thinking about his own political development. I am glad that I need not reply to that and that the hon. the Minister will have to do so; I only hope that he will be able to produce a political magic carpet so as to enable him to follow the hon. member in all his political wanderings, and at that I leave the hon. member’s speech.

Look who is sitting in front of you.

But you have changed your allegiance twice. I have only done so once.

I have been following the debate with a great deal of interest up to now and I must say that I have been struck by the diligence and proficiency with which hon. members opposite have quoted certain figures and have presented other figures as so-called proof that the Government’s policy was allegedly not succeeding. I have been even more impressed by the Opposition’s eagerness and proficiency in evading calculations made on the same basis as regards their own policy. I have gained the impression that there is a number of persons in their ranks who are good at making sums when it suits them but when they really have to compare one policy with another they only make calculations concerning one side of the matter and not the other. I think the hon. member for Pinelands, for instance, would have been much more convincing if, in addition to the sums he made yesterday evening he would also have made a calculation of what the position would have been if and when the United Party’s policy should have been fully implemented, so as to have enabled us to make a comparison. I am convinced that he would have felt less sure perhaps had he made such a calculation concerning the beneficial influence of his own policy. Sir, we have had quotations from the Tomlinson Report ad nauseum. I make bold to say that if hon. members of the Opposition knew the Bible as well as they pretend to know the Tomlinson Report things would go quite well with them in the future, but if they are going to utilize the truths contained in the Bible in the same way as they utilize the facts of the Tomlinson Report, I am afraid they are going to end up in another place.

Mr. Chairman, this Government will not agree to the Opposition interpreting on its behalf what the real aims of the policy of the National Party are. We also do not accept that the Opposition is a competent judge for determining to what extent we have achieved our aim and to what extent we are succeeding with the policy we are implementing, as long as they fail to apply the same yardstick which they apply to our policy to their policy as well. Therefore I shall be grateful if hon. members opposite in stating their policy will, with regard to making calculations concerning their policy, apply the same yardstick as that applied to our policy. Sir, yesterday evening we heard quite a number of figures and considerable criticism relating to the increase in the numbers of Bantu in our White cities. I have here on my desk a report on Bantu demography in the metropolitan area of Johannesburg. It is specifically stated in this report that its findings have been checked against details concerning Cape Town and Durban and that as far as Bantu males were concerned, exactly corresponding tendencies were revealed. In other words, I am not using a parochial approach; I want to state the position as it exists in the largest concentrations of Bantu in the White areas of our country. I attach much more value to this report which has a scientific basis than I do to the figures quoted here by the hon. members for Transkei and Pinelands. It is easy to quote detached figures from a book and to employ them as it suits one best. I want to quote from a scientifically founded report which everyone may read and which scientists may criticize. The report to which I am referring makes an analysis of the increase of the Bantu population in the urban concentrations of Bantu in Johannesburg between various census dates, namely from 1946 to 1951 and from 1951 to 1960, and on that basis it also makes a demographic advance estimate of what the position will be in the future. What are the conclusions of this report? In the first place the investigators found that there had been a very slight flow of Bantu from the homelands to the White urban area from 1951 to 1956, as a result of the efficient influx control measures of this Government. They state, as a matter of fact, that the rate of growth has decreased from 4.06 per cent to 2.02 per cent. Sir, this is not what I want to make this Committee believe; it is based on a scientifically founded report. They also found that the increase in the number of Bantu which had taken place in the urban complex of the Witwatersrand was mainly attributable to the natural growth in population, and the analysis they furnished of the age groups as spread over those numbers, is conclusive proof of that statement. In addition they proved that as regards Bantu women, in spite of the fact that there was virtually no control over their flow to the city, the rate of growth had decreased from 6.4 per cent to 4.8 per cent from 1951 to 1960. Sir, I notice that time is catching up with me. The hon. member for Transkei is frowning but he will not understand these things. Perhaps if I give him the number of the report and he has six months’ time in which to study the report he may be able to understand it. The third finding relating to the future contained in this report is the following (translation)—

I ask you, Sir, whether you need better proof than this demographic report why the Government has chosen the policy that undertakings in which Bantu labour predominates should be kept out of these urban complexes in the future. [Time limit.]

The last speaker wants us to understand that the increase in the number of Bantu in the towns is really the natural increase of the people who are living there, of the women who are bearing children, and that now that the influx of women has been controlled there will not be this natural increase any more. But the figures of recruitment from the reserves to the White areas belie that statement he made. He merely has to look at the questions I ask every year and the answers to them, as to how many Africans are recruited in the Transkei to come and work in the Western Province. Every year there is a big increase. The hon. the Deputy Minister confirms what I say because he says the policy at first is to decrease these figures. [Interjection.] The hon. member suggested that the population in the towns will now decrease.

It will not increase so fast.

But the point is that there will still be an increase, and that is why so much importance is attached to the year 1978. I must say I admire the courage of the hon. the Deputy Minister, because the rest of the Nationalist Party have dropped this idea of 1978, but he has had the courage to revise it and in fact he is now talking of a date before 1978. The Minister has told us that in terms of his policy there will be a multitude of different African states for all the different African tribes, including those in South West Africa. They will all have their own little states and the Coloureds and the Indians eventually must have theirs, too, because it is part of the policy. [Interjection.] The Deputy Minister cannot run away from the consequences of their Bantu policy. When I said last night that it would have to apply to everybody, including the Coloureds and the Indians, they agreed, but they had not thought of those implications and are now getting worried. But the Minister used a rather ingenious argument this afternoon. He said that because all the main tribes would be separated and there would be a White bloc, we would have majority rule. I have never yet heard this argument put forward. I want to ask him, if in order to bring the Bantu into the minority he divides them into separate groups, why does he not do that with the White people also, so that we have the Afrikaans speaking and the English speaking and the Jews and the Portuguese all falling into separate groups? He cannot just change the population groups as he likes to get a majority. That argument will not go down at all.

The hon. member for Aliwal North asked me about the Whites in the Transkei and I pointed out that they were leaving as fast as they could under this policy of the Government. When we discussed this matter in the House last time, I said that the British Government in Kenya was treating the White people there in the same way that this Government was treating the White people in the Transkei. The Minister waxed wrathful and asked this question. He said—

The Minister bases the quality of the services to the White people on the amount of money which is paid out.

That was in one year only.

No, it was not in one year. The Minister based his argument on the fact that this Government had paid out this sum, and he went on to talk about guarantees, but I am just dealing now with the figures he mentioned. Does the Minister know what the British Government has paid out in Kenya? If he works on amounts paid out, then this Government loses badly. Quoting from Commonwealth Survey of 7th December, 1965, they discussed the financial aid given by the British Government to the Kenya Government for the purchase of land, and this is what is said—

Then they go on to say that in addition to the £18,000,000 a limited amount of money will be made available to the Kenya Government to enable certain farmers to be bought out on compassionate grounds. This sum of £18,000,000 is additional to the sum of £11,600,000 which Britain had previously agreed to provide to Kenya for the purchase of land. Then in this year, in August, they had a discussion in the House of Commons, according to Hansard, and the spokesman for the Government was questioned about a new agreement for valuations of farms, to which the farmers had objected. He said that the British Government had now agreed with the Kenya Government on arrangements for the purchase of European mixed farming land. He said that they would buy the land from the farmers. The conservatives objected and said that the farmers complained about the method of valuation, and asked whether the method of valuation would be changed. The reply was no, that they were keeping the same method of valuation by Government valuators, the same as is being done in the Transkei. He was asked how much land was to be bought, and he said he could give the assurance that it was designed to cover all those who wished to sell, but he could not say how much was involved because the valuations had not taken place yet. Now the Minister says he paid out a certain sum in one year and that is not quite correct because it was not paid out in one year. But my point is that there has been inordinate delay. The Transkei scheme was announced first in 1952 and the traders wanted to sell then, but nothing was done. The Transkei Constitution Act was passed in 1963 and up to date the last information I had from the Minister was that one property in the urban areas had been bought from a European, despite the fact that the Whites in the urban areas are all offering their properties for sale. Now what happens to those who are unable to sell in the areas zoned for Black occupation? It means that the Bantu will move into that area and the White people living there, whether they want to or not, will have to sell. [Time limit.]

I do not think there is any need to reply to the hon. member for Transkei, because the Minister has already given that reply and it has been repeated time and again. After following last night’s debate and also to-day’s discussions by the United Party on their views of our country’s Colour policy we, as younger members of the House of Assembly, found ourselves wishing that there was a general election next month, for then we could go to the voters and tell them: We used to be laymen, but now we can tell you what is going on in the United Party. It seems to me as though this idea of White leadership over the whole of South Africa is past and done with, and also the erstwhile slogans like “Vote for the Right to Vote Again”. I would say that we should rather concentrate on more constructive ideas in this debate. I wish to tell the Minister that they can carry on, because our nation wants separate development, and if I say our nation I mean the Whites as well as the non-Whites. The Zulu do not want to be integrated with the Basuto or the Mapoch tribesmen of the central Transvaal. They want to be a nation on their own, just as we want to be that. There is no argument about that, and I do not know why it is still being disputed.

The idea which was so clearly stated by the hon. the Deputy Minister, with reference to 1978, is a good one, and we should decide that we will all help to have these things carried out. This is something positive that we may do, each one in this country, because everyone wishes to have it. I am thinking of one respect in which we can help, and that is agriculture. We can mechanize to a larger extent. The wages of non-Whites will rise and must rise, and it will help us to utilize and co-ordinate our labour more efficiently. Just as the industries will be compelled to give attention to this matter for the good of White and non-White, we in agriculture will also have to give attention to it.

Something else that is causing me concern is the squatter system. In my view it is a waste of labour to employ a non-White for six months rather than to adjust one’s farming in such a way that one can make do with less labour. I am not saying there should be willy-nilly action, but the development of the Bantu homelands is criticized here. They have no good word for it. We have received reports from the Department and from the B.I.C. Nothing positive was said about these matters. There was only criticism and faultfinding. There are officials in our country who make it their life-task to carry out these instructions and who give us these clear reports. They have to guide a nation which is still under-developed to make its own way industrially. But there is mention of “glorified carpenter shops”. All good things have a small and a humble beginning. There are people who make it their life-task to initiate that development. In rapid strides, within six years, the B.I.C. has done something positive, and all it receives is belittlement. In this way we shall not achieve very much. I am merely mentioning these things, after the Minister indicated our course so clearly. I was pleased to know that I was sitting on this side of the House. This side does not see a lion in the way. The development of border industries is something that should be of close concern to all of us. I predict that in another five years the Opposition will refer with pride to these border industries. I feel that this is a matter which should not be conducted on a low political level. On the contrary, we should discuss it on a higher level than merely with the object of gaining a few votes. In fact, no party is losing as many votes as the United Party is doing by conducting this matter in this fashion. In the past election the hon. member for Durban (Point), for example, asked what we were doing for the—pardon me for mentioning the word—kaffirs. In the Standerton City Hall he said that we were pumping everything into the Bantu. As an inexperienced politician I then wondered what it all meant and what it was all aimed at, but after yesterday’s debate and the clear reply of the hon. the Minister to-day, I wish we could have another election next month, because I have now obtained some more information.

Since I said that we should be positive, there is one matter I want to mention to the hon. the Minister. As we know the Bantu, those of us who work with the Bantu and who know him in his natural state, we know that he does not want to receive all the time. If he merely receives all the time he has no respect for you. He also wants to feel that he is making his own contribution. That brings me to the amount of R2 a year which the Bantu has to contribute in the form of taxes. I understand these payments are tremendously overdue. There are Bantu in my employment who have not paid the R2 for ten years. In addition, the work of the police as far as collecting those taxes is concerned, is hampered tremendously by attacks on the part of the United Party. In this regard I want to make a suggestion to the hon. the Minister. In the case of the Whites it is the task of the employers to collect taxes in terms of our new taxation system. Why cannot the employer of the non-White see to it that he collects this R2 from his Bantu workers? These taxes add up to millions of rands. Then the non-White could also enjoy the awareness of his patriotism, because he would feel that he belongs to a nation that also wants to contribute to the free school education and other benefits they enjoy. That is the suggestion I want to make. I feel that if the matter is put correctly to our farmers, it will be welcomed in the rural areas. We can educate the Bantu to contribute his share to the development of this country.

I should like to say to the hon. member for Standerton that if he really wants inspiration, if he wants something practical and something which really holds something for the future, then he should study the speech of my hon. leader at Britstown the other day. That speech does not as the hon. member for Krugersdorp suggested announce a change in approach but confirms and stands by United Party policy as it has been all along. As a matter of fact, the only change we see comes from hon. members on the other side. We have seen it again to-day in the case of the hon. the Minister. When I first saw the Sabra speech of the hon. the Minister I thought there was something in it; that there was, in fact, the possibility of something good but what I have heard to-day has confirmed my suspicions. I am convinced today more than ever that in this division of the Bantu people of South Africa into different nations there is no future for South Africa. There is this separation of which they talk every day, there is this dream all the time, this generalization and talking about the separation which we are striving for. Mr. Chairman, we are busy here with ethnics and not with ethics. With the latter let us strive. We have an ideal to be perfect human beings. And we strive for the realization thereof. The nearer you get to that the better person you are. But in this matter of separation, unless we can achieve total separation the whole thing is a failure from the start. As a matter of fact, we cannot achieve it and I can prove it although I do not have the time to do so now. But I should just like to point out that for all practical purposes the Bantu reserves hold to-day just as many Bantu as were there in 1951. The natural increase since 1951 has all gone into the White areas. The result is that two-thirds of the Bantu people to-day are outside these reserves and only one-third inside. But now the hon. the Minister wants to bring the Bantu back to these reserves, thus to create separate nations. But if these reserves are capable only of accommodating one-third of the Bantu how does the Minister think he will be able to accommodate the other two-thirds? It is simply impossible. If only logic could prevail amongst members on the opposite side then at least it might be possible to direct their efforts into ways along which this position could be solved.

But I want to refer to another aspect which was raised by the hon. the Minister himself as well as by the hon. the Deputy Minister. They have called for great sacrifices in connection with the consolidation of the Bantu homelands. But I wonder whether these hon. gentlemen know to what extent sacrifices have already been made and are still being made by people concerned with the consolidation of these areas. The hon. member for Transkei has raised this matter time and time again in relation to the problems being experienced by the Whites in the Transkei. Yet the Ciskei has still more problems because we do not even know who or what is in the Ciskei. We are paying a terrific amount of attention to the question of security. Everybody strives for security. The Government does so on behalf of the whole of South Africa by building up our defences so that the nation can be secure. But what about communities and individuals, especially those affected by this policy of State and nation building of which we have heard to-day? Every area that is subject to planning is subject also to speculation and rumours, rumours which are always supported by supposedly inside information. This leads to confusion which in turn is detrimental to the area involved. It is essential therefore that the people concerned should know exactly where they stand. In connection with the Ciskei, where does it start and where is it going to end? That is what we want to know. In reply to a question I put to the hon. the Minister some time ago he told me that they were at the present moment negotiating for the purpose of some 11,389 morgen. He said there was no intention at the moment to buy any further land but that land still had to be bought for the purposes of the quota. Can the hon. the Minister tell us whether the amount of land he is negotiating for at the present moment is sufficient to consolidate the Black spots?

Definitely not.

To the last part of my question the answer was that it was not possible at that stage to state whether the Black spots would be consolidated or removed. I should like the hon. the Minister to give his interpretation of this. Because if it is a question of either consolidation or removal it means that if they are consolidated they will remain where they are. Does that mean that European ground between the Black spots in the Ciskei would have to be bought up? What is the position in this respect? What is his intention with regard to the land quota?

What were the intentions of the legislature in 1936?

I am trying to determine what the intentions and outlook of this Government are towards this consolidation problem. We should also like to know what the Government’s intentions are in connection with a matter of which we have heard quite often lately, namely the creation of self-government and/or its amalgamation with the Transkei. The hon. the Deputy Minister has made certain statements to the Press but I should like to hear from him first-hand what is going to happen and what the intentions of the Government are in this connection. How then does he reconcile independence of these scattered units of newly created nations? These are all matters which are vital to the Ciskei because developments are being planned there, industrially and otherwise. That development can only become a reality when the people there have security. The hon. member for Brakpan had the temerity last night to say that the Government was to be thanked for the fact that King William’s Town and East London still existed to-day. [Time limit.]

I want to use this opportunity to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his appointment as head of this important, if not the most important, Department in our country. I want to wish him all success and prosperity for the future. Many years ago there was an example of confusion of tongues in history. That was in the days when they built the Tower of Babel. But since last night I have witnessed that the United Party is also suffering from a confusion of tongues as far as the discussions on this Vote are concerned. What was the position as regards the urban Bantu when the National Party came into power in 1948? Then one could travel from the East Rand to the far West Rand and all one saw was one squatters’ camp after another. Can hon. members recall the squatters conditions at Apex, where thousands and thousands of Bantu lived? Can they recall the squatters’ camps at Orlando East, where there were also thousands and thousands of Bantu? Can they recall the squatters’ camps in the Springs area? What happened when the National Party came into power? We inherited that position, but where are we to-day? Let us see what Bantu townships have arisen on the Witwatersrand alone. We shall find that large Bantu townships have arisen, such as Daveton in Benoni, and also Kwalema at Springs, Tsakane at Brakpan, Natalspruit at Germiston and Alberton, Then there is the entire Soweto, the south-western part of Johannesburg. Have these hon. members, who are making such a fuss, ever gone there to see what was happening there? We have provided those Bantu with hygienic living quarters. It is the National Party Government that has done that. There was the opposition we experienced in resettling Sophia-town, and that while the Bantu were living there in undescribable conditions. Those Bantu were resettled and placed in towns like Meadowlands and Diepkloof.

Here I want to pay tribute to the hon. the Minister, because I believe he was the architect of those Bantu townships. Was it not the United Party City Council of Johannesburg which opposed the Government in that respect as well? Let us consider the two Bantu townships Meadowlands and Diepkloof. Let us see whether the Bantu living there are contented. We know that there has been no disturbance in those two mighty Bantu townships since they came into being. There is harmony and peace. The Bantu there are contented because they were divided into the various ethnic groups. The hon. member for Standerton has just said that the Xhosa wishes to remain a Xhosa, the Zulu a Zulu and the Sesotho a Sesotho. They want to be divided into their respective groups in order that they may retain their ties with their homeland. It is not the task of this Government to smother this awareness of the traditions of the homelands. On the contrary, the Government regards it as its duty to encourage and foster it. But now that we have built monuments and now that the Bantu are happy and contented, these hon. members come along and they laugh. They are suffering from a confusion of tongues. That is what they are suffering from. If they were to build a tower of Babel they would not get more than six feet off the ground. I say the Bantu in the large cities are contented, and we will continue with this task, the Minister and his two Deputy Ministers will continue with this task, and we will not be stopped, but we will bring about peace and quiet in this country.

Mr. Chairman, we have often heard lately that the United Party is trying to get closer and closer to the policy of the National Party. It is very clear to me that it has become necessary for us to state at a certain stage the clear fundamental difference between the policy of the United Party and the policy of the National Party. The policy of the National Party is concerned with separate development, in the direction of separate peoples. I stated the policy of the United Party very clearly in the election campaign in Umhlatuzana, and I issued a challenge to the hon. member for Durban (Point). A few minutes ago I sent him a note, but he is not present in the House. There I said that the United Party policy was a policy of political integration. I challenged the hon. member for Durban (Point) to refute that, and I repeated it. In my election leaflet I said the following—

The challenge I issued in this election leaflet was that the United Party policy was a policy of political integration and the challenge was that they should refute it. They denied it, but I undertook to prove it by means of their pamphlet: “A guide to better race relations.” I should now like to know from the United Party—I do not know who of them can speak on behalf of the Party—whether they still accept this policy. There is no reply now, but I shall repeat the question: Do they still accept this policy? This guide was issued in August, 1963, in other words, it is hardly three years old. But. at any rate, their policy, according to this document, advocates eight White representatives for the Bantu in this Parliament. The Coloureds will be placed on the Common Voters’ Roll. Earlier in the debate the hon. member for Yeoville suggested that the policy of the National Party resulted in economic integration taking place. We do not accept this view, but according to their view it is economic integration, i.e. the presence of the Bantu in the structure of the White economy. The Minister said that their presence was limited, it was delimited, it was clearly defined and it was in a statutory capacity. But then the United Party policy of non-White political rights within the White political structure is in fact, according to the way they see economic integration, nothing but political integration. And I challenge them to refute it. I am also quoting the following from this pamphlet. It is their policy to see to the abolition of job reservation which, on the basis of mere racial considerations, arbitrarily forbids people to make use of their talents. Then they continue by saying that they will not only abolish job reservation, but also take immediate steps to humanize the administration of the Pass Laws and influx control. As regards influx they say (translation)—

In other words, within the White areas they now want to make opportunities for work available to those who are seeking employment. Then they go further and they say that they are going to grant the Bantu in the urban areas parliamentary or political rights. They say (translation)—

In other words, having lured even more Bantu to the urban areas, they will make available to them opportunities for work if they are seeking employment. According to this pamphlet, they are going to grant them political rights, and they are going to entrench their political rights within the White political structure. On the basis of the view they hold, I am challenging them to deny that this is not political integration. I hope they will accept that challenge, because that is precisely what it is—it is political integration. That is the official United Party policy according to this document.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to react very much to what the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said, but I am just going to point out one thing to him, and that is that it is not necessary at the moment to encourage people to go to the cities to seek work. The position is that with the increase in the urban Bantu population, many of whom will never be near a homeland, there is an urgent necessity in many instances to provide employment opportunities for them in those particular cities where they were born and bred and brought up. Hon. members on the Government side want to run away from this fact that we have a permanent urban Black population in this country.

Sir, I want to get back to what was being raised here by the hon. member for King William’s Town, namely certain specific problems arising out of the process of the consolidation of the Ciskei, and also the question of the ultimate boundaries of the Ciskei. Earlier this session, at the beginning of September, the hon. member for King William’s Town put certain questions as regards black spots to the hon. the Minister, and he asked what locations in the Ciskei were regarded as Black spots. The Minister gave him a list of seven locations, namely Kwelera location, Mooiplaats location, Newlands, Wartburg, Umgwali, Goshen and I think the other was Lesseyton. Later in the session I also put a question to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development, and I asked him whether the locations of Sheshego in the Victoria East district and Pato’s Kop in the Peddie district were treated as Black spots. The Deputy Minister said that these locations were not Black spots as such because they were both scheduled areas in terms of the Native Land Act of 1913. This really is a very strange reply because of those seven locations that the Minister mentioned as being Black spots in reply to the hon. member for King William’s Town in the first instance, no less than six were also scheduled areas in terms of the Native Land Act of 1913. In fact only one, namely Goshen Mission, is not a scheduled area but was in fact a released area, viz. released area No. 39 under the Native Trust and Land Act of 1936.

Mr. Chairman, this question of Sheshego and the Pato’s Kop locations and the particular released areas which lie immediately adjacent to Pato’s Kop, bring me to the question of the definition of the western boundary of the Ciskei. I asked the hon. the Deputy Minister whether these scheduled areas would be excised or whether they would be consolidated with nearby Bantu areas. This question of the definition of the boundaries of the Ciskei has, as the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister know, a very long history. As far as the elimination of Black and White spots are concerned, I am well aware of the difficulty in the way of getting compensatory ground when a Black spot has to be eliminated. I am not unaware of those difficulties. I want to put it specifically to the hon. the Minister. I do not expect him to be able to lay down a boundary, farm by farm, at this stage. But surely after 18½ years of Nationalist Government rule the hon. the Minister should have some line which he would like to see as a boundary. I say this with particular reference to Sheshego Location and the fact that the Bantu areas in the Peddie district run down on to the Fish River and the fact that Sheshego Location lies on the Kat River. I want to ask the hon. the Minister this afternoon whether he has the line of the Fish River and the Kat River as the western boundary of the Ciskei in mind. If not, what line does he have in mind. Because, I think the time has come, in fact it is overdue, that the people in those areas should be given some indication of where the Government wants that line to be. For years the hon. the Minister’s predecessor pursued what he called an ad hoc policy of land purchases. But the hon. the Deputy Minister will know that the farmers in those areas have a rather different phrase to describe that policy of ad hoc land purchases. They call it “creeping paralysis”. They have a very real fear in their minds and that is that the Government will buy the whole of the Peddie and Victoria East districts. It is a very real fear arising out of this ad hoc policy. If the hon. the Minister this afternoon can give us the assurance that that is not so, I am certain that all those people are going to be very much happier indeed. And I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to give us this assurance. Not only is development being held up in those areas, but the fact that there is no authoritative statement as to where the western boundary of the Ciskei is going to be, is also affecting land values in areas further west, even in districts such as Fort Beaufort, Adelaide and Bedford. If the hon. the Minister will only tell us that he would not go further west for example than the Fish and the Kat Rivers, then at least we have a distinct line behind which people will know that there will not be purchases for Bantu ground. I raise this because the Ministers of the Transkei Cabinet have in the past made extravagant claims to land and I think one of the most far-reaching was that made by the then Minister of Justice in the Transkei Cabinet, George Matanzima, at New Brighton on the 2nd August. 1965. The report reads—

Now, the point about this is that here he has laid claim to ground well west of the Fish River. George Matanzima has never denied this newspaper report nor has any authoritative Nationalist Party spokesman said that there was no substance in it. Again I would welcome, and so would the people of the Eastern Cape, a statement this afternoon that there is no foundation for George Matanzima’s claim. I want to deal with one more matter which has to do with one particular problem concerning land purchases in the Eastern Cape. This concerns the question of a certain area of land which was purchased last year or is in the process of being purchased— it went through Parliament last year—in extent some 6,000 morgen in the Keiskammahoek area. I think there has been a genuine misunderstanding about this, and I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to clear up this misunderstanding this afternoon, because at least one member of the Select Committee at the time—the ex-member for King William’s Town, Mr. Miles Warren—was under the impression that that would be exchange land. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for King William’s Town comes here with a few distorted ideas on consolidation in the Ciskei, I can still forgive him that. But when the hon. member for Albany presents these matters as he did, I cannot forgive him that. In the course of the years the hon. member has been the chairman of the Eastern Agricultural Union. He is aware of all the negotiations which took place. And now I want to make this direct accusation against him. By means of all manner of moves they tried to thwart consolidation in the Ciskei. The hon. member is aware of the fact that there are several released areas. And I want to refer him now to released area No. 20, which is situated north of Alice. It is not our task to obtain compensatory land for released area No. 20. We could and we had to purchase it. The hon. member approached the Bantu Trust with a very great request and said, “Wait a moment, do not purchase released area No. 20. We shall provide you with compensatory land which you can purchase instead of released area No. 20.” So far that compensatory land for released area No. 20 has not yet been made available. And it will not be made available.

Why do you not use Keiskammahoek?

Why do I not use Keiskammahoek? Does the hon. member have no idea how much land we are now going to buy in Keiskammahoek as against more than the 13,000 morgen in released area No. 20? Since he is talking about Keiskammahoek, let me and the hon. member come to a clear understanding with each other this afternoon. And he must tell this in those places where he is stirring up political suspicion and where, for the sake of a little political gain, he is trying to ride on the back of this argument which I am trying to explain to him to-night. He wants to give out that land dare not be purchased in Keiskammahoek for quota land, and that it should only be purchased for compensatory land in order to clear up Black spots. I have already come across that very same attitude in the Ciskei. Where does the Ciskei get the idea—allow me to say this—that they are God’s own children, that in terms of the 1936 Act they do not have to contribute their share of quota land as well? Why must all of the Cape Province’s quota land, for which provision was made in the 1936 Act, only be purchased in the north-western areas, in the vicinity of Vryburg, Kuruman and Mafeking? But in the Ciskei, in Peddie and in Victoria East and in King William’s Town, such land dare not be purchased.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Mr. Chairman, if there is one thing which disgusts me, it is hypocrisy. We should very much like to consolidate the Ciskei as painlessly as we possibly can, and if we can obtain the co-operation of hon. members of the Ciskei—I am referring in particular to the hon. members for Albany, King William’s Town and Cradock—then I do see a fair possibility of the Ciskei being consolidated, with the clearing up of the Black spots, which is necessary, but coupled with that, the acquisition of the quota of land which still has to be allocated to the Ciskei. But then hon. members representing that area should not try to make political capital out of every consolidation. I want to refer here to the remark made by the hon. member for Albany this afternoon. The way in which he put it was that an assurance should be given on the part of the Cabinet that the Peddie and the Victoria East districts should remain as they are at present.

Or else they should be bought out altogether.

If the hon. member wants to co-operate and if he wants to say that we should clear up the Black spots, especially the Black spots mentioned by the hon. member for King William’s Town—he knows them very well; I also mentioned them here this afternoon and it is not necessary to mention them again—and if he says that they should be in Peddie and in the southern parts of the Victoria East district, then I say: “Well then, let us consolidate in that manner and then those locations which extend down to the Fish River are also consolidated with them. But if I should venture to say that that is the method we are going to follow in the Ciskei, suspicion will be stirred up by the hon. member in the Peddie and the Victoria East districts. That hon. member had the opportunity of making suggestions when he was president of the Eastern Agricultural Union. He had a great deal to do with this matter; he served on the Bantu Affairs Commission; he had the opportunity of making suggestions to several committees, the Nel and other committees which gathered information and evidence there, but on every occasion the hon. member said that the consolidation proposed by the several committees was an impossible task.

The farmers themselves said so.

Yes, Sir, those hon. members soft-soap every farmer, but then they want us to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for them. If they do not have the courage to give guidance and advice in regard to consolidation, we shall accept the responsibility. I just want to make one more statement. The hon. members for Albany and King William’s Town said that we were hampering development. I want to tell them that nothing is further removed from the truth. The development there can continue, and every person who owns property there knows that he will receive compensation for all development works undertaken by him. [Time limit.]

The hon. the Deputy Minister has just attacked the hon. members for Albany and King William’s Town because they are entitled to replies to certain questions put by people in their areas in respect of consolidation. The hon. the Deputy Minister even went so far as to accuse the hon. member for Albany of hypocrisy …

I said I loathed hypocrisy.

The hon. the Deputy Minister loathed the hypocrisy of the hon. member for Albany …

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister did not say so, otherwise I would have called him to order. He spoke of hypocrisy generally, without mentioning the name of any hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept your interpretation of the words of the hon. the Deputy Minister, but the fact of the matter is that the hon. the Deputy Minister would have regarded it as hypocrisy should the hon. member, on returning to his constituency, refuse to co-operate with him as regards the consolidation of those areas. Am I right or am I wrong? The hon. the Deputy Minister is prepared to attack the hon. member for Albany, but two or three years ago, when an election was held in the Transkei and when a certain candidate, namely Mr. Kaiser Matanzima, stood for election, the hon. the Deputy Minister had the opportunity to point out to Mr. Kaiser Matanzima that what the latter stated in his election manifesto was contrary to Government policy. Mr. Kaiser Matanzima stated in his election manifesto that the Bantu of South Africa were entitled not only to the land they had to-day, but to all the land which was occupied by the Bantu in South Africa previously. He also mentioned the names of the districts …

Do you know that he has denied that?

He has not denied it.

He mentioned the names of the districts, namely Dordrecht, Elliot, Lady Grey, Queenstown, Peddie, and so forth, but not one of the hon. members on the opposite side of this House had the courage of his convictions to point out to Mr. Kaiser Matanzima that that was not the policy of the Government, but now that the hon. member for Albany tries to protect what belongs to his people in that area, as he is entitled to do, the hon. member as well as the hon. member for King William’s Town are accused of being hypocrites.

The whole of South Africa will be given away under the United Party policy.

We heard the hon. the Minister tell us in this debate this afternoon how they would apply this wonderful policy of separate development in South Africa and how they wanted to set aside different areas for each national group. In reply thereto the hon. member for Pinelands told the hon. the Minister once again that it was a wonderful ideal, but he wanted to know what the Government was doing to realize that ideal.

Iscor was an ideal too and you fought the establishment of Iscor tooth and nail.

Mr. Chairman, the major task of hon. members opposite is not to convince us on this side of this House that they are going to implement their policy of separate development; they have to convince their own people that they are serious in wanting to implement this policy of separate development. I just want to read to the Committee what was said by Mr. Dirk Richard on 5th December last year (translation)—

That is what Mr. Dirk Richard said in Dag-breek.

He is as much of a “papbroek” (weakling) as you are.

On a point of order, is the hon. the Deputy Minister entitled to say: “He is as much of a ‘papbroek’ as you are?”

Since when is “papbroek” an unparliamentary word?

It is not unparliamentary.

Is the word “papbroek” allowed?

What is the meaning of “papbroek”? Is it what the hon. the Deputy Minister is? He is a “papbroek” and that is why he is sitting there.

A “papbroek” is somebody who is afraid to act. The hon. member may continue.

The Committee will judge for itself who of us is a “papbroek”. This is what the Nationalist Party Press itself has said (translation)—

The Minister is trying to convince us, but he should rather convince his own people. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that I was as much of a “papbroek” as Mr. Richard. I want to ask him this. He wants to reduce the number of Bantu in the cities. That is his policy. There are approximately 3,000.000 Blacks in the rural areas. I now challenge the hon. the Minister to tell me that it is going to be his policy to remove the Bantu from the rural areas.

No, he is a “papbroek” and he will not do so.

If the hon. the Minister is so serious as regards removing the Bantu from the cities, is he going to remove the Bantu from the rural areas as well? One must not forget that although there are tens of thousands of Bantu in the White areas there are also tens of thousands of Whites in the urban areas, but what is the position in the rural areas? There are millions more Bantu than Whites in the rural areas to-day. If it is his policy to remove them, I challenge the hon. the Minister to start implementing his policy in the rural areas. If he has the courage of his convictions, he should start in those areas where the Nationalist Party enjoys most support. But he will not be able to do that, because under the policy of this Government the Whites have already left the rural areas and what will remain in those areas if the Blacks have to leave them as well? If he has the courage of his convictions and if he is not a “papbroek” he should say whether he is going to do so. But while the Minister has issued a challenge, I also want to say that I want to convey my thanks to him to-night. Last night I listened to the hon. the Minister when he said that it was the policy of this Government that all the capital-intensive industries could remain in the White areas, but that the Bantu labour-intensive industries should go to the borders. We then asked him: What about Port Elizabeth? He replied that because Port Elizabeth was so near to the Bantu areas, it was a border-line case and would remain as it was. We in the Eastern Province, and particularly in Port Elizabeth, are or course glad about that. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down issued a challenge to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I want to tell him that I, as a backbencher, am prepared to accept that challenge for the simple reason that the Deputy Minister will not fail. The statement which was made, namely, that the nation of South Africa was not interested in separate development, is indeed a ridiculous one. The past election showed that the nation accepted that the future of South Africa would be determined along the lines of separate development. This change, this modus operandi of the Opposition, is merely a reaction following on a defeat in the past election. The reaction is that the English Press is now dictating to them how to govern and how. all of a sudden, to accept the Bantu homelands as an accomplished fact. I do not accept that they are sincere as far as the Bantu homelands are concerned, because if they were sincere they should have supported the idea of the development of border industries wholeheartedly. However, the Opposition is not interested in the development of border industries. On the contrary, it is in conflict with its policy of economic integration. Economic integration is spoken of flippantly, but have we ever realized its implications? It may affect the White worker as severely as the Bantu worker. In the large industrial complexes which already have a surfeit of labour, we find at present that many of the Whites are semi-skilled workers because this surfeit of Bantu labour is being employed. If these industries are compelled to become mechanized, many Whites will have the privilege of becoming skilled workers. This is the injustice which is being done to the White workers. [Interjections.] If one lives in a border area, as I do, adjoining a Bantu homeland, one finds that thousands of Bantu pass through from the urban areas to the homelands every week-end. If employment is created for these Bantu in the border areas, they most certainly will not want to work in the cities. The development of Bantu townships and of border industries is an investment for the future, for the White as well as the Bantu. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) always makes me long back to my own constituency. Years ago I farmed with Jerseys. If one has ever seen a bull bumping its head, it is the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). I want to congratulate the Minister on the Bantu township to be established in the district of Rustenburg soon the township Tlhabane. This is a proud achievement. But how has it been brought about? Through the co-operation of a local authority which realizes that the salvation of this nation is to be found in cooperating on the pattern and the course set by the Department. This Bantu township creates major facilities for us in Rustenburg. Soon we shall be able to implement the legislation of one Bantu per backyard. I am looking forward to the day when no servant will be accommodated in backyards. This is a step in the right direction. I trust that this Department will continue with the development of Bantu townships on a full scale. This will furnish tangible proof fo separate development and is the solution to many problems.

If these hon. members of the Opposition would only consult the report of the I.D.C., they would find that there had been an increase of 13.7 per cent in capital investments in industries during the past year, of which 50 per cent was spent on border industries— an amount of plus minus R14,000,000. This represents a doubling of the amount already spent. In other words, within one year there has been a doubling of 100 per cent of what had already been Spent. Is this not sufficient proof of large-scale investment? [Interjections.] Arising from what the hon. member for Newton Park said, I want to point out that there is a wool factory at Rustenburg which manufactures stockings, socks, as well as waist-coats and jerseys and which employs no less than approximately 500 Bantu. This is a factory which is growing larger by the day and in respect of which the managing director said in the past that if he had known what advantages the border industrial areas offered, he would have established all his branches there. Is this not sufficient proof of the advantages of border industries.

Separate development is a grand ideal and we must accept that endeavouring to attain such a grand ideal will naturally and inevitably be attended by concomitant problems. I have every confidence in the hon. the Minister as well as in his Department to solve these problems for the sake of the future of this Republic.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to give a short personal explanation. When I read in the newspapers this morning that I had allegedly said that I had had a full discussion with the Transvaal Chamber of Industries, it struck me immediately that that, in any event, was not what I had wanted to say. Thereupon I obtained the Hansard report of my speech and learned that this report also stated that I had had a full discussion with the Transvaal Chamber of Industries. What I meant, of course, was that I had had a conversation with members of the Transvaal Chamber of Industries.

In their personal capacities.

Yes, in their personal capacities. I have had no official discussion with the Chamber of Industries and I by no means said, as stated in the newspaper report, that they supported our policy or anything of that nature, but that they were prepared to have discussions with us. I think this clarifies the matter.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 52,—“Bantu Education: Special Education, R262,000”, Loan Vote Q,— “Bantu Education, R1,500,000”, and “Bantu Education Account, R25,375,000”:

Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half-hour. It is also my good fortune this evening to congratulate not only the hon. the Minister on his promotion to the very high office he holds to-day, but also to congratulate the two Deputy Ministers. We have in the past tried to co-operate with the Department of Bantu Education which was a separate portfolio. I do not know whether it now has an inferior status because it has become part of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. Whether it has or not, I think we can approach the matter in a spirit of cooperation. We have now come to the end of a period in the development of our Bantu education. When one looks back over the years, one finds that in 1953 it was decided that there would be what we now call a Government system of Bantu education. This part of the general Native Affairs Vote, and subsequently a separate portfolio was established. That gave Bantu education a standing and a dignity of which we have been very proud. I feel this evening that we can say that we can co-operate with the Government in furthering Bantu education, because we have a large measure of agreement. We in the past have been anxious to increase the tempo of development for Bantu education. I feel that the Government has been a little lax in assisting us. But now, having listened to the debate on Bantu Administration and Development, I realize that we now have a four-stream policy. Naturally the Government is very anxious to develop Bantu education so that they will have leaders in every department of life who will lead them in their own stream. In other words, there is no reason now why there should be any cheese-paring in providing expenditure for Bantu education. We have in the past been anxious to develop higher education, and I come to this question of higher education first. I should have liked to have discussed the organization and responsibility for higher education with the hon. the Prime Minister under his Vote, because naturally it is his responsibility. However, under the tragic circumstances with which we were confronted in the beginning of this session I thought that it would not have been reasonable. My proposal is that when we deal with higher education—I shall make this distinction between primary education; secondary education; what to-day is called tertiary education, that is technical education, vocational education, and so on, after the matriculation standard; and university education. We have always been anxious to assist and co-operate in providing university education. Hon. members will remember that there was a difference of opinion in establishing higher university colleges for Bantu education; and not only for Bantu education, but also for Coloured education and for Indian education. The misunderstanding that we find to-day about our attitude in those days I think should be cleared up as a preliminary. I wish to refer to an article which appeared in the publication Alpha which is the publication of the Coloured Education Department. This article was written by a distinguished educationist, the rector of the University College for the Western Cape, Professor J. G. Meiring. He wrote an article on “Why establish separate university institutions for non-Whites in South Africa?” In non-Whites he naturally includes the Bantu, the Coloureds and the Indians. I want to quote the following extract from his article, written of course for the teachers in our Coloured schools and presumably of interest to all educationists—

I think this very learned gentleman is under a misapprehension. Perhaps he does not understand. The implication is that we opposed the establishment of Bantu colleges, namely Fort Hare, Ngoya and Turfloop, that we opposed the establishment of the college for the Western Cape or the Indian college. That is misleading, grossly misleading. It is untrue. I will give an extract from our debate in 1959 to which he refers. This states our attitude in a few words. We said this:

You see, that was the difference of opinion. The Bill to which the latter gentleman, the rector of the University College of the Western Cape referred, is the Bill from which I shall quote now. He made it perfectly clear. He said he was referring to the Act of 1959. I will quote an extract from the long title. It reads—

So far we were all agreed. The rest of the long title reads—

That we opposed. And the reason why we opposed it is this: We stood for the autonomy of the universities. We say that if universities wish to accept non-Whites they should be free to do so. That is our attitude and we made it very clear. But now we have established these university colleges and we are naturally doing our best to make them a success. A great amount of money has been spent on them. The Government is wasting a lot of money on these university colleges. I can supply you with a figure that I have quoted here before. I am quoting from 1963. In Fort Hare in the year ending 1963 the cost per matriculation student was over R3,000. That is per student per annum. Ngoya was well over R3,000, while Turfloop was R2,876. At the same time the cost per White student at a White university was R436 per annum per student, of which the Government paid R300. In other words, I think we tried in the beginning to develop these colleges too rapidly. We did not make Proper provision. I hope that era is past. I do not know whether the hon. gentlemen realize that in the university colleges we have to-day, the ratio of lecturer or professor—“dosent” as we say in Afrikaans—to students, is about 1 to 5. This is luxurious compared with the situation at a White university.

That is one of the reasons why the expenditure is so high. We had to make a beginning.

I am very glad the hon. the Deputy Minister for South West Africa has given that explanation. My point is this. We think it could have been developed much better. We suggested at the time that there should be an interim period of ten years so that these students could, if necessary, be admitted to a White university. That was our suggestion. I think it was a constructive suggestion. Here we are now seven years after the event and students have to go to these White open universities. But they do not go by virtue of the autonomy of the universities, but through the hon. the Minister of Education, Arts and Science. So this is my suggestion for the future and I should like the hon. the Minister to think this over. I naturally do not expect a reply from him. He should discuss it with the hon. the Prime Minister and his colleagues.

We have four departments in education. There is the Department of Education, Arts, and Science, a Department for Indian Education, one for Coloured Education and one for Bantu Education. My suggestion is this: All university education in South Africa should come within the province of the hon. the Minister of Education, Arts and Science. I am not speaking of primary education or secondary education. I am speaking of university education. Now, Sir. I should like to say that is one difficulty I found this year in discussing Bantu education. And although I have some criticism I should like to make it clear that there is no criticism whatsoever of the gentlemen who are entrusted with the great task of administering Bantu education in South Africa. Their difficulty is the difficulty of the ancient Israelites namely to make bricks without straw. The difficulty they have is finance, that is to make provision for Bantu education. I am labouring under this difficulty that we have not yet had the 1965 annual report of the Department. Much of my reference to statistics will be based on the 1964 report, which is the most recent report available.

Let us examine what we have accomplished in Bantu education over these years. It is a long period, almost ten years. We have decided in South Africa to have a pyramid, the usual educational pyramid, for Bantu education with a very broad base and a very sharp point at the top. In other words, we have gone for literacy. The aim of the Department has been to have as many children as possible in the lower classes, to make it possible for them to be able to read and write in their own language. That is the aim of literacy. There is something to be said for it. I was overseas quite recently. I attended discussions on education in Africa and when I put the case of South Africa—because when one is abroad one puts the case of one’s country— one of the questions asked was: “But I thought you said you were in the South African Opposition?” I then said: “I am, but I am a South African”. And now that the hon. gentlemen on the other side are anxious, as we have heard in a recent debate to develop the four streams, I think we have common ground and that they will be prepared to assist me in my criticism to get something better. Now, let us take this pyramid that we have. We boast that we have so many children at school. We tell the world. We advertise this in the English Press. We tell them what we have done for the education of our Africans. Compare us if you will with Zambia, Tanganyika, Kenya or any other country in Africa, which I was able to do.

Is it not true?

Well, I made a comparison. I said we went for literacy. About five years ago I discussed this with an educationist in Tanzania. I asked him what their view was. He said they believe in getting the best pupils, to develop leaders and thereafter to broaden out the base. Now, that is a point of view. I think we have erred in making the base too broad and not giving sufficient facilities for higher education, especially secondary education. I think our facilities for secondary education are quite inadequate. Now I come to a few statistics which will illustrate what I have to say. This will explain what my criticism is and, as I have said at the beginning, I hope to make it constructive criticism and to show where there are weaknesses. I am emoting from the annual report for 1964, the latest I could get. Here we are concerned with the education of, I was going to say, 70 per cent of South Africa’s population but it is not 70 per cent. Seventy per cent will include the Transkei. Judging by the deduction made in the estimates for the Transkei, they have 15 per cent of the African tax. So to-night we are concerned with the education of 60 per cent of the South African population. That is our task and it is a very serious one. I, of course, take the usual division of our population because I take it we still are the same population.

I have heard the Minister telling us what was going to happen in the sweet by and by but it has not happened yet. I want to make the following points about our education system for the Bantu. The number of pupils at school, of which we are very proud, was 1,562,000—let us be generous and take round figures and say the number is 1,500,000. In form V, i.e. in the highest class in the secondary schools, there were 920 children—but let us again be generous and say there were 1,000. What now is the ratio? One out of every 1,500 children is in form V in the secondary school. So where are we going to get our teachers and our professional class from? But let us go a little further and look at the matriculation examinations. What do we find here? The number who passed the matriculation examination was 171 and those who got the senior certificate without matriculation exemption was 165, i.e. altogether 336. What does that come to? It means that one out of every 9,000 children passed the matriculation examination while another one out of 9,000 attained the senior certificate without matriculation exemption.

Shame!

No, I do not think it is a shame. It is the policy. This is the effect of the Government’s policy. That then is the position. Where are these doctors that we hear about to come from? According to the annual report of the Department of Education, Arts and Science there is not a single Bantu in the whole of South Africa studying engineering. How then are they going to build roads in the Transkei or in these other Bantu territories if they have no civil engineers? The hon. the Minister made a speech the other day—or was it an article he wrote?—which was fully reported. It was a good speech in which he stated that we had to develop our technical training. But how can we have technical training if education has only got to this stage? What is wrong? Why have we not been able to do more? Why are our staff in this terrible position? The reason is inadequate financial provision. I do not want to make any unnecessary comparisons. People tell us comparisons are odious. But I can make comparisons with the education of the Coloured and of the Indian. This was discussed here the other day. Compared with the situation of the Bantu, Coloureds are living in the lap of luxury. I am not making any comparison with the position of the Whites. I heard that being done by one of the representatives of the Coloured people the other day. I do not want to do it.

I am speaking of the Bantu population of South Africa—60 per cent of our population. What education provision do we make for them? We know that the contribution from the Consolidated Revenue Fund was pegged at R13,000,000. In addition to that, R10,000,000 is collected by way of the African tax and another R1,500,000, allocated primarily for higher education on Loan Account. But these provisions are totally inadequate for this system of education. We are dealing with 1,500,000 school children. The other day we were told that there were more than 400,000 Coloured children at school—in other words, the ratio of Coloured school children to Bantu school children is about 1 to 4. Consider now what amount of money is made available for Coloured education and what amount for Bantu education. I say therefore that there is not sufficient money to run the educational service as it is to-day. But not only is it not sufficient for that, it is also insufficient for expansion. Moreover, we do not have the teachers for secondary schools. We are not training them, we are not producing them. To that I will come later. Recently I placed a question on the Order Paper in which I asked the Minister to state how many parents paid for the salaries of their own teachers. The reply I got was staggering— 3,555 teachers in the ordinary schools and 1,930 in the other schools provided by the churches, etc. Therefore nearly 5,500 teachers are paid by the efforts of the parents.

Private schools?

No, not private schools only, but community schools as well. These people, the poorest in the community, are called upon to provide much of their own education. My hon. friend, the hon. member for Standerton I think it was, this afternoon said that they were getting education gratis and they should pay more in taxation.

No, that is not what he said.

Do you know what amount is outstanding?

I think the hon. the Deputy Minister said in a speech it was R53.000,000. But if you cannot collect this tax, why have it? Should we say to them to-day that because they do not pay their taxes their children cannot be educated? Parents are anxious to pay—these poor people. Let us go further. We have organized these schools on the broad base of the pyramid in double and single sessions. A double session school in Bantu education means that the teacher will take one batch of the children for part of the day and another batch for another part of the day. But that is not a good system. I can understand that it is only a temporary expedient but it is not a system on which we can build up a system of Bantu education. Let us now see how many schools there are. According to the annual report of the Department the number of double session schools was 3,800 and the number of single session schools 2.726—in other words, 60 per cent of the number of schools are double session schools against 40 per cent which are single session schools. This is grossly inefficient. It is not a good system of education. I have worked out some figures from the report. What do we spend on an African child per annum? The figure I get is R13 per child per annum. Compare that with the other three streams of education and you find that as far as Bantu education is concerned it is not a stream, it is a trickle. I have also worked out that for school books the African child gets 18c per annum. How many books can you buy for that? Hon. members will ask what the position is in the rest of Africa. But I do not want to go to the rest of Africa. Instead I should like to go to the Transkei. The Transkei took over their Bantu education. As far as I can see they seem to be developing it very well. It seems to me that the staff in the Transkei have taken over the system we have here in South Africa. I want to quote item F “supplies and services”. Let us then take two items there, namely books and libraries. In respect of the Bantu in the Republic the provision for these two items is R9,100 for books and R4,000 for libraries, i.e. a total of R13,100. Let us now go to the Transkei, the country of Chief Kaiser Matanzima. What is the provision there in respect of books for pupils and school libraries? We find it is R150,00(1—and that for 1/6th of the Bantu population which we have.

But I also want to talk about teachers and their salaries. In this connection I want to quote the chairman of the Bantu Education Advisory Board, Professor Kgware. He is a professor at the University College of the North, at Turfloop. This is what he said—

It is not I who am saying this, but the blue-eyed boy of the Bantu Education Department, the chairman of their advisory board and professor at the University College of the North. He also said this—

In other words, we do not have the staff. What shall we do? I have a suggestion to make. We have an advisory board for Bantu education. There is also a National Education Advisory Council. This Council, which was established by the hon. the Minister of Education, Arts and Science, is not an advisory board only for the Department of Education, Arts and Science. If we read Section 7 of the Act we find that the Department of Bantu Education can consult the National Education Advisory Council or the National Education Advisory Council can take the initiative and advise the Department of Bantu Education. My suggestion is that the hon. the Minister should approach the National Education Advisory Council and ask them to overhaul the whole Bantu Education system. I do not want to ask for a commission because already we have had too many commissions. What is more, we once had a Press Commission. That is part of our history. I therefore suggest that the hon. the Minister should approach that body, a body under the chairmanship of Professor Rautenbach. These men are educationists. They should be asked to overhaul the whole system and to assist the staff who are running the Department of Bantu Education under very great difficulties. [Time limit.]

It will be physically impossible for me to reply in full, within the space of ten minutes, to a speech of almost half an hour by the hon. member for Kensington, a speech in which he made various statements, allegations and charges. In the course of my speech I shall come back to some of these allegations. I want to associate myself, however—and this is also the only respect in which I can agree with the hon. member—with the congratulations to the hon. the Minister, who also has the Bantu Education portfolio under him now, and also to the hon. the Deputy Minister, who as Deputy will in future handle the Bantu Education portfolio. On behalf of this side of the House I want to wish them all the best, and we believe that with the determination and application and the enthusiasm which is characteristic of them, they will make a success of this Department. In his speech the hon. member for Kensington made the allegation once again that as far as Bantu education was concerned, “inadequate financial provision” was being made. This accusation has been levelled time and again. I want to point out that the amounts appropriated for this purpose every year are increasing constantly. That also applies to the Estimates of Expenditure for the current financial year, in which there is an increased provision of R2,000,000 compared with the past financial year. I want the hon. member for Kensington to take another look at this statement of expenditure from the Bantu Education account. In addition, the revenue from various sources shows a great increase. That may be seen on page 6 of these Estimates of Expenditure. Here, too, an increase of more than R3,000,000 is shown. But there is another source, a source which I regard as a positive one and as one which may produce more positive results, namely the contribution by the Bantu himself in the form of taxes. The hon. member for Standerton also referred to that this afternoon. Five-fifths of this, i.e. the total contribution, can be allocated to Bantu Education. We find, however, that the Bantu are evading this taxation, and yet we find here, as on the part of the hon. member for Kensington this afternoon, a continual fuss about the rights and privileges of the Bantu, while hon. members fail to mention the responsibilities of the Bantu parent himself, his responsibility to the Bantu child and the Bantu community. I understand a large amount is overdue as far as this tax is concerned. I wonder whether there is no machinery that can be put into operation to collect these overdue taxes. We as Whites are prosecuted if we fail to pay our income tax or any other tax. Cannot machinery be put into operation also as regards the Bantu in order to collect more of these taxes? With reference to the hon. member’s contention of “inadequate financial provision”, I should like to refer to an article which appeared in the periodical bantu of March, 1966, under the heading “Bantu Education—an unparalleled achievement”. The article appears on page 68 of that periodical, and I just want to read one paragraph from it—

This should serve as conclusive evidence of what the Government is doing as regards Bantu education. After all, Rome was not built in a day. But apparently the hon. member wants enough teachers and adequate facilities right from the start.

But I also want to refer to another allegation, an allegation made during this Session by the hon. member for Kensington, and one which is also frequently made by the English Press. I am speaking of the reference to university colleges for the Bantu as “tribal colleges” or as “colleges in the bush” or also as “non-White ethnic colleges”. They are therefore still protesting continually against the existence of these institutions on the present pattern. I maintain that this fuss is completely misdirected. Such commentators refuse, of course, to acknowledge that all the large universities in other countries were also merely “tribal universities” in the initial stages. Allow me to refer to the large British universities of Cambridge and Oxford. They, too, were and also are merely “tribal universities”, for in the course of centuries they have adapted themselves to the traditions and customs of the Anglo-Saxon people. These hon. members and concerns refuse to admit that the institutions established in formerly imperialistic territories—and here I am referring to English, French as well as Belgian colonies—were moulded slavishly on the pattern of institutions in the fatherland. They were not necessarily effective as far as the natives were concerned, because these institutions were not adapted to the customs of the natives nor did they meet their needs. This contention that the university colleges or schools in the Bantu homelands should be moulded slavishly on the pattern of our White schools and universities is one which is still adhered to to a large extent by hon. members of the Opposition as well as the English Press. I contend that it is a fossilized remnant of the mid-Victorian imperialism of the previous century. We know that in that period Bantu schools were erected by the London Mission Society as well as by other British-orientated societies, societies which at the same time acted as henchmen of British imperialism. Those schools were established not so much to preserve or stabilize the language, the traditional way of life and the culture of the Bantu, but with the object of divorcing the inhabitant from his traditional way of life. Converts to the Christian faith had to turn their backs on their own language and culture and to a large extent also on their own traditional way of life. [Time limit.]

The young Nationalist has always found himself in the most fortunate position of being associated with a party that advocates very clear and firm principles, principles that have guided it through the years in determining policy. This is also valid now that a younger generation of National Party politicians must once again render account thoroughly in respect of Bantu education as well. In respect of Bantu education no other party in South Africa has done what the National Party has done, and no party has advocated more realistic principles in respect of Bantu education than this National Party. That is why South Africa may display its achievements in the field of Bantu education to the whole world, to Africa and also to the Opposition. They can be proud of what has been achieved. When the electorate of our country entrusted the government to this party in 1948, one of the first measures taken was the appointment of a commission with the object of carrying out a thorough inquiry in regard to the whole matter of Bantu education, the so-called Eiselen Commission. I do not believe hon. members on the opposite side have read this report, otherwise they would not have talked so much nonsense to-night, or if they have in fact read it, they have not done so very thoroughly. If one reads that report, one is struck once again by the irresolute course on which the United Party placed Bantu education. Just read the second section of the report, and you will notice that virtually no principle as regards Bantu education under the United Party Government could be approved. On the contrary, the commission had serious objections to the majority of those principles, not only in particular cases, but also as regards the education policy of the United Party Government in its entirety. The origin of this lack of principle, of vision and of planning, lies in the unrealistic, unscientific and imperialistic policy of the historical United Party. With this we may compare the National Party, a party with firm principles and a logical policy. Two basic principles form the premise to this particular contact situation with the Bantu. The first is that the National Party acknowledges the multi-national character of South Africa and, secondly, that we assume the position of a guardian in respect of the various non-White nations. In this respect we are now piloting this Christian guardianship towards Christian emancipation. Furthermore, we take the traditional pattern of life of the Bantu fully into account. We have due regard to the position and the value of his education aspect in his particular pattern of life and to the exact role this education aspect plays in his traditional pattern of life. Then there are two basic principles that are taken into consideration. The first is that in his traditional education system the Bantu taught his child physical hardiness, and in the second place he instructed him with regard to his own history, his own laws, his own ethics and his own surroundings, and having regard to this essential background, he taught his child to make his living in the particular surroundings in which he found himself. In the light of this the Government has the following aims in respect of Bantu education: The first one is the physical aims—

1. (a) The development of a sound body; acquiring manual skills and skill in observation, and appreciation of the value of practical work.
2. (b) Socially: The development of a sound standard of personal conduct and an outlook on life, a concept of the community and the place of the individual in the community.
3. (c) Mentally: Training in mental skills like reading, writing, spelling and arithmetic; a practical knowledge of the official languages, some knowledge of the world beyond his immediate vicinity.
4. (d) Spiritually: Schooling in the principles and practising of the Christian creed.

But regard for the traditional does not mean fossilizing—on the contrary, it means due regard to the requirements of the total educational demands of the modern world; as a result all modern educational institutions were established on the basis of the traditional in order to meet all demands of training. Under this Government and its Bantu education policy you find that at present the Bantu community has schools for every essential requirement which was not included in the Bantu’s traditional way of life, but which one finds in the modern world.

What was included in his traditional way of life?

I would have been glad if that hon. member had been in my class for three years. I know he would have failed all three years, but then he would perhaps have known better.

The next important aspect which I should like to deal with, is the growth of this Department. Initially Bantu Education came under the Department of Native Affairs, and it was afterwards placed under a separate Minister with the very object of lending the necessary impetus to the endeavour to make up the trmendous leeway which existed in respect of education among the Bantu, and now, after that impetus had been achieved, it has been put back under one Minister in order that there may be the right co-ordination and that Bantu education may coincide with the specific planning in respect of this White-Bantu contact situation we have here in South Africa. For the smooth functioning of this Department our most able educationists have been drawn in. The officials who deal with Bantu education at present were among the most able men in the field of White education. Nobody can bring the charge against the Government at present that the people who have to implement its policy are poorly trained.

They were trained under the United Party Government.

Mr. Chairman, to conclude it may just be added— and I must tell the hon. member for Wynberg that I learned my arithmetic under the United Party Government, and that is why my arithmetic is still not very good—in conclusion it may just be added that the Bantu parent has been thoroughly drawn into the education of his children by means of school boards, which have already drawn in 5,000 Bantu; by means of school committees, which have drawn in 45,000 Bantu parents, and also control boards and parents’ committees. With regard to the above-mentioned, all the reports of regional directors mention full co-operation between educational institutions and local bodies, and the interest the latter are showing in education. [Time limit.]

It is not possible for me, with the limited time at my disposal, to reply in detail to the hon. member for Koedoespoort and to the hon. member for Rissik. The hon. member for Rissik referred to the Eiselen Commission. I would comment for his reading the report of the Holloway Commission and other committee reports, one particularly on school feeding. I think if he went into the situation he would find that the ten-year old path of Bantu education is studded with commissions and committees appointed by this Government, the advice of which the Government has not always taken, to their own detriment.

Sir, I want to deal with certain wild statements which have appeared in regard to this question of outstanding taxation. As far back as 1963, the previous encumbent of the post, the then Minister of Bantu Education, made certain statements that vast amounts of money were outstanding in respect of Bantu taxation. Sir, I do not condone the non-payment of taxation, but I believe that one has to try to be accurate about these things. From 1963 questions have been put to the hon. the Ministers concerned, asking for details about the amounts outstanding; how they were arrived at and on what basis they were arrived at. In 1963 the answer was given that it was impossible to give the information; that it would entail the handling of some 4.000,000 tax cards and that the labour involved was not justified. But despite this fact, the hon. Ministers or Deputy Ministers have each year added to this astronomical amount which it is alleged is outstanding in so far as Bantu taxation is concerned and the latest figure we have is from the hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. He claims, according to a Press report, that no less than R53,000,000 is outstanding in respect of Bantu taxation. In order to get an accurate assessment of this a question was Tabled asking what was the estimated amount outstanding for each of the past three years; whether steps would be taken to improve the collection of taxes, and if so, what steps. Sir, the answer I received was a strange one. I quote—

I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Is he being reasonably unreliable or is he being unreasonably unreliable when he quotes “R53,000,000” and his own Department is not prepared to substantiate the statement which he apparently made in all seriousness?

Sir, there is another case of unreliability and I do hope that we will receive some clarity on this also. I want to refer to the latest annual report of the Department of Bantu Education, which is for the calendar year 1964. On page 5 of this report there is a heading “Visits Abroad”, and then the report lists five different people who are officials of the Department who made visits abroad during the year 1964. I was rather interested to know whether these visits abroad had resulted in an improvement in so far as Bantu education was concerned, so I Tabled a question asking about these visits; I asked for details of the amount spent, because I felt that that was important in view of the fact that Bantu Education Expenditure is strictly limited by Statute to R13,000,000 per annum, although there are certain other sources of income. Sir, I received a rather startling answer in reply to this question. I asked whether any officials of the Department had travelled abroad and then I wanted to know something about the expenses. The answer was “No, no officials of the Department had travelled abroad during 1964”. So these journeys referred to in the report of the Department were just a figment of the imagination, according to the answer given in this House by the hon. the Deputy Minister. Sir, I want to put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister that one of these statements must be untrue. Which is it? One is contained in the official report of the Department: the other is a reply given in answer to a question Tabled in this House. Which is untrue? The departmental report to which I refer is R.P.32/1966.

Reference has been made to the whole system of Bantu Education and I submit in all seriousness that the present arrangements are top-heavy and lop-sided. I say that advisedly. My colleague, the hon. member for Kensington referred to the ethnic university colleges, the three Bantu colleges. Sir, in the five odd years during which they have been functioning since their establishment, Revenue and Loan Account moneys expended on these three university colleges amounted to R11,600,000, for three university colleges with a total enrolment of 1,160 students. The interesting part is that there are more “out” than “in”. I am referring to the many Bantu university students who are out of these ethnic university colleges. Actually there are 1,763 Bantu university students receiving their education not at the ethnic university colleges. There are 1.412 registered at the University of South Africa for degree and diploma courses which are offered by the ethnic university colleges. Sir, this raises an interesting point because one of these commissions, a protagonist of this system of ethnical education, stressed—

The interesting point is this: What happens to the 1,754 Bantu students who do not have this advantage. Do they make inferior citizens because they have not had this advantage?

Sir, this extravagance goes on, but what is the effect? The hon. member for Kensington has referred to the fact that there are 1,600,0 Bantu students at schools. What are the conditions under which they enjoy their education? The amount expended by the State on their education averages approximately R12 per pupil per year, in the primary school, and R56 a year in the secondary school. The average for the ethnic university colleges is approximately R1,800 per student per year.

Surely you know the reason for that.

I understand the reason for it but I submit that one ethnic university college could cope adequately with the demand at the present moment.

Fort Hare used to do it.

The depressing question arising from it is this and the hon. member for Kensington put his finger on it, but I wish to emphasize it. What is the position with regard to Std. X students? In 1964 .06 per cent of the total of 1,600.000 students was in Std. X, and two years later this meagre percentage had increased to .07 per cent. But. Sir, that is not the full picture. We have this depressing picture that as far as matriculation passes are concerned, involving the subject of mathematics, which is such an essential subject, the average number of students who have passed mathematics over the past five years, has been 96 a year. Sir. that number is to form the basis of students for three ethnic university colleges—the intake to provide the doctors, the dentists, the land surveyors, the engineers. all of whom need mathematics before they can take up their profession. I want to go further and refer to the disparity to which the hon. member for Kensington has referred with regard to expenditure for other racial groups. I am referring here to the non-White racial groups. If we take the Loan Vote we find that the expenditure budgeted for Bantu education is approximately R450,000, for 1,600,000 pupils, for Coloured education R1,800,000 for approximately 400,000 pupils, four times the amount for a quarter of the number of pupils; and then when we go to Loan Vote B we find that approximately R5,600,000 has been budgeted for 135,000 Indian pupils, that is to say, 12 times the amount for one-twelfth the number of pupils. [Time limit.]

I do not want to comment much on the dissertation made by the hon. member for Berea. He has revealed himself to be a good member of the United Party. If one spends more money on Bantu education, they complain about it; if one spends less money, they also complain about it.

Who complained?

They are never satisfied. The Opposition will grant that in the sphere of Bantu Education this Government inherited chaos from the United Party Government in 1948, but this Government proved that it regarded this matter in a serious light, and, in 1953, drastic measures were taken to do justice to education for the Bantu population. To-day there is a central Department of Education with an education system drafted in such a manner that even we as Whites can look at it with envy. Not only is the organization good, but the system also rests on a sound educational basis. The Department of Bantu Education exercises control over the entire field of the education of the Bantu population, from Grade I up to and including university education, a gigantic task. It is with appreciation that I want to refer to the guidance and the assistance rendered by so many White teachers and White lecturers, by which means they contributed a great deal towards the development of the Bantu education system in this country. In particular I want to mention the scope and the striking-power of the education system, as found in the Department of Bantu Education at present. One does not always realize that this Department exercises control over 1,700.000 Bantu children who are attending their schools. By means of the community schools these schools reach the parents, and I want to suggest that it is in that way that the school really forms an integral part of the community. Furthermore, there are nearly 5,000 parents who serve on school boards; in addition there are 45,000 parents who serve on school committees, and in that manner the entire community is drawn into this very fine system. That makes Bantu Education in South Africa a unique system of education if one considers the position in other African states. I wonder whether the United Party always realizes this. Are they aware of the fact that in no other African state the level of literacy is as high as it is among the South African Bantu? The activities of the Department of Bantu Education are continually being extended. We are glad of the progress which has been made in regard to psychological services and especially in regard to the introduction of psychometric testing as an educational aid. We are looking forward to the day when standardized I.Q. tests for the various ethnic groups will be available along with the standardized scholastic tests which are already in use. I want to plead for a more extensive system of vocational guidance and scientific tests, especially for the purpose of giving direction to prospective training college and university students. Too much of this student potential is being lost. They go off the rails and fail unnecessarily because they do not have the aptitude for certain subjects which they consider to be popular subjects, and which they are consequently eager to take although they are in fact unable to do well in them. I feel that psychological guidance, given to them prior to their commencing the course, will assist a great deal in eliminating that problem.

But I also want to say something in regard to the university colleges. I want to refer to the good work carried out there by inspired men. I realize that the Opposition should actually not talk about this topic, because I do not believe that they have ever visited these institutions. Having listened to the hon. member for Kensington to-night, it seemed to me as though the United Party was gradually beginning to realize the necessity, the importance and the justification for the existence of these colleges, but we are nevertheless always hearing oblique complaints from them in regard to this matter. Complaints were made to-night about the cost, but no mention is made of the fact that this cost per student, as they call it, also includes the costs involved in establishing these colleges.

In this regard I should also like to refer to the hon. member for Houghton who, at the beginning of this Session, when she spoke about students leaving the country to study elsewhere, made an oblique reference to the want of university facilities for them in South Africa and added “and what there is, is not worth mentioning”. That was the view she held in regard to these university colleges. I regard that as being blatantly irresponsible and uninformed. I think that the guarantee of a high standard by the University of South Africa has often enough been mentioned here. Study facilities at these colleges are often better than they are at many of our older White universities. But what is not always appreciated—and to-night this became apparent once again from the speeches made by hon. members of the Opposition—is the way the students at these ethnic university colleges have adjusted themselves. Things such as racial or social frictional influences do not exist among students. There is not a single group of students that feels that it is inferior to the others. There is complete adjustment on the campus as far as the student communities are concerned. It is in fact this fine characteristic of these colleges which justifies their existence.

In conclusion I shall summarize the position by saying that with six out of every seven Bantu pupils in the age group seven to fourteen attending schools, with proportionately the highest percentage of literacy in Africa, with more graduates among our Bantu in South Africa than in the rest of the whole of Africa, and with progressiveness and development as its motto, this Department has reason to be proud of its achievements, and everybody associated with it deserves the appreciation of everybody in this House.

I must say that I support entirely the remarks of the hon. member for Zululand in so far as they were directed towards vocational guidance in Bantu education. I shall deal with that a little later. I believe that one of the most urgent needs to-day is to equip an ever-increasing number of Bantu to accept ever-increasing responsibilities in so far as their own people are concerned, and I think in this context, in the context that acceptance of responsibilities by the Bantu people towards their own people, we have a concept common to both sides of the House. The time has passed when the White population, comprising some 20 per cent of the whole, can provide the professional and technical services and personnel for 100 per cent of the population of this country. Sir, if that is so, then Bantu education is a matter of prime and urgent importance. Whilst one notes from the reports that there has been progress in some spheres and one appreciates that progress, the progress is mainly directed and confined to the primary classes, and we have the alarming position that even in the case of those who enter the schools in the primary classes, some two-thirds of them leave round about Sub A. This fact is one that must give us cause for concern, that must give us food for thought, and I believe that the training of Bantu in adequate numbers as artisans and for administrative duties and professional practice, needs a crash programme which is going to be quicker and more effective than what is being done to-day. Sir, the present picture is not very encouraging. The problem is a great one and I do not deny that the Minister is saddled with a very difficult problem but let me draw attention to the latest figures available to emphasize the point I wish to make. If one turns to the 1964 report and one looks at the extent of vocational and technical training—I refer to page 12 of the 1964 report—it will be seen that this technical training, spread over a number of training centres, is confined to nine particular groups: concrete bricklaying and plastering is one group; carpentry. cabinet-making; building construction, general and motor mechanics, leatherwork and upholstery; tailoring, plumbing, and drainage and so on. But although there are those nine groups of subjects, there is a total of under 500 Bantu being trained throughout the Republic in those particular trades. The Minister, I am sure, will agree that this is a sphere of training which needs rapid expansion. To highlight it, there are more handicapped Bantu children receiving special tuition than there are fit Bantu being trained as artisans in this country. In the report one finds that there are 588 Bantu children at schools for handicapped children and there are fewer than that number being trained as artisans. One does not begrudge the money spent on those handicapped children, but there is an imbalance which should be put right in regard to the numbers. In the academic field there are new courses being introduced at Fort Hare. One welcomes that, but where are the students? In reply to a question I put to the hon. the Minister on 19th August, he said there were only 56 centres in the whole of the Republic, excluding the Transkei, in which students can enter for the matriculation examination. In any event, even those 56 are not filled to capacity as far as the matriculation classes are concerned. The Minister also told me that enrolment on 31st March, 1966, for the matriculation examination in the whole of the Republic was 1,410 and that the passes over the years of the students who enter for matric are on the average between 25 per cent and 35 per cent of the number of entrants. It seems to me that something more must be done than merely allowing those who want to come along to do the matric examination. It seems to me that the time has come for us to introduce some method of vocational guidance, as was suggested by the hon. member for Zululand, to see that the young Bantu who show promise are given the opportunities to go on to higher standards of education. It is no good the hon. member for Koedoespoort coming along with this story again that we must not apply the European system of education to the Bantu. I can see no way of teaching the technical aspects of medicine or of science or of motor mechanics other than by the system used in the White system.

I had not finished my speech.

When one looks at the report one finds that what he is suggesting runs contrary to what the Department itself is doing. On page 5 of the report it states quite specifically that the three Bantu university colleges follow either the syllabuses of the University of South Africa or syllabuses approved by that university. It goes without saying that that must be done. When one looks at the preparation of the Bantu for the professions, I think we have a very grim picture indeed. If one looks at the latest available figures, for 1964, one finds that for instance in law there are five students, and in theology three. In fact, in the seven subjects which were being taught in the Bantu University Colleges there is a total of under 800 students being trained. The position in regard to the health services particularly is one which I believe threatens a breakdown in those services unless something is done to expedite the training of Bantu to serve their own people. We have been asking over and over that that should be done, but what did the Minister say as recently as this very Session when he was asked what was being done to provide facilities for further training? I read from his reply of 9th August. He said that the whole matter was still under consideration and that no definite decision had been taken in connection with it. Perhaps it is a little early, but I hope the Minister will be able to tell us what he has in mind. According to the figures available to me, we have in South Africa a ratio of doctors in the Bantu areas of one doctor for every 13,000 of the inhabitants. Overseas in the various Western countries the figure varies from 1 to 500 to about 1 in every 1,500 of the population. But I must say that in comparison with the rest of Africa our position is not so bad, but it is very bad in comparison with Western countries. I must say that in Rhodesia it is 1 to 5,000 of the population. In Angola it is 1 to 14,000, and in Bechuanaland and Basutoland the figures are very much worse than ours. But when compared with what we accept as necessary for Western standards and what is necessary to man the hospitals which the Minister has correctly said must be built in the Bantu areas, we will need far more doctors than are being trained at present.

I want to say this in conclusion, that I believe that the best way in which we can preserve what we hold valuable in this country, our way of life and our civilization, is to ensure that we give the greatest possible and the most efficient and the fullest possible education to every single one of the Bantu people who are able to absorb that education. [Time limit.]

First of all I want to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Kensington who congratulated me and wished me everything of the best in regard to this office which I hold. I appreciate that coming from him and from his side. If the hon. member would make his influence and his mature knowledge available to help us in this important matter, it would always be welcome. I also want to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Koedoespoort, who also expressed words of appreciation. It is valued very highly.

Since I am participating for the first time in this debate on Bantu education after many long years, I want to say that there is something which I found particularly striking tonight and that is the fact that the debate here was conducted in much calmer waters tonight than the debate which was conducted a few hours ago under the other Vote. I do not really know why that is so. I do not know whether it is due to the more educational grounding of the hon. speakers in the debate. [Interjection.] Well now, I never thought the hon. member for Wynberg was a teacher. Now many things are clear to me. In any case, I think it is a welcome sign, and it is surely the spirit in which these discussions on Bantu matters ought to take place. I appreciate it and I hope that it will always be possible to hold this discussion of education in this spirit. In fact, I am jealous that the other debates could not be conducted in the same spirit. That is why I thank the hon. members on both sides whose contributions made possible this atmosphere in the debate.

Naturally I cannot deal fully with all the points in the time I have at my disposal. That is why I want to try and do justice to the most important matters. Here and there I may perhaps have to elaborate a little on certain matters. The hon. member for Kensington touched upon quite a few subjects. In general he said that the Government and the Department were being too lax with regard to the attention to development which was needed for Bantu education. I do not think that is a fair accusation. I think it was an over-excited statement on the part of the hon. member. If the statistics were to be examined it would be seen what phenomenal progress has been made by the Department in regard to Bantu education. I want to tell the hon. members on the opposite side something, particularly also in consequence of what the hon. member for Green Point has just said. When the hon. member for Green Point spoke about medically and technically trained Bantu he drew a few comparisons with other countries in Africa and stated, and quite rightly so, that our Bantu in South Africa compared very favourably with by far the most of those other countries. Nevertheless we must always remember this point: When we draw comparisons we must not always expect that the achievements and the successes of the Bantu in their process of development in South Africa must, at this juncture already, equal the achievements of the Whites. That is simply not possible, and we need not go into the reasons for its not being possible. They are not reasons for which the Bantu have to be blamed, neither are they reasons for which the Whites and the Government have to be blamed, nor, for that matter, previous Governments under the United Party régime. There are circumstances which are beyond human control. There are the circumstances of time and history which play their role. That is why it is unfair, at this early stage in the evolutionary process of development of the Bantu who have only in recent decades awoken from their slumber, to draw comparisons at this early stage between their progress and that of the Whites. It is neither right nor fair.

The hon. member for Green Point also said that they compared unfavourably with Western standards. In addition he drew his circle of comparison even wider and compared them with Western standards in general. The hon. member must remember that, fundamentally speaking, the Bantu are after all, not Western nations. The Bantu have adopted many elements from Western civilization, and the Bantu have in many respects been brought under Western influences, but I still want to see whether the Bantu will also become fully westernized. Basically they cannot become fully westernized and that is why it is not a fair comparison to make. The hon. member cannot compare Chinese standards with American, except by way of contrast. It is not a sound point of departure.

The hon. member for Kensington has alleged that a lot of money is being wasted or, in other words, that a lot of money is being unwisely spent at the Bantu university colleges and he mentioned Fort Hare as a specific example. Since he has let the emphasis fall on Fort Hare in particular, I want to tell the hon. member that the fact that Fort Hare was taken over by the Department, is not the reason why money has been too generously spent, as he has stated. That is not the reason. I deny that money is being wasted there. The more expensive price which has to be paid, relatively speaking, if the standards of our South African Bantu have to be compared with Western standards, is a price which is inherently implied in the entire process of Bantu development in South Africa. We are also paying more in many other spheres to help the Bantu in their process of becoming a nation. We are paying a great deal in the social sphere and also in the sphere of agriculture. I can assure the hon. member that it is very difficult and that it takes a lot of time and money to bring concepts in regard to agriculture or economics or even education home to the Bantu, concepts which are assimilated much more easily by other nations. These things are inherent in the system of development which we have for the Bantu.

Now, what has happened at Fort Hare? There, as has been the case at other colleges, there have been expansions, but actually it is not correct to mention Fort Hare and the other two colleges in the same breath, because Fort Hare is already 50 years old and the others are only five years old. Yet it is only now, after 50 years, that the need has arisen at Fort Hare for all kinds of important expansions. Recently new faculties were introduced which had not been there before, faculties such as the faculties for theology and law and agriculture, and more will still be introduced. The establishment of such new faculties is an expensive undertaking, particularly in the initial stages. We know, and this applies even at our White universities, that when one introduces a new faculty, such as the faculty of engineering and the faculty of medicine which were introduced at Stellenbosch a few years ago, or a faculty of agriculture which was very recently established at the University of the Orange Free State, it costs a lot of money, particularly in the first few years, because one has to begin from scratch and one may perhaps have only a few students; one’s income is out of proportion to one’s expenditure, and capital investments and interest are involved. That is why the hon. member must see this matter in its full perspective. The hon. member will then, I hope so anyway, concede that the circumstances at Fort Hare are not so unfavourable as he has intimated. At the same time there was not that stable improvement in the number of students which we would have liked to have seen at Fort Hare. Apart from the faculties, new departments were also introduced. There were staff promotions and hon. members know that we are living in a time when things have become expensive. The staff also received better remuneration. In all those things the university colleges could not lag behind, because as hon. members know, we have given an undertaking, which we have up to now adhered to, that we would see to it that the academic level at the university colleges would be maintained, that it would be maintained with good equipment, well-trained staff, and proper working conditions, and that proper training would be given there. That has been done. I have at various times had the opportunity of visiting the colleges and I can assure hon. members, and there are members of this House who were lecturers at those colleges who can confirm what I say, that the levels which are being maintained there are first-rate academic levels, and that of course costs money, particularly where they are colleges which have only begun to develop. That is why we have to be content with the fact that it is simply inherent in this system that in the first few years it will, relatively speaking, necessarily have to be more expensive than in 20 years’ time when there will be more students.

The hon. member for Kensington said something else in regard to which I am afraid we will perhaps differ fundamentally, or in regard to which we will perhaps differ idealogically, as the hon. members on the opposite side would say. The hon. member said that there are four departments of education and that all university education in South Africa ought to fall under one Department and one Minister, and I deduced that it was implied that it ought to be the Minister of Education, Arts and Science. That is an old argument of the hon. member which I heard not for the first time here to-day, but for the umpteenth time. I actually expected the hon. member to ask that question. In fact, I had his whole idea written down before he had finished his sentences. On this point we differ fundamentally. On this point, as I said here this afternoon to the hon. member for Houghton as well, it is impossible for us to agree with them. The hon. members on the opposite side of course want to integrate the entire education system at the university level into one unit. The hon. member need not pull such a sour face. We know that hon. members on the opposite side support the idea that university education must be integrated in the open universities, as they call them, and that is why the hon. member has pleaded to-night that the open universities must be free to assimilate all ethnic groups. That same system of integration which he wants in the university benches and on the campus and in the laboratories he also wants at the administrative level, also concentrated in one department, and that simply cannot be. Now I want to remind the hon. member of what I said this afternoon under the other Vote. I do not know whether the hon. member was present when I spoke about it. I spoke about the great synthesis of Bantu development which is being set in progress for each Bantu nation, development which must work through to all facets of the nation’s existence, from agriculture to education. Seen from that angle, we must also see education as an integral and extremely essential component element of the developments of the Bantu. That is why provision ought to be made for Bantu university education, just as for Bantu secondary and primary education, in a Department which links up with them directly and which will arrange to offer them that education programme according to their own nature and their own requirements. That is why it is not in the interests of the Bantu to have that administrative integration in one Department, and even less to have that educational integration in one institution. Here we differ fundamentally and for the reasons which I have just set out very clearly, I can offer the hon. member no prospect of my being able to give consideration to his ideas. The university colleges of the Bantu, and later, universities, if they are perhaps one day able to become full-fledged universities, must be seen as an integral part of the culture and the national way of life of every Bantu nation. The ultimate ideal would be that every Bantu nation would at least have its own college. That is an ideal which may perhaps one day be realized in the far distant future. I do not know whether all of us will have the opportunity of being able to work towards the realization of that ideal, but if that is not possible we must at least strive to attain joint university colleges for the Bantu as we have at present where they are classified on the major ethnological basis into the Nguni and North Sotho groups. Hon. members will not acknowledge that I am right in this argument because we differ fundamentally on these matters, but that is as we see it. The hon. member must simply accept our bona fides, that that is the way we see it and that that is the way in which we want to promote the matter because we see the education of the Bantu as a very important aid in their development as a people.

The hon. member for Kensington also complained that, proportionally, too few Bantu students were going through to matriculation. In this respect too one must be careful with figures, because figures are sometimes inclined to mislead one rather than to serve as a guide. It is not always the safe course here to draw comparisons with what is happening in other countries, even in other African countries. The hon. member for Kensington summed up the position quite correctly by saying that we have in Bantu education up to now seen to it that the base of the pyramid was very broad. We regard that as an extremely important and fundamental point of departure. We must, in the grades and at the lower primary schools, make the base of education as broad as possible so that we can draw as many Bantu children as possible into that bottom layer where they can learn the three R’s, where they can acquire the basic human knowledge which people must have in these times, i.e. to read, to write and to do sums, and where they must of course take other cultural and formative subjects as well. The pyramid gradually narrows towards the apex, becoming smaller and smaller, and at the apex, of course, it is smallest. This image of the pyramid one finds in all nations in the world. It is true that, in regard to some the base is broader, with others it is narrower, and that with some the apex of the pyramid is much higher in the air than with others. But now we must be careful because it is a fact that in this development towards the apex of the pyramid a great deal of juggling sometimes takes place, sometimes the numbers are manipulated and I know that in some countries, I almost want to mention names, only the cream of the students are taken so that they concentrate their attention upon certain good pupils only, certain able pupils in the higher standards of the schools so that more of those students, proportionally speaking, go through to matriculation. That is not a sound procedure. Our procedure is that of the broad pyramid where we try and help all of those who can and who want to be helped, to proceed from that basis right up to the apex. If there are many in the process who cease to form part of the pyramid and who do not attain the educational level they ought to, it is really their own fault. But, Sir, statistics show that our numbers in South Africa compare very favourably with what is taking place elsewhere. As I say, our policy is to make education amongst our Bantu as universal as possible, as general as possible and to give it as broad a base as possible and to allow him to develop upwards from there.

Now, Sir, I just want to furnish two sets of figures to indicate what the position is. I am now going to be so bold as to compare a rather vociferous country with our own, a country which is very old, a country whose Bantu development is older than ours. I am comparing figures of our Bantu here with those of Ethiopia, there at the top end of Africa. The figures are for 1963, the latest I have available. In Ethiopia the percentage of children attending primary schools—that is the lowest level of the pyramid I spoke about—is lower than 10 per cent of the pupil potential. Here, as far as the lowest level of the pyramid is concerned, the Bantu figure is 74 per cent of the Bantu pupil potential. I think that says a great deal. It is very important—extremely important—for the Bantu as a person in the process of development, as a nation in the process of development, for many of them at the lowest level to receive the necessary training, even if it is merely a matter of acquiring the elementary equipment for making their way through life. Now, one can understand that if, in Ethiopia, there is less than 10 per cent of their pupil potential at the lowest level, then surely the percentage at the apex of the pyramid will be very favourable?

That is a poor argument.

No, it is not a poor argument; it is quite a good argument. Before the hon. member falls asleep to-night he must go and ponder this matter a little further.

You should not compare us to Ethiopia. You know you can do better than that. You have compared us to the worst in Africa.

No. The hon. member need not become so annoyed at me. He will acknowledge that I am right and that my argument is quite logical. It is obvious. If they only have 10 per cent of their school going potential in the lowest level of education in Ethiopia then the apex of their pyramid must compare favourably, proportionally speaking, more favourably than it does in our case where the lowest level is 74 per cent. Surely that is very clear. Anybody with an elementary knowledge of arithmetic can understand that.

The hon. member has said something else I want to refer to, he became rather upset about the scarcity of Bantu engineers. He said: “Do you realize that in the whole of South Africa there is not a single Bantu engineer to go and make the roads in the Transkei.”

No, I said there is not a single student.

That is even worse. There is not a single student, there is not one Bantu engineer to go and make the roads in the Transkei. And the hon. member is crying to high heaven about it.

In the far distant future, yes.

The hon. member for Green Point also spoke about it, and it seems to me that if she had had the chance the hon. member Wynberg would also have done so. It seems to me she would much like to do so, but she cannot. The hon. member is so concerned about the roads in the Transkei. In the mean time the roads are nevertheless there. The roads are there because we see to it. But let us go and look at the facts in regard to the Bantu. What is the correct procedure again? But just before I state what the correct procedure is I just want, at the same time, to remind the hon. member for Green Point about something. The hon. member quoted a lot of statistics, but he did not give the complete picture. He was quite right in mentioning from the annual report of the Department of Bantu Education —an annual report which I must say just in passing is an excellent one—a number of trades for which training is being supplied. They form a considerable list. I am referring to those receiving training in schools.

Yes.

I hope the hon. member is going to say “yes” again to what I am now going to say.

But I have just said so.

Yes, but surely that is not what we are arguing about. We are in complete agreement that it is those who are receiving instruction in the schools. But does the hon. member know about something called the Bantu Building Workers’ Act? Does the hon. member know that in the building industry—in the trade and not in the schools; they never enter the schools for their manual training—several thousand are being trained in various branches of the building industry. I am sorry but in the limited time at my disposal I do not have and cannot furnish the figure. The latest figure which I have seen indicates that there were several thousands of Bantu who have been trained as Bantu building workers whilst employed in our urban Bantu residential areas and elsewhere—also in the Bantu areas—in the various branches of the trades which they follow in the building industry. Those figures have not been included in that. I am glad that the hon. member said “yes” to that. In other words, the overall picture in regard to Bantu who have received vocational training is therefore much more favourable than the picture given in that annual report because the annual report only deals with the schools. Of course the annual report does not deal with Bantu building workers who are being trained under an Act which is administered by the Department of Labour.

My point was that the number who arrived in the specialist class was too low.

Very well. I shall come in a moment to that argument that there are too few people in the matriculation standard. It is closely bound up with the point made by the hon. member for Berea that there are so few students of mathematics in the matriculation standard. I shall arrive at that argument in a moment. I must make haste to beat the clock. The training of artisans, and above them technicians, and above them engineers, is a very important matter as far as the Bantu are concerned. But we must not put the cart before the horse. We must go to work in the right way. It would be of no avail now to rake together all and sundry Bantu whom we could possibly train as engineers and then train them all as engineers. It will be of no avail to us starting at the top when there is absolutely nothing on a lower level on which we can work.

What about the roads in the Transkei?

What about the roads in the Transkei? Oh, my goodness me! I have just finished talking about the roads in the Transkei. Must I talk about the roads in the Transkei again now? I have just finished talking about them. The point is that the roads in the Transkei are being made.

Yes, but …

Just listen for a moment, please. My time is very limited. If the hon. member allows me such a limited time then he must not shout and interrupt me.

Your time is not limited.

I am not your “you”, I am an hon. member.

There is no time limit.

Mr. Chairman, …

You can continue as long as you like.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I feel like availing myself of the offer.

Yes, you can.

The hon. member should have listened. I spoke just now about the question of the roads in the Transkei and in all Bantu areas, and the point is this. With the training of Bantu technicians one must begin at the bottom. Whether it is Bantu technicians or White technicians or Chinese technicians—one must begin at the bottom with all those people, and with all educational matters. We must first see to it that we have a lot of artisans and that we have technicians, and it is from that bottom layer of technical people that the technical aristocracy, the engineer, develops. It is of no avail if one has an aristocracy of technical people and one does not have the masses to do the work. We are going to concentrate—and as our reports and our work testifies, we are engaged in that—on a large variety …

[Inaudible.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I object to the fact that the hon. member for Transkei asks me a question by way of interjection and that while I am trying to reply to him he disregards me and carries on a conversation with other people. I shall proceed with the matter even if it leaves him stone cold. The point is that our Bantu technicians must be trained from the bottom up and that is what we are doing. We are already doing it in our technical schools and in our vocational schools. We are doing it, as I have said, by means of vocational training, and we shall also do so—and I hope that we shall be able to start doing so soon—in regard to technicians. Of course this presents us with problems because one also has to do with institutions. We can link it up with our technical high schools and we can even link it up with our university colleges. We also need workshops for that because one cannot train artisans and technicians in a school only. There must be workshops for them. That is why we are arranging our work in our Departments in such a way that we will have the workshops. As the hon. member for Transkei ought to know, the Transkeian Government has, as far as motor mechanics are concerned, already made a start in this direction with automobile workshops in which artisans can be trained. The artisans can become technicians. The technicians can become qualified and some of them can perhaps later become engineers, or they can, through their work perhaps, influence others to become interested in engineering degrees. That is how those things must develop. One cannot get a tree to grow from the top downwards—one must allow a tree to grow from the roots up. The hon. member for Kensington also had a lot to say about double sessions. I want to make haste now to try and finish. I just want to tell the hon. member that the picture in regard to double sessions is really not as bad as the hon. member has tried to paint it.

I got the figures from the annual report.

Yes, I have those figures here, and I have more figures than that here. What are the facts in regard to double sessions? The facts in regard to double sessions, facts which nobody on the Opposition side can refute, are that double sessions are one of the important things which make it possible for many Bantu children, particularly at that low level—the base of the pyramid—to receive education. That is so because double sessions are to be found only at the lowest level of education. Double sessions are not carried through the secondary schools. They are not even carried through to the higher primary schools. To the best of my knowledge double sessions are scarcely carried as far as standard one. Double sessions occur mainly in the two grades.

They are in the finest two groups, up to standard two.

Now the hon. member is beginning to move in circles. Those double sessions have made it possible for us to increase literacy amongst the Bantu and to increase their education in the lowest level, and that is a good thing. Naturally those double sessions have also made it possible for the classes per teacher to be smaller in number than they would otherwise have been. If we had had to divide up that number of children into one session per school the classes would naturally have been larger per teacher than is the case at present. The hon. member, as an ex-teacher with a great deal of experience, ought to know how much more valuable it is for a teacher to have a smaller class than for a teacher to have a large class. I can enlarge on that further but I want to make haste.

The hon. member for Kensington said something in passing about the salaries of Bantu teachers. It is a very great pleasure to-night to be able to furnish the information that, as from the coming financial year, an improvement—a considerable salary improvement—will be made in the salary scales of Bantu teachers. Their increments will be based on an improved key scale, there will be improved minimums, improved notches and improved maximums for the Bantu teachers in South Africa. I cannot elaborate now on the precise details. Those are matters, as the hon. members on the Opposition side will concede, which require administrative attention and which have to be worked out. They are complicated matters and that is why I do not want to become enmeshed in my speech now in that kind of detailed network. But this I can say— I think the Bantu in South Africa deserve this increase.

May I ask the hon. the Minister just one question? Will the White lecturers and professors at the university colleges receive the increase they were promised two years ago?

They will get it, and they will get it as from 1st January of this year 1966; that is, the White and Bantu professors, lecturers and other staff of the Bantu colleges. But the increases of teachers at schools will only take effect from the following financial year.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Will the additional funds in regard to the increase in teachers’ salaries come out of the statutory R13,000,000 or will there be other financial arrangements?

It will come out of the Bantu Education Account, where all our funds normally come from, and that brings us to the question of taxes. I think I should start with that at once now because I should very much like to say something about it. The question of taxes which was raised here to-night is an extremely important one. It is the main source, the most important source of revenue for our spending on education in South Africa. Reference was also made to it this afternoon under the previous Vote by the hon. member for Standerton, but reference was also made to that here to-night by two or three other members. That is why I should like to go into that briefly at this stage.

As you know, Bantu taxes are now being spent 100 per cent on education in South Africa. Wild accusations were made here in regard to the arrear taxes. I cannot remember making statements in public, but I do know that I did on occasion furnish information which I had received, and I realized very quickly that I would have to express myself very carefully in regard to the estimated amount of arrear taxes because it was very difficult to determine it scientifically and correctly. That is why I gave the reply which the hon. member for Berea read out just now where I said that these arrear taxes were being calculated by means of calculating machines, that they could not be determined very precisely and that I did not want to arouse false hopes and false impressions by giving first this figure and then another figure, because I had already heard of different figures. But I want to tell the hon. members this. In the past two or three months I have already had special arrangements made in the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, special persons have been appointed and special steps have been taken to bring about more stringent methods for collecting Bantu taxes so that we could get more money for Bantu education. This was done because I found out very quickly that one of the objectives in making me Minister of both these Departments was that the one which has to so end must also take care of the collection. What a difficult task that is! I can give you the assurance. Sir, that the first indications have already been very favourable. But I am in full agreement with the two hon. members for Koedoespoort and Standerton and I say that we can no longer merely content ourselves with the old methods of tax collection. We cannot content ourselves with them. The taxes are fundamentally important for education and it is out of those taxes that the children, inter alia, must be helped to receive their education, but the Bantu must also realize that the taxes they pay throw open a vast field of activity for what I want to call a Bantu elite, i.e. their teachers’ class. It is a great opportunity, a labour creating opportunity; that is why the Bantu public must see to it that it pays its taxes more regularly and in a better way. If the Bantu cannot do so voluntarily and if a large percentage of them neglect to do so, then we will have to introduce measures. And I want to tell you that I am very seriously considering coming to this House and asking this House for its support for a properly organized system of Bantu tax collection in which the employers must be involved. The taxes of our Whites are collected by means of a pay-as-you-earn system. Why cannot the taxes of the Bantu also be collected in some way or other by means of that method? Why cannot local authorities who are collecting house rent throughout our country from the Bantu also help in some way or other with the collection of Bantu taxes?

Cannot the R13,000,000 which has now been pegged be increased?

I do not think it is even necessary to consider that if we can collect up to 100 per cent of the Bantu taxes. I believe that that is necessary. The hon. member will probably concede my point that it is not morally right to allow a great number of Bantu, say, for example, half of the Bantu tax-payers to refrain from paying taxes and then come and ask this Parliament for more than R13,000,000. That will not be right. Neither will it be right to increase the taxes for the smaller percentage or half of the Bantu who are in fact tax-payers and who pay their taxes regularly so that the others can escape from paying taxes. Neither would it be morally right. We must see to it that the taxes are collected by the Bantu as far as possible and then we will be able to render a much greater and improved service to the Bantu public. I now hope that when we come to this House to ask for a properly arranged statutory method of tax collection in South Africa, whereby everybody concerned must be of assistance, we will get the support for that measure because it is going to be for a very good purpose. The precedent for that measure has already been created by the system which has been introduced in recent years for the Whites.

I come now to the one point on which I promised to say something, i.e. the scarcity of mathematics students and other scientific and technically grounded people amongst the Bantu in the matriculation standard. What can we do about that? What can anybody do about that? If there are not enough Bantu pupils who display a knowledge of and who have an attitude for mathematics, what can we do about it? Is it not a fact that in our White nation there is also a tremendous shortage of students grounded in mathematics who can go to university to be trained as mathematicians, as scientists, as teachers, as professors and other instructors? We have this shortage amongst Whites. How much more likely is it not that we will also have this shortage amongst the Bantu? What can we do about it? We cannot give the Bantu injections to make them take more interest in mathematics. Neither can we do so with the Whites. I do not know whether the hon. member who is a chemist is able to help me with injections. If he can he might as well come forward. We cannot make these people artificially. We are doing everything in our power to stimulate it in the usual manner. In the usual manner we are trying to promote an interest in mathematics and we will not refuse anybody who comes forward and who displays any potential possibilities.

I want to conclude by referring to the medical training to which the hon. member referred. I think it was the hon. member for Green Point who complained because I had allegedly said that the training of medical students was still receiving attention. But that question applies to additional medical training facilities for the Bantu separately. But does the hon. member not know that there is a scheme in Durban and that there is at present in Durban more than seven years of medical training for the 109 enrolled Bantu students? I can just tell the hon. member this: I hope that they will get through their courses successfully and that when they are qualified they will not become witchdoctors.

Mr. Chairman, I think I have replied to all the most important points here. Perhaps some minor matters still remain to be dealt with here and there. I thank hon. members on both sides for their positive contribution. As I said at the beginning, it was more positive than it was in the other debate as far as the hon. members on the other side are concerned.

Mr. Chairman, before the hon. the Minister sits down …

There is no time. If the hon. member has a question he can put it tomorrow.

But he has not answered my question, Sir.

Votes put and agreed to.

Progress reported.