I move—

Mr. Speaker, I am not raising any objection to this motion. On the contrary, we support it. But I take this opportunity, which is the first presented to me in connection with this project, to ask the Minister whether he will bear in mind the negotiations that have taken place in the past in regard to the construction of this railway and the development of harbour facilities at Richard’s Bay, which affect an area which is at the present time a proclaimed nature reserve. The position is that the railway and the development there must inevitably interfere with the protection afforded the nature reserve under the ordinance. We know that this development must come and we welcome it. We realize that there will be interference. Sir, the Minister in the past has been sympathetic to our request that those portions which are needed for development shall be excised piecemeal from the proclaimed nature reserve and that as for the rest they shall remain under our protection so that there is the necessary opportunity for conservation. I bring this to the Minister’s notice and I should be glad if he could perhaps give us a word of assurance that in fact that procedure will be adhered to.

Did the hon. member say “nature reserve” or “native reserve”?

Nature reserve.

I give the hon. member the assurance that as far as I am personally concerned I shall do everything in my power to conserve nature.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a First Time.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to move the following amendment—

This Bill combines the objects, operations and powers of the Bantu Investment Corporation Act of 1959, and the Bantu Homelands Development Corporation Act of 1965. The Minister has previously stated that he did not like the structure of these Corporations and therefore he was going to make amendments, and as the result of that we now have this Bill before us. I would like to remind the House that when the original Bantu Investment Corporation Bill was introduced in 1959, we moved that it go to a Select Committee for the reason that we did not like the structure.

We did not think that it was the answer to the problem of how to develop the reserves expeditiously and at the same time on a sound basis. Not only we, but economists and bodies interested in politics and in the economic development of the reserves, had previously expressed their misgivings as to the prospects of developing South Africa as a whole because of the backwardness of the reserves. You will remember, Sir, that prominent economists spoke of the drag on the economy of South Africa, and it was obvious that energetic steps were necessary especially as the policy of separate development, although it was not known by that name at the time, was to be applied. Because of our early criticism, the Tomlinson Commission was appointed by the Government to go into the question of the socioeconomic development of the reserves. This Commission conducted an exhaustive inquiry and produced a very useful report, but unfortunately it was spoilt by two of the members, civil servants, who dissociated themselves from the majority report on a most important recommendation, which dissociation was made after a unanimous recommendation had in fact been accepted. The report stressed the urgency of the matter and it was laid before us in 1955. The Government did not accept the major recommendation, namely that white entrepreneurs be allowed, and in fact be encouraged, to go into the reserves. The then Prime Minister had ideas of his own. Well, nothing much happened and economists and others became more and more critical, and eventually, as a sign of the Government’s earnestness, the Investment Corporation was formed five years after it had been recommended by the Tomlinson Commission. We saw weaknesses in that Act and, as I have said, we proposed then that it should go to a select committee where both sides could discuss the matter impartially and also have the benefit of getting expert witnesses to appear before the select committee to offer their advice. We did not believe that civil servants were the proper people to handle such a gigantic task which required practical experience in economics and business generally. Furthermore, we did not think that the provisions of the Bill disclosed a plan for the economic development of the reserves, nor did we think the board of directors would be able to fulfil its duties adequately or carry out its functions. And we have been proved right again.

We were also concerned with the fact that there was to be no Parliamentary control of the expenditure of the funds. We were not able to scrutinize the accounts to ensure that the money which the public was going to contribute to these funds through taxation would not be wasted. I am not criticizing the personnel. They are, I believe, honourable gentlemen imbued with the highest sense of duty and dedicated to the welfare of the Bantu. It is a noticeable fact that people who visit the reserves and meet the personnel are impressed with their dedication to their duty.

Then why make these remarks?

Because I say we do not consider them to be the proper people to carry out this type of development. Their dedication is not sufficient; there must also be the know-how and initiative and also the urge. We foresaw trouble because of the very nature of the problem and knew the Investment Corporation was not the answer. Just as Acts of Parliament will not stop immorality, in the same way Acts of Parliament on their own cannot bring about development.

What was required was enthusiastic cooperation and active participation of men with experience in building up industries, men with vision, and at the same time practical appreciation of all the difficulties involved in establishing industries in undeveloped countries with a raw and completely unskilled labour force, and in most cases operating in areas where there is no raw material. The United Party faced the same difficulty when it was in power, but we tackled it by employing the services of the I.D.C. which had had experience in establishing industries in South Africa, and also by obtaining the assistance of an overseas company which had had experience in establishing industries in other undeveloped countries. We got the two together, and as hon. members know, the result was the Good Hope Textile Industry, an industry of which the country is so proud to-day. In fact, it is a showpiece. Because we had had experience of that sort of thing we on this side had mis-givings about the modus operandi proposed by the Government, and we sought to improve the Government proposition to make it a more effective organ with teeth to tackle its task.

We failed in our efforts, but our prognosis proved true. Little was accomplished, as we had predicted. I do not deny that something was accomplished, but not nearly enough to meet the challenge thrown out by the Tomlinson Commission. Proof of the fact that the Investment Corporation was not fulfilling its task was the introduction in 1965 of the Homelands Development Corporation Bill, which was again an attempt to solve the problem by means of legislation. We were critical of that Bill, but this side gave it our support in the hope that it would improve the efforts of the Investment Corporation which we felt had become bogged down and impotent because of its structure and its restricted powers. Three years after the passing of that Bill, we have only had, as far as I know, one Corporation established, and that is the Xhosa Development Corporation. That the present system is not effective is proved by the growing criticism of economists, including people connected with the implementation of the policy. We have Dr. Olivier, the Commissioner-General. Then there is Mr. Hans Abraham who made a speech at Port Elizabeth in which he suggested that a commission be appointed to go into the work of the previous commission to see what was being done to carry out its recommendations. Then we have Dr. Adendorff who is the Managing Director of the Investment Corporation. I do not know Dr. Olivier, but I do know Dr. Adendorff. I want to say now that I am most impressed with his earnestness and dedication but I fear that he is hamstrung under the existing circumstances. The Prime Minister said, and this is what worries me, that the development must keep pace with the capabilities of the Bantu. He said that the criterion was whether the Bantu could keep up. During a debate in this House during this year he said—

That apparently is the standard to be set, namely the pace at which the Bantu are to develop. If the ability of the Bantu to keep pace is to be their criterion, there will be very little development indeed. Just recently Mr. Hans Abraham while addressing a party of industrialists in Umtata said that where nothing happens, it is a happening when you start an industry. He went on to give reasons as to why he did not think that there would be any great development in the reserves. He told them what he thought of the Bantu, namely that they had no initiative, no organization ability, no judgment and no responsibility. In fact, all that they did have was an obsession for sex. I do not accept the definition given by the Commissioner-General as to the ability of the Bantu in regard to the establishment of industries. We know that Bantu have established themselves in many industries of their own accord and without assistance from the Government.

But the development which is now taking place has been in keeping with the Prime Minister’s thinking. He has said so. He dictates the policy of the Government. We and everybody else say that the pace is not fast enough and we shall have to leave the Prime Minister behind. Our difficulty is of course to find a way of doing it. We are the Opposition and however much we would like to, we cannot take the lead. All that we can do is to urge on and encourage and by continual nagging hope that the Government will wake up and do something. We had hoped to get something from the Bill. The terms did not give us much encouragement, but we had hoped to hear a dynamic plan from the Minister. But did we get it? What did the Minister offer that is new? He said that provision is made for an advisory body of Bantu to train the Bantu. I submit that it is not sufficient to train the Bantu by merely putting them on an advisory body. I submit that there are some Bantu who could go on to the board itself. Surely that is the best place for them to learn how to run these industries. What else did the hon. the Minister offer? He said that there was provision for the establishment of specialized corporations to deal with mining etc. He mentioned mining especially. But in the same breath he went on to tell us that this is already being done. He was very proud of the fact that under the “ou beleid”, as he called it, they already had 90 agreements with mining institutions for doing the very thing which he now proposes. Another provision was that the corporation would pay licence fees. This is a new provision. I am glad that the hon. the Minister is taking our advice. We were critical previously because the corporations were relieved of the necessities to pay these licence fees.

Clause 23 contains a very interesting provision. The corporation if the trustee approves, and the trustee is of course the State President, can operate outside the Bantu areas and the specified urban areas. The Minister gave as an example that they could deal with wholesalers in white areas. But they are doing that at the moment. This is therefore nothing new and the amendment is unnecessary. I am sure that the Minister must have something else in mind. I see that the Minister shakes his head. It is apparently only the intention that they should deal with wholesalers. They are already doing that and I do not see how that is something new which will bring about further development of the Bantu.

Clause 24 hamstrings the corporation. As I have said before, the trustee is the President who delegates his authority to the Minister. The Minister therefore controls the activities of these corporations. He can tell them how to operate and where to operate. We will there fore have a politician taking his instructions from the Prime Minister and telling them what to do. The Prime Minister, as he himself indicated, believes that the reserves are developing fast enough as the position is to-day. He fears too rapid progress. He has set the standards and the present Minister of Bantu Administration and Development will have to carry out that policy.

What is also new, is the provision to allow the trustee to pay expenses in building up an infrastructure. That is something that was necessary. I would be glad if the Minister would look at the English and Afrikaans texts of that clause to see if they both mean the same. That is a matter we can discuss in the. Committee Stage.

Which clause?

Clause 30. We will deal with that in the Committee Stage.

The Minister tells us of the accomplishments of the corporation to-day. They have a textile industry at Umtata, a deboning factory at Umtata, five wholesalers, three bakeries, two mineral water factories, grinding mills and workshops, but no industries giving very much employment. In support of his measure the Minister tells us of the sums of money expended by the corporation as proof of the fact that development is taking place. I want to deal with the question of the funds and the expenditure. The Minister when he introduced the measure, told us that the object was to bring the two corporations in closer contact with the Bantu Trust. As far as the funds of this Bantu Investment Corporation are concerned, their accounts are laid on the Table and we, as members of Parliament, can see the accounts. But what do we have in the accounts? There is a statement as to their profits, their loss and their assets, but that does not give us any detail of how these different undertakings are run. Reference is made to different undertakings. Reference is made, for instance, to a furniture factory at Oshakati. It employs 32 Ovambos; but we do not know whether this is a profitable concern or not. We do not know how the money is being invested there. We know that there are bakeries with a turnover of R175,000 a year. They cover a total area of some 10,500 square miles in service, and they employ 82 Bantu! Again I say this is a negligible amount of employment. Then there is the Transkei meat industry. This industry came into being in 1966. The last report we had is, of course, the report for the year 1966, so we cannot get much detail from these accounts as to how that business is prospering.

There is also talk in the Transkei about the meat industry. There are wild stories of colossal losses. Now, they may be true or they may not be true; probably they are not true. But, Sir, the public does not know what is happening there. There are rumours about it and if Parliament was able to get a copy of that industry’s accounts, if the Auditor-General was able to scrutinize the accounts, then we would certainly know what is happening there. All we know from these accounts which we have here, is that the loss of the Investment Corporation for 1966 was three times the loss in 1965 and five times the loss in 1964. That is all we get. It is a small account. It takes no time to go through it. [Interjection.] My Leader points out that it does not conform with the Companies Act, but the Companies Act, of course does not apply to these corporations. That is another criticism we have of the constitution of these corporations.

We know that the Minister, as I said, wants these corporations closely attached to the Trust. We do know how the Trust is run, because the accounts of the Trust are audited by the Auditor-General. What has happened to the Trust’s business? We have the Auditor-General’s report for 1967—and what a shocking report! I am not going to read the whole of the report but only a few paragraphs of criticism from it. He talks about the accounts having to be submitted to him and suggests that the proper accounts have not been submitted to him. He proceeds to say (Part 3 of his Report, page 682)—

Then there follows a whole column of instances. Then, on page 683, he says—

Further on he says—

entrusted to other bodies, and requested that if he was not in agreement with my view, the matter be referred to the Law Advisers for an opinion.

By the time of writing this report no reply to this had been received. He then proceeds to deal with the development of Bantu townships under the Trust about which he has the following to say on page 684—

Then he gives us two columns of the most important shortcomings. On page 686 he has the following to say under the heading “Management and administration”—

Further on he says—

What has that got to do with this Bill? [Interjections.]

I quote this in order to demonstrate the importance and the advantage of having accounts of this nature audited by the Controller and Auditor-General, because had the Controller and Auditor-General not inspected these accounts we would have known nothing about these irregularities. I submit that the same can happen with these corporations. We will not know how they will invest their monies; we will not know whether or not that money will be wasted through maladministration, inefficiency, and all these other things which the Auditor-General finds is happening to the Bantu Trust. Furthermore, the Minister himself said that he wanted these corporations more closely connected with the Trust. Therefore we ask that the Auditor-General be brought into this matter and that provision be made for him to audit the accounts of these corporations so that we, the watchdogs on behalf of the taxpayer, can see what is happening to his money. What is happening to the Trust should act as a guide to us. That is why we are not impressed by the Minister’s statement about millions being spent on this and millions being spent on that. We do not look upon the spending of large sums of money as proof that large scale development is taking place. We look for results and what we want to see particularly is large employment figures. But this we are not getting. I want to give an example of this. In reply to a question put to him by me the other day the hon. the Minister said that large amounts of money had been paid for trading stations and that the Government had taken over 175 trading stations in the Transkei. This is not necessarily part of the Government’s development plans but as a result of a promise which was made to compensate traders in that area. However, of the 175 trading stations taken over only 71 are managed by Bantu—the others by Whites and Coloureds.

Dr. Adendorff, the managing director of the Bantu Investment Corporation and the man who can speak with most authority, addressed Sabra last year on this question of the development of the reserves. It must be remembered that the late Prime Minister had also been opposed to too fast a development of the reserves. Now, Dr. Adendorff in his speech to Sabra quoted from a speech made by the present Prime Minister last year and also from a speech made by the present Minister of Bantu Administration in which they indicated that this development should not be too fast. Dr. Adendorff in his address said—

He goes on to point out that over a period of 15 years we would have to find jobs for 585,000 Bantu—in other words, an average of 39,000 per annum. But three years have already gone by without us coming anywhere near that figure. He goes on—

jaarliks ekonomies bedrywig word van werk kan voorsien nie … Dit is myns insiens absoluut noodsaaklik dat met in agneming van die gevare verbonde aan ’n te snelle ontwikkeling, die ontwikkeling van die tuislande versnel moet word. Ook is ek nie oortuig dat indian versnelde ontwikkeling in die Bantoetuislande aan die gang gesit word dit die Bantoe sal ontwrig nie. As ons dit dan op sosiale gebied gedoen en nie verkeerdelik gedoen het nie, hoekom dan nie op ekonomiese gebied nie? Hoekom kan ons nie vir hulle fabrieke, myne, ens., vestig nie en hulle in daardie bedrywe oplei om hulle self te help nie? As ons dit nie doen nie hoe gaan hulle ooit in staat wees om die take self te verrig?

He also referred to the fact that the Bantu themselves were worried and he said—

They did get employment.

Where?

He also said this—

That is in connection with the Trust—

Sir, if we ever had an indictment against the Government’s policy of development and its achievements, then we had it here from the man who is responsible for carrying out the policy.

Sir, I have quoted from what Chief Kaizer Matanzima said. I would like hon. members on the Government side to read the report of the debates which took place in the Transkeian Parliament last year. In debate after debate this question of the development of the reserves was raised by those members. This is the forum where they can discuss this matter and hon. members will find if they read the debates that the members of the Transkeian Parliament repeatedly expressed their concern. I asked the hon. the Minister the other day what industries had been established by the Bantu in the Transkei, and his reply was that one Bantu beer brewery had been established at Butterworth. I do not think that answer was correct. As far as I know that brewery was established by the Xhosa Development Corporation. I have raised this question with the Department and they are going into the matter again. But, Sir, what an achievement when one Bantu beer brewery is established!

I want to make it quite clear that we have not been and are not opposed to the development of the reserves. An attempt is made—I admit sometimes successfully—to accuse the United Party of being opposed to the economic development of the reserves because we are critical of the methods adopted by this Government, and they link our criticism of the granting of ultimate independence to the reserves with opposition to economic development. That, of course, is absolute nonsense. Our policy is to let the Bantu govern themselves to the fullest extent but always under the umbrella of the central Parliament because we regard the reserves as being part of South Africa. But not only do we say that they must govern themselves, we go further: We say that they must endeavour to maintain themselves and their offspring, not on a living standard below the bread-line but on a standard which will give them self-respect and a genuine desire to improve their lot from year to year in the same way that we want the standard of living of all other groups to rise every year. Our policy is to maintain as many of the Bantu as possible in the reserves or the homelands, as General Smuts once christened them, but in order to do that we have to provide the wherewithal to accommodate and feed them there. The reserves must be made sufficiently attractive to entice the Africans back to them. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration wishes to entice them back by making the urban townships less attractive by offering them fewer amenities. Sir, that is not the way. I do not wish to discuss that now; we will have an opportunity to do so later on. The point I want to make is that the Bantu reserves must be made more attractive. After all, they are the natural homelands, so they should start off with a big advantage over foreign urban areas.

Sir, how do you make them more attractive? In the first place, by giving employment to the people who live there. Without employment the inhabitants cannot get food for themselves or their families; without employment they cannot do all the things that we like to do besides feed ourselves. They want decent homes; they want a family life, enjoyment of the normal amenities, an opportunity to give their children a proper education so that they can provide adequately for themselves, security against illness and a happy old age free from worry about a roof over their heads or starvation. In fact, all the things we want they want, but under present conditions they cannot get it. Suitable employment must be given to them. What is the position to-day in the reserves? The majority of the people there live on small uneconomic agricultural plots. They cannot eke out an existence there so they have to go out as migrant workers. Sir, they do not wish to do that. That is quite clear from the discussions in the Transkeian Legislative Assembly. They do not wish to go out to work as migrant labourers but they are forced to do so. Those who want to become farmers cannot become farmers because of the system of land tenure. Sir, we are opposed to the present system. The Bantu are there on small uneconomic holdings.

Order! The hon. member is very far away from the Bill now. He is offering general criticism of the administration.

I submit, with respect, Sir, that part of the development of the reserves is agricultural development as well. The Tomlinson Commission, which I am going to quote in a moment, dealt especially with agricultural development. It is not only industrial development.

Order! The hon. member is drifting far away from the provisions and the objects of the Bill.

Sir, economic development does not only mean industrial development; it also includes agricultural development. May I just give an example. In dealing with the question of the socio-economic development of the reserves the Tomlinson Commission dealt at length with the question of agricultural development, to make the farmers there self-sufficient.

There we have the Kalahari of the supporters of the United Party.

I have said that those who want to become farmers cannot do so because of the system of land tenure and the small uneconomic holdings. Some of them with a lot of stock and fertile land may be able to exist but that is not enough; they want to do more than that. The Tomlinson Commission recognized the difficulties and found that it would be necessary to change the present system of land tenure to create a stable and productive system of agriculture under which the Bantu would endeavour to become farmers, because they said that it had been shown conclusively that the Bantu areas cannot carry their present population as full-time farmers. The commission recommended granting freehold title to full-time farmers, with holdings of a sufficient size to enable them to farm properly. Sir, we support that recommendation and we supported this idea long before the Tomlinson Commission reported. However, there is one big snag before it can be applied. The people at present living on the land will have to be taken off, and they cannot be taken off the land until suitable employment is found for them in other industries. Unless there is large-scale development in the reserves to take these people off the land, they will have to remain on the land and they will never become self-sufficient farmers. If land is to be found in the reserves to provide a living for the Bantu there, it will have to be a better standard of living than they are now enjoying in order to attract them away from the land to other industries, and to get them to live in the towns in the reserves, and the way to do that is by establishing industries inside their own areas. They cannot do it; we have to help them, and I suggest that these corporations are not the bodies to do it. They have failed. As we have so often said, the only way to achieve our object and the object of the Government is to encourage white capital and white initiative, not ad lib. as the hon. member suggests we want to do, but under control, control mainly exercised by prohibiting the acquisition of land in the reserves.

Will you tell us more about that control?

During this debate we will tell you a lot about it. I have said that it would be mainly controlled through the prohibition of the acquisition of land in the Native areas. That is as the law stands at present. [Interjections.] How often must we tell that hon. Deputy Minister that what we mean by free capital is not Government capital; it is private capital. I will call it free white capital now, to make it quite clear. The late Prime Minister said that if we allowed in white capital, white bosses would go in to manage that private white capital, and they would take with them staff. With the staff would go their families, and with the families would be the children, and you would have to have schools with white teachers to teach the children, and you would need churches with white ministers to minister to the needs of those people. You would have to have white storekeepers to attend to them, and white professional men to assist them. That is what Dr. Verwoerd foresaw. In fact, he foresaw the application of Parkinson’s law, and that was one of the reasons why he was opposed to white capital going into the reserves. But there is no doubt that with Dr. Verwoerd’s passing, new thoughts are being expressed, departing from the Verwoerd line. I want to quote what Mr. Dirk Richard had to say.

Order ! What has that to do with the Bill?

The Bill controls the admission of white capital into the reserves. That is the whole object of the Bill, to bring about development but not by allowing free white capital to enter the reserves; it must all be done through the Government agencies. I am attacking that principle, and I am supporting the line taken by the Tomlinson Commission, which went into this very question of the economic development of the reserves, and that is after all what we are discussing here now.

Mr. Dirk Richard, in an article “Na My Mening”, said this—

And an article in Volkshandel of February this year says this—

They go on further to say—

I hope that all the hon. members opposite have read the publication by Stellenbosch University. Mercator. In the last edition there is an article by Professor Sadie, one of our most prominent economists, who says the following—

[Interjection.] The hon. member asks why I read this. It is because the Minister says the profit motive is not the main motive, and they appeal to the white men to go in there as an act of charity to help the Bantu. I am quoting this to show what Professor Sadie said of that idea. We agree with Professor Sadie. This will not attract white capital. He says, further—

If you read a little further, you will agree with us in a moment.

I think we should take the advice of Professor Sadie. He answers the point raised by the Minister that we must go there through altruism, as an act of charity, and that the white man must invest his money in the reserves. The Government’s policy will not work. You will not get development that way. Whether the Government is genuine in its attempts to develop the reserves or not, we do not know. If it is in earnest, surely it will admit that by all standards, except the Prime Minister’s, it has failed. More and more Bantu are leaving the reserves every month to look for work. They have to do so, especially in this year of drought. I have quoted from their own forum to prove that they themselves are worried and concerned. We, the Opposition, are just as concerned, and that is why I have moved this amendment, that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee before the Second Reading, in the hope that the Government will accept it as a gesture of our desire to co-operate in this most important project, so that we can get together with experts in the different fields, with financiers, with industrialists and economists and all the other people involved in industrial development, and with the officials themselves. We should all get together in a Select Committee which is not bound by the principles contained in this Bill. Those principles have already been embodied in two other Acts, and they have failed. The very necessity for this Bill is proof of the failure of those other two corporations. We say now is the time for us to get together, because whether the Government’s policy of separate development is applied, or whether our policy of race federation is applied, it is essential and a matter of urgency that the reserves be developed. Unless they are developed they will be a drag on the rest of the economy and on the country. I do hope the Government will take notice of what we on this side have to say on this occasion and not merely brush us aside as they did on previous occasions. I trust they will accept our offer of assistance in this matter.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Transkei moved as an amendment that this Bill should be referred to a select committee. He advanced various arguments in support of his motion, and he elaborated exhaustively, very exhaustively, on this matter. We had to endure his lengthy and verbose speech for an hour, a speech in which I fear very little was said about the actual principles of the Bill itself. One of the arguments the hon. member advanced, was that in respect of these instruments—as the hon. the Minister called them —which are being placed at the disposal of the Trust, the Auditor-General would not have access to the documents and accounts of the companies or corporations. In support of this argument the hon. member dragged in certain assertions and reports that emanated from the Auditor-General in regard to the activities of the Trust over the past year. I think the hon. member did not have much to say; that is why he dragged this matter into the discussion. Surely, as an experienced parliamentarian the hon. member knows that this type of debate should really be conducted when the Vote of the Minister concerned with this particular matter, is brought up for discussion in this House. His arguments have no bearing whatsoever on the principles of this measure.

That must still be submitted to the Select Committee.

The report from which the hon. member quoted, has as yet not even been submitted to the Select Committee. It will be dealt with here in due course, and then there will be ample opportunity for discussing it. Why drag this matter into the discussions here? Since the hon. member really had nothing to say, it would have been better for him to have remained seated instead of bringing up that matter.

I want to point out that the United Party is once again, as of old. blowing hot and cold. The hon. member said that the accounts of the corporations would not be submitted to this House or to the Auditor-General so that they might be inspected. He advanced this fact as a reason why this Bill should be referred to a select committee. I want to point out to the hon. member that the hon. member for Kensington has repeatedly advocated in this House that the I.D.C., Escom and other corporations should maintain closer liaison with the Department of Commerce and Industries. The Government has now introduced this Bill here, a measure which seeks to establish much closer liaison between the Department of Bantu Administration and Development and the corporations dealing with Bantu administration, affairs and matters.

Your trouble is that you did not understand my speech.

Well, I must say that only a genius could ever understand the United Party’s inconsistencies.

The hon. member advanced as a second reason that the United Party’s objection was against the structure of the development which is being envisaged by the corporation, just as the Minister’s objection is also against the structure. May I point out that what the objection against the structure amounts to, is that the United Party regards the Bantu administration and development by the various corporations concerned with these matters, as a part of South Africa as a whole. They actually envisage the integration of everything, of the Bantu administration and development with white development and white administration. They want to see all of it as a unit, and that is why they are objecting to this structure. They really envisage integration, and we know it. The hon. the Minister’s objection against the structure relates to aspects which are quite different from those that side wants to suggest.

Let me pause at the objection against the present structure. In this measure the concept of trusteeship or guardianship receives much more emphasis and is, to a much greater extent, brought into and integrated with the corporations concerned, such as the B.I.C. and the development corporations. Let me point out to hon. members that the Native Trust and Land Act of 1936 laid down the principle that the white state would be the guardian of all the Bantu peoples in South Africa. It is the guardian or trustee through the head of the white state, i.e. the Governor-General at that time and the State President at present. May I point out then that that trusteeship covers every sphere of the Bantu’s life, namely the socio-moral, the political and the economic spheres. I want to quote briefly from the Act to point out the field that was covered by that trusteeship. In that Act it is provided, inter alia, that—

Therefore it covered the entire field of all their interests.

In 1959 we had an Act, the Bantu Investment Corporation Act, in terms of which the economic development of the Bantu peoples in the Bantu homelands were to be developed. This task was entrusted to a corporation which was designed on the lines of other State corporations. It was an autonomous body, independent of the Bantu Trust. The B.I.C.’s basis was that of a utility company and not that of a trusteeship body. In this measure justice is once again done to that trusteeship concept, also in this corporation. In 1959 it was not subordinate to the Trust or the Trustee. It was established to integrate with the wide field that was covered previously by the Trustee but was then taken away from the Trustee and given to a particular corporation. What it amounted to, was that the trust property entrusted to the Trustee was transferred to an autonomous body whose primary object was not that of trusteeship. By means of this measure the trust property is once again placed under trusteeship, since that corporation will no longer be autonomous but subordinate to the Trustee.

In 1965 we had, on the same pattern as the B.I.C., the development corporations, i.e. a separate one for each Bantu homeland. But the trusteeship concept was not embodied again in the Act which established and controlled the development corporation. In this Bill we are once again bringing this concept back under the trusteeship of the Trustee in order that the trusteeship concept may be carried through. Previously neither of those two corporations were co-trustees. They were simply not even partners of the Trustee. They were simply separate from the Trustee, and therefore the Trustee did not have any control and could not use it as an effective instrument. That is why we are pleased about the reintroduction of this trusteeship principle into the structure of the B.I.C. and the Development Corporation. I would have expected the hon. member for Transkei to have been able to elaborate on this much more, but he evaded it. He cannot claim that the United Party is opposed to the trustee concept as far as the trusteeship of the Bantu peoples in South Africa is concerned.

When did I say that?

I said that I would have expected you to have elaborated much more on that, because I do assume that the United Party is still in favour of the idea that the white state should act as the guardian of the non-white peoples and that we may not entrust that trusteeship to autonomous bodies. But I come to the strange argument the hon. member for Transkei used in this regard. He said that this legislation was being introduced because the B.I.C. and the development corporations had failed. Where does he get that from? It is the greatest foolishness I have ever heard. They are not in liquidation yet. [Interjections.] Money is being poured into them because their activities are expanding. The hon. member knows that, and the hon. the Minister furnished figures in that regard. Those corporations are doing very good work. But their structure hampers them in their work. They must continue that work under the supervision and with the assistance of the Trustee. That is all we are seeking to achieve by means of this legislation. This legislation was not introduced because these corporations were unsuccessful. On the contrary, they are operating so well that their continued existence is being ensured by this specific Bill. If they had been unsuccessful, it would not have been written into this Bill that they should continue to exist and that they should continue with their activities. The only difference is that they are no longer going to operate as autonomous bodies, but that they are going to continue their activities in collaboration with the Trustee.

Now I come to a further argument that was advanced by the hon. member for Transkei. He said that he wanted this Bill to be referred to a select committee, because this work could not be carried out by public servants and because they were not the right persons to be entrusted with such an important task. I do not think that one of the members who have been working for the corporations so far, has been a public servant. Is the hon. member so uninformed that he does not know that the people who are working for the Bantu Investment Corporation and the Bantu Development Corporation, are not public servants? In fact, they are businessmen. The father of the hon. member for Standerton was the chairman of the B.I.C. for many years. He was one of the best and most outstanding businessmen we have ever had in South Africa. He built up an empire of his own. He knew everything about particularized initiative and private capital. At no stage in his life was he a public servant. He was the chairman of the B.I.C. That hon. member and the other hon. members opposite ought to know that. None of the officials working for the B.I.C. are public servants. They are all drawn from various spheres of society and work for the B.I.C. Now he objects to the public servants and says that a select committee should be appointed. The same applies to the Development Corporation. But apart from that, the hon. member knows that the 1936 Act was introduced by the United Party. The United Party entrusted all this work to public servants. All of them, without exception, were public servants. At that time this side of the House did not request that this work should not be entrusted to public servants. Why does the United Party not repudiate their own Government which placed this Act on the Statute Book in 1936, or have they perhaps forgotten again? We know that they are changing their policy so rapidly that they themselves cannot keep pace with it.

This measure establishes a connection between the Trust, the B.I.C., the development corporations and those corporations which are being established for specific projects. I am sorry that the hon. member for Transkei did not pause at this point for a moment, i.e. this provision which is now providing for corporations for specific projects. Now for the first time we are given a juridically accurate and also, as far as the National Party is concerned, an ideologically accurate view of the entire principle of how the Bantu in South Africa should develop.

The Minister said that this was the old policy.

Yes, it is the old policy. We do not have a new policy every day. It is a better view of our policy. The hon. member must bear in mind that we had as a basis an old U.P. Act which we had to change and amend all the time so that it might fit in with our policy. The hon. member forgets that we have had to build on the bad foundations laid by the United Party, foundations which we have to change now. The Minister needs means and instruments for developing and promoting the interests of the Bantu nations for whom we are acting as guardians. Let me explain how this Bill makes provision for these things. It envisages one instrument for the white Trustee. That is the B.I.C., the umbrella body. That is its economic instrument for looking after the interests of all the Bantu nations in South Africa. Then a second instrument is being created by means of this legislation. That is the development corporation for each individual Bantu nation. This second instrument should actually be regarded as the instrument of that particular Bantu nation for its own economic development. Once they have developed to that stage where they can look after their own affairs, that particular development corporation of that particular nation will really be its I.D.C., just as the Whites have their I.D.C., which was established to develop them economically. Similarly, in the case of those nations this will also be their own economic instrument. That is why it is so interesting that this particular new measure has been embodied in this legislation in terms of which it is being provided that the activities of the boards of directors of those development corporations may gradually be taken over by Bantu boards of directors. They start as advisory bodies which will be granted powers in the course of time. Later on those advisory bodies will have full status and will be enabled to look after that instrument.

Where does it get such powers in terms of this Bill?

If the hon. member had read this Bill attentively, he would have seen that the State President may from time to time grant certain powers to that advisory board of directors. He may from time to time increase those powers. When he increases the powers of that board of directors, he would of course be decreasing the powers of the white board of directors. Surely that is obvious, because two boards of directors cannot exercise the same power in regard to the same matter. In due course the instrument created by this legislation will become the instrument of that particular nation. That is the way we envisage it and that is the way it will develop. That is what we learnt in regard to Bantu universities. What the National Party introduced, was a very good and a new policy, namely to teach the Bantu gradually, as they develop, to take over their own affairs.

But now this hon. member has a large number of objections to the very things the hon. the Prime Minister said in this House. He said that the Bantu could not develop more rapidly than the Bantu themselves could absorb such development. Apparently the hon. member wants the development in the Bantu areas to take place at a tremendously fast rate. He claims that at the present stage of the development of the Bantu, such rapid development can indeed only take place with the aid of white skill and white capital. The Whites are hundreds of years ahead of the Bantu. If that development has to take place, it would be of absolutely no use to the Bantu, because they would not be able to absorb it. In other words, instead of a Bantu state or a Bantu homeland, a new white homeland would be created in a Bantu homeland. The Transkei would no longer be preserved for the Xhosas but it would be taken over by the Whites i.e. if the policy of the United Party were implemented. We know that this is their policy; they would like to have it that way. They are aiming at integration. We know that. They do not want separate nations in South Africa. They want one coffee-coloured nation in South Africa. Therefore we know what they are aiming at. That is why they are taking such a firm stand on that point.

Mr. Speaker, it is a significant fact that a nation cannot make faster progress than its state of development permits. It is our first task as wards to bring that nation to spiritual maturity before we can bring it to economic maturity. We are not the only people who say that, but we find to-day that there also UN experts who say so. May I point out that this question of the development of backward countries is not peculiar to South Africa only. At the moment there is a congress in India which is deliberating on this specific question. They are faced with the same problem we have, namely that one cannot give the backward countries economic development without developing the masses themselves so that they will be able to cope with such economic development. Otherwise it is of no use to those people. Surely, the hon. member should realize that. There is nothing wrong with it, and I am in favour of it. I believe that none of us can accelerate it. I wish the hon. member would give us the secret formula for making those people capable of absorbing the development at a faster rate, a formula which is different from this method, which is the slow and permanent one that we have to follow. The people have to be developed before economic development can take place.

What did you say last time when you returned from Hammarsdale?

Order!

He was pleased to get away from you.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to point out that the pattern which is being followed in creating these instruments for the Bantu in the economic sphere, is also being applied in other spheres of the life of the Bantu. In order to allow the Bantu to develop in the political sphere, this Government has created separate instruments, such as the national authorities and the tribal authorities, to prepare those people for this development.

In the social sphere, too, we find the same development, in that we have established certain welfare organizations amongst the Bantu so as to allow them to take care of their own social development. Those organizations can only effect social development as the Bantu themselves develop.

In this regard I just want to say that I hope that in establishing towns in the Bantu areas for example—about which the hon. member had so much to say this afternoon—we shall also give consideration to establishing some auxiliary body or other. I want to suggest that we make use of the Resettlement Board to undertake the work in that regard.

Now we come to the concept of agencies as against the concept of private enterprise. The hon. gentlemen are all pleading for private white capital and skill in the Bantu homelands. As opposed to that we are putting forward the concept of agencies. Between these two concepts there is yet another policy, namely that of partnership. I do not know whether the United Party, too, is in favour of the partnership concept, but I do know that this concept was strongly propagated by Dr. Anton Rupert. But I want to point out that that concept will have the same result as that of private white capital. There will simply be a take-over by the superior capital and skill. The weaker capital and skill will be ousted and destroyed and integration will be promoted.

In regard to the agency concept I just want to mention that the underlying principle of this concept is that the work is always being done not in the interests of the agent, but in those of the principal. The principal in this case is the Trustee. The Trustee is the representative of the nation which is under trusteeship. In other words, through the agency work will always be done for the benefit of the nation under trusteeship and never for the benefit of the agent. But when it comes to private enterprise the person concerned enters the field with one idea only, namely to make as much profit as possible. He goes there to expand his business interests to such an extent that he may enrich himself as much as possible in the shortest time possible. That can only lead to one end result, namely economic colonialism and nothing else. This is nothing less than exploitation. The underlying principle of the partnership concept is the fact that the partner—in this case the less skilful and moneyed person, the Bantu—will be ousted, and that, despite the fact that they are working for their common benefit, the person who has the most capital and the greatest skill, will derive the biggest profits and benefit from it. Then only one kind of pattern of development remains, namely the agency concept, where that development must always take place for the benefit of the nation under trusteeship and never for the benefit of the agent. The agent is, of course, paid for what he does. He receives his remuneration. But he is remunerated for services he performs, and that is the underlying idea with which we are dealing here. He must perform the service there, but it is always to the advantage of the person under trusteeship, the nation under trusteeship.

The hon. member quoted in this regard from what Dr. Adendorff had said. The impression I gained—and I was present at that congress—was that that was not what he had said. He expressed all sorts of stimulating ideas, but nowhere in his speech did he say that the private enterprise and skill of the Whites should be utilized so as to allow the development to take place there. Nowhere in that speech will you find that, Sir. He was holding forth on the rate of development which was supposedly not fast enough for the problems in store for South Africa. That is something we all know; it is the problem with which we are faced. We know that there are tremendous problems, and for us as Whites the rate is too slow. But we simply cannot help it, because we must also be realists. We must also accept it as a fact that the nations we are dealing with, develop slowly. We cannot accelerate their development. We are causing it to be as fast as possible. That is a problem we are faced with. We all know that. Mr. Speaker, we would have been pleased if the United Party had told us what their practical solution in this regard would be. But they did not say anything about that. They did not give us one jot or tittle of their plan. No, the hon. member wants a select committee to be appointed, yet another committee on a matter to which they are objecting. They want us to work out a policy for them on that committee, because they do not have one. We have a policy, and we intend to go on with it. Why do they want a select committee to be appointed in that regard? Here is the answer: We have a policy and we do not need a select committee, but the Opposition does not have a policy and that is why they need a select committee.

Sir, I am not prepared to cover more than one or two of the points dealt with by the hon. member who has just sat down. First and foremost I would like to refer to the statement which he made some ten minutes ago when he fell back on that barren argument which is used by hon. members opposite so often when they are dealing with non-European affairs, namely that we on this side of the House are opposed to it and that we do not appreciate what the Government is doing because we stand for integration as far as the non-European peoples are concerned. Sir, may I suggest that that has nothing whatever to do with this Bill, and in any case the hon. member knows that that is not correct. He knows perfectly well that it is not true. That is just a sort of gimmick; it is a cliohé which hon. members opposite use when they have nothing else to say. It is not true and the hon. member knows that it is not true.

Order! The hon. member is now accusing the hon. member of telling a lie.

I say that the hon. member knows that that is not true. Our attitude is perfectly clear from our documents and from statements which have been made over and over again in this House, and if the hon. member makes a statement like that, in conflict with what we have said in this House, then he is accusing us of saying something that is not true. That is the position. The hon. member is saying that we are guilty of telling lies when we say that that is our policy.

Order! The hon. member can refute those arguments, but he cannot say that the hon. member knows that what he is saying is not true.

Sir, that is not our policy. We have repudiated that statement here repeatedly. The hon. member knows that we have repudiated it.

The hon. member is quite entitled to do that, but he is not entitled to say that the hon. member knows that he is telling an untruth.

I did not say that he was telling an untruth, with respect, Sir. I said that we had often repudiated that statement. The hon. member knows that we have done so, but he uses this now as a gimmick when he has nothing else to say. He simply says in a general way, “Hon. members on the other side stand for integration.”

The hon. member said that the hon. member for Heilbron knew that what he was saying was not true.

He knows that we do not stand for integration. I repeat it. He can’t deny it. He knows that we do not stand for integration. We have said so in this House repeatedly.

You may have said so but you still stand for integration.

Order!

You see, Sir, what we have to deal with. I want to deal with one or two points made by the hon. member.

Sir, on a point of order, did I understand your ruling correctly? The hon. member accused the hon. member for Heilbron of having fold an untruth, and he went on to say that the hon. member knew that what he was saying was untrue.

Order! I drew the hon. member’s attention to the fact that he had said that the hon. member for Heilbron knew that what he was saying was not true. He is entitled to say that the statement made by the hon. member is not true, but he is not entitled to say that the hon. member knew that it was not true.

Sir, he said that it was our policy.

The hon. member can refute that, but he may not say that the hon. member knew that that statement was not true.

With submission, then, Sir, I say that it is not true. We have repeatedly denied it in this House and in our documents. I hope we will hear no more of this from any hon. member on that side of the House, because if they do then they will be repeating something which they know is not true.

Order! The hon. member must only withdraw the statement that the hon. member for Heilbron “knew”, that what he was saying was not true.

I withdraw that.

On a point of order, Sir, the hon. member for Heilbron interjected, “You may say these things, but you still stand for integration”, implying that the hon. member for South Coast is lying.

I say that you stand for integration.

He is implying that the hon. member is lying.

No, that is a question of opinion.

With great respect, Sir, the hon. member for South Coast has again said that he does not stand for integration. The hon. member for Heilbron now says, “You may say that you do not stand for integration, but I say you do stand for it.” [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Sir, we know what we know and we think what we think. I say that to the hon. the Deputy Minister and any hon. member who has made that remark.

I say that you stand for integration.

When the hon. the Deputy Minister was on this side of the House he stood for integration; that was one of the reasons why we kicked him out.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague the hon. member for Transkei was attacked by the hon. member for Heilbron. Amongst other things he said that the hon. member had not dealt with the principles of this Bill. Of course he did and, if I may say so, he did so in a very capable manner indeed. He went on and’ showed he was against the principle of the Bill? and in what respect. The hon. member for Heilbron said that we had changed our policy since the first Bill came before Parliament, that is to say, the Bill dealing with the setting up of the Investment Corporation.

No, the 1936 Act was the first one.

Sir, the Investment Corporation was the root of the whole thing in 1959. May I read out to the hon. member what our amendment was at the third reading? The hon. member for Constantia moved the following amendment—

Sir, that Bill is being re-enacted, and the hon. member for Transkei went to great lengths to show how right we were in moving that amendment in 1959. He dealt at some length, very adequately and properly, with the comments of the Controller and Auditor General. I would have thought that at that point the hon. the Minister would have got up and asked for a select committee to inquire into the report of the Controller and Auditor-General in regard to the expenditure of the moneys of the Bantu Trust. As my hon. friend pointed out, the funds of the Bantu Trust are subject to the control of the Controller and Auditor-General, but these funds that we are dealing with here and the funds of the Investment Corporation set up in 1959 are not audited by the Controller and Auditor-General; that is the point. If there was an inquiry at the present time into the activities of that corporation since it was first established, what will we find? Who knows? Here, Sir, one of the basic principles of Parliament is being violated, the principle that we shall not vote money until we are satisfied as to the purposes and the method of control. This principle goes right back to the days of William Pitt the younger and all parliamentary control of finance is based on the principle that there must be an annual report back to Parliament as to the way in which the money voted by Parliament was spent. We in Parliament cannot sit as auditors. We set up an instrument for that purpose; we set up an official, the Controller and Auditor-General, with staff under him, to do this work and to report back to us. Here we have the Auditor-General’s report, which discloses a shocking state of affairs in regard to the moneys of the Bantu Trust. When my hon. friend says that the officials in the Department of Bantu Administration who are attached to the Bantu Trust are not the appropriate people to deal with organizations of the kind contemplated in this Bill, it is no good the hon. member for Heilbron coming along and saying that these people are very capable and so on and so forth. Sir, I think that an inquiry might be held to good purpose one day to find out what we are asking the officials of the Department of Bantu Administration to undertake to-day. I wonder whether we realize what burden we are placing upon their shoulders. Every single conceivable law that we pass nowadays seems to have some kind of aspect which is applicable, somewhere or other, to the Bantu people, placing a further burden on the officials of that Department. Sir, these officials are not people who are qualified to set up organizations of this kind. It is not their job; it is not their business. What does Dr. Adendorff say? He points out the weaknesses, the ineffectiveness and the inefficiency of this organization. He points out that it cannot possibly hope to succeed. He points out, for example, that over the next 15 years employment has to be found for 39,000 Bantu per annum in the reserves. Sir, it makes the mind reel when you read the report of Dr. Adendorff, the man who is in charge of the Corporation at the present time, and when you think of the proposals we have in front of us. How can the officials possibly cope with a problem like that? It is quite impossible. It is no good the Department turning round to its officials in the Department of Bantu Administration and saying to them, “You have to make this thing work; you are the officials, you must see that this thing is effective and efficient”. I wonder, Sir, how much some of the members of the Bantu Affairs Commission are doing with a view to making some of these things work? I wonder whether they are getting stuck in and carrying their share of the burden or whether they are leaving it all to the officials?

Sir, I want to deal with one point which the hon. member raised in connection with the auditing of the accounts. He made play of the fact that none of these corporations had gone insolvent.

He has run away now.

Mr. Speaker, this is really not according to parliamentary etiquette for the hon. member to pull out like this, especially when I asked him to stay here. He was the last member on that side to speak. Why did he not stay here and take his medicine?

He cannot take it.

Yes, he cannot take it. He knows what a bad speech he has made. He knows that he cannot stand up to criticism; he knows perfectly well that he has not got a leg to stand on; so he runs away.

He has crawled back into his cave.

The hon. member said in effect that these corporations were financially sound and able to pay their way; that they were effective and efficient instruments for the purpose for which they were created, because they have not gone insolvent. I would like to point out to the hon. member, if he can grasp it, that they have the South African taxpayer behind them. I am quite sure that there are other businesses which are operated by, shall I say, hon. members opposite, that would also be in a very flourishing condition if they had the South African taxpayer behind them. What private business would not be if it had the taxpayers behind it? Here is the Government sitting with the whole control of the finances of South Africa behind it, with an open purse, to be fed into the organization which has been in existence since 1959, and the hon. member has the effrontery to come here and say that that body has not gone insolvent and therefore it is economically sound and efficient.

That shows how much he knows about business.

Sir, does he not link with that the necessity of having the accounts of that organization investigated by the Controller and Auditor-General?

That brings me to the Bill that we have before us where the Government is at pains to see that the Banking Act shall not apply, that the Bantu Land Act and the Bantu Trust and Land Act shall not apply and, unless the State President decrees otherwise, that the Companies Act shall not apply and, on top of it, the Controller and Auditor-General shall not come into the picture. Sir, what kind of edifice is this that is being built up here? Who conceived this kind of edifice? I can hardly believe that this Minister created it. It must have come from one of the Deputy Ministers or from members of the Bantu Affairs Commission.

Don’t you know the existing Acts?

Yes, I do—only too well. Why does the hon. the Minister not get up and call for an inquiry into the finances of this Corporation to show how it has been running over the last nine years?

And then?

Let the Minister then lay the report on the Table of the House and face us and say: “And then?” Let me ask the hon. the Minister through you, Sir, why he does not have the accounts audited by the Controller and Auditor-General?

I shall answer you at the correct time.

It is all very well for the Minister to say “And then?” We want a full parliamentary inquiry into the expenditure of this public money, with the Controller and Auditor-General’s Report before us in regard to the funds of the Bantu Trust and the whole matter thrashed out here properly according to parliamentary procedure. Until that time comes there will be a shadow lying over the whole of the funds administered by these various bodies.

We on this side of the House have certainly considered this matter of the development of the Bantu homelands very carefully, and I want to suggest that the time has come when we as a Parliament, with recognition from both sides of the House. should accept that we have to give title to the land to the Bantu people in the rural areas as well as in the urban areas. They have it in the urban areas and they should get it in the rural areas. The basic principle in a capitalistic society is the accumulation of capital based on the security of land and we cannot expect the Bantu to accumulate capital and to go ahead according to the normal rules and principles of a capitalistic society if we are going to create an entirely hot-house plant by artificial means such as will be created in terms of this legislation and the legislation passed in 1959. In fact, the past legislation has now proved to us how right we were and how wrong it is to think that there can be any permanent improvement along the lines of that legislation. If these corporations were to be entirely successful, there is nothing here which provides for the transition from control by the Whites on these boards over to the Bantu. There is no such thing. Here is the socialist concept of the communal ownership of land, the communal ownership of the basic rights to property, which in a capitalist society forms the basis for the accumulation of capital, and that socialist concept the Government is trying to graft on to a capitalistic society and the capitalist regime here in South Africa. It is basic and we must not run away from this difficulty because we know it is a difficulty. If the Government says to us: We recognize the difficulty here, but we are prepared to face it and we would like to make this a non-party measure and deal with it on the basis of what is good for South Africa, and the Bantu must be given the opportunity to develop their own reserves, then we will help as far as possible because we want to see those areas developed. [Interjection.] I repeat that the time has come, and the Minister should recognize it, that this kind of socialist concept cannot be grafted on to a capitalist society any longer. This is pure socialism and it will not work. The Minister can pour in millions and he can create his corporations and they can go forward with their operations, but where will it lead him? Because where did we start? The starting point has got to be that the Bantu must get ownership of land in the rural areas so that they can accumulate capital.

Is that traditional for the Bantu?

The Minister asks whether it is traditional for the Bantu. No, it is not, but neither are corporations traditional to the Bantu, especially when every member of the board is a white man. The formation of towns for the Bantu to live in, except at the chiefs’ kraals, which were not towns in that sense at all but camps for the military, is not traditional either, but the Bantu have to learn to live under urban conditions, in towns. The hon. member for Heilbron, who is still running away, made that point, and I think the hon. the Minister in his speech also mentioned it, and it has been mentioned by hon. members opposite, namely that they must learn to live in towns. I go further and say you cannot get your labour for factories and industries unless you have an urban population. You cannot get a permanent, trained labour force for industry by keeping them under rural conditions as peasant farmers. You cannot get a trained supply of labour under those circumstances. So the first point is that we must give individual ownership of land to the Bantu in the reserves to give them a chance to create capital. The Bantu must learn to live in towns and they must be given home ownership in those towns. Then you have the labour force available if you are going to establish factories. But you cannot just establish factories and businesses of all kinds under the conditions prevailing, particularly in the Transkei and elsewhere at present, where conditions are such that it is purely a rural population which is partly pastoral and partly dependent on agriculture. The Bantu were originally a pastoral people, not an agricultural people. They are moving away from being a pastoral people and are now becoming an agricultural people. But we are hurrying them forward because of our civilization, but we have to hurry them along the lines of, well-defined principles in a capitalist society. To do otherwise will be fatal. It will be fatal to the Bantu and will lead to trouble with them, the same as it will lead to a clash of interests between the Bantu and the white people.

I would ask the hon. the Minister to pause and think for a moment. If his corporations are successful in this sense that they can be established, what is the dividing line and what will prevent a clash between the interests of all these industries which are being established now as border industries, on the borders of the Reserves, looking to the reserves for the labour which has to make their wheels go round, to make them economically viable, when the corporations are establishing their industries and factories inside the Reserves? What is to prevent them from clashing with one another? These industries in the Reserves will be free of the provisions of the Companies’ Act, the Banking Act, control by the Auditor-General, the Bantu Land Act, etc. They will be free of all controls which apply to the border industries which the Government as a matter of deliberate policy is establishing right against the borders of the reserves. The Government is establishing all these industries there, all subject to these laws I have mentioned and other restrictions, and at the same time the Government is now taking power, with countless millions of money, to establish competition just on the other side of the border, in the form of industries which will not be subject to these restrictions or controls. How is it humanly possible in this cut-throat world in which we live to expect that those two sets of industries and undertakings will be able to co-exist without clashing with one another? Unless we get down to the application of a common bedrock principle in the form of one economy and one economic law for the whole of South Africa, I cannot see how this will succeed. The hon. the Minister smiles. I see he does not understand.

You still say you are not in favour of economic integration?

The Deputy Minister no more understands what I am talking about than he did nearly four years ago when he said we did not want one economic law in South Africa; it would be better if we had six or seven because they would be in competition with one another. But now he says that because I say there should be one economic law for South Africa, I am in favour of integration. What nonsense! He does not understand. He should go back to school again. We all contribute to our economic pool in South Africa—everybody, with our labour, our money and our brains. The resources of South Africa come from one economic pool, and to the extent that the Government deliberately builds up a completely artificial structure for the Bantu in their homelands in the belief that they are doing something worthwhile in the field of economics or commerce or industry, which is in fact bolstered up artificially the whole time, they will let down the Bantu. Sir, the Bantu are carrying on and they are opening up their own businesses to-day in the areas where they have certain rights, like home ownership. There are Bantu who find that they can compete, and in the end they will have to do it. This is not something which is protecting the white man. The Indians and the Coloured people are subject to the same economic laws as the white man at present. They either compete or they go under. There is nothing special to help them. Until we are prepared to accept that as far as the Bantu are concerned, giving them the aid that is necessary as we get it through the Industrial Development Corporation, but on the same basis, this will not be successful; and the rockbottom basis is that they should have the right to own their own land in order to build up their own capital. Without that start, and without getting them to live in towns, the whole of this is a completely false façade which is being built up and it has no substance; it rests on shifting ground; it is uneconomic and there is no basis whatever on which it can stand, and it must collapse.

The hon. member for South Coast made a great fuss this afternoon in regard to the fact that the United Party does not stand for integration. We are very grateful to learn that, but I want to say at once to the hon. member for South Coast that they will have to prove it to us, for it was not so long ago that the hon. member for Yeoville was still saying “You cannot unscramble an egg”. I happen to have here in my hand a statement in regard to the matter which is now under discussion and which I want to quote from Hansard (column 26, 1956)—

That was said by the Leader of the United Party, Mr. Strauss, in 1956, but now they are making a great fuss about integration. That is why we say they must prove it to us and we will then be very grateful.

I do not have the time to go into all the points raised by the hon. member for South Coast. I only want to touch on one or two. I just want to point out that if they are no longer in favour of integration, then they have changed their policy and they must admit it. Just look for example at the speech Mr. Strauss made at Worcester. They have done one of these two things now, they are either in favour of integration, or they have changed their policy, and the hon. member need not make so great a fuss about it. We should like to see what the United Party does in this regard.

In the second place, the hon. member for South Coast, and the hon. member for Transkei as well, were very indignant about the spending of funds by the Bantu Trust. The hon. member for South Coast went so far as to say that he wanted “a full parliamentary inquiry” in this regard. But surely the position is very clear. Particulars of those funds, and the spending of those funds, are submitted to the Auditor-General, and are then submitted to the Select Committee of this Parliament. The hon. the Deputy Minister was quite right in pointing out a moment ago that these had not yet been submitted to the Select Committee on Public Accounts—and I know, because I am myself a member. Then the Select Committee, as a responsible committee, will investigate the matter, and it will report back to this House in order to indicate what the circumstances are, and if steps are necessary, the necessary steps will be taken. Why make such a fuss therefore about such a small debating point in regard to this matter? The procedure is there and that old parliamentary procedure will be followed and justice will be done in respect of the taxpayer’s money in this case as in any other case, and the National Party Government will see to it that this happens.

But in the third place I want to point out that the hon. member for South Coast said the following: “Let us make this a non-party issue”. That sounds fine and one would like to make a “non-party issue” of this, but the first requirement for that, to my mind, should be that the United Party should simply tell us what their policy in this regard is. After all, we cannot make a “non-party issue” of a matter if we do not know where the United Party stands, since the United Party has changed front so many times in regard to this matter of the development of the Bantu homelands.

The individual ownership of land should be a non-party issue.

Well, we can discuss that. Hon. members who have so much to say about the unrestricted admission of white skills and white capital forget that in 1932, when the present Opposition was in power, a “Native Affairs Economic Commission” was appointed. That Commission came to light with a bulky report on Bantu homelands. And do you know what the essence of this Commission’s finding was? It was “Unless soon remedied, desert conditions will prevail”. They were referring here to the Transkei. Why did the United Party not allow the unrestricted flow of white capital and white skill in order to alleviate those “desert conditions”? After 1932 they still had 15 years’ time in which to do something. But they simply gave up; they, as the voters reproached them with time and again, let things take their own course. Therefore, before we make a “nonparty issue” of this matter, we must have clarity and certainty in regard to these things.

Up to now in this debate we have not had this.

So far in this debate there are only three major points which have been made by the United Party side in regard to this matter. In the first place, the hon. member for Transkei alleged that the Government was not going far enough with the development of the Bantu homelands. If that is their opinion, they must tell us how far they think the Government ought to go in regard to this matter. They must also tell us how far the United Party will be prepared to go if they should come to power. But if that is the basis of their argument, i.e. that we are not going far enough, then the United Party must explain to us why they do not support us as far as we do in fact want to go. Here we have a very important and difficult problem. At this point I want to interrupt myself to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his Department on this Bill, a Bill which I regard as model legislation as regards content as well as form. I think they deserve our praise for this legislation.

The United Party maintains we have changed our policy. Because I want to deal with other points, I do not want to go into this assertion too far except to quote to the House what Dr. Verwoerd stated in this House on 23rd January, 1962, in regard to the same matter. I am doing so in the hope of dealing effectively with this story that we have allegedly changed our policy. Nothing is further from the truth, and nothing will bring us further from a solution for a very thorny ethnic and national problem than this kind of assertion which the United Party is at present throwing at us. In any case, Dr. Verwoerd said that “white money and white initiative can be channelized” through these corporations, i.e. the Bantu Development Corporation and the Bantu Investment Corporation. This blunder on the part of the United Party to try and make the country believe that the Government is against white capital and white skill must come to a rapid end, because nothing is further from the truth than such an assertion. Dr. Verwoerd also said—

This is what he said in this House in 1962. He repeated the words “white” four, five, even six times for the benefit of hon. members.

He stated further—

It will be a development corporation for the benefit of the Bantu and as the latter learns to play his full role at the various levels of development, he will be given the opportunity to take over these undertakings. The economic potential within his own area rightfully belongs to him and to nobody else.

Now just one last quotation of what Dr. Verwoerd said in order to make it very clear, and I quote—

He then went on to refer to the conditions, that there should be no profit motive, etc. He also spoke about mining development in the Bantu homelands, and stated that white capital and private initiative was already being used in order to help with that mining development. I want to repeat my challenge again in order to deal effectively with this story, because it is bedevilling a difficult matter in South Africa.

But surely you are now contradicting the hon. member for Heilbron.

I am coming to that. I am not contradicting anybody on this side of the House. I want to issue this challenge to the United Party again: Mention one instance where white capital and white skill were anxious to assist in allowing this development to take place, on the Government’s conditions, and where this was refused? Just mention one instance. The hon. the Minister issued this challenge to the United Party last year, and up to now they have not mentioned one instance. I am asking them to mention one instance, but they cannot do so. I therefore ask hon. members on the opposite side not to be so irresponsible.

Let us look at this matter very soberly now. There are points of agreement between us on this side and the United Party in regard to this matter, a matter which I maintain is a very thorny and important one. We agree on certain points regarding the development of Bantu homelands. Let us see what they are. We agree that Bantu homelands have to be developed. Let me state with great emphasis that the proper exploitation and development of the Bantu areas on a crash basis is a matter of absolute priority for us on this side. Let me add, it is in the interests and for the welfare of all in this House that this should be a matter of priority. The rapid development of these Bantu homelands for all who love South Africa, must be regarded as a task for the people and not merely as a task for the Government. I am now making that appeal to the United Party. We are dealing here with a national task in which the future of every white man, woman and child, every Bantu man, woman and child, and all the other colour groups in South Africa are seriously at stake. That is why I say we must be careful in this regard. We agree that the areas must be developed as rapidly as possible. If we are agreed on this, on what do we differ? There is in fact a difference. We differ in regard to the methods, in regard to how the Bantu homelands should be developed. But I can tell you now that as regards the methods of development there are differences within the United Party itself. If I remember correctly, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout advocated in this House a few weeks ago the uncontrolled development of the Bantu homelands by white capital and white skill.

That is not true.

This afternoon we heard how the hon. member for Transkei said—and he said it very clearly—and in this respect we have made some progress now …

Just read my speech in Hansard.

… the hon. member for Transkei stated emphatically this afternoon that there should be some form of control over that white capital and skill. We are grateful to him for that, because we have now made progress in regard to this matter.

But we have always said so.

No, you have not always said so. Now I want to put a few important questions to the United Party to see whether we cannot reach greater clarity in regard to this matter. I agree with the hon. member for South Coast when he said that this matter of the development of the homelands is of great importance to all of us. That side, however, must face up to a few matters now. I do not want to try and make political capital out of my questions now. I am asking these questions seriously. That side now maintains that they are in favour of white capital and white skill on a controlled basis. If the United Party were to come into power, would they allow the undertakings built up by white capital and skill to pass into Bantu hands? I should very much like to know.

Yes.

The hon. member for Transkei says “yes”. What does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout say? Will it pass into Bantu hands?

That is the whole purpose thereof. Do not ask such a foolish question.

Then I want to point to two things now. In the first place, they have once again changed their policy. That was not Strauss’ policy, and it was not the original policy of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition either. Well, we have made a great deal of progress now and we have really obtained a final reply from the United Party. Provided they do not change their policy to-morrow or the next day, it means that if they should come to power, the undertakings would pass into Bantu hands. [Interjections.]

You are now stealing our policy.

As the hon. the Minister and the hon. member are quite rightly saying, that side is now stealing our policy. But we do not mind their stealing our policy as long as we make some progress in regard to this matter. That side must now reply to a second question, which is the following. How is the United Party going to ensure that the undertakings built up by white capital and skill do in fact pass into Bantu hands, in other words, what forms of control are the United Party suggesting? That is the problem with which we are struggling. I hope that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or another hon. member on the opposite side will during this debate progress so far as to explain to us, since they are now admitting that they will allow the undertaking to pass into Bantu hands, what form of control they will apply in order to ensure that it does in fact pass into Bantu hands. Because if they cannot give us this information, their conduct in regard to this entire matter, which I emphasize again, is of great importance, has been extremely futile.

Since we have now made this progress, I want to point out that we are dealing here with a matter in respect of which this side of the House states emphatically that white capital and skill will in fact be harnessed by us, as ward-entrepreneurs, in order to bring about the most rapid possible development of these Bantu homelands.

On an agency basis.

Wait a minute. I am asking the hon. member for Hillbrow in order to see whether we can make even further progress. We say this development must take place in a certain way, and that is what we differ about. We on this side of the House maintain that the development must take place on a so-called agency basis. There are good reasons why we say that. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. member on the opposite side who has such a lot to say now, that his eloquence is solely attributable to the fact that he finds that he has now been driven into a corner. Let us consider what the position is.

We on this side maintain that the development should take place on an agency basis, and we have reasons for saying that. If there is one thing for which this side of the House is deserving of the nation’s praise, and the Opposition’s as well, then it is for the sensible way in which they have dealt with this entire question, a question in regard to which the United Party gave up a long time ago, as I indicated just now, and is still doing, unless they are now going to give this matter further thought. The sensible conduct of the Government lies therein that they are protecting the Bantu against exploitation. In this way the Government has, over the past 15 years, prevented South Africa from being labelled as a neo-colonialistic and exploitionistic state. I want to go so far this afternoon as to invite hon. members to ask people in our neighbouring states in Africa what they think of this matter. I believe there was little, if any, conduct on the part of the National Party Government which contributed more to the friendly relations which have been built up with our neighbouring states than this resolute attitude which the Government adopted, i.e. to refuse to develop the Bantu homelands in a neo-colonialistic manner. We do not want to allow the Bantu there to be exploited because we know that, if one is going to give free play to white capital and skill, the Bantu are going to suffer, and will, if one should in addition adopt the attitude that it should be possible for Whites to purchase land there, they will be exploited to such an extent that all future friendly relations will simply go by the board. We refused to do that.

Are you a socialist?

No, it has nothing to do with socialism. I am not a socialist. This is a question of the sound basis on which an underdeveloped country must be developed. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that we should not discuss this matter back and forth in such a flippant way here. We are dealing here with a real problem and the real problem in regard to the Bantu homelands is the following: Even if one had all the capital and skill in the world, surely the hon. members for Transkei and Hillbrow are aware that that will not necessarily assure the development of those homelands because one has to deal with the problem Dr. Eisselen—it was my privilege to have been a research officer for five years on his personal staff—always mentioned when discussing these matters: Our major problem is making progressive people of the Bantu. That is our problem. It is not in South Africa where the problem in regard to development is one of this nature. No less a person than the authority Colin Clarke states in his brilliant work “Growthmanship”, which was written for the International Economic Association in 1961 and which met with a response throughout the world, that: “The principal factors in the economic growth of underdeveloped countries are not physical but human.” If one makes all that capital and skill available to them we will develop past the Bantu and this will lead to exploitation. And then, I want to tell the hon. member for South Coast, there is integration. This is what we suspect the United Party wants. That is why we say: Come out of your shells and tell us what your policy is.

[Inaudible.]

Then there is integration towards the white side, and towards the side of the Bantu homelands, that is to say, double integration. That is what Advocate Strauss advocated, and we are not certain whether the United Party is not perhaps still advocating it. This human factor is being increasingly emphasized by the economists in South Africa. I am referring to Professor Stadier, professor in economics at the University of South Africa, and Professor Lombard. I can refer you to numerous other professors, such as Professor Rautenbach and others, who are coming to realize more and more that one can do just what one likes, but if this problem of the human factor in regard to the Bantu is not overcome, it will be of no avail no matter bow much money, from whatever source, is drawn. Mr. Speaker did the U.S.A. not experience this in Africa? I read a brilliant article the other day in which one of America’s outstanding economists stated: “What we have learnt in Africa was a very simple lesson.” But the United Party in South Africa has not yet learnt it. Do you know what that lesson is? He stated that what they have learnt was that in the U.S.A. they could erect a factory within 12 months but that to erect that same factory in Africa, and this is what he says not I, would take them from 12 to 18 years. They have all the capital they need. Why, he asked? The reply is extremely simple. In America they have entrepreneurs, the know-how, etc., but in Africa the Bantu have to be trained to become those entrepreneurs. [Interjections.] Now the United Party are laughing at this. With their laughter they are proving once again that it is difficult for us to believe that they are not advocating integration. If we were to do what the United Party wants us to do, namely to release white capital and skill in the Bantu homelands, give me a reply now to this simple question: Does the United Party, and specifically the hon. members for Transkei and South Coast and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition think that if what this American was talking about was done, and one was then to obtain further development in the Bantu homelands in that way, one could prevent those Bantu homelands from becoming totally integrated and the Bantu from being totally exploited? And if they think it could be prevented, let die hon. member for Bezuidenhout, when he makes his speech …

May I ask the hon. member a question? I should like to ask the hon. member what the position would be if those areas were independent. Would they not simply do the same as Lesotho is doing?

Mr. Speaker, I should like very much to reply to that. I am very grateful to the hon. member, because it is a point I wanted to come to. [Laughter.] There is nothing to laugh about. I am discussing this matter in a serious vein. The hon. member for Hillbrow must listen carefully now. I am saying nothing new. I quote what Dr. Verwoerd stated repeatedly in the 1962 debate, and repeatedly thereafter, and also in public, i.e. that when these homelands have reached the development stage, they will have full control over their own affairs, those Bantu homelands are entitled to invite private firms, private capital and white skill, as is at present the case in Lesotho and Swaziland. It will not be possible for us to place any obstacles in the way of that development. But that brings me to this very point, and that is why I am glad the hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked me that question: Who must accept the responsibility for that? Surely it is not the Transkei in this stage before they have obtained full independence. We, this Government, have to do it. It is this very point of ours which it seems to me they cannot understand. If we assume the responsibility now and allow White private capital and initiative in there, and it should lead to exploitation—and it will lead to that as surely as two times two is four, even with good control—those Bantu will say, if difficulties should crop up, as they are saying to America in Africa and other countries: You were the exploiters! In this way they kicked the Whites out of Africa, because they had the economic interests there. That is why our standpoint is quite simple. We say: Where we must now accept the responsibility, we are prepared to do so, but only over our dead bodies will we allow White capital and skill to exploit the Bantu, because that will also contain the seeds of death for White survival in South Africa, whether it be in two generations, 20 or 200. That we will not do. We will never ever do it. When the hon. member for South Coast talks about “non-party lines” now along which we should discuss this matter, let him understand thoroughly where we stand. But when the Bantu themselves have reached that stage of development where they have full autonomy in regard to their own affairs, it is another matter. Then they accept the responsibility and they are responsible to themselves alone and to nobody else on this earth. I hope that we have made progress as far as this matter is concerned.

I am discussing the human factor now, because it seems to me the United Party does not understand it. The human factor is a difficult one. Let me tell you that there was a time when this Government held unwaveringly to this standpoint and maintained it under great pressure from its own economists in South Africa. In the future the Bantu and the White of this country will still be eternally grateful to this Government for that resolute attitude it adopted, for it withstood the pressure both from within and without and did not allow free play in a matter where people wanted to have free play. Now, as regards the human factor, it is being accepted to-day that the economic-dynamic type of human being must possess four qualities. These are four quite simple qualities. Now we say: Come and help us so that we can cope with this problem, and do not indulge in cheap politicking in regard to this matter. The characteristics of the dynamic, economic type of human being are the following: Industry, thrift, reliability and honesty, and a rational philosophy of life. Which simply amounts to this that man should derive the maximum from his environment, in other words, display the initiative to derive the maximum from that environment. I speak with appreciation of our Bantu. I have made a study of them. I speak only with appreciation of the Bantu, because we want to help the Bantu. But against the background of these economic-dynamic qualities of character needed by man, surely it is clear that a major task still awaits us all in this country before this problem can be satisfactorily solved. That is why I want to make an appeal in this debate to the United Party not to act irresponsibly in regard to this matter. I do not want to level any accusations, but they are acting irresponsibly. And I want to refer specifically now to our major English-speaking industrialists who have to a great extent in the past felt themselves at home with the United Party. I want to say that the future of our children depend upon this, and I want the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to know this. I as a young man am stating this unequivocably here this afternoon, because it is so, that they must not fell our economists in South Africa what the United Party is doing in regard to border industry development. They must also cease from sowing so much suspicion in regard to the economic development of the Bantu homelands and the border areas development amongst our people and particularly the English-speaking industrialists. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, it is very significant that the hon. member for Primrose, who has just sat down, obviously did not collaborate with his colleague the hon. member for Heilbron because they contradicted one another. It is quite clear that they did not do their homework together. They must sort out the differences between their two points of view. In the course of his remarks the hon. member for Primrose referred to the tremendous interest which he had had in the Bantu people over the years and what should be done to train them better in industry. I want to know why he has not been using his influence over the last 20 years to see that there was adequate technical training in the Bantu areas. There is no technical training whatsoever in a single Bantu area in South Africa. How does he then expect industrial efficiency to improve?

You are talking absolute nonsense.

I hope that the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration will tell us when he speaks where the training institutions for the Bantu in the Bantu areas are and how many people they are training annually. He must tell us before he tells us that we are talking nonsense. He must prove to us that there are training institutions and that they are training Bantu. He must also tell us how many are being trained.

You do not even know of the one nearest your hometown.

I am not dealing with schools or colleges; I am dealing with technical training institutions for industry. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, when the hon. the Minister and Deputy Minister have finished having a conversation, or when the Deputy Minister participates in this debate later on, I hope he will give us an answer to the question how many Bantu are receiving technical training to substantiate what the hon. member for Primrose has said.

I want to say that this Bill is part of a pattern of legislation which has as its objective the concentration of the Bantu in the homelands. The pattern up to now on the part of the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration has been to stop the flow of Bantu into the cities. He is concerned with influx control. His colleague the hon. the Minister of Planning introduced the Planning Bill to ensure that there would be no expansion of industry in the urban areas, except with his consent, to ensure that as far as possible the Bantu return to the homelands. But now in terms of this Bill the Minister is hoping to establish sufficient attraction to bring the Bantu back to the homelands so that the Bantu in the homelands can develop and invest in industry and set up an economy which we hope—and we have not had an answer to this yet—will not damage the economy of South Africa. At best economic development is an intricate process and requires careful planning, taking into account all the various aspects of economic development, such as the development of capital, land, labour and management. We now find the Minister and other hon. members talking glibly of management. It is only in recent years that our major universities have introduced special courses in management techniques. We are entitled to ask the Minister whether the best advice is available in connection with his Bantu Investment Corporations. The whole object of our motion that this matter be referred to a Select Committee is to give us the opportunity of not only questioning the members of the public who wish to give evidence but we hope that organized commerce and industry will also come forward to state their point of view. We hope that the officials who have had experience in the Bantu homelands will state their point of view as well as members of the Bantu Affairs Commission. We have had some doubts up to now as to whether this Bantu Investment Corporation could adequately carry out its functions in the light of the information we have had up to now. The Bantu Trust has powers to hand over money to the Bantu Investment Corporation. According to the last report of the Auditor-General, the Bantu Trust has not managed affairs too well. Incidentally, I should like to congratulate the Controller and Auditor-General on his report. I hope that the present Controller and Auditor-General will be as conscientious as his predecessor. The Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration must pay attention to the following extract from the report of the Controller and Auditor-General, 1966’67:

1. (a) Planning—
   1. (i) Large quantities of building material and other stores, including components for prefabricated houses, sewerage and stormwater pipes and fencing material, which represent capital expenditure on hundreds of thousands of rand were found which had been unused for periods of up to three and a half years.

That is the kind of administration for which this Minister is responsible. These remarks apply to, amongst others, Grankuwa near Pretoria which is one of the Government’s show places. The report says this:

1. (iv) During inspections hundreds of houses were found which had already been unoccupied for up to 20 months owing to a lack of water supply, lighting and/or incomplete building and sewerage work; in some cases also because the prefabricated houses are apparently regarded as unsuitable for prevailing climatic conditions, have inadequate cooking facilities and are therefore unsuitable for the purposes for which they were erected.

No wonder we are asking for a select committee so that we can obtain some expert advice. We dare not trust the Bantu Trust to handle this—

1. (vi) Replanning decided upon after stores, building material, heavy equipment and personnel for the erection of a township were already on the site, or where townships were in an advanced stage of construction, involved avoidable or fruitless expenditure, inter alia, on transport, planning and development compensation, etc. In one case bad coordination also resulted in considerable damage to existing buildings and additional expenditure.

This is proof of this incompetent, muddling Government. The Minister and the Deputy Minister are responsible for this evidence of their incompetence. I continue:

1. (b) Management and administration—
   1. (iii) General weaknesses in office administration and internal control were noticed to a greater or lesser degree at 12 townships and including, inter alia, one or more of the following aspects, namely, faulty or non-existent checking of stores, financial and other records which in some instances, were also not properly maintained; personal debt cards not properly kept and/or reconciled with controls, the latter in some instances being incomplete or not maintained; disregard of procedures and instructions; carelessness in completing and signing of deeds of sale.

The hon. member for Transkei has already quoted that from the report this afternoon.

No, he did not. The position is, Mr. Speaker, that I prepared my speech before the hon. member for Transkei spoke this afternoon and I took particular care to mark off the points which he had left available for discussion. I wanted to rub it in and show just how incompetent this Government is.

Under this Bill the Government wants to give the Bantu Trust the authority to deal with our funds. No wonder we are suspicious; no wonder we have asked for the appointment of a select committee. Sir, this discloses gross incompetence, bad management and a state of affairs that is a disgrace to any government. This Government treats the matter as a joke; they do not take the matter seriously, because they just pass the necessary law, and the result is that money is wasted. If this state of affairs continues, Sir, can you imagine what we can expect when we have this Investment Corporation. You see, Sir, it is proposed that this Investment Corporation will carry on in the same form. It will be exempt from the provisions of the Companies Act. This balance sheet which I have here of the Bantu Investment Corporation does not comply with the Companies Act. It is true that the Companies Act does not apply to it, but if the Companies Act did apply this balance sheet would be ruled out of order and the directors would probably be prosecuted.

You are making a serious statement. Tell us why you say they will be prosecuted.

Let the hon. member get hold of the Companies Act and see in what respect this balance sheet is deficient, as far as a full disclosure of information is concerned. If the hon. member makes inquiries he will find that there is a Companies Act commission sitting where evidence has already been given that balance sheets should be more informative and that they should disclose full information. This balance sheet does not disclose the full information.

Is that why you say the directors should be prosecuted?

A balance sheet, in terms of the Companies Act, must comply with certain requirements, and if it does not comply with the requirements of the Companies Act, the directors who sign the balance sheet can be prosecuted. Surely the hon. member should know that.

Is that why he abandoned law?

But why do you say that they should be prosecuted?

He has just told you.

You say it is not informative enough. Is that all? Is that the offence?

In this balance sheet of the Bantu Investment Corporation we find this item, “Funds invested in stocks and in definite period building society shares, including accrued interest: R2,143,227”. This is an item that we cannot discuss in this House. We get no opportunity of discussing in which building societies the Corporation has invested these funds. Are these funds being invested in building societies because the Bantu Investment Corporation at the present moment cannot find another investment? We find ourselves in this position that this body can table a report in the House in terms of, I think, clause 22 of the Bill; the trustee, who is the State President, can appoint the members of the board but those members cannot be sacked by this House. If the board of directors of an ordinary company were faced with a report such as we have here in the Auditor-General’s report, all self-respecting directors would resign at once, or take their medicine; they would not stand again.

You could raise the matter under the Minister’s Vote. Of course, this House can sack them. Why don’t you try?

The hon. the Deputy Minister says that under the Minister’s Vote we can discuss these affairs. That is my whole point. Under the Minister’s Vote we can discuss his affairs but we cannot discuss the Bantu Investment Corporation; that is my complaint. We are asking for this Bill to be referred to a select committee before the second reading because it will give all sides an opportunity of being heard. The Minister’s whole difficulty is that this Government does not want to face the truth; it does not want to face criticism; it wants to appear at all times as perfect administrators and yet their whole record of administration is shocking. The Bill provides that the operations of the Bantu Development Corporation shall be confined to Bantu persons and undertakings of Bantu persons in Bantu homelands. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister in charge of this Bill what he means by saying that all operations must be confined to the Bantu. Does he include marketing? Will the Bantu Development Corporation be at liberty to sell goods in open competition with the rest of South Africa? If it is to be concerned with marketing, will it be interested in marketing in South Africa or only in the Bantu areas? Will it be concerned with marketing outside the boundaries of South Africa? This Bill is silent on that point. Is this Bill not going to result in two economies? Is there going to be one economic level for the Bantu areas and another one for the other areas in South Africa? Let me tell the hon. Minister why we are concerned. There was a case recently where the Kokstad Municipality called for tenders for the supply and erection of 24 houses at Kokstad. The tenders closed on the 5th February of this year. The Xhosa Development Corporation of Umtata submitted a tender of R116,000 for the supply and erection of these 24 houses, against the tender by B. Harris and Sons of R121,369, which was the second lowest tender submitted. It is an important matter of principle to establish whether or not a firm in the Transkei, which is Government-assisted, is entitled to tender in competition with other firms. I do not know whether the tender was awarded to the Xhosa Development Corporation, but is that the pattern? Is the pattern that the Xhosa Development Corporation is going to tender against ordinary builders? If so, are the ordinary labour regulations which apply to the rest of South Africa going to apply to the Bantu homelands?

And wage determination.

Sir, over the years we have built up a pattern of wage legislation which is an example to the rest of the world, We have had fewer strikes and less labour unrest than probably anywhere else in the world. Are we going to have a different wage rate in the Bantu homelands, and is this going to pull down the cost structure? What is going to happen if there is a lower rate of wages in the Bantu homelands? Take the footwear industry for example. The Minister has indicated that a footwear industry and other industries will be established in the Bantu homelands. Will the minimum rate of wages be lower than the minimum rate of wages in the border areas? The minimum rate of wages in the border areas is already lower than the rate in the metropolitan areas. [Interjections.] Sir, these are pertinent questions which the Minister will have to answer, because if he does not answer them it will be clear to us that they have not been taken into consideration. These are questions which commerce and industry are asking. The timber industry in South Africa wants to know what is going to happen in the sawmilling industry. If the rates of wages, etc., in the sawmilling industry in the Bantu reserves are going to be different from the rates in the sawmilling industry in the rest of South Africa, what is going to be the effect upon sawmillers outside the reserves. A lower cost structure in Bantu areas is clearly going to affect the competitive position of industries situated in the metropolitan areas, and it seems to us from an examination of this Bill that insufficient consideration has been given to the question of infra-structure, services and the question of the technical know-how that has to be introduced into the Bantu areas. What provision is going to be made for the training and education of the Bantu in those areas? To what extent is the outside industrialist protected from competition from the Bantu areas? We have an example already in the wholesale industry where the Xhosa Investment Corporation is buying in bulk and selling their goods in the Bantu areas in competition with wholesalers in Johannesburg. Is the ultimate ideal that in these Bantu areas they will be the main suppliers of goods to the Bantu people of South Africa?

It seems that your main fear now is that there is going to be too much development there. That is the burden of what you are saying now.

Is the hon. the Deputy Minister’s suggestion that the development there is only going to be limited? If it is only going to be limited, then why all this expense? Unless you are going to develop the Bantu to the utmost of his capabilities, this money will go down the drain. Sir, we must ensure that the economy of South Africa is so developed that the industrial output in the Bantu areas will not undercut industrial development in the metropolitan areas, and that you can be as efficient in the metropolitan areas as in the Bantu areas without lowering standards. It is the lowering of standards that we fear, and that is an issue which can only be decided if we refer this Bill to a select committee.

If we refer this measure to a select committee we can get the point of view of all those interested. Let us hear the views of those who have specialist knowledge to offer us and of those who have had experience in establishing industries in other parts of the world. I am quite sure that these people, if invited, would be prepared to come and give evidence before the select committee and give us the benefit of their advice and tell us how this Act can operate in the best interest of all concerned. At the present moment there is grave doubts as to whether this measure can be administered efficiently under this Minister and this Department. We have seen the results of the administration by the Bantu Trust; we have seen the effect of their incompetence. We have seen how incompetent administration can result in the objects of the Act not being attained and in a tremendous waste of money. While it may provide jobs for a favoured few, in the long term it will not be in the interests either of the economy of South Africa or of the Department itself. The Minister’s speech has given us no evidence that he has any idea how to meet the position. He mentioned by way of illustration that the Department had taken over four garages and in the same sentence he went on to say that they were training four people in the motor mechanic industry. Sir, when we look at the figure quoted by the hon. member for Transkei as to the number of jobs that will have to be provided over the next five years, let alone the next year or two, it is quite clear that far more information is wanted than the Minister has given us up to now and that information can only come from a select committee where all parties concerned can give the necessary information so that we can examine this matter more objectively than we can in the cut and thrust of debate across the floor of this House.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Pinetown on what was probably the most incoherent speech one could listen to. So far three members of the United Party have spoken this afternoon, and I want to accuse them of having failed to come forward with any fundamental, profound thoughts in regard to this legislation. This legislation deals with the economic development of the Bantu areas, and its cornerstone is the trusteeship of the white man as far as the Bantu and their education are concerned. All the speakers of the United Party are saying now that they are not advocating integration; then they say that they want a free flow of capital, but with control, and then they say nothing further and we do not know what control they want.

What did Tomlinson say?

We are not dealing with Tomlinson now, but we are in 1968, dealing with the legislation before the House, legislation which deals with the economic development, and the legislation gives you everything you want. But they totally fail to see those two factors in the legislation. The hon. member for Pinetown made a revelation this afternoon, namely that there was a feeling of anxiety in the ranks of the United Party. Firstly, there is fear of the development of the Bantu homelands and, secondly, fear that it will bring about competition between the Bantu homelands and the economy of the White. Then he got hold of a red herring and during this debate they, the United Party, have been drawing it across the trail ad nauseam instead of discussing this legislation, namely the report of the Auditor-General dealing with certain materials which were not used. But that is solely a departmental matter. This has already been made quite clear by the hon. member for Primrose, and I shall repeat it because the hon. member for Pinetown also repeated it. It is a departmental matter which will in the course of events be brought up before the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and there this matter will be investigated. The report will then be submitted to this House, and then it will be time to discuss this matter, not now. I want to say that in his speech the hon. member for Pinetown did at least rise above the rest to a certain extent, and that he raised a few points of constructive criticism. But then he kept on harping on the same old string of the so-called waste, and he immediately linked this up with the two corporations for which further provision is now being made in terms of this legislation. He wants to create the impression that under these corporations the same thing happened as was supposed to have happened under the Department according to the report of the Auditor-General. I repudiate that, because it is not the case. No complaints have been lodged against the operation of these corporations. Then the hon. member for Pinetown came forward with the same old story, namely that there was no control by this Parliament over the activities of these corporations which are to be established. That I repudiate, too. In the first place, the principle embodied here is by no means a new one. I want to tell the hon. member for Pinetown that he did a very bad thing to-day. I think he gave a highly esteemed and respected profession a slap in the face. Let us see what clause 21 says. It says very clearly that the board must cause proper books of account to be kept, and also all necessary books and records in relation thereto, and that the accounts of the corporations must be audited by a person who is a registered accountant and auditor to be appointed by the Trustee. Clause 22 provides further that as soon as practicable after the end of every financial year, the board of the corporations must submit a balance sheet and a statement of income and expenditure which reflects the state of the affairs of the corporations as at the end of the last preceding financial year. The auditor must submit a certificate stating that to the best of his knowledge and belief and on information supplied to him, the balance sheet and statement of income and expenditure reflects a true statement of the assets and liabilities of the corporations as at the end of the financial year. In this respect a procedure is followed which is in operation all over the country. Let us take an example. This Government delegates powers and grants money to the Provincial Administrations which control all the municipalities in their area. In that respect we have the example to-day of the City Council of Johannesburg which handles more than R100 million per annum. It is audited by a private firm of auditors, and that procedure is accepted by numerous municipalities and by the Government as well. Now the argument is advanced all of a sudden that this House has no control over the financial affairs of these corporations. I repudiate that.

Where do you see that?

I shall tell you where the control is. If you read clause 24, you will see that the trustee holds all the shares in this corporation and that he delegates his powers to the Minister. The Minister is fully empowered to appoint the directors. In other words, he controls the directors and he has a veto in regard to the activities of the directors. It differs from the I.C.D. [Interjections.] I shall go on. The statements are audited and submitted. Now the hon. member for Pinetown does not say—and he ought to be ashamed of himself—that this balance sheet is not in conformity with the law, but he says that this corporation is not subject to the Companies Act. If it had been, the statement would not have been in conformity with the law. Surely, that is childish. This corporation is not subject to the Companies Act, and that is why this balance sheet is absolutely in conformity with the law. It was drawn up in accordance with the best norms of accountancy. Let the hon. member tell me where this balance sheet was drawn up incorrectly. It is merely an administrative matter for the Minister to give instructions that in future, when these statements are drawn up, he wants balance sheets which furnish him with more information, that he wants concise statements of the affairs of the subsidiary companies. This is merely administrative. Owing to the fact that the Minister has full control over these matters, they can be debated here fully. [Interjection.] Of course, there is an opportunity for doing so, under the Minister’s Vote. After all, this is a new Act, and the old one is being repealed, and I have just explained what powers the Minister has in terms of this legislation. The statements can be discussed. I have now replied to the argument advanced by the hon member for Pinetown. In a false manner he wants to tell us that these balance sheets are not in conformity with the law since they do not fall under the Companies Act. Tt stands to reason that the Companies Act does not apply to them. They are two separate things. The Companies Act is applicable to public companies where the individual holds shares in the company and the auditor is the direct representative of the shareholder, and he must take action in terms of that legislation. But this is quite a different case.

I want to go further by saying that the other two speakers who spoke here, came forward with the same story; they are concerned about how these areas are going to develop now. Do they want tremendous development to take place overnight? They want to know what has already been done. But they have not yet told us what they mean by control. What kind of control do they want? I believe that this legislation is a consequence of the old Trust Act which envisaged that the Bantu areas would develop. Even under the old Trust Act there was development in the Bantu areas with the aid of white capital, but still under control, and the control was based on the concept of trusteeship. This legislation is a logical consequence of the old Trust Act, the X.D.C. and the former investment corporation. The hon. member for Transkei says that it was a failure. It is the most disgraceful remark I have ever heard. How can he say that it was a failure? An amount of R3.5 million is already on loan to Bantu business concerns, and R11 million has already been invested in the Bantu areas. Now a new piece of legislation is being provided so as to make the control and development more supple and easier. An umbrella is now being provided under which each particular Bantu area will receive a development corporation, and from that development corporation other corporations will originate which will see to it that every economic sector will have its own development. In other words, there are smaller subsidiaries all of which have their origin in this one big corporation. As the Minister said, it is an all-encompassing umbrella. From that projects will also result which will be to the advantage of the Bantu entrepreneurs, and it is important that the capital development in the Bantu area must also take place through these development corporations. This investment corporation will be the channel along which the capital will flow to the Bantu areas. The capital will come from the Trustee, in the first place, and from outside sources, i.e. white capital which may be invested in the corporations. A cutting remark was made here about the Minister’s observation in regard to the profit motive. I think the whole thing was misunderstood completely. The Minister referred to the profit motive of the Investment Corporation. The point is not how much profit the corporation is making; even if it only breaks even it is still important, because it creates development and it affords labour to the Bantu. That is the idea. When hon. members said that it operated at a loss, they did of course refer to the white entrepreneur who may have been making investments on an agency basis, but this does not enter into the matter at all. He will not invest in it if he cannot make a profit; if he does so, he is not quite all there. A third way of forming capital, or the channel along which the capital may flow, is from the Bantu themselves by way of the money they themselves will save and invest.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that these corporations will always remain effectively under the control of the hon. the Minister as a result of the particular approach that was evident at the time of the establishment of the corporation. This particular approach is very important, because it is a particular case. The Trustee, i.e. the Minister, remains the guardian or the trustee of the Bantu nations. He is not only that in name, but also in practice, in the true sense of the word. That is the idea which is still evident. That is why it is imperative that the hon. the Minister should have full control, because the economic development of a nation is at stake here, and that is of course a tremendous responsibility for anybody to shoulder. Consequently the Minister should be able to exercise effective control. This is what was written into this legislation. That is why I repeat that, when these matters are brought up in this House, every aspect of what has been done, can be debated here.

The investment corporation does not only serve as an investment channel for outside capital, but will also initiate points of growth, which are so necessary in these areas. The corporation will also be instrumental in the establishment of the necessary production factors. What I mean by that, is the infra-structure which has to be provided before positive industrial development in these areas can be expected. In actual fact the investment and the development corporations act as the patron of the Bantu. These people are safeguarded against intense competition from outside, and that is our point of view. They are protected against exploitation and they are trained in a particular way. It was asked how these people were going to develop now. But surely, the development takes place among the Bantu themselves. They are trained by way of in-service training. They are employed at firms and there they are taught to do the work by way of a training programme where lectures, and so forth, are given to them. They are trained by way of after-care visits paid to Bantu businessmen to see to it that they are staying on the right course and handling their affairs correctly. They are also trained by way of special speech-days which are arranged. These are actually meetings which are held by Bantu who already have business concerns, and at which they discuss business and problems. It is then explained to them where they went wrong and what they should do to set the position right again. This is a particular service with which the Bantu are already being provided.

Where has this already taken place?

It has already taken place. If the hon. member reads his reports, he will see that it is so. The hon. member may come to Pietersburg and I shall take him around and show him where all these things are taking place. The hon. member for Pinetown is welcome, too. He referred to technical training, and I shall show him where technical training is taking place. It can so easily be asked, “Yes, but how much are there?” Well, one has to start somewhere, and a very good start has already been made.

As I have said, the Minister does in fact always remain the guardian, in all respects. In other words, outside interests, i.e. white entrepreneurs or other bodies not belonging to that specific Bantu group, will, for as long as this Government remains a guardian of that Bantu nation, not be permitted to build up entrenched economic rights in that area. In other words, this view is based on the principle that nobody may enrich himself at the expense of the Bantu in that area, in that homeland. In the course of time all these things take place; they take place slowly, but they do take place. We have now reached the stage where it has become absolutely essential for us to help the Bantu so that they may help themselves, in order to enable them to mobilize themselves economically. In this way they can make their own homeland viable so that they may make a living other than the traditional agricultural living they have been making over the years. This development can only be as rapid as the Bantu can adapt themselves to it and absorb it. If the development is accelerated too much, it may perhaps be a failure. We can only proceed as rapidly as the Bantu themselves can.

It is interesting to note the progress that has already been made. The hon. member wanted to know what happened and where it happened. In his speech the Minister also explained that R3 million was already on loan to Bantu businessmen, 85 per cent of which was on loan to business interests, commercial undertakings, shops, etc.

They have lost money now.

No, I shall tell the hon. member now. Thirteen per cent was on loan in respect of service establishments, whereas 5 per cent went into industrial development. We have no cause for concern. This pattern is the recognized pattern of any economic development which changes over from a primary economy to a market economy. This is the normal pattern, and the pattern is right. We are satisfied with it. I agree that the development is rather slow, but it is nevertheless taking place. However, there is a significant phenomenon, which gives me a great deal of confidence and makes me very happy. I am referring to the fact that the amount of bad debt that occurs, is absolutely minimal. This bears testimony to the thorough and good work that was done by the investment corporation in the past. There is no reason why it should not be possible to continue the good work, to develop it further and to achieve even greater success. I believe that the Government is indisputably follow ing the right course by allowing the economic and political development of these areas to take place on a parallel basis. This development is taking place under the protective wings of the Government, and the National Party is squarely behind the Government. This is the course we should follow and not the course indicated by the Opposition. They did not furnish us with any blueprint telling us how they are going to implement their policy. I am not going to accuse them of wanting to implement integration. But I want to tell them that if they are advocating that private enterprise should be permitted with control— but they do not state what kind of control, or the control is not positively based on the trusteeship advocated by this side—it will lead to integration. As the Bantu are unable to hold their own, they will lose their possessions. [Interjections.] According to our method the adaptation is not so rapid and the results will be forthcoming gradually. But as the Bantu are being trained, the advantages will also be permanent, which could only be of considerable advantage to the Whites as well. The rate of development will be determined by the speed at which the Bantu acquire the knowledge and the know-how to do business. As they acquire more knowledge, the rate of development will accelerate.

Sir, I think that in years to come we shall look back upon this legislation with the same measure of satisfaction with which we are looking back to-day upon the I.D.C. The I.D.C. demonstrated to us what could be done in South Africa. Although this corporation has a different basis, I believe that the work it will do, will be as good. I believe that it will achieve as much success as the I.D.C. has done. As a result of the methods that will be applied, the economic growth there will really be sound. We shall not have any mushroom booms if the activities of the corporation continue on the basis which is being laid down. The investment corporation will form the bulwark for the forming of capital in each Bantu area.

I make bold to say that the Bantu nations now have the privilege and a golden opportunity to develop well economically. I want to say that they are a fortunate and privileged nation, because where else in Africa and even in the world do we find a nation whose neighbour, who does not even belong to the same race or nation, protects that nation in so many respects? We are protecting the Bantu’s territory; we are protecting their language and culture; we are protecting their economic assets. We are prepared to educate them as far as we can.

We did not have that privilege.

No, we did not. We never had that privilege. On the contrary, we know what oppression is; that is why we will not apply such a thing to other people. Our Bantu enjoy a measure of protection which no other nation in the world is granted. In time to come we shall be held up as an example to Southern Africa and the entire world.

Is that so?

Yes, we shall be held up as an example, as a result of what we are doing for these ethnic groups. The conscience of the white man in South Africa is clear before the world, and this peace of mind is attributable to the National Party. The United Party is riding on the National Party’s back, and when people of that Party go abroad, they show off with the National Party’s achievements. Then they say, “Look, just look at all the things we are doing for the various peoples there”. This is a fact. The white man’s policy in South Africa has a Christian and moral basis. This is the basis of everything. When these Black nations reach maturity one day, and they will reach it, when they take their independence one day—when they want it, they can get it— and when all these business concerns go over …

Is that so?

Yes, they can get it.

What policy is that?

Is the hon. member a stranger in Jerusalem? Now I am really surprised. These hon. members have been in Parliament for many more years than I have; surely, they must have heard great speeches here. Do they want to tell me now that they have never heard that any Bantu nation which eventually reaches that stage where it asks for its independence, may get it? Is that not so? [Interjections.] I have read that in Hansard numerous times. I want to say that when those nations reach maturity, they will not take us to court or accuse us— as Swaziland is accusing Britain at present— in the following way, “You were our guardian; you governed us; but give us back our land which you alienated to foreign elements. It is our land; now we want money; pay us for it”. That will happen if the United Party’s policy is implemented. We shall then have the same experience as Britain has at the moment. The Swazis are asking for compensation.

We are doing what we are in honour bound to do, and we are doing it because we want to retain our own identity. We want to keep our own territory as White as possible. That is why we do not begrudge the Bantu the retention of their own identity. That is why we do not begrudge the Bantu the opportunity of making their own territories viable, so that they may enjoy a decent standard of living there, look after themselves and educate themselves. We are not worried as the hon. member for Pinetown is. The hon. member is worried about the competition the developed Bantu areas will imply for the white areas. That is once again the selfish colonial view: “How much money can I put into my own pocket? How much can I get at the expense of somebody else?” That is the attitude adopted by that side. It is not the attitude adopted by this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker. I am not going to talk at great length on this Bill for one very good reason: I do not take it very seriously. [Interjections.] Yes, I could talk quite lengthily on it, but to me it is no more serious an attempt to develop the so-called Bantu homelands than the two previous corporation Bills were. The results of these have been apparent to everybody. We have the same high-faluting speeches about the development of those reserves for the benefit of their own people; about the prevention of colonial exploitation; and about the maintenance of the identity of the Bantu people. All these speeches we had when the Bantu Investment Corporation was set up and when the Homelands Development Corporation was set up. Now we have this measure. We have the hon. member for Primrose waxing lyrical over the steps that the Government is taking to prevent the exploitation of the Africans.

I would have been more impressed with speeches like that had I not known that the whole Bantu labour system in this country was the grossest form of exploitation. The whole migratory system of labour, on which the Government bases its economic philosophy, is an exploitation. All this big talk from the hon. member for Pietersburg about colonial exploitation is absolute nonsense. If we had not had investment in South Africa from foreign sources, does he really think we would have reached the stage of economic development that we have in this country? All of a sudden the Nationalist Party members are talking about “protection of local inhabitants”, about “preventing exploitation”, and so on. It is absolute nonsense. Foreign investment built this country, whether we like it or not. Investment in those backward areas of the homelands, the reserves, would have a great effect on those reserves, provided, of course, there were the basic resources that could be developed. This is the crux of the whole matter. We would not have had one penny of so-called colonial exploitation in South Africa, of what I call foreign investment—for which I am profoundly grateful, as every single member in this House ought to be profoundly grateful, because the whole standard of living in this country was given an uplift by that foreign investment—if South Africa had not had the basic resources to be developed. To talk about Swaziland in this derogatory fashion! Let me tell the hon. member that of the three ex-High Commissioner territories Swaziland is the one that has got the greatest chance of establishing itself economically, and for one reason only: It has the basic economic resources. Foreign white investments from overseas and, to a large extent, from South Africa, has been put into Swaziland in order to develop it. The people have reaped the attendant benefits. So let us have a little less of this airy-fairy nonsense, and let us have a little basic economics talked in this House. Maybe then we would make a little progress.

Now what does this Bill purport to do that other Bills have not done? It purports to attract, to attempt to encourage the investment of white capital under strict control in he Bantu homelands. First of all, I want to say at once …

Where do you see that?

Where do I see that? I have heard that from the Minister. I not only see it in the Bill, but I have also heard it from the hon. the Minister when he introduced this Bill. He told us that the idea was to encourage white investments in the reserves …

Helen, you did not read the Bill. Be honest and tell us.

Yes, I did. I read the Bill and I have the hon. the Minister’s speech here. So I ploughed through it, unfortunately! He gave us eight or nine conditions under which he would allow that investment to go into the reserves. I might say that, if I were a white investor seeking an investment outlet for my capital, I would not for one moment think of putting it into those reserves under the conditions that the hon. the Minister has laid down. It is absolutely absurd. There is no guarantee as to what is to happen to the businesses once they are established and once they are functioning. There is a specified time, and thereafter nobody knows what is going to happen to the entrepreneur and his investment. What ludicrous conditions! By the way, mention is made of the profit motive. The agent, the contractor, or whatever he is to be called, may be allowed to make some profit, but that must not be the major reason for his going into the reserves. I may he lacking in all these spiritual values that we heard so much about from the hon. member for Primrose, but as far as I know, the one thing that encourages businessmen to invest their money, is the hope that they are going to make a profit. In fact, it is the only thing. They are not philanthropic institutions. They give a good percentage of what they earn straight back to the Government, which promptly proceeds to waste it, right, left and centre. And they give a proportion of their profits to philanthropic institutions which they choose. But they are certainly not going to invest in the Bantu areas as a philanthropic venture. It is absurd to lay down conditions which are obviously right at the beginning designed to put a stop to the very thing the Government said it is hoping to achieve by means of this Bill.

Now let us look at these reserves. What are the resources which can be developed in those areas? Primarily, the reserves are agricultural areas and they are very backward agricultural areas. If the hon. the Minister would perhaps devote a little more of his money to buying up some of the land which has still got to be acquired in order to bring the scheduled and reserved areas up to maximum, then possibly be might be able to do a little more for those people than merely spending the money that he has spent on the building of houses to house people who are the families of workers that he uses in the towns. Of all the waste of money, that I think is one of grossest wastes.

In answer to a question which I put the other day, I have learned that there are still almost 1½ million morgen of land to be acquired by the Trust before the reserved and scheduled areas are complete. That is a large area of land.

Do not forget that six million morgen have already been acquired.

Yes, I am delighted. It is a very big area; but may I point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that the last Land Act was passed in 1936. It is now 1968. It is a long time since that Land Act was passed. All this land should long ago have been acquired, in which case we might have had a little more development in the reserves agriculturally, because basically that is what those areas are— agricultural areas. There is no infrastructure for industrial development inside the reserves, and until the hon. the Minister gets down to it and provides some of that infrastructure, he is not going to be able to attract any white capital, leaving aside these ludicrous conditions that he lays down in this Bill. He is not going to be able to attract any white entrepreneur into the reserves. That is number one.

Number two: whatever mining resources there are, will be—and I use this ugly word— exploited. They will be exploited if there is any hope that they are going to be developed properly. That money, that exploitation, that investment in mineral resources, will redound to the benefit of the reserves. There is no doubt about that. First of all, royalties will be paid. Secondly, employment will be provided for many thousands of people. So one does not need a Bill of this nature to enable mining houses to go into the reserves. There are already mining houses to the best of my knowledge, searching for minerals, and I think even developing them in certain areas. Is this correct?

Yes, but you are now contradicting the first paragraph of your speech.

No. I say that what resources there are, will be developed if it is economic. But to expect businessmen to go into the reserves to develop industry, for which there is no potentiality whatsoever, just in order to help the hon. the Minister and his Deputy Ministers as well as his aspirant Deputy Minister to absorb all those millions of Africans that they hope to draw back from the white industrial areas, is so much nonsense. This is the real basis of this Bill. It has nothing to do with this fine, philanthropic, guardianship attitude of the white man over his black ward that we have heard so much about from the hon. members for Primrose and Pietersburg. There is one basic reason underlying this Bill, and it is to try in every possible frantic way—and it is frantic—to reach their aim. I certainly detected notes of hysteria in the speeches of the hon. members for Heilbron and for Primrose, hysteria, because they know perfectly well that everything that the Government has attempted so far, from the time that the Bantu Investment Corporation was set up in 1960, I think the date was, from the time that the Tomlinson Commission reported, way back in 1956, has fallen far short of the lofty hopes that were held out in those years, hopes that opportunities for employment would be provided, that Bantu residing in the urban areas would be attracted back into the reserves. None of this is happening. We are not beginning to touch the fringe of the problem, because agriculture can absorb only 15,000, I think the estimate of the Tomlinson Commission was, additional people per annum in the reserves. We are going to have to provide jobs for at least 50,000 to 60,000 more Africans every year in those areas. Agriculture cannot do it and industry is certainly not doing it within the reserves. The figure I was given recently was that from 1960 to 1966 the industries established in the Bantu areas with Government assistance provided employment for only 945 people. This is not even a drop in the ocean. It is infinitesimal, non-existent, to all intents and purposes. As far as the border industries are concerned, the second leg of this hopeful plan to attract Africans from the white industrial complexes back to the reserves, I think that the number of jobs provided is approximately 46,000. This is absolutely nothing. Those jobs are provided for Africans from reserves which happen, by lucky accident of fate, to have been situated next to the existing industrial areas of white South Africa. This is a hopeless position.

I therefore cannot take this Bill very seriously. I do not think that it really matters very much whether it is sent to a select committee or not, because I regard the reserves in an entirely different light from both sides of the House. I regard those areas as areas which were simply set aside as a kind of protective mechanism to an underdeveloped people many years ago, before South Africa had really developed industrially. The first Land Act was passed in 1913 before World War I and the second in 1936 before World War II.

World War II is the watershed of industrial development in South Africa because then tremendous development took place, sucking labour in from the poverty-stricken reserves on the one hand and helping towards the building up of the white industrial areas on the other. What we should have been aiming at since that time was further industrialization in those areas of South Africa which are basically suited to industrialization, where all the locational factors are present, namely the markets, skilled labour, power, and the transport of raw materials. Those are the locational factors.

And eventually handing the country over to a black government.

This is not going to happen. It is a fallacy because this is a multiracial country. It will always be a multi-racial country. We can no more do without African labour than the Africans can do without white entrepreneurship.

The hon. member must return to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the need for white entrepreneurship, which is the very crux of this Bill, the need for Africans to have the value of white entrepreneural leadership and of white capital. The reverse side of the coin is the irrevocable, ineluctable need of the Whites for African labour. The development of the reserves as industrial areas capable of replacing, as far as employment opportunities are concerned, the opportunities that Africans enjoy in the white areas, is a possibility that just does not exist. As far as I am concerned this Bill will achieve nothing, in the same way that its predecessors achieved nothing, and all the planning Bills of the hon. the Minister of Planning will achieve very little in forcing industrial development to the borders of the reserves, unless white South Africa is prepared to accept a disastrous drop in the standard of living of everybody in this country. Then of course there is nothing that we cannot do. If we want to revert to the situation where all of us have a lowered standard of living, when indeed the spectre of poorwhitism will again rear its head, we must go ahead with measures such as this instead of tackling the economic problems of this country and developing our industries as fast as we possibly can in the right areas and not in under-developed agricultural areas.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton reminds me of the old English proverb “he who hesitates is lost”. That is more or less the position in which she finds herself to-day. She started off in a completely pessimistic vein as far as our future here in South Africa is concerned. She approaches in a negative way any measure we adopt in this Parliament in respect of the race groups. I therefore do not think that we should take her seriously, because she will disappear from this House in due course in the same way as her ideas will disappear from this House. The hon. member said that of all the former protectorates Swaziland is the one which probably draws the most capital. As far as I know, and I may be out with a small percentage, Swaziland is the only one of all three the protectorates where approximately 45 per cent of the land belongs to Whites. The Swazis are already laying claim to that land at present. They want this land to become the property of the Swazis and of the Swazis alone, in the future and not the property of the Whites. One wonders what will eventually become of the economy of Swaziland when that situation develops. Has the same thing not happened in Kenya, for example? Has the same thing not happened in other African states? It is still happening in Kenya to-day. The people there say “We have been sold out.”

Like the Whites in the Transkei.

I shall deal with the hon. member for Transkei presently. For the moment I want to confine myself to the observations made by the hon. member for South Coast. The hon. member for South Coast made a very important statement here this afternoon. The hon. member for South Coast is a person for whom I have very great respect. He said that the United Party is not in favour of integration. We on this side of the House have always taken the view that the policy laid down by the United Party would lead to integration. It would lead to economic integration. I want to know whether the hon. member agreed with his Leader when he made the following statement (translation)—

This is what Sir De Villiers Graaff said to an audience consisting of students of the University of the Witwatersrand. Does the hon. member agree with that? The United Party believes that White, Black and Brown in South Africa do not merely form part of the population here, but that all of them form one nation. This is integration in all its facets. The hon. Leader of the Opposition made this statement to students of the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg.

From which newspaper does this report come?

It comes from the Transvaler. Does the hon. member repudiate this report? Unfortunately I could not make my speech while the hon. the Leader was in the House. He said this in 1963. In 1967 the hon. the Leader made another statement (translation)—

The hon. the Leader made this statement in Bloemfontein. How can the hon. member for South Coast come along here to-day and say that the United Party is not in favour of that and that their policy will not lead to integration in the end? It is preposterous to make such a statement here. Everybody in this House agrees, however, that the reserves in South Africa must be developed. We do not deny that. The Government must develop the reserves, and both sides of the House are agreed on that. The question is, however, what method should be applied to develop the reserves.

You are coming right now.

I have always been right, but that hon. member has never been right. The difference of opinion is about the way in which the Bantu homelands should be developed. The United Party says they should be developed as an economic unit, an “economic pool”, as the hon. member for South Coast put it. The Government, however, wants to develop the homelands by means of this legislation so that the Bantu may become economically self-sufficient.

As an uneconomic unit.

I shall not answer the hon. member, because he does not know what it is all about. The United Party says the development should be undertaken as a “pool”, in other words, the South African economy should be centralized.

What economy? For the whole of South Africa?

Yes, that is right, we understood each other. If we were to apply the policy of the unit or a “pool” in future, would the reserves ever really come into their own? Would they be able to develop to the point where they would have their own sovereignty? Would it not mean that the reserves would eventually be incorporated in South Africa economically and would play an inferior part in this country in the future? Would it not mean that integration in all its forms would ultimately reign supreme in South Africa? If we applied the policy of a unit or a “pool” in South Africa, it would therefore be fatal to the future of the white man in South Africa. I do not say this with the intention of frightening anybody, but because of the numerical strength of the Bantu it is our bounden duty to-day to develop South Africa by means of the homelands, while at the same time looking after our own economy.

Do you think the Bantu areas should have their own separate economy?

Yes, they must have their own independent economy eventually.

Do you deny that Professor Tomlinson said that South Africa was “one, integrated economy in which the Bantu homelands have a central role to fulfil”? He also said …

Order! The hon. member may not make a speech now.

I do not think it is necessary to reply to that question. We have our policy, and I think the hon. member knows what our policy is. Our policy is as I stated it with reference to what the hon. member for South Coast had said. This Bill is before the House to-day in order to accelerate the economic development of the Bantu homelands. Hon. members said that the Bantu homelands were not being developed rapidly enough, but the development must not be accelerated to the extent that it takes place at the expense of the Bantu in the homelands. Because of the Bantu’s limited absorptive capacity, we should not go too fast. It will also be fatal to the homelands if they are developed by means of white capital. As I have said before, as a result of this measure we will not be reproached, when problems arise in the future, with having sold out the white man in the black areas of South Africa, as is happening in the rest of Africa. Not only the Bantu, but also the white man is protected in the economic field by this measure. Nevertheless it meets a need in making it possible for the brain-power of the white man to be used for the development of the reserves, without any economic integration taking place.

What the white man does not tolerate or allow in his own area, the Black man will not tolerate or allow in his own area either. It would be dishonest of the white man to use his position of power to exploit the Bantu. Under no circumstances will we allow this to happen. Without in any way departing from the principles as laid down and applied by this side of the House in the past, I must say that while it is possible to bring about development of a specialized nature in the homelands at present, such development will also help to accelerate the economic development of the homelands. This is of the utmost importance to the continued existence of not only the Whites, but also the Coloureds and the Indians. Wherever the white man has had to leave, the rest has followed. In terms of this measure the Bantu trust will serve as an umbrella for the development of other corporations, in other words, subsidiaries. There will be closer co-operation and liaison between the various types of corporations. But all of them will be under the same umbrella, namely the Bantu trust and the trustee, which will thus be able to bring about co-ordination. Such co-operation cannot be brought about under the existing legislation. The task of the trustee will now be greatly facilitated in spite of the fact that expansion and development will take place on a much larger scale than has been the case up to now. If no development takes place in the reserves, economic stagnation will set in, and if economic stagnation sets in it will be fatal not only to the future of the white man, but also to that of the black man. We are in a fortunate position in South Africa to-day in that we are able to accelerate the development of the reserves. Sir, I should like to refer you to an article in Optima written by Mr. Michael Comay. Mr. Michael Comay is the present Israeli Ambassador at U.N. I think Mr. Michael Comay, who lived in South Africa previously —he left this country for Israel in 1944—is an expert in the field of African development to-day. He said inter alia, the following—

Not only do we want to protect the black man in agriculture, but we want to go much further than that. It is a recognized fact today that co-operative techniques play a very important role in many of the black African states. As a rule these countries have insufficient capital. Hardly any entrepreneur class exists in those countries. The majority of the population are farmers. It is the same position as we have in South Africa. The difference is that here in South Africa the black man is able to go to the white area, while in the black African states the black man has to stay where he is. This makes all the difference as far as our South African economy is concerned. In those states there is nowhere else for them to go. Until recently, or until a few years ago, Nigeria was always held up to us as the prime example of a prosperous state on the Continent of Africa. In Nigeria 78 per cent of the male population are engaged in agriculture, forestry and the fishing industry. Six per cent are engaged in commerce, while a further six per cent are employed in manufacturing industry. Mr. Comay further makes a very important statement he says—

And this is the crux of the whole matter—

This is the same system as the one we are pleading for here. These are not the words of a South African. He was born in this country, but these words come from an expert who is conversant with African affairs.

Why do you not tell us what Professor Sadie says?

Who is Professor Sadie after all?

When the hon. member gets up to speak he can tell us who Professor Sadie is. [Interjections.]

Order!

In a report of the United Nations’ Economic Commission for Africa for 1962 it is stated that there were 12,000 registered co-operatives south of the Sahara in that year. This figure does not include the white co-operatives in South Africa. It is a well-known fact that many of the Black states turn to Israel to-day for the training of their people. Israel has had many years of experience of the managerial techniques of this kind of undertaking. Israel has had great success with its kibbutz system, which, although it is a collective system, nevertheless rests on the co-operative basis. We go much further in this Bill. We do not want to train the black man merely to become future farmers. We also want to train the black man in respect of mining and industry so that he may take care of himself for the good of his own people in future. The development of the homelands is a difficult task.

However, it is not the task of the hon. the Minister alone. It is also the task of the people of South Africa. I believe that it is one of the most difficult tasks in the world, i.e. to protect and safeguard not only the future of the white man, but also that of the Coloured. Because when the position of the white man is threatened, the position of the Coloureds and Asiatics is also threatened. This is a dual task and planning has to be undertaken for both the white man and the black man. However, the future is beckoning us. We shall succeed in the end, provided that everybody, including the Opposition, makes his humble contribution.

Mr. Speaker, many Government spokesmen to-day have shown in their speeches how absolutely vital they regard the question of development. In everything that they have said they have shown that it is absolutely vital, and I stress absolutely vital for the success of their policy and approach. They know very well that, unless they get the development and the job opportunities opening up there, their policy will fail more and more. And what have we seen? What have we seen in the figures that the hon. the Minister has given us as to the development thus far? A lot of money may have been spent, but, in so far as job opportunities are concerned, virtually nothing. And now, if we look at this Bill before the House and the speeches of the hon. Ministers, we can see that in the next four-year period the contribution in employment opportunities is again going to be minimal. I will quote certain figures in a moment to support this. But what I stress is that it is quite obvious that we are entering upon a further four-year period of the development of these reserves at a pace which makes no significant contribution to the success of Government policy. Therefore it becomes absolutely vital that, instead of continuing to waste time, the Government reappraise this whole policy and other aspects of it.

Let me just give hon. members some figures from which one can deduce how many job opportunities are now envisaged by the hon. the Minister with the expenditure of moneys mentioned in his speech. The hon. the Minister has told us, if I do him justice— and he can correct me if I am wrong—that between 1968 and 1972 he is going to spend R25 million in development through the Bantu Investment Corporation, the Xhosa Development Corporation, and by means of such other instruments as he is taking to hand. That is R25 million in a four-year period. What do we know from the investment in border industries? R300 million was spent to obtain jobs for approximately 50,000 Bantu. R25 million should, on a mere mathematical basis …

Was that Government money?

No, that was not Government money. I am merely using this to draw a comparison to ascertain how many jobs are now going to be created.

[Inaudible.]

It does not matter what it is. It is an investment. R300 million was spent to give jobs to 50,000 people over a long period of years. On a mere mathematical calculation the R25 million which the hon. the Minister envisages to spend, will give a total of 4,000 jobs. And this is spread over four years.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Could the hon. member tell us whether he has calculated the cost of employing one Bantu here in the white towns?

This is the attempted answer which Government members always give. They ask what it will cost here. Perhaps it will cost the same amount. I am simply examining what the scale of Government plans is in terms of this legation. The scale of Government plans is to spend R25 million over a period of four years which will provide a total of 4,000 jobs in the Bantu reserves, if they are lucky. Consequently, this Bill we are discussing with all the expenditure it entails will give 1,000 jobs per year in the Native reserves. Who, therefore, can seriously think that after four years we are going to be any nearer the solution of this problem than we are to-day? Who can really seriously think that? Hon. members do not all appreciate this. Surely hon. Ministers, at any rate, appreciate that, after four years, we are going to be no nearer a solution. Surely, therefore, they appreciate that one must adopt a new approach in these matters.

I should like to suggest that one of the good reasons for sending this Bill to a Select Committee is that the hon. the Minister and Government departments are certainly not the best possible instruments for obtaining development. The hon. the Minister and his Department have many virtues. I do not doubt that. But they are not people who have experience in industrial and commercial development, even though good work has been done in the agricultural field.

Again and again hon. members opposite adopt policies and show a lack of understanding of what, in fact, brings development and what not. Let me give a few examples. We have had the Planning Bill. It is now hoped that, if you force away and deny industries the right to establish themselves in certain areas, they will necessarily establish themselves on the borders of the reserves and in the reserves. They will not. They will not establish these industries at all if it does not pay them. Now we have this Bill to set up these various instruments to establish development in the reserves, but against what background is this established? This is established against the background of breaking up the country and establishing independent states. Hon. members opposite never tire of telling us that one of the reasons why we get industrial development in South Africa is that we are a stable country. I would be the first to agree that we are a stable country, and may it long so remain; but is there any hon. member opposite who would say that a new, independent state carved out of South Africa is likely to have that same stability? This is a factor which any industrialist worthy of the name would look at. [Interjections.] Yes, and they are either undeveloped or, where they are developed, they employ entirely different techniques from those which the Government will permit. Hon. members opposite should know that industrialists are not going to be inclined to go to these areas, for that reason alone. If they are not prepared to establish industries inside those areas, they are likewise not prepared to establish industries on the borders, where there is a real risk that those borders may become trouble spots. I quite concede that nobody takes the Government seriously when it suggests that the Native reserve outside Pretoria, upon which the border industry development is based, is going to be an independent state. Every industrialist knows that, whatever the Government says, this Native reserve outside Pretoria is not going to get independence. Every industrialist knows that it is nonsense to talk about giving this area independence. This is surely a case of hon. members opposite, like the Minister of Defence, saying one thing, but knowing in their hearts that they mean another thing. One naturally is not surprised to find that we are getting development there, and that industrialists are being attracted there because they feel, above all, that right against the heart of South Africa’s capital there is no possibility of an independent state. But people are not certain to-day whether the Transkei will one day get its independence. The industrialists are not taking a chance. The Government has been in power for 20 years and, recently, there has been more and more talk about this movement towards independence. But in the whole of this period white industrialists have not gone to the Transkei. This is partly because they do not want to take the chance that I have mentioned, and partly because economic forces tend to drive them elsewhere in any case. This whole basic framework of Government policy within which industries are to be established and employment opportunities created, negatives the possibility of development. People do not want to go there; they do not want to take political risks and face dangers which they do not know about. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that Government policy is still-born in this regard.

Sir, when hon. members opposite ask us what our plan is in this regard, my reply is this: The first vital difference between their policy and ours is that, under our policy, you will have the stability that South Africa has to-day, not only in the so-called white areas, but over the whole country, and, consequently, you will find that industrialists are more willing to go into the reserves and to establish industries there. This is the vital point which justifies us in saying that, under our policy, there will be far more development in the reserves than under Government policy, and that our policy is infinitely preferable.

Sir, when you leave the question of the framework of policy and you come to the question of method, here too I would have thought that it was obvious that you would create more development and employment opportunities by adopting our approach rather than the Government’s approach. Let us look at some of the points made by the Government in this regard. First of all we have the fact that it is mainly the Minister and his Department, with the best will in the world, who are going to ensure the development of the reserves under their policy; this is the gist of the Bill. The hon the Minister has the final say in everything. He decides where an industry is to be established and Whether it will be established. His whole approach to development shines through this whole measure. Secondly, it is obvious that the Minister would like to see the Bantu themselves ensuring this development, and he is disappointed that they cannot as yet bring about this development themselves. Well, he is right in suggesting that you cannot expect large-scale development to come from the Natives themselves in the reserves. You have certain limited developments there and doubtless they can grow, but you cannot expect any sizeable development to be initiated by the Bantu themselves, for the time being at any rate.

Finally, the hon. the Minister and hon. members opposite indicate that they are only going to allow white capital in the reserves on an agency basis and on some kind of altruistic basis. Industrialists must not look too closely for profit; they must be prepared to share their normal profit with somebody else. Sir, I think hon. members on that side are losing sight of what they themselves apparently want. They say that they want employment opportunities and development in these areas. Why should they be reluctant to accept development even though it may to some extent involve the profit motive? Surely the opportunity is the big thing —the opportunity of living and working in and near their homes and enjoying a reasonable standard of living. Hon. members on that side, by talking about “neo-colonialism” and “winsbejag”, are virtually placing any possible development in a strait jacket and killing it. Therefore they are not getting the employment opportunities and holding the Bantu there, which they apparently desire so much. We say to them therefore that they must re-examine some of their ideological objections in order to achieve their own objective, namely, to keep the Bantu in his own area and give him work near to his home.

Why was there no more development when your formula was applied?

I will come to our formula. Some hon. members opposite are claiming that white capital and skill are going into the Bantu areas; others say that that is not so. There is no doubt about it that for years the Government has virtually been discouraging industrialists from going into the Bantu areas. We all recall the statement by the late Dr. Verwoerd that if industrialists cared to go into the protectorates—and I take it that the same will apply to the reserves— they must not look to him for protection. Sir, can you imagine any greater discouragement to would-be industrialists? I suggest that there still remains great discouragement in this Bill. There are many provisions in this Bill which are highly discouraging. Firstly, the Government says that there must on no account be links with foreign interests. Sir, half of South Africa has been developed by industries with foreign links and we have come to no harm. Every English company, every American company, every French company, I presume, is a “foreign interest”. Will the hon. the Minister tell us which countries are frowned upon by the Government? He did not specify them in his speech. I have already mentioned that the Minister lays down the condition that an agent must not operate in the Bantu areas solely for his own advantage. Well, no sensible industrialist operates solely for his own advantage. He is concerned to give employment to people and to bring wealth to the country. From what the hon. the Minister has said I think he is envisaging something beyond that. What he is envisaging is that the industrialists must not take the normal profit, and before hon. members opposite get apoplexy when I talk about normal profit, let me say that I will come back to certain limitations which we definitely envisage. Thirdly, there is no doubt whatsoever that there will be a vast amount of red tape connected with the establishment of industry or in connection with contractual or agency work in the reserve areas. All the Minister’s conditions alone are additional to the ordinary burdens an industrialist will have, and quite clearly one is going to have a vast amount of red tape. So I say that whereas in the late Dr. Verwoerd’s time there was a specific warning that industrialists should not go in and develop these areas, the Government has now changed to a rather less direct but equally discouraging policy towards these people. Therefore it will not surprise me at all if we do not get the development which the Deputy Minister was mentioning a moment ago. I say again that Government members lose sight of the need for this development to give these people work near their homes. With that as the great object, surely they can revise some of their views in this regard.

Let us glance now at the method of the United Party in this matter. It is only necessary here to state certain principles. In the first place it would be a main principle of ours to give opportunities for employment to the Bantu themselves. This would be our main aim, and therefore I do not doubt that there will be the hope that more and more they will rise to high positions in the firms established there and, as was said in answer to a question over the floor of the House, if they were in the position to buy an industry, perhaps established by a white man, this would be perfectly in order. One would be only too glad if they could in fact purchase an industry established by white capital and skill. There can be no fear on this account, because the hon. the Minister himself wishes to see these industries taken over in this very way.

A second principle would flow naturally from the approach the United Party makes to these areas. We regard them as reserves, as areas reserved for the ownership of the Bantu. Consequently we would take such steps as are necessary to protect their ownership of the land. Any rights given to white capitalists coming in would be severely limited and subject to that factor. With those things, and doubtless with inducements which we would give to people to go there, I believe you would get a considerable measure of development. And I make bold to say, on the basis of what I have said here to-day, that there will be far more development than we shall see within the policy framework and the methods which Government speakers have urged.

But this side of the House is not so blinded by the possibility of development as to believe that this will be the answer for the great mass of the Native people. Already, as we know, two-thirds of them are outside those areas and their numbers are growing apace. That is why, of course, in these big matters we have a different approach. I do ask hon. members opposite, where they in their heart of hearts know that they are not going to get the sort of population ratio in the so-called white part that they desire, surely they must re-think their whole basic approach. The fact that they in this debate showed genuine concern about the absence of an opportunity for development in those areas, is a measure of their appreciation that things cannot go on like this, that they cannot continue to follow this rainbow in this way. So we rejoice that they see the importance of the need for development and we trust that they will draw the appropriate conclusions where it does not come.

Just for a moment, let us look at the attitude of the people there themselves. As I read the reports in the Press, the Bantu there certainly wish to see white capital coming in on a freer basis than the hon. the Minister is prepared to accept. Surely this is an important consideration. Hon. members opposite say that once they are independent they can do what they please. Surely if at this stage they are keen to have it and their Government is keen to have it, this is an argument for allowing a freer basis than the one contemplated at present.

We have pointed to the fact—the hon. member for Transkei mentioned the article by Prof. Sadie—that also Prof. Olivier said that the whole question of the development of these areas needs to be subjected to a thorough examination. What better place to do that than in a select committee? We pointed to the real danger of the wastage of public money. We hope the hon. the Minister will be able to allay our fears that money may be wasted to a considerable extent in regard to this deboning factory and certain of the other undertakings there. There again, the fact that we do not have a full picture, and cannot keep an adequate finger upon the finances of these companies, is a very grave weakness in this Bill. There is another point I would like to bring pertinently to the Minister’s attention. In his speech the hon. the Minister pointed out that the normal profit motive is not to govern the establishment of the undertakings. I would like to quote what the Minister said—

He is speaking there of an undertaking established by one of his instruments. What I want to ask him is this: If he is prepared to establish an undertaking, not on a normal basis, but, if you like, on the basis of no profit virtually, what is going to happen when this is handed over to the Bantu? Because it is envisaged that these undertakings will be handed over to the Bantu in due course. They will then inherit an undertaking which is simply designed to give employment, but not designed to stand on its own economic feet. I suggest that this is a serious weakness as far as that aspect is concerned, because, unless it can stand on its own feet, it will collapse once the subsidies and other financial aids are withdrawn. I hope the Minister will look at that and tell us what his answer is.

I regret to say that the hon. the Minister himself appears to me to be despondent in regard to the possibilities of development. Not only does he despair of getting outside capitalists interested, but he says in one place here that there is no need for the assistance of private enterprise in trade and very little in industry. He cannot really be at all hopeful of getting any if he says it is not needed, if he feels that these governmental instruments will be adequate. He is going to get that small measure of development which I mentioned earlier. We, therefore, see from the Minister’s own words that he does not expect private enterprise to be greatly interested in this basis which he is offering them. This is a most serious indictment of the scheme he is offering. It is not fair, in the light of this statement, for Government members to claim that there is a true use of white capital and skill there. The Minister says in so many words that it is not needed. He says there is no need for assistance by private enterprise in trade and very little in industry.

So, when one comes to attempt to see how things will develop, one is driven more and more to the conclusion that those leading Afrikaans businessmen were right who said that, by the turn of the century, there will not be, as there are to-day, 4 million, or perhaps a little more, Bantu in our urban areas, but virtually 12 million. This is a fair inference from the speeches of Mr. Jan S. Marais of the Trust Bank and of Mr. Human of Federale Volksbeleggings. I would refer hon. members in this regard to the speech of Mr. Marais at Bloemfontein in September, 1965, in which he envisaged the following, as he said at page 2 of this document—

Bearing in mind the population ratios, and bearing in mind that he expects that there will be one White to four non-Whites … [Interjections] … I am sorry that I cannot hear what that hon. member is trying to tell me. It is a mere matter of mathematical calculation that in their opinion there will be approximately 12 million Bantu in our urban areas and cities by the year 2000. I have no hesitation in saying in the light of the small plans that we have for the development of these areas, in the light of the general framework within which this development is to take place and in the light of the general trend of population movement from country to town, that Mr. Jan S. Marais will be right and the Government wrong.

I think that the hon. member for Pinelands, who has just resumed his seat, ought to be glad that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education is not following upon him, because I think he would then have had a hard time. A few of the statements made by the hon. member are really very inaccurate. He has shown himself to be a pessimist—in fact, I am sure that if the hon. member took off his jacket, we would see that he is wearing a belt as well as braces. The hon. member suggested that if the United Party was governing at this moment, there would have been stability throughout the country. But in the light of their policy, I would suggest that if they had remained in power after 1948, we would by 1953 already have had no more stability in this country. And if they should ever come into power with their race federation policy, the stability built up by the National Party would disappear as quickly as did the stability for the Whites in the Congo.

The hon. member also spoke about the rate of development in the homelands. The paper read to Sabra by Dr. Adendorff on the subject of “the necessity of consolidating the Bantu homelands—economically” has been freely quoted in this debate. But my impression was that the hon. members of the Opposition had not made a proper study of all the papers read to Sabra on this matter. Of course, they did not have the privilege of attending the discussions which arose from these papers, nor do they have any knowledge of the atmosphere in which these discussions took place. For the benefit of the hon. member for Pinelands I want to quote what Dr. Adendorff said about the development in Bantu homelands in the field of agriculture and mining. He said [translation]—

This wasteful exploitation took place during the regime of the United Party. Dr. Adendorff went on to say—

Dr. Adendorff continues as follows—

I just want to illustrate further that there has in fact been development, according to Dr. Adendorff. He went on to say—

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, unfortunately that would mean that I would not have sufficient time to finish my speech. The hon. member will get another opportunity. In any case, the hon. the Minister will reply to the hon. member’s questions. The point I want to make here in reply to the hon. member for Pinetown is that they are making gross generalizations as though nothing has been done in the homelands in the past five years. Since 1956 I have travelled with students through the homelands, first as a student myself and then as a lecturer. I am at present working on a thesis about the homelands, and I can assure hon. members that the development which is taking place there is phenomenal. I want to say here to-night that in time to come the development of the homelands in South Africa will be considered the Eighth Wonder of the world. We shall meet again in 20 years’ time, if we are spared, and then we can discuss the matter again. Finally, I just want to say this, for the edification of the hon. member for Pinetown in particular, and then I will leave him in peace. The hon. member actually had nothing to say, and so he said it.

This Bill is the product of the natural growth of the policy of the National Party for solving the contact situation between Whites and Blacks in South Africa. Clause after clause proves the consistency of the policy of the National Party. It is proof that the historical acceptance of the guardianship of the Whites over the Bantu has not merely been a hollow party political slogan, as it was made out to be by the enemies and opponents of the National Party, but an honest, firm and dedicated responsibility. In the face of the great deal of opposition which the National Party encountered from the United Party, not even to mention the Progressive Party, this call to guardianship had to be accepted and perpetuated. With the practical realization of the Bantu homelands policy, the National Party said that we would develop the Bantu homelands economically, and that is what we are doing. I now want to ask the hon. Opposition to make an honest, scientific analysis of the position of the Bantu homelands in 1948 and to-day. This guardianship is being accepted with responsibility and good cheer by the rising National Party generations. In all fields of the academic sphere, scientists from the younger generation clearly appreciate this logical reasoning of the National Party, and its practical execution presents them with a challenge.

In this way one will probably find differences of accent as regards the rate of development, and so on, because scientists are not politicians. The sociologist sees it through the eyes of the sociologist alone, the economist through the eyes of the economist alone, the ethnologist through the eyes of the ethnologist alone. But the National Party, because it has an understanding of the scientific spirit, and because it can employ scientific research, is in a position to view the matter as a whole and to convert it into a political policy, even though there may be small differences in regard to the purely scientific aspects. What is of primary importance is that there are no longer any differences of opinion about this in that most scientists in our country already accept that in principle the Bantu homelands have come to stay, and that they offer the only solution to the contact situation between Whites and Blacks in South Africa. As more persons are confronted with this practical situation in respect of the economic development of the Bantu homelands, the old truth which the National Party has been proclaiming for generations, is being confirmed, namely that when one wants to deal with the contact between Whites and Blacks, one is faced with two totally different cultural groups. On the one hand one is faced with a Western European, whose economic system in integrated with a totally different orientation to life, a system which has grown in a remarkable way into a refined and highly specialized form in modern times. Western man has had to bring this about in order to maintain himself in this modern world. Here then we have the Whites of South Africa, with this highly specialized economic system, as against the Bantu, who are not only totally different from the Whites, but who are also divided into various groups, and whose general forms of industry, as far as their economic systems are concerned, only comprise agriculture and animal husbandry. And these are only very rudimentary, and are supplemented a little by hunting. In this respect their economic system differs totally in nature from that of the Whites. The development of the homelands further demands, along with sympathy and good faith, a precise knowledge of both of the economic systems of these two groups, and then also a knowledge of the situation with which we are faced.

Clause 3 states the object of the Bantu Investment Corporation as being the development of the Bantu homeland as well as the Bantu. From this it is clear that the Bantu cannot be viewed as being detached from that soil which must one day nourish him. These developments go hand in hand, and the one group cannot be emphasized more than the other. The development of the one is there for the sake of the other.

Furthermore, I just want to mention a few matters in respect of the self-development of the Bantu in their own areas. What is of fundamental importance is the fact that we must not accept the false point of departure in our views on the development in the Bantu areas by which our policy of separate development will assume an over-hasty and anxious character. Because if separate development for the Bantu does not in effect mean self-development as well, however protracted and difficult this national growth process may be, it will mean either deceit towards them or self-deceit. The self-development of a nation, or in this case of a tribe or tribal unit, is development whereby that nation’s country is developed primarily by itself. It is essentially a self-educational process which works through to all the other facets and fields of the living pattern of that particular nation. Self-development means that the community must equip itself and its youth for its task in all these fields, and will, in the process, develop an individual character and its own independence in its life in all these fields. This self-development must, however, be measured against norms and standards. One cannot speak of self-development or development if certain norms and standards do not exist against which it can be tested in order to determine whether it is developed or not. [Interjection.]

In case the hon. member does not understand, I am now dealing with clause 3. The development has such depth and significance that one can discuss it for years. In the field of providing in one’s own needs we find economic norms, such as advanced planning, balanced industries in respect of the primary, secondary and tertiary sectors; labour discipline and labour distribution; marketing economy; enterprise, and so forth. Each nation which develops itself, also does so in terms of its own nature, its own growth rate, its own growth pattern, in terms of its own standard of living and attitude to life, and in this manner gives its own answers to its own challenges.

It is obvious that in this situation in South Africa where we have a guardian, the guardian will also give assistance to these developing groups. When we speak of this assistance, we realize that it is valuable. It is essential. But if it is to be really valuable, it must fit in with that community's own growth pattern and growth process, it must be of assistance which it will be able to assimilate through each stage of its development so that it becomes its own.

The failures and the difficult growth problems of many other African states are often due to, on the one hand, the fact that the European colonists, Europeans who came to settle themselves in Africa, did not consider black people capable of developing themselves according to the processes and standards of a Western way of life or, on the other hand, to the fact that the development and growth rate which they introduced there, was for the benefit of the Whites themselves. In this respect South Africa is also a good example in a certain sense. The imperialism of the Dutch East India Company or the imperialism of the British Government—and if I look very carefully at the United Party, I see that they are actually only a continuation of that—never really cared for the development of the indigenous population groups. They followed a policy of economic integration and economic exploitation. When the last penny has been extracted, those persons simply return.

It is therefore clear that separate development is not a simple question of developing a country by pumping into it labour and capital from outside enterprises. That is indeed a sure way of harming, retarding and preventing self-development. Aid from outside, in the case of any self-development, must respect this development as self-development of a human society in all fields of life and of its own rights and opportunities in that regard. Assistance in economic development must not disturb the entire living pattern of that community. This means that one may not merely develop the economic facet of a particular society and ignore the other facets. This leads to disturbance and confusion, and then frustration develops in those people. The best way in which to be of assistance from outside in the development of Bantu areas, and with a view to the quickest and most durable results, remains at this stage the assistance and opportunities which this Bill offers to us and to the Bantu. Nor may this measure be viewed separately from the entire Bantu policy of the National Party. It must in actual fact be viewed in the light of all the activities which the National Party wishes to undertake for the solution of our race problems.

The primary self-development factor in the life of the Bantu to realise their own highest achievements in all fields, is an individual national education system inside and outside the Bantu’s own areas. This is something which the National Party Government, in its foresight, already established years ago, despite great resistance from the hon. the Opposition. What is being and has already been done in this regard, to stimulate and shape the Bantu’s own development in all spheres, cannot simply be judged in terms of large sums spent on it. However large these sums may be, its effect on the future well-being and prosperity of the Bantu, and the good relations between Whites and Bantu, is altogether incalculable.

I conclude by saying that this measure is fully based upon the principles of separate development as expounded by the National Party in the course of time. It gives the Bantu the assurance that the Whites, the National Party, will never go back on the guardianship which it has taken upon itself. In the second instance it gives assistance to the Bantu in such a way that he need never lose his self-respect. Thirdly, it affords him an opportunity of adopting, of acculturising Western norms and techniques, of making them his own without losing those things which are peculiar to him. Also, this development will take place without disruption to the economy of the Whites. Lastly, it is proof that the National Party will not allow the Bantu in South Africa, the Bantu which are under its guardianship, to be exploited, not by the Opposition, nor by anyone else in the world.

Mr. Speaker, earlier in this debate the hon. member for Aliwal North said that both sides of the House were in complete agreement in regard to the development of the Bantu areas. I want to confirm this. I want to make the further statement that there can be no right thinking White person in South Africa who will not confirm it. No one can tell me that there are Whites in South Africa who are not concerned that the Bantu areas should be developed as soundly and as rapidly as possible in order to prevent the Whites from being swallowed up, both in the urban areas and in the rural areas, by a preponderance of numbers, as indicated earlier this afternoon by the hon. member for Pinelands. If we have to accept that the natural increase of the Bantu is taking place very rapidly, and we keep in mind the prediction of the preponderance of the Bantu over the Whites in the year 2,000, it is clear that the Bantu areas must be developed to the best of our ability in order to provide employment to the Bantu. It must take place on an even larger scale than is contemplated by this legislation. If this is not done, the Whites in South Africa have no chance of maintaining themselves. The essential difference in approach between the two sides of the House is this, that this measure provides that White capital may only enter the Bantu areas on an agency basis, while the attitude of the United Party is to encourage White capital to enter those areas. We agree that if we want to preserve the Bantu areas for the Bantu, Whites should not have right of ownership there. But then methods must be devised whereby White capital can enter those areas to help to develop those areas on an agency basis. The terms must, however, be more attractive than those which the hon. the Minister has laid down in his legislation.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.