Mr. Chairman, before the adjournment of the House last night I only had time to reply to one single hon. member, who had apologized for the fact that he would not be present here today. I indicated at the time that I would try to reply today to some of the questions put by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and by the hon. member for Transkei in connection with the work being done by this department, i.e. in contrast with what is being advocated by the United Party.

Sir, I think it is necessary, if we want this debate on Bantu administration to take a fruitful course, that just for a moment we should perhaps take another look at the basic points of difference, from where we may then conduct a fruitful debate. As far as I am concerned, there are three premises which I want to state in advance and on which I want to build my argument. Those premises are:

Firstly, that in South Africa we have a part of the country, a large part, which has over many years been built up through White initiative and White capital and is still being maintained today, that this was hard labour, admittedly, with the aid of Bantu labour. But these things have been established over many years and belong to White South Africa. I think it should be accepted as a premise that as far as this side of the House is concerned, we have given an undertaking, as put by the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government from time to time and also by the Minister of this department, to the voters of South Africa that the White civilization in South Africa will be perpetuated and developed to the last drop of our energies; that we are committing ourselves, as bearers of the Christian civilization founded here, not only to preserving it, but also to extending it over the rest of the continent in years to come, even if the task does seem impossible.

The second fact which we may not overlook—and let us give these areas whatever names we please, such as reserves, homelands, fatherlands, or Bantustans, if you wish—is that history has decreed that some of the Black peoples in Africa have traditionally had their home areas at the southern point of Africa. Now, we may differ on the borders of these areas. I notice that at the moment Lesotho is at loggerheads with the Transkei about which of them is entitled to Matatiele. It is possible for us to have lengthy and comprehensive discussions on these things, to reason about them objectively and to have differences of opinion without becoming angry with one another. But the fact of the matter is simply that over the years the Zulu, the Swazi and the Sotho have traditionally had certain parts of the country as their traditional homelands and still have them today. This is a basic fact of history which cannot be denied by anybody.

But the third fact is this, and this is where we find the dilemma with which we have to cope, namely that as a result of circumstances that have developed over the years —and not only over the past 24 years, but right from the beginning of the contact between Whites and non-Whites and Bantu and Bantu, Black man and Black man— there was conflict and the situation arose which we have today, a situation which was aggravated during the war years and which, through the process of industrialization and circumstances beyond our control, has assumed increased dimensions. This is, to be specific, the fact that a tremendously large number of Bantu have for many years now been settled in the White area, around our cities and in the rural areas. Sir, this morning I am not even going to make an attempt to begin to describe the Bantu in the White areas, if I may put it this way, by way of the terms used by us from time to time. It is good and useful that consideration should perhaps be given to these things, to precisely how we view them. But for the purposes of carrying out my task, as assigned to me by the Minister and by the Government, I just want to say one thing, to friend and foe alike, to the Government and to the Opposition, to the White man and to the Black man, namely that I accept—and it would be foolish not to accept it—that these Bantu who axe still in White areas and who are sometimes referred to as “urban” Bantu or by other names …

“Casuals.”

We should at least try first to listen for a while; after that we shall be able to argue with a good understanding of matters. I say that my own standpoint is that irrespective of how we look upon them, irrespective of what word we may be using for them, these Bantu will for many years, in our generation, in the time of generations yet to come, be in the White areas, and this is the way it has always been accepted by the Government. [Interjections.] Sir, I said at the beginning that we could reason about these things; there is no need for us to shout one another down. Through this shouting down of standpoints we are not accomplishing anything and are not doing South Africa, White and non-White, any favour. I am trying to discuss this matter in a sober manner, and I say that I accept that these Bantu will still be here for many, many years.

Now, what is our task, as a Government, as a governing party and as an Opposition? I want to explain to you in simple terms how I view my task. The way I view my task is that as far as these Bantu are concerned, as long as they are in the White area, for their own benefit, also for the benefit of the Whites who need their labour, we must accept that we have a task, namely that of establishing and developing between those people and the Whites the happiest relations possible; and any person who says that life should be made unpleasant for Bantu in White areas, is playing with the future of both White South Africa and non-White South Africa. I want to state in the most unambiguous terms that what I am saying was not discovered by myself. The day, on 4th June, when the National Party assumed the reins of government, Dr. Malan said this in his broadcast speech that evening, namely that the happy relations between Whites and non-Whites had to be developed. And in the years that followed this was repeated, and it was not only said in words, but something was done about it. Let me say that if we are prepared to listen to someone else, as I am prepared to listen to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, with respect to him as the Leader of a big party, then I think we may at least have regard to the fact that this has repeatedly been said by the hon. the Prime Minister, not only in this House, but right from the beginning when he took over the reins of government, and he said this not only to people who were his opponents, but he also impressed upon his own people that it was the task of every White person to ensure to the best of his ability that happy relations be established.

I want to tell you, Sir, that within the framework of those guidelines I am prepared to carry out the task assigned to me by the Minister, and I want to tell you that the hon. the Minister has given me certain instructions which I am carrying out and which the department is carrying out, and I think that irrespective of the negative things that are always being mentioned, room will still be made for the positive things which we want to accomplish jointly.

I want to tell you that it was on the initiative of the hon. the Minister that these Bantu affairs administration boards were established by my predecessor. I want to tell you that over the years of thinking and working, with the assistance of the heads of departments, this department, which, as was quite rightly said by the hon. member for Transkei, has to cope with a tremendous amount of work through its officials, has been working towards building up positive things. These things cannot be done in a day.

The direction in which we are working is, in the first place, an implementation of those premises which I mentioned to you, namely that in our view those Bantu who are living in the urban areas and in the rural areas in White South Africa, are not simply a loose, separate identity on their own. The National Party has always said that these people, wherever they may be living or working, come from a people and from a country which have traditionally been their own, and this Government has committed itself, and I have committed myself, to developing those national ties, those homeland ties, even if it is a difficult task and even if some people are saying that it is an impossible task. With the assistance of those homeland leaders, and also with that of the leaders in White areas, we shall do this as we are in fact doing it at the moment. The day will come when these parts of South Africa will no longer be regarded by a Xhosa as his homeland or as a reserve or whatever description we may have used in the past. The task of the Government, and the task of all of us here, is to develop these ties for those people, who have a people of their own in their own separate fatherland.

In that respect I want to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Transkei. I think we have reached a stage in history about which the Prime Minister sounded a warning, namely that we should not fall over words and that we should not waste time whilst there is a major job of work to be done. If suggestions which are of value are put forward on the other side of the House, we must consider them. If pronouncements are made by academics and critics of this Government or by clergymen, consideration must be given to them. I think there is one thing which was said by the hon. member for Transkei yesterday, of which cognizance must be taken and of which the country must be made aware. This is that these Bantu homelands, or fatherlands or reserves, or whatever they want to be called, should in any case be turned into viable places to which the people belonging to the various nations would feel like going. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to continue and to give us his policy for the urban Bantu as he promised yesterday?

Mr. Chairman, I shall be pleased to do that. If I may continue immediately, I should like to say that in so far as the development of the homelands is concerned, we are committed to do what I have just said. I should like to emphasize that we should get away from the idea that these homelands could be regarded as dumping grounds for people whom we do not want in White South Africa … [Interjections.] … if there are such people who think that those homelands are to be regarded as dumping grounds. However, by the same token and even more so, I think it must be realized —we must face up to this—that with the 60 or 70 000 odd people coming on to the labour market every year from the Bantu reserves, the White areas should also not be regarded as the dumping ground for the surplus labour which comes from the Bantu homelands. That is a fact which has to be faced. Therefore we are committed to develop these homelands to the fullest of our ability and to the fullest of the potential of those homelands. I should like to add that this is not only the responsibility of the Government of the day; it is the responsibility of every newspaper to propagate this and it is the responsibility of every one who interests himself in the welfare of this country to propagate and to assist in developing these homelands.

The hon. member asked me to say something about the urban Bantu. I have already said that our aim is—we are working towards that aim—to tighten the bonds which tie them to their own people and to their own countries.

*I realize that in the years of transition, which will still go on for a long time, one will find levels of friction, and such levels of friction are still developing today. Last night I reached the point of replying to what the hon. member for Jeppes had said in connection with a number of aspects, but as far as the speech made by the hon. member for Johannesburg North is concerned, I want to say that if a positive suggestion is put forward, such as a charter for migrant labour, then I shall certainly look into the matter and I shall give it my attention. These are positive suggestions, and this side of the House and I are obliged to look into such suggestions, no matter whom they may have come from. I shall certainly give them my attention.

Then there are the questions which were put to me by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition at the time, such as what we were doing in order to improve conditions for the urban Bantu. There are, of course, some matters which affect the Department of Labour, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will forgive me and realize that I do not wish to embark upon the province of the hon. the Minister of Labour. However, he will have taken cognizance of the fact that notice was given of legislation this morning, and that there have also been reports in this morning’s papers on what the Government is doing in this regard.

He also put to me certain questions in regard to educational and university facilities. He wanted to know what was being done for the Bantu while they found themselves in the White area. I shall be able to deal with those questions more fully when we come to the discussion of the Bantu Education Vote.

Now I want to deal primarily with the question of the levels of friction which exist at the moment.

We have now established the administration boards, and I hope that I shall have finished the task involved in the establishment of those boards by the end of next week. I also want to take this opportunity to extend here in this House my sincere thanks to the hon. member for Langlaagte and the other members of his committee for the excellent work, the hard work, done by them in connection with the delimitation of areas.

In the second place, and with further reference to what I said last night when I pointed out that the chairmen and the vice-chairmen of those boards would have to be people who had to be prepared to act in a dynamic manner in developing the policy of the party, in improving conditions for the urban Bantu and also in bringing about their resettlement in their country of origin, I want to give the following assurance.

†I can assure the House that to the best of my ability and with the assistance of the authorities who nominated these members to the boards, we have appointed able men, men who have already proved themselves in the field of public service and have devoted many years of their lives to it. They are not all Nationalists. There are many who do not belong to the National Party. I not only hope and trust, but also sincerely believe that if we can work together on these boards, of which there will be 22, we will be entering an era in which the results of what can be done cannot be foreseen today.

*I want to express confidence—I hope to meet the chairmen and vice-chairmen one of these days—that these boards will be able to develop on a regional basis what is positive and to eliminate what is still negative.

I want to mention an example. The hon. member for Houghton spoke about migrant labour and especially about the Alexandra hostels. It is all very well, when we discuss these matters, to become heated. I think we should try to be a little bit objective even though we are party-bound. With reference to the question of the Alexandra hostels there is one thing I want to say to the hon. member for Houghton today: I have already granted numerous interviews to people who were concerned about them. I am going to interview some more people in this regard, for I, too, am not happy about a system of hostels. My children are staying in hostels, and I do not feel happy about that.

They won’t stay there for ever.

I know. Nor will those staying in the Alexandra hostels now, stay there for ever. If anything can at all be done about it and if there are deserving cases, as I said last night in connection with widows and others, attention will be given to the matter. But the question of the Alexandra hostels has been exaggerated to such an extent …

†I think the hon. member for Johannesburg North knows something about it, about the people who have property rights and title rights in Alexandra. He knows what the conditions were at Alexandra. If you asked me to make a choice, I would prefer a hundred times over to live in one of those hostels rather than to live in one of those shacks of which there are ever so many left at Alexandra and to which people have title rights.

*Therefore, Sir, as far as these hostels are concerned, I can only tell the hon. member that we should also have regard to the fact that there are differences between peoples.

Now I am going to say something, not because I think I am a better person than a Black man—I am not better—but just to mention an example. I have a Black man living on my farm. I am not saying this condescendingly. By what I am going to say, I am not trying to give myself out as being pious. That Black man is one of the best people I know, in his own right as a human being. He is a conscientious, honest worker. However, his norms differ from mine. I am not saying that I am a better person, but there are other norms amongst the Bantu in South Africa, and we must face up to this. The marriage norms of that man, who is a faithful, good person, differ from mine; he has four wives, and this is no disgrace to him. He has 32 children on that farm. Now this hon. member tells me that I should house these Bantu here on a family basis! The hon. member and others talk to me about this as though we are penalizing these people by having them live in hostels. Sir, I do not insult other peoples; I do not have the right to do it, but they are simply different. Nobody can deny this. It is not a disgrace for many of the Bantu women to have illegitimate children. And if they do have illegitimate children—let us now consider the matter in a practical manner—am I then to give a house to that woman with two or three or four illegitimate children? Where does the money come from? Where does one put a stop to the housing of every person coming to the White area in this manner? Let us, in discussing these things, apart from the incitement one sometimes finds coming from outside, at least try to be sober. I told the House, and I had a study made of the matter, that in and around Johannesburg, including the migrant labourers employed on the mines, 79% of the Black people were being housed on a family basis. The hon. member is welcome to take a look at the figures.

†But, Sir, we must also realize that it is very easy to stand up and plead for more houses. It is very easy to stand up here and say that we have to buy more land. Do members realize what the cost of land, is, how much it costs to acquire land just outside the perimeter of Johannesburg for Bantu housing and what they would be required to pay even on a sub-economic basis, if we want them to pay for the privilege of living near their place of employment? We must realize that these matters cause problems.

*If we have them lived farther away, complaints are received, as I have in fact received, justified complaints about matters such as transport. An hon. member mentioned last night that it took hours for a person living outside East London to reach his place of work. These are practical problems with which we are faced. Thousands upon thousands of rands are involved in the matter.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by saying that the channels for negotiations between the opponents and the supporters of the policy of the National Party are there. The hon. the Prime Minister and my hon. Minister set the example of meeting Bantu leaders. Those talks lasted for hours while I was present, too. These were leaders who have not always been sympathetically disposed towards our efforts. I, in my turn, shall try to meet the Bantu leaders in and around Soweto, at all the other places and in the rural areas. I shall try to have all problems solved in practice, because I know that I am not doing this for Black South Africa alone. It is also for White South Africa that this money is being spent and this work is being done. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, when the hon. the Prime Minister replied to his Vote, he did not give us his Government’s plans with regard to the Bantu, and the urban Bantu in particular. I said at the time that it was a black day for South Africa. Now I want to say that today is a hopeful day for South Africa. As yet I do not want to say that it is a happy day, because we have not heard the details yet, nor what is going to be done in terms of the fine thoughts which have been uttered here. But I dò want to say that it is a hopeful day. We look forward to hearing about the actual plans and policies of the Government in this regard. I also want to praise the fine approach of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I think that it was in the best traditions of democracy. Or rather, I think that it was a demonstration of democracy at its best. I think that everyone opposite will readily concede that he showed that he and his side had come to accept views which we had been advocating for a long time. [Interjections.] I do not want to say in all respects. I think that hon. members will honestly concede that their approach—I shall refer to particular points which he mentioned—shows signs of an approach generally recommended by us to the Government over a very long period. I should like to quote a few of them.

In the first place he said that they believed in preserving the identity of the White man. We believe in that just as firmly as they do. We have always said that the identity of the White man must be preserved because he is the vehicle of Western civilization. Without him that civilization will disappear. Therefore, as regards the first point which I have mentioned, we are in complete agreement.

They are also saying now that the Bantu will be in the White areas for many years. He will excuse me when I disagree with him on his statement that this had always been the approach on their side.

It always has.

We heard a great deal about the year 1978. We heard a great deal about the reversal of the stream, and so on. But I do not want to harp on that. I welcome the new approach we have had. But what is still lacking is the chapter and verse of the implications of the new approach. On 25th April, the hon. member for Transkei as well as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition put point after point to the Government in this House asking what the Government’s approach was in regard to many matters, including the adjustment of influx control, job reservation and many other things. We had a general statement from the hon. the Deputy Minister. We are still looking and waiting for the actual details. We should like to hear from him how they view the implications. I want to refer hon. members to a speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister on 12th March at Kroonstad. There he said the following (translation)—

We do not run away as you do from your consequences.

I am pleased that they are now prepared to accept the consequences which we said would inevitably have to be accepted. But we should like to hear from the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister what implications they want to spell out to South Africa in the first place and to their supporters in the second place. It does not help to say that we want to make the urban Bantu as happy as possible. We want to hear what is going to be done. We all remember that the previous Deputy Minister, Mr. Blaar Coetzee, said that we should not make things too attractive for the urban Bantu in the White areas, because then he will not be enticed into going back. While we welcome this in the good spirit in which it was said, we should like to have details. May we be told now what the attitude is in regard to section 10? There has always been talk of this section being deleted. The first step must be to make these people feel happy. Now I want to know whether they will be given the assurance that there is no longer any question of section 10 being deleted. This is a very important matter.

There are of course many other matters concerning the urban Bantu. We are all in complete agreement as far as the homelands and their development are concerned. We are in complete agreement with the Government in this regard. We just want the development to take place at a slightly faster rate. I believe that they could be developed much faster if the umbrella of the hand of the White man could be held over all the land of the Republic so that the industrialist may have the confidence to establish his business there. Who wants to go and establish anything in an independent African state? One must learn from the experience of others, namely the rest of Africa, how businesses have been nationalized. How can one expect industrialization to really get going? Then, too, there is the matter of White capital. We agree that the White area should not become the “dumping ground” of the non-White. We stand for influx control. We have always done so. We just want to ensure that the honest man seeking work and the honest employer who has work, are brought together.

There are also other aspects concerning policy which I want to discuss. I should like to know what the plans are for a commonwealth in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister and members opposite think they are saying something significant when they say that they will never give any non-White any say in White affairs. Let me just tell them, in the time that remains to me, that prior to the revolution the French had no place on the councils of that time, and yet they succeeded in getting the power into their hands. The Bolshevists in Russia had few people in the Parliament of that time, and yet they succeeded in getting the power into their hands. Even the Germans had no people in either Czechoslovakia or Austria, and yet they came into those places, too. These are all ways in which one can obtain power without actually having anyone in the national assembly of a country. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is difficult, actually, to reply to certain matters raised by the hon. member for Pinelands. Let us just consider everything he touched on in a matter of ten minutes. He spoke about the Bantu in the urban areas, and posed a host of questions. And do you know, Sir, what he said about their policy? He spoke about the hand of the White man as an umbrella over South Africa. That is the closest he came to their policy. So he did mention something of their policy. He went on to speak about the establishment of industrialists in the Bantu homelands, etc., and compared that to the position in African States. In the end he also put questions about a confederation. All this he did in the space of ten minutes. It is therefore humanly impossible to reply to all those aspects, even if one were to have all the answers, because I, too, have ten minutes only. But let me say this to the hon. member: He said he was pleased that we had come to have new views on certain matters. Sir, I on this side was delighted that the opposite side has come to have new views in consequence of what was said by the hon. the Deputy Minister. The hon. the Deputy Minister said nothing new. [Interjections.] He said nothing which we have not been saying for many years. We shall be able to prove this to hon. members from Hansard. When the hon. the Minister referred to people who had to be in their homeland areas to the maximum extent, did he mean by that that all of them must move from the White areas? Minister after Minister I have heard since I have been sitting in this House, since the days of Dr. Verwoerd, have said that there will always be Black people in the White areas of South Africa. Today this is something new for those people; they have never heard about it. Sir, we are pleased that certain things which we repeat time after time, do eventually penetrate those hon. members, and that it is really they who are coming to have new views.

And then, Sir, I want to take it amiss of the hon. member for Pinelands for comparing the homeland areas in South Africa to certain irresponsible African states. To say that people who will not go and establish themselves in African states, will not establish themselves in the homeland areas in South Africa either, is an unfortunate comparison. It is unfair to say this about the homelands of South Africa, particularly in view of the way in which we govern the homelands in South Africa, and the way in which they are being led under this Government to responsible government. [Interjections.] Sir, hon. members may make a row about that, but I think that that is an unfortunate comparison to have made.

This, too, I want to say: The National Party has been going content to this policy and to our relations in South Africa over a period of many years, and those hon. members can say nothing about that. What they did, was to react every time to what the National Party had done. They are a party of reaction; that is all. Creative, with real ideas of their own for our society in South Africa, they definitely are not. Never, over the past 25 years, have we ever had anything significant from the United Party in this connection. They have brought forth nothing. It makes one think of a person who wants to bake a loaf of bread. The bread never gets into the oven; the dough remains in the bowl, because the recipe is changing continually. The policy is changing continually: Now one must add to the recipe; then something must be removed from the recipe; the loaf never gets baked; as far as that party is concerned, the dough is still in the kneadingbowl. Over the years we on our part have given content to the policy, regarding the White body politic in South Africa and also the homelands of the non-Whites, and it may virtually be said that the loaves are coming out of the oven one after the other. An awareness has been created in South Africa by the National Party. Among the Bantu, too, an awareness of a national identity and citizenship of a state has been created, so that they, too, may lay claim to that. I am sorry that I cannot dwell on this any longer. In these people a territorial instinct, too, has been created, so that they, too, may concentrate on the welfare of a state of their own in a national home of their own.

An awareness of service to the people has been created so that the Bantu, in his systems of government, which have been established under the policy of this Government, may have a share, whether as a representative of the people or on so many other terrains, in serving his own people. In this process something has come to the fore; leaders have come to the fore, created by this National Party. Political leaders, too, have come to the fore and, Sir, what was the position in the early years in regard to those political leaders? The Bantu leaders were looked down upon. They were scornfully referred to as “yes-men” of this Government, as lackeys of this Government, and as stooges who were not the true representatives of their people. But now that time has wrought some changes in that attitude, where are we standing today? Now, the leaders are praised. They are continually quoted. Suddenly it is being realized that they are representatives of their people. In fact there is glee when some of these leaders attack the Government. Some of them are even urged on. It is well known that when a certain Bantu leader was in America some time ago, and certain events took place in South Africa, certain English-language newspapers telephoned him in America to ask him what his reaction was to what has happened. Now, Sir, he did not have the full facts before him, but he had to comment so that they could publish his comments. I say, therefore, that they are even being urged on. Now, obviously these leaders make certain statements. They speak at various places. They address Whites as well as non-Whites. They speak within and outside South Africa. There are many speeches and there are many statements. Sir, it does not trouble us at all if these leaders express criticism when they are speaking on behalf of their own people. We are not sensitive to criticism. We only expect it to be responsible criticism, positive criticism; one goes a long way with that. What does trouble us, however, is when they are exaggerated utterances. The hon. member for Transkei referred to this yesterday. He spoke about “provocative speeches”, and about people who made statements to disrupt the economy and who spoke about revolts, insurrections and blood-baths. That kind of utterance is not pleasing to the palate. It borders on irresponsibility, Sir, if it is not irresponsible already. If statements are made in South Africa by these leaders, then it does not only affect the Black people; it also affects the White people. So, too, if White leaders make utterances, it affects White people and Black people in South Africa. Among the Whites, too, there are people who are quick to see red. There are people who do not want relations, the good relations which we have built up over the years, to be destroyed by irresponsible and exaggerated statements. Now one also does not expect the hon. the Minister to react to every one of these speeches, statements, etc. The poor Minister would sometimes be busy for days on end if he were to reply to everything which is said. But I believe that it is necessary, during the discussion of this Vote in Parliament, where the broad aspects in regard to our Bantu peoples are considered, that the hon. the Minister should rectify certain of these matters and that he should comment on some of the statements made by the Bantu leaders. Sir, certain things must be said. The air must be cleared in respect of quite a number of matters, and we believe that this is a responsible House with a responsible Minister who is able to give responsible replies to those statements to the benefit of the Black people in South Africa who listen, but also to the benefit of the White people in South Africa who listen, because if those things are rectified again and many of these things are seen in their proper perspective, then it would be to the benefit of the friendly co-existence of White and non-White in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to the speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister. May I say that the hon. member who has just sat down will not really expect me to reply to him. I am reminded, Sir, after hearing the speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister and after now hearing the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down, of the tunes that we hear sometimes on Radio Good Hope. You get a soul-moving melody and a few minutes afterwards you hear somebody shouting out, “Do you drink ginger pop?”, or something like that, and it ruins the whole effect of the melody that you have heard. Sir, I want to say that we heard a melody today from the hon. the Deputy Minister; we heard a new voice on the other side of the House. You know, Mr. Chairman, there are speeches that go down in history and the hon. the Deputy Minister’s speech is going to go down in history. I am an old man here in Parliament and I have spent a very long period in public life, and I can tell these things when I hear them, and I say that we have listened here today to a speech that will go down in history. It was not only a new voice, but it was a new concept put across with emphasis and confidence and a belief in the rightness of his cause—in other words, sincerity—and if the hon. member who has just sat down says that there was nothing new in the hon. the Deputy Minister’s speech, I am very pleased indeed to hear it, because it means that the Deputy Minister will get the backing of his party, in spite of what I am saying as a compliment to him. I now know, Sir, that I am not going to give him the kiss of death by saying that he has gone a long way towards meeting all that we ask from the Government in respect of a policy towards the migrant Bantu and the Bantu living in our towns. But, Sir, he was not getting unqualified support on the other side; I was watching the face of the hon. the Minister.

It was very sour.

I drew attention to it, Sir. The hon. the Minister made as many notes while the Deputy Minister was speaking as he makes when we are speaking from this side of the House. He is not even making a note of what I am saying now and that is very rude, Sir, because I look upon myself as an important front-bench member on this side of the House when we are discussing Bantu affairs, but the Minister is not interested; he was, however, interested in the speech of the Deputy Minister. Sir, I want to warn the hon. the Deputy Minister; his speech was a magnificent speech, and it will not be forgotten, but it may yet have his body thrown on the political ash-heap as far as his side of the House is concerned. Sir, that is not the sort of speech to be made by hon. members on that side of the House while that hon. Minister in charge of Bantu Administration stays on the job. When the hon. the Minister gets up now, I challenge him to start off by saying that he approves of everything that was said by the Deputy Minister.

He shakes his head.

Sir, the Deputy Minister spoke today with authority, in my opinion, on behalf of the Government, on behalf of the Nationalist Party, in this House, as he did in the five minutes that he spoke last night, and I now challenge the Minister. I want him, when he gets up presently, to say that he agrees entirely with what was said by the Deputy Minister.

I say it right now.

Fine. Now, Sir, you will understand what I meant when I said that the speech made by the Deputy Minister was a turning point in the history of the Government’s policy in regard to the Bantu. The Deputy Minister has persuaded his Minister that he, the Deputy Minister, is right. After all the speeches that we have heard from the Minister in the past, today he follows the Deputy Minister; it is as clear as a bell. He accepts in the plainest language what the Deputy Minister has said. Sir, I repeat that he did not only listen to it; he made copious notes, and now that I am speaking about the Deputy Minister he is making copious notes again.

Sir, let me now come to the Deputy Minister. The Deputy Minister asked yesterday if he could get advice and help in regard to the migrant Bantu, and that is also something new, Sir. Does he not realize that he is following in the steps of a Minister who knows everything about the Bantu, a Minister who does not need any help? He is the font of all wisdom in regard to Bantu Affairs. He does not know anything about the Bantu as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, Sir, but I am talking about his own capacity, his own opinion, his own idea of himself. The Deputy Minister knows something about the Bantu, Sir, and that is why I say that he will go places. He is prepared to say, “If other people can give me a helping hand, then I will welcome it.” It may well be that it is possible for somebody to help him. It may be that even from debates of this character he will be able to get something which will help him along this difficult path. Most of the difficulties are those which he himself recognizes. He sees the position clearly and he sees the problems and he states them. He does not say that all is well or that he has the answer to all the problems, or “we have been in power for 25 years and we do not have the answer yet, but I have the answer”, like the hon. the Minister says. He does not say that. He says he knows the problems.

Now I want to deal with the problem not only of the migrant Bantu but also the position we are coming to in regard to the drift to the towns from the Bantu areas. May I say to the hon. the Deputy Minister, because I want to address my remarks to him, that in the Argus last night there was a big headline: “Farmers urged to plan for wage increases”, and this is the advice of a prominent Afrikaans economist, Dr. C. van Wyk. In the Mercury, as it happens, on the 17th of this month, I see “Africans to do car work”, and from Johannesburg comes this article—

It speaks of 20 000 to 30 000, Sir. Where do those people to be trained, the 20 000 to 30 000, come from? You see, Sir, under the present dispensation, if they are living in the towns and they are to be taken from the White urban areas to be trained, presumably somehow by employers, then they have not had the academic schooling in the towns. That is what the Government refuses to give them. The academic training for the Bantu is in the homelands. So you have to take boys who have passed Std. 6 or Std. 7 or Std. 8 as the case may be and then bring them into the towns where the training facilities are to be found for them to become motor mechanics. Here is a clear point where economics are now going to insist on these 20 000 or 30 000 young men coming into the towns for their training. Why does Dr. van Wyk suggest that the farmers should look to the wage structure of their farm servants? This is the big problem as I see it and the Deputy Minister has to face up to it. We have had enormous wage increases among the Bantu working in commerce and particularly in our industries. The farmers are being advised to raise their wage standards. Already the Department of Forestry has raised its wages, the sugar industry has raised its wages and other farming organizations have raised their wages. Sir, that raising of wages creates a new market for Bantu in the homelands to come and find employment where they are going to get higher wages. Who is going to raise the wages for the Bantu who stay in the homelands? What is the attraction for the Bantu to stay in the homelands, and to find employment there when there is this vast increase in wages taking place in the White areas the whole time, where 20 000 or 30 000 mechanics are going to be trained? And I just picked this out at random from the paper that came to me yesterday, both these cuttings. It is happening every day. The weight of economics is showing the Black man that the place where he will get money is the place where the employment is to be found at the higher rate of wages, and the Black man can read the writing on the wall the same as anybody else can. The man who is free to find his own employer at a wage which he believes is going to be the most lucrative, that man will tend to go to the places where there is big industrial development and commercial development. In other words, he will go into the big White areas. But I want to emphasize this point, that with that increase in wages —and when the cost of living goes up, it will only be a very short time before we get the Bantu demanding a further increase in wages—how lopsided can it get before there is a corresponding rise in wages in the Bantu homelands? Wages in the homelands are remaining at the old level. There is an imbalance which is completely out of keeping with reality. And the Bantu workmen are just as able to judge of the opportunities which are being presented to them, as to whether they will get those opportunities in the homelands or whether they will get them in the White areas. Let the opportunities and the higher rate of wages continue in the White areas and we must take it that they will go into those White areas. It is no good the Government, or anybody else, appealing to the Bantu and saying: Stop and work in the homelands at a lower rate of wages because you are patriotic Bantu and you will not want to go and help the industrial growth in the White areas but you want to try to build up the economic growth of your own homelands That cuts no ice and it does not cut it for any other nation in the world. I therefore say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that this is one of his problems. I believe it is one of his biggest problems. I am sure that he will get help and assistance wherever he turns for it. I can assure him that if he is wanting any help that we can give him from this side of the House, now that we have heard this new voice, this voice of authority, of sincerity, we will help wherever we possibly can.

Mr. Chairman … [Interjections] … the hon. member for South Coast is an old political war-horse, but seldom have I seen him with such an expression of dismay on his face as this morning. Actually he is regarded as the “verkrampte” on that side, but this morning he is talking about and welcoming the so-called “new voice in South Africa”. Let me tell him very clearly that it was not a new voice we heard this morning. It was a 100% correct rendering of this party’s policy of development along individual lines. It is interesting to see that the closer we come to the election of 1975, the more they suggest that we have now come over to their views. The closer we come to the election and the more deadly the policy of apartheid becomes in sealing their political fate as it sealed their political fate in 1948, the more they pose and the closer to us they move until eventually I am able to say of the hon. member for South Coast: See there, a real old, purified, conservative Nationalist! We shall still see that day.

May I ask the hon. member a question! Is Saul also among the prophets this morning?

It is not necessary to be blessed with prophetic gifts to see that it is the tactics of the United Party to come ever closer to the National Party. They may try to come closer to this wonderful policy of ours, but they will never be able to pose as the fellow creators of this outstanding policy. The National Party is the creator of this policy. There were days when hon. members opposite called out that integration was their dynamic policy, but today they are as quiet as mice about integration. The policy of development along individual lines, however, has become the dynamic policy in South Africa. This morning a Deputy Minister gave a crystal-clear enunciation of this dynamic policy in a dynamic way, because he is a dynamic personality. Now, after 25 years, it is sinking into those heads which are barely receptive to this wonderful policy of the National Party’s.

The hon. member for Transkei also made a tremendous fuss yesterday about the so-called tension which was building up in the country. I want to tell him that I have been a member of this House for 30 years now and will I ever forget that intense tension prior to 1948? How did they handle this all-important Bantu question and our relations question in South Africa? They handled it in such a way that everyone, friend and enemy, admitted that South Africa, under the leadership of the old United Party, was on the road to an uninviting future of racial tension, racial friction and racial conflict. It is the year 1948 which is regarded as the turning point in the political history of human relations and racial and national relations in South Africa, not so? It is regarded as such because we stated what the involved problem was. We accepted the responsibility, we considered the policy fully and we did not flinch from the eventual logical consequences of our policy. That is why we put it as clear as crystal and that is why hon. members are so amazed this morning when they realize that our policy is imbued with Christian justice and that there is an objective approach.

I am a student of facial expressions. Just have a look at them now! Have you ever seen a picture such as that? I wish someone was here with a camera to immortalize the physiognomic expressions of the hon. members. It would mean a damning judgment of them, because they feel uneasy about the speech by the hon. member. Talk about tension! The policy of development along individual lines has freed South Africa from tension. They are afraid, since this policy of development along individual lines does not only grip the imagination of well-meaning Whites, but also that of the non-Whites. [Interjections.] There hon. members are grasping at certain leaders whom in the old days they called the “stooges”. Is that true? What did they call Buthelezi and Matanzima? Was that not how hon. members branded them?

Who ever called Buthelezi a “stooge”?

I want to tell the hon. member that the National Party’s policy is the only policy which will free the country from tension; because racial conflict is the crux of this complicated relations issue in South Africa. Our policy is a scientific one, one which has been fully considered and which must release the tension. That is why we do not flinch from the logical consequences, i.e. that there will eventually be separate, independent states which will be led towards self-determination. Why are hon. members so amazed at the new vision or the new policy. That party, and the hon. member for Houghton, and the Ballingers and the Davidoffs and the Heppels and the Sam Kahns and the Buntings conveyed an image of this policy of development along individual lines which the advocate summarized as follows—

He might just as well have said “the United Party”, or “the hon. member for Houghton”.

But is self-determination not the very all-impórtant, exalted aim of the policy of development along individual lines?

What booklet is that?

Is that not also the exalted aim of the charter of the U.N.? When they speak of self-determination overseas, it is a wonderful, exalted aim, but when we as Christian, White guardians come forward with a policy of development along individual lines leading to self-determination, then, suddenly, it is a policy of suppression and then it is presented in a distorted shape.

What booklet is that?

This booklet? If the hon. member had devoured this booklet, he would not have suffered from political indigestion for so long. This is one of the best booklets. I quote further—

Is it banned?

No, the hon. member will remember that this has been an inseparable part of her political vocabulary, and also of that of Margaret Ballinger and that side of the House, since 1948, when we came into power. Now all of a sudden the hon. member thinks she is hearing a new note. Why does it sound like a new note? Because that side of the House and the hon. member for Houghton have conveyed a false image of South Africa to the outside world.

It is Friday morning. One Friday morning a few weeks ago, just before the bells were rung and Mr. Speaker entered the House, the hon. member who is now sitting and looking at me so meaningfully, with her rival policy, came in this direction with a parcel of these copies which I have in my hand. She asked me kindly to hand them to my colleagues. Not so? That was quite sometime before 10 o’clock. Mr. Speaker entered the Chamber sometime later. Hon. members can ask our friends here. Do you know whose speech she gave me? Buthelezi’s! That was before he had addressed the conference. All the pressmen would have to attend such a conference. After all, they are also present. Even before he delivered his speech, the hon. member came here and handed it to me. I thought that the hon. member would have handed it to one of the younger people, for example, to the hon. member behind me here or to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad. With what object?

To have it distributed.

Oh! Now I see that the hon. member wanted me to distribute them. No, Mr. Chairman, the point I want to make this morning is that it was at the request or invitation of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration that Chief Buthelezi and the executive members came here for about five days for interviews, etc. I think that it was on a Friday morning and as far as I can remember the date was 2nd March. He was to address the Press conference at 10 o’clock sharp. But before that time that hon. member embraced it and pressed it to her bosom and came over and handed it to me. That was before he had addressed the conference. Now I ask the hon. member who was present when this thing was printed?

He gave it to me.

Just now when you stand up to talk you can tell us. I should like to know because afterwards I may perhaps get another ten minutes. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, may I ask for the privilege of the second half-hour? I really do not know what the hon. Chief Whip was trying to convince this House of in his ten minutes’ speech other than to detract from the very significant effect which the speech of the hon. Deputy Minister Janson had. When the hon. the Chief Whip was put in, it was quite evident then that the effect which that speech had had, was not on us, Sir, but on the Government members of this House.

Hear, hear!

The speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister was significant in two respects. It was significant in the tone and sincerity with which it was delivered in relation to the subject-matter and it was significant for a noteworthy change of emphasis in the subject-matter which was the position of the urban Bantu in this country.

We have always respect that spirit.

Where we are still in the dark and where we differ from hon. members opposite is in the hard kernel of the thing, namely the method by which you are to bring about this better and more fruitful coexistence between the races. It has always been mouthed from the other side that that is the desire of the policy. But the crunch in South Africa is how it is to be done. This I am afraid we are still to hear from the hon. gentleman.

It is only a question of method now?

In order to clear up what apparently is a confusion in the mind of the hon. member for Carltonville …

I do not understand what you mean.

I’ll put it exactly. As I understood the hon. the Deputy Minister he was pleading for peaceful coexistence between the races in South Africa.

Is that something new?

To that extent he said what other members on that side had said. I said that the crunch is how that was going to be brought about. That is policy and that is where there is a major difference of policy among all the parties that are represented in this House. And again when it comes to emphasis there is a difference between certain members on that side of the House and certain other members.

But let me go on to another matter which was touched on by the hon. the Chief Whip, namely the utterances by some of the Bantu leaders of today which are causing many people in this country a great deal of concern. I would have imagined that the hon. the Deputy Minister is amongst those responsible people who has a growing measure of concern over the ever-widening gap in political thinking between the homeland Governments or many of them, and the Republican Government. In addition to that there is the concern which is growing over the increasingly militant and hostile attitudes and utterances of some of their leaders. These leaders are not people that have been brought up and trained by the A.N.C. or the P.A.C., or any other body of that kind. They are people for the most part nurtured and trained under the policy of separate development. They are for the most part people who began as supporters of the policy of separate development. Yet, the more that policy unfolds, the more extreme the criticism of it by some of these leaders. Some examples were given by the hon. member for Transkei. I have here a whole sheaf of newspaper cuttings from which I could quote. I will quote some of them. I have no doubt that some of these utterances will be strange to hon. gentlemen on the other side, because they are insulated to a large extent from what is going on in the Bantu homelands. These hostile utterances are never repeated over the news services of the South African Broadcasting Corporation. The only utterance of a Bantu leader that is ever broadcast is one that is favourable to the Government. Very few of these statements are printed in the Nationalist Press. It is only when you follow the English-language Press that you realize what is going on and what is being said in some quarters. You have for example in the Daily News of the 14th of this month a statement reported to have been made by Chief Matanzima as follows—

This was said by the Chief Minister of the Transkei at Butterworth. On another occasion, in another report I have here, he referred highly critically to the “unchristian attitude” which was shown by the South African Government in, as he put it, “leaving his own people to starve and to rot on the stones on the worst land in the country”. You have in another report of an earlier date “Matanzima slamming the White insincerity of the Republican Government”. In the Daily News there is another report on the arrival back in this country of a different leader, this time the Chief Minister of Gazankulu, i.e. the Shangaan group, saying—

And so, Sir, one could go on with even more critical utterances from Chief Buthelezi and others. This is a matter for considerable concern. These utterances are undesirable in two respects. Firstly they articulate in the minds of those Black men who can read newspapers—and they are an ever-increasing group—a feeling that they are hard done by by the Whites; not necessarily by the Government only, but by the White people. Secondly they arouse in the minds of the White man a feeling that some of the Bantu leaders are getting too big for their boots. Now, if these two manifestations are allowed to go unchecked indefinitely, they must ultimately lead to a clash, something which I am sure the majority of all races in this country would wish to avoid. I have no doubt that just as there are White politicians who are quite prepared to use naked racialism for political gain, however irresponsible that may be—and indeed we had the example of the hon. the Minister of Defence last year in exactly that position—so there will always be some Black politicians who are prepared to use naked racialism to further their own political ends. In a country where Black and White are totally dependent on each other, I should have thought that the object of political policy and governmental administration would have been to create a state of affairs where the utterances of the extremists were least effective. In South Africa, however, under this Government, the policy is so designed that utterances of the extremists are given added significance.

We are dealing at this stage of our existence, Sir, with two groups of Black people. On the one hand there is the urbanized Bantu, whatever he may be described as— I prefer to call him the “urbanized Bantu” —who has the wants and wishes of an urban proletariat anywhere else, and they are briefly the right to find a job at a fair wage, permanence in his job in the place where he lives, family life, education for his children, the right to buy the cottage he lives in, and the right to exercise some influence in the authority which rules him at the place both where he lives and where he works. I believe those are the aspirations of an urban proletariat anywhere in the world, and in this respect the Bantu is no different. All this he can get from the White man and only from the White man, because the White authority is the authority which controls these things, and because it all takes place in a White area. These things are the goal of an ever-increasing number of Bantu. Indeed, they will soon be, if they are not already, the goal of the majority. They are things which could quite reasonably be granted to the great satisfaction of the Bantu, the more sophisticated group of the people, and they are of such a nature that their grant by the White authority would redound greatly to the credit of that authority and to the White people in particular, in the eyes of the urban Bantu. Furthermore, it would lessen the appeal of the Black extremists. Finally, Sir, what I regard as most important, the refusal by the White authority to grant these things cannot be justified on any basis of reason or rationality to thinking people anywhere. It cannot be justified on any basis of reason anywhere to any community. Now I have dealt with the first group.

The second group of Black people is the tribal Bantu, who is usually a migrant worker whose family spends most of its time living in the reserves, carrying on some form of subsistence farming. He is a migrant worker either in the towns or on the White farms of this country. The aim of this group, certainly of the menfolk, is to get out and get a job to earn money, as was so graphically illustrated by the hon. member for South Coast. He has to earn money because he lives in a money economy. He does not have the skills to make money out of farming on limited land. This is not one of the skills which the Bantu possess. It is a skill possessed by the White man and the Asiatic; they can make money out of limited land; they can survive in a money economy on limited land, but the Bantu people have not got that skill. Lack of skill and overcrowding bring about a steady deterioration of the land that this group of Bantu occupies. All he knows, as a remedy for this, is constantly to ask for more, which will again become the same type of land as that which has already been exhausted. It is not only his inclination which leads him to this; it is Government policy which drives him to it, Government policy which not only prevents the peasant farmer whose land is played out from going to the town and getting a job and acquiring a skill, Government policy which not only is designed to send back to the reserves even the skilled Bantu who have gone to the towns, but Government policy which also sets out deliberately to trade additional land for the reserves against the acquisition of civic rights of any kind in the White urban areas. It is a matter of deliberate policy of setting off the one against the other. So, Mr. Chairman, we reach the stage where the grant of additional land for subsistence farming is the only direction in which the Government is prepared to meet the reasonable aspirations of all the Bantu people, both urban and tribal. And additional land is the one commodity which is the scarcest in South Africa today. Its scarcity value will increase immeasurably as the years go by and as our population increases apace to the 40 or 50 million which we will have within our lifetime at the turn of this century. We have reached the stage with this Government where these things I have enumerated which can be granted without difficulty, without disruption of the existing order, without danger to the White community or any other community, these things commonly called civic rights, which could safely be granted, are refused. That is the stage we have reached. Those things which can never be offered in a manner which will satisfy, namely additional land, are in fact offered, and the whole arrangement is founded upon a theory and a policy which day by day becomes increasingly untenable. So we have, with gathering intensity and a steady build-up of animosity, deteriorating relationships between the Bantu leaders and the Republican Government—I have quoted just some examples of this—not on a basis where the Republican Government has the aura of being fair and reasonable and the Bantu Governments have the aura of being extremist, but the converse, where the Republican Government gives the impression of following an increasingly untenable policy, whereas the Bantu Governments, in terms of Government philosophy—and I emphasize this; in terms of Government philosophy—are making demands in respect of land that will increasingly have the aura of reasonableness. In short, Sir, in this widening of dialogue between the Black Governments and our White Government, our Government are allowing themselves to be driven into an ever-weakening position, with a greater and greater loss of authority, and with ever-lessening room for manoeuvre in the game of politics. The end of the present road is clear for those with eyes to see. It will be the handing over by this Government of more and yet more White land, in the Eastern Province, in Natal, in the Eastern, Northern and Western Transvaal, and in the Northern Cape, on an ever-increasing scale, in an attempt to buy off the pressures which are building up. [Interjections.] The tragedy of the situation will be that the acquisition of additional land will not reduce the flow of Bantu into the White urban areas. It will in fact accelerate it, as the employment opportunities on the White farms disappear and are replaced by subsistence farming, and as less and less food is produced. So, hand in hand with the release of additional land will go an ever-increasing flow of Bantu to the White urban areas, until civic rights there will ultimately be forced to be conceded not from a position of strength, but from a position of considerable weakness. That is the position and that is the direction in which this Government is moving.

Let us take for a moment the question of labour. You will recall that a year or two ago there was a significant change on the question of the flow of Blacks from the rural areas to the urban areas. It was to be no longer a question of influx control, the control of Black people coming to the White areas by the White authority; it has now become efflux control, a control of the exit of Black people from the Reserves into the White areas by the Black authority; that is now the policy. The only reason that we have not felt the effects of this policy is that it is not working. The wherewithal, the labour bureaux which were set up to make it work are not functioning. But for that failure of the administration of this Government, Sir, we would by now have fully experienced the effects of this change of policy; and what does it mean, Sir? It means that Mr. Dahaldha, the Minister of Community Development in the KwaZulu Government, for example, at the time of the strike at Alusaf, a strategic industry at Richards Bay, could express his disapproval of what the directors of Alusaf were doing and could issue a clear warning that unless what he deemed a reasonable wage was paid, he would see to it that Alusaf would get no more labour. Some 700 units were involved. He had, of his own volition, come into this labour dispute between management and labour. I see now Sir, that the same gentleman has intervened in the labour dispute in the assembly of International Harvester machines in Pietermaritzburg, a dispute which is one at this very moment. Sir, Mr. Dlhadlha is not overstepping his authority when he does this; he is doing precisely what Government policy has authorized him to do, namely to control the efflux of Zulu labour from the homelands into the White areas for employment in White industry. Sir, in what situation have we put ourselves here? Here we have increasing hostility and criticism and impatience from a whole variety of these newly-created authorities, and we have a Government which has put the control of Bantu labour into the hands of those very people, not only general labour, Sir, but labour in our strategic industries as well, to the extent that in respect of Alusaf we had to send in White troops to keep the furnaces going in order to avoid damage to the tune of hundreds of thousands of rands to the melting-pots of that institution. Sir, we are in time of peace now and we face these difficulties. Bearing in mind that the majority of the workers in our industry are Black men, now placed under the authority of governments which are to achieve independence, what will our position be in times of hostility? My hon. friends opposite say, in a somewhat cynical vein at times, “Don’t worry, they require work in order to live, and consequently the fact that we have a strong economy will enable us to control the situation.” But what did we have the other day, Mr. Chairman? We had a statement from the Prime Minister saying that foreign investments and foreign loans were now permitted in respect of the Bantu areas and, Sir, if it ever came to the crunch, which God forbid, and there was money available for the subsistence of these people, then their dependence on the South African economy would be worth absolutely nothing at all. Sir, we are deliberately putting ourselves into this position, a position which nobody wants except the Nationalist Party. Virtually all the Black leaders, who are hostile, are against this policy. None of them is prepared to accept independence on the terms now being offered. A great section of the White community is against this policy, so what is the point of the exercise in putting the South Africans and their economy into this position when virtually nobody wants it?

Now, Sir, the stronger the links which the Government creates between the urban Bantu and the homelands, the greater the control exercised by the homeland leaders over the White economy. We heard today from almost everybody who has spoken how desirable it is and how every effort is being made in order to strengthen the link between the urban Bantu and the homeland Governments and the homeland areas; and with every step taken in that direction, so does the position of the White man and his economy become weaker. Sir, we cannot go on like this. If we are in our own interests to make a reasonable accommodation with these Bantu leaders, whether they remain as South African citizens or whether they become leaders of foreign States, makes absolutely no difference, and I emphasize that. To our position it makes no difference whether these leaders become heads of foreign States, under this Government, or whether they remain in the present situation of hovering between heaven and hell. Either way they control our economy, or their people do, and the utterances of Bantu leaders of late makes us realize that they are aware of that fact. There has to be an accord between the bulk of the Black people and the bulk of the White people on essential issues in South Africa. Now, the essential issues on which I believe there must be accord are those I set out earlier in relation to the urban Bantu. What is required, I believe, is an urgent rethink, an urgent reappraisal based on an appreciation of the realities of the situation, of the fact that personal relationships amongst ordinary folk of all races are still very good, that moderate changes can still satisfactorily meet the needs of the situation, and I have spelt out the moderate changes which I envisage. But the final reality of the situation is that such changes cannot be made within the straitjacket of existing Government policy, which refuses to accept the permanence of the urban Bantu and refuses to accept the permanence of the Bantu, urban or rural, in the economic life of this country. I repeat, in terms of Government policy there is no further room for manoeuvre save in the field of handing over more and more land additional to the requirements of the 1936 legislation to these emergent Black States; and, as I have said, in the long run that solves nothing at all.

In our approach to this problem there is room for manoeuvre, particularly as anything done in the implementation of our policy will redound to the credit of the White man and the White authority. It will reduce the apparent validity of any extremist Black claims. Government policy, on the other hand, does not make extremist statements look foolish; it lends them credence and so steadily weakens the position of the White man. The time for further Government pretence, I believe, is now long past. In its application, the federal principle is capable of infinite variety. Let us now grasp it and save this country from the ultimate foolishness of this Government.

I want to devote a little time to the last speaker, and then I want to discuss certain matters in general. I will then be able to deal with the remaining points later. I do not want to speak for too long at a stretch.

Actually, the hon. member for Zululand, who has just spoken, had only one principal argument which ran through his entire speech, and that argument was that the policy of this side of the House, of the Government, in respect of Bantu matters entails that the Whites in South Africa are in due course going to be delivered up to the will, the whim and the authority of the Black people in South Africa, and that to avert this, this side of the House, the Government, will therefore be forced to concede more and more land in order to ransom ourselves with it, as it were, from their whims. That was the argument; that was the whole theme of his speech.

There was far more in it than that. [Interjections.]

The hon. member opposite should try to mend his manners and give me an opportunity to speak. The hon. member for Zululand does not want to accept what we on this side are expressly stating in regard to the acquisition of land. We have said this repeatedly, and it has been said authoritatively by the hon. the Prime Minister himself. We have said that we will give land. We will give them land in Natal—I am now mentioning the provinces which the hon. member mentioned —as well as in the Transvaal, the Eastern Cape and the Northern Cape. We shall give that land to the Bantu, and we are busy doing so. Then, too, we hope to indicate further demarcations of released areas during the present session. However, we will not give more land than that 7,25 million morgen which was laid down in the 1936 legislation. This is a very emphatic assurance which has been given from our side.

And the opposite side did not even want to give that land.

The hon. members opposite ought to realize that what the hon. member for Transkei said last year amounted to their now being prepared to give far more than that. They are now prepared to give that land which we want to give and then they are also prepared, as he put it, to give the Bantu land tenure rights which apply within all our industrial areas in White South Africa. We asked them specifically whether they would give the Bantu land tenure rights in Langa, in New Brighton, Port Elizabeth, in Soweto, in the Bantu residential areas in Bloemfontein and in all the other White urban areas and metropolitan areas where industrial development is taking place. The implication of the hon. member’s speech was an emphatic “yes”. They will therefore go far, far further than the land fixed in the 1936 Act. They will venture upon this slippery road which the hon. member imputed to us this morning.

The hon. member said that we would through that process reach the stage “where civic rights will have to be given. That is the direction in which the Government moves”. That is not the direction in which we are moving. We have a very emphatic policy of a divided country and a divided authority in South Africa. We say very emphatically that there is a White South Africa within which the Whites and only the Whites have prior claim throughout to economic development and everything attendant on that, as well as to political control above all. In addition we say that similarly, and parallel to that, there are also those areas within which the Bantu peoples have prior claim throughout and may exercise their rights in regard to economic exploitation and all other kinds of development of which they are capable, and to which we as Whites are even assisting them if they are not immediately capable of doing so in adequate measure. Our policy is very clear. However, hon. members opposite have an integrationistic approach: One common supreme authority, whether it is federal with a parliament or a council or whatever it may be. We know, however, that they are always referring to the “urban African” whom they will allow to have representation in their council, but they have not even told us yet whether they will also establish a federal council, a communal council, a parliament or whatever council it may be for the Bantu working on the farms. They refer only to the urban Bantu. [Interjections.] The hon. members of the Opposition therefore take a miscellaneous view. Consequently they are the people who will have to grant these “civic rights”. In the ’fifties already we warned South Africa against this. After all, it will not only be a say in this Parliament or in the federal parliament which they want to establish in the place of this one. They also talk about a “federal council” instead of a “federal parliament”, but be that as it may, it will go further than that. There will be land tenure rights which will have to be allotted to the Bantu. The Bantu will be able to participate in the economic exploitation of White South Africa. Not only will the Bantu be able to be semi-skilled workers; they will be able to become owners, joint owners, managers, directors, etc., of factories in White South Africa. However, even that is not all which will be open to them. They cannot allow the Bantu to have only a little political say in this Parliament without their also being allowed to enter the Public Service. Therefore, all the Government departments will have to be thrown open to them. Surely these are matters which we explained to the hon. members long ago. These are nothing but the logical implications of their policy. They will, by means of their numbers which are far greater than ours, be able to penetrate into each one of those Government departments if their potential were to be put on a par with ours. They would be able to become heads of Government departments in all the departments from the Treasury to Defence and Police.

They are already there.

Oh no, Sir, that hon. member raves in his waking hours as well.

The hon. member for Zululand referred to the behaviour of the Councillor for Community Development in KwaZulu. What the hon. member opposite must realize, is that it is outside the powers of the KwaZulu Government to interfere in labour matters in the White area, and they know it. [Interjection.] Yes, but it depends on the role which employers and employers’ organizations are playing in this connection. The hon. member for Zululand must realize one thing: Speeches such as the one he made here today, as well as those made by other members, and an attitude such as that of their party in general, are far more dangerous to the maintenance of White authority than the danger which our policy constitutes. In complete conformity with the tone of the speech made by the hon. the Deputy Minister, with which, as I said a moment ago, I am in complete agreement, I want to say that for the Whites of South Africa—and that certainly includes the Opposition—it is more than time they arrived at a White consensus together on these matters. If they do not realize that yet, they are not ordinary Rip van Winkels—they are Rip van Winkels who do not even wake up. It is a profound, disturbing tragedy that the Opposition—I am not even talking about, the hon. member for Houghton now; I have written her off long ago as far as the Whites in South Africa are concerned— the United Party, still persists with something which they have always, from the word go, done as the opponents of the National Party, viz. to exploit Bantu affairs in South Africa and the politics in regard to that and everything relating to Bantu affairs, against the National Party to their advantage. [Interjections.] Sir, I shall reply fully to that point, now or later today. We as the National Party do not do that. Nowhere do we use the politics in respect of Bantu matters to prejudice the United Party. But I shall reply a little further to that point later, with reference to other questions which were put to me here.

I should like to mention a few points concerning the speech made by the hon. member for Transkei. The first point links up with what I have just said, viz. that the speech made by the hon. member for Transkei yesterday was to a large extent a response to the utterances of certain Bantu leaders. It was a direct response to the statement made by Mr. Eglin, who is the leader of the Progressive Party, in regard to land matters in South Africa. There are other members of the United Party as well, who are doing the same thing. The land demands were termed “reasonable” and “natural” by Mr. Eglin. The hon. member for Transkei and other members are implying the same thing. They are echoes of those dangerous standpoints, and it is time that they called a halt to themselves in the interests of the Whites in South Africa. I shall return later to some of his statements.

The hon. member for Transkei should really not make incorrect allegations, as to say for example that Dr. Verwoerd rejected the Tomlinson recommendations in regard to corporations.

Postponed.

Ah! Postponed has never been synonymous with rejected. Now the hon. member is dancing around in his own tracks.

They recommended what he should do immediately.

The hon. member said yesterday that he had rejected them. I noted it down here. I maintain that it is a shocking untruth. Dr. Verwoerd was the person who insisted on that. He was one of the hardest workers on the Bill in regard to the Bantu Investment Corporation. The Tomlinson Report was discussed here in 1956. The corporation began functioning as early as 1959, and the legislation was drawn prior to that; the same applies to the Xhosa Development Corporation. The hon. member must acquaint himself with the truth if he wants to discuss these things.

The hon. member for Transkei and others tried to make a great issue here of the word “permanent” and the word “temporary”. They tried to ridicule what my good friend, the hon. member for Langlaagte, had said.

Casual.

They also referred in this way today to the hon. the Deputy Minister. Again, now, someone in the cats’ choir is shouting out “casual”. When the hon. member for Umlazi was still a police constable, or slightly higher than that, I was already using the word “casual” in regard to the Bantu in the White area.

Yes, it is casual labour.

That is correct, yes, “casual labour”. The hon. members opposite experienced tremendous problems in regard to our view of the Bantu in the White areas. I know that there are people who used the word “temporary”. I know that there are people who used the word “permanent”, and that there were people who joined the two words together and who said “temporarily-permanent”, or “permanently-temporary”. That is quite correct.

What does that mean?

Let me tell you now what I said a moment ago: Hon. members can search and page through my Hansard as much as they like, but nowhere will they find that I ever referred to the Bantu in the White area as “temporary”. Nor did I ever say that they were “permanent”. What is the actual position? After all, we should not flutter superficially about these matters, simply to use words and play ping-pong with them. Hon. members opposite should be far more substantial and far more fundamental in regard to these matters. We still maintain—and this is the essence of our policy—that the White man in the White area takes precedence and enjoys priority in respect of all opportunities for employment in South Africa. The ideal would be, as Dr. Verwoerd so frequently stated it— Dr. Malan and everyone termed it an ideal —that the Whites in South Africa should do all their work themselves. It is an ideal which we will not see realized in our time, and probably never. Because it cannot be realized, and because there were many contributory reasons in this connection, work categories in the White area were released or made available for Bantu persons. Therefore they can perform certain categories of work, but they are performing it in a secondary capacity. This is not the first time that I have used that word either. I can give hon. members speeches of mine made when I was still Deputy Minister, in which I was already saying that the Bantu were present in a secondary capacity in the White area, in the same way as I and all other White people are secondary in the Bantu homelands. It is supplementary. As Gen. Hertzog said as long ago as 1936, the Bantu in the White area are supplementary in so far as the White man needs them and cannot serve his own interests. That is how we arrived at the word “casual”. I have said it before in Afrikaans—and I shall even say it to you in English—that the Bantu persons who are being used in the White area, as I have said scores of times, are as far as labour, politics and other amenities and privileges of civic matters are concerned, present in White South Africa in a casual capacity. Now the hon. gentlemen can cackle and giggle and neigh and bray, and do just what they like, but this is what I have said repeatedly and I shall keep on saying it. I prefer not to speak of “temporary”, because it creates precisely those misunderstandings which are so rife on the opposite side at present, and with which they are comforting themselves and deriding us because they think it is a wonderful new find they have made in the political dialogue with us. That is not true. I repeat, and I wish that everyone would use this terminology so that the world may understand our sincerity and our fundamentalism on this point, that we say that the Bantu in the White area are present in a casual capacity as far as his labour is concerned. In other words, “he is present here in a casual capacity”.

He is not.

The hon. member for South Coast is muttering away there; he can mutter away if he likes, but these are the facts, the facts which have preserved his White identity up to now, and will also save it in future. In the same way, in terms of our policy, the Whites are also in the Bantu homelands “in a casual capacity”, whether it is in the Transkei, KwaZulu, Quaqua, the Ciskei, or wherever it may be.

You are going to train the Bantu as a motor mechanic “in a casual capacity”!

I shall have a drink of water while the hon. members are shouting. It must therefore be thoroughly understood—and this I am saying in defence of those people who used the word “temporary”—that it was never intended in that sense that every specific individual Bantu person was only temporarily present at a particular place in South Africa for a precisely determined space of time. It was never intended in this way by anyone who used the word “temporary”.

“Casual” is a far worse word.

It simply means that those Bantu persons are here as people who are temporary.

Now, reference was also made to what Dr. Verwoerd allegedly said, viz. that the Bantu should leave the White areas as soon as was practicable. The hon. members can look it up—it is easy to find—that Dr. Verwoerd said at a definite time in the House of Assembly that, if it could happen that by the year 2000 the number of Bantu and Whites in the White area were equal, we would have achieved a great success. Now the hon. member for Hillbrow is laughing about that! Now those hon. members are sitting there laughing about this. The hon. member for Hillbrow, who is also laughing about this, is sitting there laughing at his own ignorance. This casual capacity, this nature of the Bantu’s presence in the White area, affects everything which hon. members opposite hold up as civic rights for the Bantu in the White area. I do not want to discuss this matter any further.

The hon. member for Transkei said that we were struggling with—or to use his own words “we cannot cope with”—the acquisition of properties in the Transkei, and that we were going to struggle even more once we came to the larger released areas. I want to inform the hon. member that we are not struggling at all to obtain the land in the Transkei. There are too many Whites who are inundating us with it. The people who said that they did not want to leave the Transkei, are now the people who want to sell, if they can get their price of course. What they are doing, is only human; the hon. member and I would also act in this way under the same circumstances. The Government is not struggling at all and has machinery to deal with that work within the financial means of the State. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that as soon as the newly released areas have been ratified by law, we shall see to machinery to deal with this as well in a sensible way and at a fair tempo. The hon. member need not be concerned about this.

Hon. members on that side and on this side of the House referred to certain utterances made by Bantu leaders in South Africa. I want to associate myself wholeheartedly with the fine motivation which was forthcoming from the hon. member for Germiston, the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, and other hon. members. They said that we must realize, and that it was very difficult for many people to realize—most difficult of all for people opposite—that those Bantu peoples have the right in terms of our policy to become aware of themselves in that way and to be able to express themselves articulately. They have the right to produce leaders and bring them to the fore, leaders who can speak out, but every leader, whether he is a White, a Zulu, a Xhosa, an Indian, a Coloured leader or a leader of the Chinese, must know that he has responsibilities which he has to bear, and limitations within which he has to act. This is a fundamental truth which applies to every leader. I say we accept it completely that the leaders of the Bantu peoples have the right to speak out. I am the first person who accepts this, for this matter probably concerns me most. I accept that in many respects they will differ with me, and that we will differ very seriously, but it still does not mean that we should not discuss these matters with one another. I want to state here that there is no one who holds more discussions with the Bantu leaders on a political level than I. I could just mention that last year I held more than 60 talks on a high ministerial level with Bantu peoples in South Africa. I can also state that I conducted half of those talks on my own. [Interjections.]

The hon. members opposite are neighing quite needlessly now …

They are braying.

They are braying needlessly, for what I meant by that, was that of the four persons, viz. the hon. the Prime Minister, myself and my two Deputy Ministers, who held talks with these leaders on behalf of the White Government, I conducted half of those interviews. The other half were conducted jointly among all the representatives of the White side. Then there are in addition the scores of cases of dialogue or contact which took place between the Commissioner-General and the officials of both my departments.

You never listen to what they have to say.

We come into contact with them, and I give them the opportunity to speak. It is natural that they will do so; it is the logical consequence of our policy of making each nation aware of its own identity. All of us must approach those utterances very carefully. Many of the utterances made, were very sharp. Despite the provocation which these perhaps cause, and they do, the utterances of these leaders should be approached with self-control, with sympathy and with insight on our part. I said to a friend of mine in my private capacity, concerning one specific Bantu leader, that he must bear in mind that this is the first opportunity that that nation was being granted to speak through an acknowledged leader and through an acknowledged tribune. In this way they are able to express the accumulated and pent up feelings of decades. We must bear this in mind and make allowance for it. We must make allowance for all those things, and one should be very sympathetic and very careful about those matters. However, we must realize that there are limits within which this may be done, as I said a moment ago. These utterances sometimes testify to desequilibrium, sometimes even to inaccuracies, to completely unrealistic views, to contradictions, to inconsistency and quite frequently, too, to boastfulness. What political leader is not sometimes guilty of boastfulness? We see it so often on the opposite side of the House. [Interjections.] Sometimes there is a touch of recklessness as well. This happens to some of those Bantu leaders who describe themselves as being “seasoned political philosophers”. We hear some of these Bantu leaders referring for example to “a rule by bullet”. We also hear reference being made to “blood-baths”. In my capacity as Minister I want to make this matter very clear in the discussion of my Vote, because specific questions were put to me in this regard. I want to say that such utterances are irresponsible and dangerous talk. People who mention things like that and who “warn” in that way, can through those utterances of theirs create the impression that they are voicing threats, and that they are in that way inciting their people. We hear certain leaders saying that the Bantu nations have the economic power to control this country’s economy. That sounds almost like a boybott threat. It is unwise to speak to us in that way. It would be equally unwise if we as Whites were on our part to utter the threat that we should withhold the funds for the development of those Bantu peoples. It would also be unwise on our part to say anything like that. Such incitement and threats on both sides are unwise. They can only create bad relations to an ever-increasing extent, and may perhaps prejudice or destroy the progress which we want to give every nation in South Africa in terms of our policy.

I am in full agreement with what the hon. friend on this side said. However, I want to state it far more emphatically than he stated it. I want to say that it will become a pathetic spectacle in South Africa if I or deputies of my department or other Ministers of this Government were, each time a wildish utterance is made by a Bantu leader, to react to that in a reckless manner in the superlative degree by taking irresponsible or ugly action in regard to it. It would be a pathetic spectacle. In this regard I said the following to an English-speaking South African journalist last year: “I am not playing political ping-pong for your paper’s interest with the political leaders of South Africa.” That I will not do. Let it rather be a one-sided matter then. Let that ball preferably be played from one side only. From the side of the Whites and the Government—and this is how I see my responsibility and that of my department as the trustees of those people—it is necessary to act with responsibility. From our side we must furnish proof of our spiritual maturity in the political sphere. We must furnish proof of that. We must not simply talk about it, and dream about it. We must furnish proof of that in our actions. We must furnish proof of that in our conduct towards these Bantu peoples. We must furnish proof of our goodwill and propriety. We must furnish proof of self-control, dignity and of all these features which are the hall-mark of civilization and good manners which have brought us to where we are today and which we are maintaining in South Africa today. That is what I am doing. That is my approach to those Bantu leaders. Now one finds these petty political journalists who run around looking for news, and after every leader’s utterances, come to me and say: “Have you heard, Sir, what that one said? What do you say?” I shall not participate in such a reprehensible game. I shall not do so. I shall in my own time say what is necessary. I want to give hon. members the assurance that this is also the approach of all of us on this side. If members of the Opposition want me to play political “ping-pong” with the Bantu leaders in this way every time, then I say to them that they must stop their irresponsibility in this regard. I see the hon. member for South Coast is listening to me attentively. I wonder whether he is not going to praise me as well after my speech. [Interjections.]

I said a moment ago, and I repeat, that in this regard the Leader of the Opposition and every member of the Opposition has a profound responsibility, just as we on this side of the House have, to evince that same approach. They must stop that game of football between the two political parties with either Matanzima, Buthelezi or Phatudi or Ntsanwesi, or whoever it may be, representing the ball. Sir, there are enough balls with which we can play; we do not want to play with the Black ball; the time is not right for that; it has never been right for that, and that time is past in South Africa.

You have given them the ball. Why do you grouse if they play with it?

Sir, with all due respect, that is a stupid remark. Sir, we have not given the Bantu peoples the ball of the United Party politics to play with that; we have given the Bantu peoples the ball of their own politics, to play with that in their own homelands, in their own legislative assemblies; that is what we have done.

†Mr. Chairman, yesterday certain statements made by Bantu leaders were read out to us here in this Committee, and we have also read many statements made in the course of speeches by Bantu leaders about various matters. I will try to deal with some of them because I think it is appropriate to do so in the debate on my Vote. One statement which was made, and which was also made here very briefly yesterday, is that we in South Africa have a division of land under consideration at present. Many Bantu leaders have already said that it is necessary to have a fair division of land in South Africa. The word “division” is a key word in this statement and I would like hon. members to concentrate on that word. Sir, I want to say here, with emphasis and with all the power at my command, that in South Africa at present there is no question whatsoever of a division of land; there is no question at present of a division of land between White and Black in South Africa.

“At present.”

Not now and not in future.

What do you mean by “at present” then?

At this juncture.

He said “and in future”.

Not at this juncture, nor in the future.

Does that mean for ever?

I am explaining this point; hon. members must give me a little time to elaborate on it.

Eternity less 10%.

I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that in South Africa history has already divided South Africa between Black and White.

What are you doing then?

History, the developments between us over the decades and over the centuries have decided this issue. What we are doing at present with our consolidation proposals is not to bring about a division of land between White and Black; that division was made by history; we are only adding the additional land which we promised in 1936, and I warn United Party speakers and I warn newspapers and others that they are creating the impression that a division of land must still be made in South Africa, and that is not the case. Their old, old, hackneyed story of 13% is also a story that contributes to this false impression. There is no division of land to be made in South Africa.

And South-West?

There is to be no division of land there either. It has been made already. We have made additions here and there in fulfilment of promises and undertakings made by this Parliament in the past. That is the clear position in South Africa, and the sooner all of us in South Africa, Black and White, realize this, the better for all of us. Sir, I want to add this: It was said here yesterday by, I think, the hon. member for Aliwal that we must also remember in this context that the Whites of South Africa were not responsible for the secession of the present states, Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland, in 1910; that was not the fault of the White man of South Africa in 1910. We all know the history of that. I say it is therefore futile, and it is an extremely unrealistic approach of Black leaders or of White persons or of newspapers or of anybody, to claim vast tracts of land for those Bantu homelands in South Africa, land which should just be given to them—those are the words, “it should just be given to them”—far in access of the 1936 quota. All these statements and all these assumptions of land to be given involve, inter alia, big areas in Natal including towns such as Eshowe, Empangeni, Richards Bay and many others. Do hon. members realize how unrealistic that approach is, if you only think of it that a place like Empangeni has a municipal valuation of perhaps more than R80 million; it may even be higher than that, and then all the others still have to be added. You get the same sort of claims in the Transvaal with regard to a place like Pietersburg. There is the hon. member for Pietersburg.

This is nonsense.

Think of the municipal valuation of a place like Pietersburg, which is also being described in this so-called division of land, as a place to be included in the new Bantu areas. The valuation of the municipal area of Pietersburg is more than R100 million and then there is still Potgietersrus and Tzaneen and many other places. Sir, I say it is most unrealistic and futile to make such statements. It makes no sense to say, as some people say, that the Whites may stay on in those areas if they accept citizenship of that homeland. I say it will also be detrimental to the Blacks there if it should happen that the Whites living in those annexed or incorporated areas should stay on as citizens of those Black homelands. The Whites in those areas must remember—and they know it—that if that should happen, if they accept Bantu homeland citizenship, they will have to forfeit their Republican citizenship. It will follow automatically.

Another statement with which I want to deal is the one that separate development fails if the Bantu homelands do not get more land. That is another fallacy which we hear so often. Mr. Chairman, separate development means the development separately of each Bantu nation and its homeland. And nowhere in the world is there any fixed ratio or formula about the area or size of a country to develop to its own destiny. One of the strongest and most prosperous countries in the world, one with its very distinct own identity, is geographically one of the smallest countries in the world, namely Japan. And vice versa, we know of geographically very big countries which are in other respects very weak countries. Surely, it is silly to suggest that only geographically big countries can have separate identities and can therefore have separate development. We have separate development over the whole world, in all the countries over the whole world. What else is it that France enjoys and that Italy enjoys and that Germany enjoys? It is separate development. Why cannot we have separate development in South Africa for the White nation and separate development for the Lebowanation and for the Zulu nation? Why is it wrong here but right all over the world? [Interjections.]

I say it is also a fallacy to think independence for a homeland is only possible if the homelands are geographically enlarged. I say it is a fallacy. There is no correlation between the size of a country and its independence; there is no correlation whatsoever. If you study the geography and the history of the countries in the world, you will see that this is a fact. Another mistake is to say that as the population of a Bantu nation increases, more specifically within a homeland, the homeland itself must be enlarged geographically. Nowhere in the world does a country increase in geographical size as its population grows. Why should it happen here in South Africa? We know that the areas in South Africa where the Bantu settled historically and traditionally were acknowledged as such and reserved for those Bantu nations, as I have said just now, by means of the legislation. In 1936 those traditional areas were even increased by the stipulated 7,25 million morgen. That constituted an increase of approximately 70% of the then existing Bantu areas. As I have also said just now, this Government has no intention of increasing their land beyond that. This was said repeatedly, also by the hon. the Prime Minister who, I am very glad to say, is present to hear me say this, because if I am wrong, the first thing he will do, is to repudiate me.

He is watching you carefully. [Interjections.]

Order!

No, I know my policy and I know the hon. the Prime Minister. I am not a member of the United Party who does not know their policy and who does not know what attitude their leader has towards the various variations of their policy. [Interjections.]

And towards the attitude of their provincial leader in the Transvaal.

And if Blaar reads that speech of yours?

Where is Cathy?

Why do you not get up and debunk it if you can?

Yes, I should like the hon. member for South Coast to follow the suggestion of the hon. the Prime Minister and try to debunk me. [Interjections.] No, superficial jokes and fabricated laughs will not solve this problem for the United Party. I say that we have said this repeatedly. It is the duty of all of us to care for our land and it is also the duty of the Bantu people. We should increase the carrying capacity of our different areas. That is something which applies all over the world and I am not propounding something which is not applicable to other countries in the world. The Bantu homelands will also have to accept that they cannot mainly be developed agriculturally and rurally. I personally told the Bantu governments this in the course of dialogues which I had with them.

It must also be remembered that in 1936 one of the reasons, if not the main reason, for the enlargement of the Bantu territories was to make more land available so that those Bantu persons who had to move from the White areas could be settled in the Bantu areas. That was the reason. To substantiate my remarks I should like to quote the words of nobody less than Gen. Hertzog who, in dealing with the reasons for setting aside additional land for the Bantu territories in 1936, said (Hansard, 1936, col. 4085)—

*Those are the words to which I referred a moment ago.

It was the policy of the hon. member for South Coast when he was also a U.P. member at the time.

I quote further—

A little later, after he had been interrupted by an interjection, Gen. Hertzog continued—

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

Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned for lunch, I was dealing with one of the points in regard to which utterances were made by Bantu leaders, as well as by members of the Opposition and opponents of the Government, viz. that separate development would supposedly fail if the Bantu homelands did not receive more land. I dealt with that matter in considerable detail. I was quoting what Gen. Hertzog himself said in this Chamber in 1936 when the legislation was under discussion at the time. Gen. Hertzog pointed out that one of the important reasons, if not the most important reason, why they had proposed at the time that that additional land be allotted to the Bantu, was precisely in order to make this—the migration— possible for the Bantu persons who had to migrate from the White areas back to the homelands. For that reason the additional land was granted. Therefore, to say now that additional land is not being granted for such migrations, is absolutely wrong. I quoted to you, Sir, what Gen. Hertzog said. Inter alia, he said that if they received more land, he in fact wanted, in terms of policy, them to govern themselves there “if possible in an autonomous way”, as he expressed it. I can also quote from the 1936 debates to indicate how the then Minister, Minister Grobler, spoke in the same vein. I have his quotations with me here, but they are actually a mere repetition of what Gen. Hertzog, his Prime Minister, said at the time, and I shall therefore not repeat this now. However, I should like to quote something which the late Dr. Verwoerd said in regard to this matter under particularly privileged circumstances. I am making no apology for the fact that I am going to quote it here, for it was done outside this House.

In 1962 there were negotiations between this Government and the Transkeian Government on the new constitution they had to receive and on the self-governing territory which they had to become, within the Republic, with their Cabinet and so on, as they have it now. Some of the talks Dr. Verwoerd, as Prime Minister, attended himself. I, as Deputy Minister at the time, attended all of them to sit and listen to what was being said; not “listen in”, but “listen to”! I myself made verbatim notes of what Dr. Verwoerd said, for this very matter of more land was then under discussion. Sir, it is part of the Native’s viewpoint, it is an innate part of his character, to ask for more land. As the Deputy Minister stated earlier today, they are different to us, and it is part of that different character trait in them to ask for more land; they will continue to ask for more land. We see now that independent Bantu countries in Southern Africa are also asking us for land now. They are asking for this and it is a part of their character. In those talks, which were held on 19th March, 1962, in Pretoria, Dr. Verwoerd said (translation)—

Sir, I now want to quote to you the relevant sections of his reply to their words. It is not necessary to quote everything, for the talks concerned other matters as well. He spoke in English and said the following—

He said to them very clearly: “If you want self-government, but first want more land, then no further negotiations are going to take place, for you will then be blocking them.” He continued—

He went further and said the following, referring more specifically to the Transkei—

He then went on to say the following—

As they had enumerated them—

That is what he told them straight out. At the time they then accepted the advice, and the negotiations continued. It is simply a natural phenomenon that they will continue to ask for more land.

May I recount to you a short anecdote, Sir, which was told approximately four years ago in my office. The Executive Council of the Ciskei was present. No less a person than the present Chief and Chief Minister, Mabandla, was the spokesman. He said to me that he wanted to tell me a story before we commenced. That story was very characteristic of their self-knowledge. He told it himself in order to typify himself. He said to me: “Sir, we in the Ciskei know of a little insect; it is very rare. I think the people call it a mantis (hottentotsgod). We have a belief that whenever we are walking along and happen to see that insect, we must ask it for something. We must ask it for whatever we wish to have. Our belief is, if we are again walking through the veld on another day and we again come across that insect, that we must not ask it: ‘Where are those things I asked you for the other day; I have not received any of them yet,’ We must not do that. We must immediately ask it for new things.” Then the chief and I looked at each other and I said to him: “Chief, did I understand you correctly? Am I your mantis?” He laughed and said: “That is what I wanted to say, Sir.” That typifies for you the viewpoint, the philosophy of life of these people. This is where we as Whites who do not know these viewpoints of the Bantu make such tremendous fools of ourselves and commit such errors. That is why we misinterpret these things.

Sir, I quoted to you what Dr. Verwoerd said to those people. Now there is something else which is being said in the same context. I am referring only to land now; I want to discuss only that, for I do not want to take up too much of the time of this House; I shall speak again at a later stage in the debate. There are people who say now—I have heard it again in this debate—that, in order to have viable homelands—this word is used so readily—it is essential that each of these Bantu homelands should have more land. Sir, again this is a serious error in reasoning. The requirement for making any country in the world a viable country is not the addition of more and more land. It is a combination of a whole number of factors which are needed in order to achieve that. I am thinking for example of favourable natural conditions, raw materials, and many other requirements. But predominently, and above all, there is one major requirement which is needed to make a country viable and it is the human ability, initiative and stability to develop that country to manage it and keep it functioning properly. Here again one may compare the position of other large and small countries in the world, to test the truth of this statement.

I want to say a few words today in regard to these utterances of the Bantu leaders —these wild utterances to which reference was made and at which members expressed their concern. With that I want to end at this stage. I just want to issue a few well-intentioned warnings in this regard—for I am being sincerely well-intentioned. These utterances, to which I referred briefly, could have very drastic and harmful effects. The most drastic and most harmful effects which they could have, are in fact on those Bantu nations and homelands themselves. Whites and journalists who interfere so irresponsibly and recklessly with these matters in Bantu politics, are contributing tremendously to that. We have heard names mentioned in this debate, I think there are other names as well which we could hear in this context. I know of more names. There is something which I should like to say so that my friends, the leaders of the Bantu nations, can hear it. I regard them as my friends. We must regard them as our friends. We have no option. During the past few months I have heard of several cases—I have personal experience of this, and the same applies to our corporations concerned in these matters—of White entrepreneurs, even from overseas, who said that they were really not very keen to establish their concerns in the homelands if the Bantu leaders made such utterances, since they were being deterred by the utterances, demands and conduct of those speakers. Such utterances therefore prejudice the channelizing of many entrepreneurial funds to the Bantu homelands. I have also heard of entrepreneurs, already established in the homelands—I do not want to mention names and in that way aggravate matters even further—who are struggling to get technical experts or even artisans to go there to work in those factories in the Bantu homelands. The White people are unwilling to go there because they are not keen to go there and work in the poor atmosphere created by such utterances. That is the reverse side of the coin. There are already people, people who support us, who are even going so far as to say that the Government should react. The Government should, for example, not even think of the additional land we are going to make available by means of released areas. The Government should not even think of giving White entrepreneurs the guarantee which the hon. the Prime Minister himself gave in this House and which everyone is aware still stands, viz. that Whites who begin industrial concerns within the homelands in terms of our policy are guaranteed against any political wrongs they may perhaps experience on the part of the homeland authorities. There are people who are saying that we should withdraw those guarantees. Sir, I oppose that kind of advice vehemently. I want to make this clear. I myself am by no means in favour of displaying such negative behaviour. It is a very difficult and exacting task to bring this educational task home to the various Bantu peoples and leaders, but it is our duty. And when I say “we” I am referring not only to us on the Government side; the “we” includes the opposite side as well. It is our duty to make these people understand what the limits are within which they should keep the articulation of their wishes, as I also said here this morning. But it is necessary that cognizance be taken by all who talk and write so easily about these matters, also those outside the ranks of the Bantu, that such ideas elicit a great deal of ill-feeling, and that such defiant utterances do more harm, precisely to those people who should be assisted in the Bantu homelands. I am concluding on this note, in regard to the land and similar matters, by reiterating what I said this morning, viz. that our Opposition in this House and the Whites in general, also have a tremendous duty to fulfil in this connection. I shall perhaps have more to say about other matters at a later stage.

It is obviously impossible for me in ten minutes in any complete sense to answer the hon. the Minister’s speech which has taken him over an hour to deliver. I want to start where he has ended. He reminded the Opposition that we had a duty. I want to repeat what I have said before, that it is not necessary for the Minister to remind the United Party that we have a duty. Of course we know we have a duty, and our duty is to warn the Government that the course it is proceeding on is fraught with dangers. It is our duty to warn and we are not going to keep quiet. The Minister makes suggestions about Whites making inflammatory speeches and urging on the African leaders in their provocative statements, but why does he not name the people who are doing these things? The way he has made his statement almost suggests that we are doing it. That is not fair. He should tell us who these people are who are behaving like that. Let us have their names. He also issued a warning that the Africans themselves will be the ones to suffer if African leaders go on making the type of speeches they are making now, speeches to which reference has been made. He said that White entrepreneurs are finding it difficult to get Whites to go into the Reserves— “hulle het nie lus nie”, he says; they do not want to go and live in that atmosphere. I am glad both the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Transport are here, because they are the two most powerful men in the Cabinet. I hope that they heard what the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has just said, namely that it is difficult to get people to go there.

I referred to that earlier in my speech and I quoted from a survey undertaken by the Financial Mail where industrialists mentioned this very point, namely that they cannot get their Whites to go there and that it costs them more. One industrialist said that it cost him R50 000 a year more to take his factory into the Reserves because he had to pay his Whites so much extra to get them there. The point I want to make with these two Ministers now is that it is time they realize this. The Government officials who cannot refuse to go there, who are transferred there either by the Railways, the Police or the Post Office, should get the same allowances as the other civil servants who are seconded to the Transkei Government. This will not only apply to the Transkei, but to all the other Reserves as well. I ask and plead with them to give more consideration to this.

But let me get back to the Minister. He also said that some people even went so far as to make representations to him that the Prime Minister should withdraw the guarantee which he gave to industrialists who established themselves in the Reserves, namely that if they lost financially through any political action by the Governments of the Reserves this Government would compensate them. I say he has done a great harm to the country by even suggesting that this might be done. I am surprised that he even mentioned this in the House. He said that he is withstanding that and that he does not agree with it. He is creating more uncertainty, because the mere fact that representations are made to the Government is going to upset industrialists.

He is only warning the leaders not to be irresponsible.

But he is also warning the Whites that representations are being made for the Prime Minister to withdrawn his guarantse.

I did not say it was representations made to the Cabinet, but that suggestions have been made.

Oh! Just loosely made to the hon. member for Brits, or somebody like that. The hon. the Minister and the hon. the Prime Minister must remember that if White capital is afraid to go there and if White capital does not go there, no matter for what reason, whether they are justified for not going or not, this Government has to deal with the situation there and this Government will have to see that the people in those areas are fed and that there is work for them. It is no good now just saying that these leaders must realize that there may be no more development if they go on in the way they are, because the responsibility will still rest with this Government.

I just want to say too that the hon. the Minister quoted Dr. Verwoerd and told us what Dr. Verwoerd had said to African leaders. I want to tell him this about Dr. Verwoerd: After we were told here in this House by the hon. the Minister of Defence, who was then Minister of Coloured Affairs, of Dr. Verwoerd’s lie that he perpetrated against the Coloured people, we do not have to pay much respect to the promises he made. It was said here that Dr. Verwoerd had promised the Coloured people that they would not lose their representation in this House. The then hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs told us that he promised the Coloureds they would not lose their representation in this House while he at the time that he was making that promise, in fact intended taking that representation away. We have it from his own Minister.

Who said so?

He said so in the House.

We have had statements from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education and we have had a speech by the hon. the Minister. We expected them to deal with the urban Bantu. The hon. the Deputy Minister promised that he would deal with my statement seriatim. That is a promise he made yesterday, but he has not done so yet. What he has indicated is that he, as Deputy Minister, has a more sympathetic approach towards the urban Bantu than has the hon. the Minister and his predecessor. That is the impression he has created, that he has a more sympathetic approach. We want to hear from him how he intends applying that sympathetic approach of his. I want to ask him again to reply to the detailed statements which we have issued on this.

The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said that I had told an untruth in this Horse, a “onwaarheid”. He said that I had said that Dr. Verwoerd had rejected the Tomlinson Commission’s recommendation that an investment corporation be established for the Reserves. I will read what I said—I have my Hansard of yesterday here. I said of Dr Verwoerd—

I went on to say—

so many jobs, but I am not going on with that. I said further—

Well?

I went on—

That is what I said. Let me read from the White Paper issued by the Government on this point. This was issued in 1956. I read from page 9—

Surely then, he rejected the idea.

I know that very well.

That was in 1956. He said he would appoint a Government official to do the work that they had recommended and, if it appeared to be necessary, the matter would be laid before the Cabinet again for the Cabinet to take a decision. Is that not rejecting the idea?

You are only confirming me.

I said he ignored the recommendation. Only in 1959, three years later, was the investment corporation brought into being. That time was wasted. My whole attack on Dr. Verwoerd was that he did not carry out the recommendations of that commission, which advocated urgent action, dynamic action, to be taken at once. That is what they asked for and he ignored it.

Talking about land—unfortunately I do not have much time—the hon. the Minister referred us to Gen. Hertzog’s speech made in 1936. I do not know whether it was in that same speech, but also in Hansard there is a speech by Gen. Hertzog in which he said that the Reserves must be developed for self-government, “but under the umbrella of the White Government”. Never did he suggest that they should have independence. I want to read what Gen. Smuts had to say. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to respond to the speech of the hon. member for Transkei, but I shall leave it in the good hands of the hon. the Minister and the Deputy Minister to reply to him. I want to request that some quick and extensive thinking be done about the future and that certain centres be created in Bantu homelands which would form the midpoints of large infrastructures so that every possibility and opportunity can be given to the Bantu. In that way the homelands can be made attractive. The Bantu are attracted to the big cities and to the amenities and facilities which they receive there. It is difficult for the young Bantu growing up in the cities to accept that they also have a fatherland and a home where they must one day go and end their days. Let us now take a city like Pretoria as an example. Pretoria has a tremendous infrastructure. Thus Pretoria is the headquarters of a powerful Public Service, it is a big railway centre, it has Iscor and various big undertakings. Very liberally estimated, Pretoria can supply work to 500 000 Bantu. Let us now look at the figures which the Pretoria City Council has at its disposal. We see that there are 213 830 Bantu working in Pretoria, 113 873 being male Bantu. Then there are an additional 27 235 women being employed in Pretoria. These people are all working in some or other economic industry.

We now ask ourselves what is going to happen if large infrastructures are not created in the homelands. I repeat that in this century we must think big, because by the year 2000 there will be about one million inhabitants in the Tswana area, while in Pretoria itself, and in the areas surrounding it, there will be about 2¼ million Bantu. The Bantu will work and live there; we shall have to plan for that. We shall have to plan, and therefore I am asking, in all seriousness, that we think about creating large infrastructures in the homelands where the Bantu can be employed.

I believe that there are sufficient Bantu in those areas, and consequently I think that women and children must take part in the establishment of those works. The women, children and young Bantu must be swept along with the others to carry out that work. In that way they can build themselves up and, through their own handiwork, create things which they will love. We are very grateful for the Bantu regional boards which have been established. Bantu boards have a tremendous task to carry out, a task which will be a great stride forward. I know and trust that we shall, in future, have a great deal of success with this task under the competent guidance of the present Deputy Minister. I want to advocate that in the near future thought be given to the establishment of an umbrella board. It would serve as an umbrella over the boards and assist in creating certain infrastructures with the co-operation of the homelands. In the homelands in the Transvaal 37 Bantu townships have already been established and planned at this stage, many of which have already been completed.

At this stage, 36 790 houses have already been built in the various townships. At this stage a further 24 townships are being planned. This is all well and good, but I feel that we should create three or four large cities for the Bantu, particularly in the Transvaal, cities which they could be proud of, with the facilities which we have today in Pretoria and other large cities. Sir, in visualizing the position of the urban Bantu, we must realize that they would be very hesitant, in view of the things they have already grown accustomed to in the urban areas, to go to the homelands if those facilities have not been created there. We say “thank you very much” to the resettlement board. Sir, the resettlement board, which was put into operation by this Government, has done great work; yes, it has already carried out a gigantic task. The first township which the resettlement board planned, i.e. Meadowlands, has been developed into a very successful project, and at this stage there are already 15 576 families living there. Sir, this is a fine achievement. Then there is Diepkloof, which is situated very nearby, where 10 625 families are already living. People who were previously living in squatter camps, under very difficult circumstances, have been resettled there.

Sir, that is what the National Party government has effected in the past few decades, and we can be proud of that, but I believe there is a second important step which we shall have to give urgent attention to. We have little time, and if we do not take the necessary steps quickly, it will be too late. We shall have to develop the homelands quickly so that we can not only settle the Bantu there in large numbers, but also give them work in large numbers so that they can learn to look after their own fatherland. Since the Bantu men are at present working on the Witwatersrand and in Pretoria and other places in great numbers, the importance of food production in the homelands must be brought home to their wives and children so that they can learn to feed their own people, because if a people has enough food, then it already has very little to complain about. If that beautiful country, the Transkei, is cultivated the way it ought to be cultivated, it could support 24 million people.

Oh!

Sir, if that hon. member’s forebears could be occupying that area today, I should like to see what it would look like during the next 50 years, and I am saying this although I disagree with him politically. If that area is properly cultivated, the Transkei would be able to feed millions of people in 50 years’ time. Sir, we have reached the stage where the Witwatersrand and our other large cities are reaching saturation point. I just want to mention a few examples in support of this statement. There are various places I want to refer to. One of the new Bantu townships which has been built in the past few decades in Daveyton, situated near Benoni, with 11 709 families. There is Kwatama with 9 532 families, Tsakane with 2 169 and the old location at Brakpan with 1 881 families. Consequently you can realize how many Bantu are already living there, in that area alone, and we must also make provision for the natural growth of those Bantu families. It is consequently necessary for us, as a people, to think big, the Opposition as well as the Government, and to do everything possible to create those centres to draw the Bantu back to their homelands, because they will really not go and live there if they are accustomed to the bright lights of Johannesburg and all the other big cities. I thank you. [Time expired.]

I think we all listened with the greatest of interest this morning to the hon. the Minister’s exposé of policy, and to the hon. the Deputy Minister as well. As I see it, the hon. the Deputy Minister certainly adopted a much more realistic attitude to the existence of urban Africans than has been done previously by Government spokesmen. To my mind, however, what he has done, was to accept de facto what is the de jure position because after all there are urban Africans living on a family basis, as he himself has told us. Something like 80% of the Africans living in the Johannesburg environment live there on a family basis. I am not sure how he gets those figures and I would be very interested to see them but certainly there is no doubt whatever that the majority of people living in Soweto are living there on a family basis. That is, after all, the family housing township for Johannesburg and therefore one would expect to find the majority of people there living under family conditions. So he has accepted this situation which is de jure. Those are the people who are there under section 10; they have been born in the area, or they have lived there for 15 consecutive years or they have worked for the same employer for 10 years, or they are dependants of those people. So, naturally, there are people living there on a family basis. But I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister will tell us exactly how many wives were allowed to join their husbands in terms of the concession announced by his predecessor last year and which the hon. the Prime Minister referred to this year. To the best of my knowledge, I do not believe a single application has been granted in Johannesburg because of the shortage of housing, and here I come back to the same point that I raised yesterday and which the hon. the Deputy Minister has not replied to. That is, why there is this log-jam in the provision of housing when loans have been applied for by the municipal council and those loans have been approved of by the Deputy Minister? Why is the money not forthcoming? I should like him to answer that, and not only as regards Johannesburg but also as regards the city of Cape Town where the figures are almost as bad. I know that there are 11 700 homes short in Cape Town at present. So he must start clearing this up. Of course it is expensive but I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will admit that the longer we wait, the more expensive is land around the urban areas likely to become and the more expensive are the building operations going to be. So unless we get a move on, we are never going to begin to solve the problem of catering for the Black people whom everybody admits are here, whether you call them “casuals” or “temporary permanents” or “permanent temporary” or whether you call them “urbanized Africans”. They are with us and they are going to stay with us, not only because they require to come here in order to earn their living, that is in the so-called White South African industrial areas, but because without them the South African White urban and industrial areas would die almost overnight. We require their labour just as much as they require to come here to earn their living, and that was shown most definitely during the strikes earlier this year, when all sorts of immediate adjustments in wages had to be made when Black people refused to go to work. Now I just want to say something else to the hon. the Minister if I could get his attention. In the meantime I will finish with the hon. the Deputy Minister first.

I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that I was pleased to visit the aid centre in Johannesburg and I would like to say at once that I believe the gentleman in charge, Mr. Bender, is a dedicated official who is doing a very good job, and so is the Bantu Commissioner. Between them they are attempting to keep people out of gaol and as far as I am concerned, that is a very worthwhile task indeed. The figures I have is that of the 41 000 Africans arrested and referred to the aid centre, over 12 000 were not subsequently prosecuted. That is an improvement although I must say that the number of people arrested under the pass laws is still enormous, being over 600 000 last year according to the Police reports. I do not blame the hon. the Deputy Minister for that; I blame the pass laws for that. I have said over and over again that until we change the influx control regulations and until we do not consider coming to look for work a crime among our own African people, we are going to have our gaols full of pass-law offenders. However, at least something like 12 000 were saved from prosecution and I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to tell me how many of those people should not have been arrested in the first place; in other words, how many of them were arrested simply for non-production of documents and who should not have been arrested by the police in the first instance because there is a standing directive to the police to give Black people the opportunity to produce their passes before they cart them off to the police stations. I should also like to know how many of those people were referred to labour bureaux, or were they simply given a ticket and sent off to get a train back whence they had come, in which case, I am afraid, the solution is temporary, because in no time at all since there is no work for them in the homelands, they are going to get on the next train or walk back to the urban areas from which they have been evicted.

I want to come to the hon. the Minister and the statement which he made today. He told us that no more land was going to be forthcoming for the Black homelands other than what was due to them under the 1936 Act. As he knows, I agree that that is of course a prerequisite. We have to fulfil our obligations under the 1936 Act, even if it was nearly 40 years ago, as an hon. member here remarked this morning. An obligation like that, as far as I am concerned, is binding for all time. I have also said—I want to repeat it—that of course the land allocation is not enough if these African homelands are ever to become viable. It is all very well for the hon. the member for Zululand to say that the more land we give, the more is wasted and so on. I am not merely suggesting that land be allocated; I am suggesting that the same sort of help that is given to White farmers, such as loans from the Land Bank, dams, irrigation schemes and all the other aids that are given to White farmers, should also be given to Black farmers so that they will also be able to make more economic use of their land.

They get it but not from the Land Bank.

Yes, but they are not getting it nearly to the extent that White farmers are getting it. This is not an intensive farming area and it is almost impossible to make a living out of the five acres or whatever it is that each family is allocated. If no more land is forthcoming, and the African leaders of state, or most of them anyway like Mantanzima, Buthelezi and others, have said that unless more land is forthcoming they are not going to ask for independence, it would seem to me that we have reached the same deadlock with our internal policy as we have reached with our external policy; in other words, we have reached a deadlock as far as dialogue with the Black countries is concerned and we have reached a deadlock in so far as the homelands are concerned. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated not so long ago that unless independence for the homelands was achieved, our bona fides would not be accepted by the outside world. Whether this Government said so or not, I believe that this Government not only wants to trade, not only wants to sell our gold, etc., to the outside world, but it also wants to be accepted as a respectable member of the Western community. If what the Foreign Minister said is true, that our bona fides as regards our policy towards our Blacks will never be accepted until independence is granted to the homelands, and the homeland leaders are not going to ask their independence unless they get more land and the hon. the Minister says that the Government is adamant on this question of more land, then I say that we have indeed reached an absolute deadlock as far as this is concerned.

Apart from that I want to come back to the viability of the homelands. I am not interested in geographic size; I am mostly interested in viability. Not one of these areas is viable. The Tomlinson Commission laid down that 50 000 jobs a year were to be provided outside of agriculture for the existing population and its natural increase. The Financial Mail which did a survey reached the conclusion that something like 85 000 jobs in all have been provided both inside the homelands and in the border industry areas over the whole period; that is, over the entire period since we started implementing the border industry policy. I have the various reports of the XDC and the Bantu Investment Corporation and the answer to the question which I put to the hon. the Minister about the number of jobs provided by private entrepreneurs on an agency basis in the homelands. That scheme has only been in operation over the last few years. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, one has already heard so much about the question of “viability”. The homelands are supposedly not viable. “They are not viable.” Sir, I just want to mention one fact. No independent Black state in Africa— neither Lesotho, Swaziland, Botswana nor any other Black state in Africa—has what the Transkei, KwaZulu or Vendaland have, i.e. a market to which they can export a commodity for ever. That commodity is labour. When a people has an export commodity like labour, there is no question of “viability” or a lack of “viability”. The second point is that the Bantu homelands, which we are now dealing with, have a well-meaning, experienced and growing White community to which they can export that commodity of theirs.

I now come to the hon. member for Houghton. I see that the Progressive Party will be giving a big banquet one of these days, and they want to invite Chief Buthelezi to come and propose the toast on her twenty years as a parliamentarian. Sir, I am not an adviser of Captain Buthelezi who receives payment from elsewhere. I want to give Buthelezi some free advice. I want to tell him that I came into this House at the same time as the hon. member for Houghton.

And look what you look like now! [Laughter.]

She was a lovely lady. If one may drag in Greek mythology, I want to say she was like Helen of Troy, “with a face that launched a thousand ships”. Sir, but the 20 years of being together have also taken their toll. They have transformed her politically into another character from Greek mythology, i.e. Medusa, with the snakes around her head and various political gargoyles. Since everyone who looked Medusa in the face was turned to stone, I want to warn Buthelezi: “Mr. Buthelezi, beware—you will be petrified through your contacts with that woman! ” I want to give Buthelezi that good advice.

Sir, there is one fact that is as plain as a pikestaff—the Bantu leaders say this—i.e. that they accept the course leading to complete freedom. Not one of the hon. members opposite can dispute what I am now saying here. Buthelezi says so and so does Matanzima. They accept the road to full independence. They acknowledge its inevitability. In respect of this we, as Whites, and the White Government, seeks no confrontation with the Bantu leaders, and there is no single element incorporated which could cause confrontation. It is certain that there are forces and elements amongst the Whites for whom this fact is a bitter pill to swallow. They exist, and their activities are known to us. It is indisputable that there are underhand efforts being employed to influence existing Bantu leaders to create confrontation fronts. I want to mention one. A certain newspaper editor, an ultra-leftist, a detestable liberalist who is today the editor of an English daily, played this dual role in an election. He supported the opposition of a present Bantu leader during an election, and when that leader lost, the editor switched his allegiance to the present Bantu leader. Throughout the night he sits in consultation with him until the early hours of the morning. He will know who he is and the Bantu leader will also know who he is. There are certain intellectuals and certain clergymen who refuse to swallow the bitter pill that the Bantu accept this unavoidable state of affairs, i.e. development towards self-reliance and political independence. They do not want to swallow this. I am issuing a timely warning to Mr. Hurley and Mr. E. G. Malherbe of Natal. Thirdly, there are certain newspapers that cannot swallow this pill. What do they do? Every little word that is uttered and every little speech that is made by Buthelezi or Matanzima in a fit of emotion as a result of possible political immaturity, thereby disregarding protocol, gains banner headlines and is exaggerated. That is what certain newspapers, which are not able to swallow this pill, are doing. I want to say that the power structures in which the Bantu leaders are now operating, the authority levels at which they are acting as far as their speeches are concerned, with demands and threats and emotional outbursts, have been created by the National Party. We accept this. These authority levels created by the National Party and the Whites were definitely not created with the intention that they should be used by irresponsible enemies who want to operate, through influence, to make confrontation levels of those authority levels. It must be accepted that no single example can be quoted to expose any semblance of falseness or a lack of sincerity by the White Government in respect of its endeavours to take the Bantu peoples along the road to independence. It is a fact that within the principles of National Party policy, within the method of the implementation of that policy and the efforts on the part of the Government to improve certain polluted relationships that have been created throughout the years, and the honestly motivated endeavours of the National Government to eliminate present essential practices which could be interpreted maliciously as discriminatory measures, and to transform them into normal, non-offensive practices that could be accepted in the whole body of separate development thus far and further, there is no single element present that can be seized upon by anyone to pull the trigger that ignites the revolutionary powder. Bantu leaders, I am saying in all humility, must be careful in their use of words which do not impress any White person and which would not incite any Bantu emotions. I want to close. We are too interdependent, and the daily contact between Whites and Bantu in South Africa ensures this. In terms of our whole South African situation, there is no possibility that revolution could take the place of a normal, equal evolutionary process in which we shall also be dealing with difficulties such as financial obstructions, land claims, etc. We understand all that, because we are more experienced and because we are prepared to accept that responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member for Carletonville will excuse me if I do not react to what he has said. [Interjections.] So I think I will leave him there. I must say to the hon. member for Houghton, who raised the land issue, that we do not intend discussing the land issue during this Vote. We will use Government time to discuss the report of the Select Committee on Bantu Affairs.

I want to come back to where we were a little earlier in this debate and add my praise to the few words expressed by the hon. member for South Coast in response to the speech made by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education this morning. Let me say that it was like a breath of fresh air. It appears to me that, at last, we have someone on that side who has taken the trouble to go and speak to these people. He has taken the trouble to go and speak with them and to hear what their problems are. I want to wish him good luck and I hope that he continues with it. We also have taken the trouble to speak with them and we have heard these people say: “How refreshing it is to have a White politician come and speak with us and hear our stories; to hear our problems, and try to understand what we face in our day-to-day living under today’s circumstances”. In the words of one old grey-haired gentleman, “M.P.s must consult with the African people and say to Parliament what we think and not what you think we think.” That is what they said to us and I am glad to hear that the hon. the Deputy Minister appears to be doing this. I hope he continues with it. He will hear the stories of the problems they have with schooling, with transport and all the other problems they have; in particular, their feeling of impermanence—the sword of Damocles which is hanging over their heads every minute of their lives because they are not allowed home-ownership and because they have no roots at all. They have no rights to remain there.

Talking of property rights, we had the hon. member for Stilfontein a little earlier talking about the Bantu towns in the homelands in Transvaal. I believe he said there were 37 such towns and that 36 000 houses had been built for them. This is good; but I want to ask the hon. the Minister or the hon. member for Stilfontein how many of those are owned by the Bantu.

They can all be owned by them.

Yes, they can all be owned. This is what the hon. the Minister has been saying over the years, but it is not the answer to my question. How many are owned by Bantu?

Tell them to buy them.

I do not believe that a single one of those houses in their own homelands is owned by a Bantu.

They may buy them if the wish to.

The hon. the Minister says they may. This is what he has been saying over the years. And this is part of the whole land question. The hon. the Minister went on about the 1936 Act, the quota of land, consolidation and everything else. This is part of it as well; not only home-ownership in the urban townships in the so-called White parts of South Africa, but also in the urban townships in the Black areas. What is the position at Hammarsdale today? There is a township, the Mpumalanga township, which is established on land that was Bantu-owned, land which they owned and to which they had title, but which was expropriated from the Black people by this hon. Minister’s Government to establish a township. At the time when I opposed and fought this, I was given the assurance that every one of them would be entitled to buy a house.

They are.

How may have bought? How many have had the opportunity of buying?

It is their choice.

How many have been offered for sale? Not one has been offered for purchase! It goes even further. Since 1968 I have been opposing with the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development, who unfortunately is not here —I believe he is in the United States of America—an expropriation of 112 acres which belongs to a church, the Church of the Holy Ghost, a place which is known as “The Peaceville Mission” which was established in 1917 and has over 30 000 adherents. They have established there a church, shops, a hall and houses, developments for the people. In the words of the chief priest at the moment: “Here is an example of how we can develop if we are given a chance.” They run the only bus service in the area, but their land was expropriated in 1968, or such notice was served then. Incidentally, at that stage they were offered R5 829 as compensation for the whole lot. In 1970 that offer was increased to R8 840 and now, on the 17th April, they received a letter from the department in which they are asked to notify the department whether they were going to accept the final offer of R4 505. This is what they are offered for 112 acres. The point is that it is for the land only that they offer R4 505, because the department has agreed that they can retain the ownership of the improvements on the land. They have said to the church: “Look, you need not move away; you can stay here; we shall allow you to stay on the land. All we are doing is to take away your ownership, your right to own the land.” At one stage they wanted to charge them rent, but the department has now even waived the rental. How much credibility is there left in the minds of people as far as this Government is concerned, when the Government can do this sort of thing? So much for the talk about land ownership, so much for the talk about the rights of people in their own areas! The department says that they require this land which is owned by the church for the extension of the Mpumalanga township. If the church is to be allowed to continue to occupy the buildings on the land, why can they not continue to own it? It is not as if it has to be removed; it is not as if the church has to be moved to another site. They are going to be left to occupy their own premises on their land. All that is happening is that their title deeds are being taken away. The question now is: why? When the Government can do this to their own people, the very people that they are supposed to be supporting, developing and assisting to develop, where is their integrity; where is their honesty? The hon. the Deputy Minister, who is not here and who cannot defend himself, undertook to come and have a look at this place in the recess, if possible, because he accepted my argument. Unfortunately he was precluded, I believe, by officia duties from coming. I discussed this question with him at the beginning of this year and I wrote him a letter in which I said: “Please, you do not need to expropriate the land; leave these people alone”. These people even have their own private siding and twice a year they have a congress. Two special trains are parked there for the whole of a long weekend and thousands of adherents of this faith come there. If he asks the hon. the Minister of Justice he will find that they have had no trouble whatsoever from these people. Those of us who live in that area know that the adherents of this faith are the finest of people who live in that area. Even this is being taken away from them. When I finally got the hon. the Deputy Minister to the point where I could tell him that there was no need for him to take this land away, I received the following letter from his department on the 15th January, 1973. I quote—

This is now the final excuse behind which the department is hiding. They allege that in terms of the Act there is no provision for the withdrawal of the notice of expropriation. What utter balderdash, Mr. Chairman; there is no provision which says that they may not withdraw a notice of expropriation. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is not here, because on how many occasions has the Department of Agricultural Credit withdrawn notices of expropriation? How many times have they been altered? I am sorry, Sir; the bona fides of this Minister and his department are now suspect. I do not believe that there are such bona fides remaining. If this is the way they are going to treat the Black people, then we must accept that they are utterly incapable of conducting their affairs properly. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I expected something positive, something constructive, from the hon. member about the position of the urban Bantu, but I have heard nothing, except for a little dirty water which he has tried to hurl at the Government. For that reason I am not going to follow up on what he said; there is, in actual fact, nothing that one can react to. Today volumes are being written and valuable hours are being taken up in discussing the position of the urban Bantu. If this is proof of an increasing realization that the question of the urban Bantu is becoming the all-important question and that more positive attention is being given to this delicate sphere of national relations, and if these are the positive, constructive results of serious reflection, then the fact that there is so much discussion and that so much is being written is definitely a good sign, because then it is also proof that deep thought is being given to the matter. The fact of their presence is comprehensible and logic. As a matter of fact, the National Party is not responsible for their presence in such large numbers in the cities, although today the National Party has to pull the chestnuts out of the fire. Within the framework of our South African economic development structure, Bantu labour is different to labour in Europe, where Whites do all the work. Here it has become a traditional necessity, a sine qua non, in our economy: The more rapid the growth, the greater the demand for labour and the greater the drawing power to the cities.

But the availability of Bantu labour has not only been beneficial to the White economy. It was a godsend; it was a blessing for the Bantu who, by virtue of their great numbers, their lack of development, their inability to be self-sufficient, were placed in the fortunate position of coming to sell their labour to the Whites in the large cities. What is the position today? More than half of all the Bantu outside the homelands are concentrated in our large cities; there are about four million of them. In the Cape Peninsula they are ousting the Coloureds from their traditional work spheres, and they are creating an even darker Brown people, with new problems for the future. On the Witwatersrand and in Pretoria, and in other large cities, they form black belts that surround the Whites like the tentacles of an octopus. According to Dr. J. P. Jacobs, the vice-president of the Handelsinstituut, there are already about 2 200 000 Bantu, 360 000 Coloureds and 130 000 Asiatics, as against 900 000 Whites, actively incorporated in spheres such as mining, industry, commerce and transport. This means that in our large cities, already incorporated in economic activities, there are four Bantu for every two Whites, one Coloured and one Asiatic. 1 900 000 of these Bantu are unskilled labourers. In South Africa it is calculated that about 40% of all Bantu are economically inactive, and enormous numbers of them are loafers in our cities. Mr. Kallie van der Merwe, the recently appointed chairman of the East Rand Bantu Administration Board, calculates that there are 300 000 inactive Bantu out of a total of 750 000 in his area. The trend is such that these people will still increase tremendously in number. Their birthrate is 37,8 per 1 000 as against the Coloureds’ 33,75 per 1000 and the Whites’ 21,4 per 1 000. The attraction of the cities, the demand for labour and natural growth are irresistible factors as far as increasing numbers are concerned and the aggravation of the problem which must be faced by our Government and by every White in the country. On the other hand, Sir, since 1948, after the National Party had diagnosed the situation, it immediately put a plan into action and set to work, and in spite of the counteraction of the Opposition, in spite of the opposition of hostile city councils and English-language clergymen, it has performed wonders. It cleaned up slum areas and replaced them with smart areas. It created work opportunities; it created educational facilities within the residential areas; it supplied first-class housing with modem facilities. Increasing wage adjustments are being made today. Administrative responsibilities have been created for the Bantu within their residential areas with the creation of administrative boards. The National Party created hospitals and medical facilities, which can be compared with the best in the world. For example, there are 111 198 hospital beds available for Bantu as against 40 560 for Whites. Together with the Whites the Bantu are served by 10 000 doctors, i.e. one for every 1 600 persons. Sir, how does this compare with Malawi with its 35 doctors, one for every 35 000; with Lesotho with its 40 doctors, one for every 18 000 and with Zambia with its 165 doctors, one for every 22 000? Sir, we offer them full citizenship with full-fledged, decent status within their national context, within their homelands, which this Government created for them against all opposition and to which, in the final stages now, it is giving geographical and political substance. Apart from economic and agricultural development, this is already, in itself, becoming a strong force of attraction towards an individual fatherland for those people in the cities. That is why it is so regrettable, Sir, that there are Whites today—in this House too, and outside, even within student and academic circles—who want to remove the Bantu from the guardianship of their national context; who want to present them as a westernized, degenerate group of people whom they want to link together in one impersonal and uprooted group of non-Whites within the White economic, social, educational and political context, although they consist of various ethnic groups. Sir, the fact is that the Bantu cannot, do not want to, and will not integrate—not with the Whites or even with other non-White ethnic groups. History teaches us the reverse. Tribal fights within their national context prove that group ties are inseparable from the nature of the Bantu. Just look at what is happening in Europe, where this national awareness continues to survive and is taking shape to an increasing extent at present. Just look at the scots who are only now, after centuries, on the road to an individual homeland government, if I may call it that; look at the Welsh and at the Basques in North-western Spain; look at the Catalans and the Celts whose Irish blood is now again hotting up in France. Just look at the Croats in Yugoslavia and others. One can also refer to the Turks and Greeks in Cyprus. I can also refer to the struggle of the Red Indians, since 1890 and earlier, at Wounded Knee. Sir, I am referring specifically to the former White groups because they are members of Western civilization who, after years of complete integration with other closely related national groups, still hanker and strive for an individual identity. If these examples cannot convince integrationists that even the idea of joining together peoples with loyalty to one fatherland in South Africa, will never succeed, then I am simply dumbfounded and cannot understand the untenable views of such people. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am one of those persons who believes that the basic and fundamental aspect of the democratic view of life and the world is grounded on the exercising of patience and the conscious pursuit of one’s ideals, with a fixed creed, and within that policy one must implement the norms of intellectual honesty and morality. Here this afternoon, on the part of the Opposition, we have had a demonstration of a strange piety which I am not familiar with. Remarks were made here about our leaders, who initiated this whole idea of separation and separate development, as if they ostensibly did not comply with the concepts of morality and intellectual honesty. The hon. member for Transkei referred here to the fact that Gen. Hertzog’s intention with respect to the Reserves and the subsequently purchased land was not that they should fall beyond the umbrella of White control and influence. But surely that is not honest, and the hon. member knows it.

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to say that; he must withdraw it.

Then there was …

Order! The hon. member must first withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir. Then there was a suggestion of there being an ulterior motive, and from Hansard I want to prove that this was not the case. I want to quote Gen. Hertzog’s own words in this House in 1936. What did he Say? In reply to a question by Mr. Gilson he said—

The released area: Yes, in the released area we say to the Native: This is part of the territory which we have set aside for you as Native …

Not for me as the White tyrant—

Not the White man; no, he must govern himself—

So what?

Sir, that is independence without the umbrella of the White man. Later in the same speech Gen. Hertzog said—

It seems to me as if they were then just as hard of hearing as they are today—

Sir, here there is no question of an umbrella. What is at issue here is self-determination and autonomy. Does the hon. member understand Afrikaans?

Sir, hon. members on that side of the House also said they are now hearing a new voice from the Government benches. Sir, that is also a piety we are not familiar with. They say that as if they are completely innocent of any suggestive remarks which might adversely affect the security of our country and which might entail insecurity for the White man. Mr. Chairman, before they address us, they must first address their own liberalists—the hon. members, for Bezuidenhout, Wynberg and Port Natal, because what does the hon. member for Port Natal say? Does he say the same as the hon. member for South Coast? Let us hear what he has to say. On 16th May, 1973, just the other day, he said—

Do they want to sit on these two stools and, with their pious faces, solve this problem which we have agreed is a collective problem for the White man and a very delicate situation which we must approach carefully and, if need be, in collaboration with each other? The hon. member for Port Natal does not co-operate in saying these things. No, we must be careful. This strange fraternization I am not familiar with. I want to tell you: Beware of the wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Do you co-operate with your mayor?

One day we shall create your own homeland for you. [Interjection.] Sir, I just want to offer you one further positive idea, and this is something that I also find strange. I think that academically we have now reached the stage of having made a good start with the consolidation of the homelands and having given a basis to the Black man to work out his own salvation in this country. But I think the time has also come for us to tell the Black man in all friendliness that by continuing to look at the White man’s country means that he is turning his back on his own people’s country. The time has come for us to tell the Black man and his leaders: Capital consists chiefly of labour. The time has come for us to tell the Black man that he himself must take the lead in guiding his people in the direction of greater self-industry. Why do I say this? I can afford to, Sir. There was a period in the history of my people when 60% of them were living under the breadline 40 years ago. There was a period in the history of my people when they had to be satisfied with 3s. 9d. a day. Was I filled with hate, and did I turn my back on my own people and gaze at the conqueror and the oppressor? No, I adopted a positive attitude and said, according to the motto that a people saves itself: “I shall save 5 cents per month and I shall pay it into a central fund to Send my first commerce student to Stellenbosch, my first pharmacy student to Potchefstroom and my first few engineering students to Pretoria and Stellenbosch. I needed to raise a front line. I had only 340 000 people in this country who contributed 5 cents a month. I did not achieve my ideal through hate, but through positive labour inspired by love for my own people and today I can say with sincerity and pride: “I stole from no one because I control my share in the economy, politics and the social life of my fatherland on the basis of my own industry.” I did not wait for someone else to build a university for me. Our ladies began millinery classes. We did not have a commercial school in the days when that side of the house was the government of the country. In Ermelo, Bethlehem and Johannesburg we started millinery classes to train commercial students. We had to beg and buy the material. Today there are model Afrikaans commercial schools in Parktown, Ermelo and Bethlehem by virtue of our industry. I did not expect those who dominated me to build me a commercial school. It was done by virtue of my own industry, thinking and organization. I think the time has come for us to enter this new dimension for the development of our homelands. The homeland leaders, in consultation with the Government, must say: Look, the time has come for consideration to be given to imposing a salary levy on homeland labourers to this country to support their own families at home and to establish a central fund to provide for our basic needs and for certain capital works in the homelands. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I must admit that this is the first time I have heard in this hon. House that Gen. Hertzog advocated sovereign independent Bantu states as a solution to the South African race problem. After all, we know that that is not true. The hon. member used to be a teacher and he should know the history of the matter. After all, he knows that no one before Dr. Verwoerd ever advocated independent homelands as a solution, except Dr. Philip of the London Missionary Society, and we know how many problems he created here in South Africa. We also know that even Dr. Verwoerd was opposed to it in the fifties. At that time he spoke in the Other Place and condemned us by saying that we were giving out that the Government wanted to create independent Black states. His own words were that one only had to look at the map of South Africa to see what an impossible situation that would create. Even Dr. Verwoerd was against it, but then, owing to pressure brought to bear by the outside world, we had this major somersault, and now we are hearing that the policy that was accepted then is our traditional policy in South Africa.

However, I want to return to the Vote under discussion. For the first time in years we have seen a small ray of light going up on the other side of the House as far as the discussion of this Vote is concerned. I refer to the contribution by the hon. the Deputy Minister. We saw it as the introduction to this third era about which we have heard. But then the thunderclouds made their appearance in the form of the speech by the hon. the Minister, and immediately the situation became dark and sombre again. When one listens to the hon. the Minister and those echoing his views, it is clear that they are absolutely living in a fool’s paradise. One fears that it will take traumatic events of tremendous magnitude to wrest them from their state of complacency. Anyone with the slightest insight knows that matters have begun to go wrong. After all, we can sense instinctively that radical changes must be made. However, the hon. the Minister is still building his castle in the air, which is already crumbling before our eyes. He is still chasing a mirage in the face of situations which have become so serious that we shall have to take steps against them immediately.

In the course of the ten minutes which have been put at my disposal I can refer to one aspect only. I would like to point out how the policy of this Government is failing, is coming to grief in every important aspect. I would like to refer to the economic front. After all, it was that side who set the norms, who told us that if there were economic integration, political integration would inevitably follow. Today, however, we have more economic integration than ever before in the history of South Africa. Let us take a look at the gold-mining industry of South Africa. Today 90% of the workers in that industry are Black people, and if we did not have those Black workers, we would not have six gold mines in South Africa which could remain in operation.

You should speak under the Mining Vote.

What would then become of our economy?

But you are not worried about them.

The hon. members still do not know what is at stake. These are merely parrot cries and they do not even have the slightest idea of what is going on. We do not only have economic integration. They are still years behind the times, because they are still regarding the non-Whites merely as workers; hence the houses they are building for them, and quite rightly so, and hence the schools they are building for him, once again quite rightly so. However, they look upon them merely as an asset and they are trying to make them more effective as economic workers. What the hon. members opposite do not understand at all is that the Black man has become a consumer today and that it is his purchasing power which will be decisive. The purchasing power of the Black people in South Africa is at present estimated to be worth about R1 000 million per annum. If South Africa continues to grow as it must grow, their purchasing power will amount to between R25 million and R30 million per day within the next two decades.

[Inaudible.]

That hon. member does not know what is going on anyway. He is living in a totally different, out-of-date world. But, Sir, if they have the extensive purchasing power, do hon. members have any idea of the enormous influence on our economic and political situation here, because that purchasing power is not in the homelands—it lies here in the White areas! Do hon. members think that any Government is going to appease and satisfy them with voting rights in the homelands? After all, anyone with any knowledge of history will know that the political rights of people arise where they use their purchasing power. Do hon. members think that any Bantu Government will be satisfied with the vast majority of their workers working in a foreign country, with the purchasing power being transferred to a foreign country, and with their being impoverished in the process? What the Government is doing here—the only thing is they do not know this—is to bring about a chronic crisis situation.

†There are all these inherent contradictions in the Government’s policy that we cannot understand. Quite clearly, what they ought to aim at is to increase the economic carrying capacity of the Bantu homelands. And yet they have consistently denied them the ingredients to become economically viable, because they would not permit White capital and initiative to go there. What is the position in the Transkei today, this shop-window of separate development? I postulate here that the per capita income of the de jure population of the Transkei is today not significantly higher than it was at the beginning of this century, and I challenge any member on the other side to refute it. Is that the kind of situation, is this the kind of economic viability that they are trying to create?

But I want to go further. They are taking other steps aimed precisely at inhibiting economic growth in the homelands. I refer here to the Government’s border area scheme. What is done in terms of the border area scheme? You siphon away from the homelands whatever limited human skills there are. You transfer much of the purchasing power to the White area. The taxes that accrue to the companies accrue to the White exchequer and not to the Black homeland government. Sir, the Prime Minister talks about “verneukery”, but this is a prime example of “verneukery”. How will you ever get industry to flourish in the homelands under these disadvantageous conditions, when they are sited in the immediate proximity of White industry that has all these advantages to which I have referred? Here is the inherent contradiction in the whole policy. They want to make the Black homelands economically viable, and yet they deny them the resources that are necessary to do so.

I have dealt with only one facet of this policy to show that the whole thing is an absolute failure. If it fails in the economic field, it will also fail in the political field; because here you have another nonsensical approach: South Africa is one economic entity, and everybody knows that. Prof. Tomlinson has said the same. How can you now graft a series of independent constitutional establishments upon one economic base and expect it to serve all the constituent elements equally? It has never happened in history, and it will not happen here. But to cover up all these deficiencies in their policy, they tell us now, “But we extend to them the right of self-determination.” Mr. Chairman, this sounds so good, but it is meaningless. One of the greatest liberals of all time, Bertrand Russell, has said—

It will happen here, too. But what does it really mean, this so-called “right of self-determination” the Government extends to them? Because you see, Sir, the Government excludes some of the vital options. They cannot decide that they want to remain part of the broader South Africa; they can only opt out. It is like a married couple who have lived together for years and built up a joint estate. Now there is some difficulty and so the husband says to the wife: “You can push off, but you won’t get anything out of the joint estate; this is the right of self-determination that I grant you.” [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I just want to reply to a few questions put to me in the course of this debate. I want to start by telling the hon. member for Transkei, while he is still here, that it goes without saying that I cannot reply fully to those questions put by him: I shall therefore deal with them as briefly as possible.

Firstly, he asked me, “What are you going to do to ensure the enjoyment of undisturbed family life?” I have already told the Committee how many people are being housed on a family basis in the various urban areas. I should like to add here that if we get away from the urban areas to the rural areas, the hon. member will know —and, please note, this was pointed out by the hon. the Prime Minister—that in White South Africa almost 40% of the Bantu in White areas are living in the rural areas. I do not know whether there can be any objection to the way in which family life is permitted there. I want to say now that there are cases where people leave their homes in order to take up employment. Migrant labour does exist; this is a fact. Churches and other organizations have pointed out the dangers and also the evils and possible evils involved in this system. The fact of the matter is simply that those people are leaving their homes in order to work for their families. It is a practical impossibility to be able at all times to make provision for such people in the manner in which one would like to do so. May I just add that this is not unusual amongst Whites either.

Owing to circumstances the percentage is admittedly much smaller, but what about the large numbers of people being housed in railway hostels? The hon. member for Umhlatuzana is aware of this. They do not stay there on a family basis. I am also thinking of the other hostels where people are being housed, such as the church hostels one finds in Pretoria for young people who come from the rural areas in order to take up employment in the Public Service. I am afraid that a complete solution to this problem, so that everybody may be housed on a family basis, is an absolute illusion, and I cannot even consider saying any more about the matter. However, I want to add that I believe—I am not the only one to believe this; this is nothing new; ever since the time of Dr. Malan this has consistently been said, and I shall quote it on a later occasion—that all the rights and privileges which one claims to oneself, one should also be prepared to extend to others. This is inherent in Nationalism. That is why work was done and is being done in order that as many of these people as possible—those people who in the words of the hon. member for Randburg, cannot or do not always want to help themselves and do not have the initiative—may be helped to do things. In this respect a new voice has supposedly been raised, a new light has supposedly come to the fore.

Let me say, however, that the work which I am doing in the department and which has been entrusted to me—and I am not saying this in order to make an impression on anyone, but merely to propagate the truth—is being done under the guidance of the Minister. These efforts which are being made to iron out matters, have been assigned to me by my Minister and the Cabinet, and I am not budging an inch from what was said by them. I think it is necessary that it be said here, and this was said by the hon. member for Transkei, that dedicated officials—not only those who are in the homelands, but also those who are in our own departments—are people who work hard.

The hon. member said they were working too much. I know how hard they work and I know how hard my colleague the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development has been working, especially over the past year. I know that there is also enough work for me to do. I can tell the Committee that officials, and also others who are working in this department, are working cheerfully; we are working with a Minister who, with sincerity towards all people, has held this office for a longer period than any other Minister has yet handled this portfolio in the history of South Africa. I want to add that we are doing so without any hesitation, for if there is any person who is working hard in that department, no matter how hard he may be working, his work is not nearly as hard as is the work done by the hon. the Minister in the department. I would be false if I wanted to take credit this afternoon for work which the hon. the Minister told me to do.

†Reference was made this afternoon to the aid centres. These aid centres were established years ago. I agree that they were not functioning properly and I want to state emphatically that even at the moment they are not functioning properly at all. We are trying to improve them day by day and we are trying to learn from the experience of people such as those mentioned by the hon. member for Houghton. We have already established 13 and seven more are in the process of being established. The idea of these aid centres was born in the mind of the hon. the Minister. He wanted them as a measure to counter the arrest, sometimes unnecessarily, of innocent people or people who unwittingly overstepped the law.

*Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that the hon. the Minister gave me an instruction. This is not attributable to my own thinking. The previous Deputy Minister worked with the legislation last year. For that reason it is the entire Government and especially the hon. the Minister who deserves the credit for these administration boards being established. These administration boards have been established, as I have already said, for the purpose of coping with many of the problems which have been mentioned and which I admit do exist.

I can tell you—I may as well disclose this to the House—that the hon. the Minister instructed me last year to start working on the establishment of a division for sport within the framework of the Department of Bantu Administration. An official was specially assigned to take care of this matter, because the Minister’s idea was more or less—I no longer know what his exact words were: “Children of the Bantu have the same right to practising sport, and whereas we created facilities for ourselves in the past, and whereas they are not doing so, this still does not relieve us of our duty to help them to make a start with it.” Last week I was paid a visit by a senior official charged with proceeding with the establishment of a division for sport in large Bantu areas in the White area as well as in the homelands in order to make it possible for young and for older people to have the same facilities as those enjoyed by Whites. I want to add that at these aid centres we have officials who are investigating and recording the wishes of any difficulties experienced by people coming to the cities. I want to admit, as I said a moment ago, that we have by no means reached perfection.

†I agree, and have said so on a previous occasion, that there are ever so many Natives who land in gaol who should not have landed there. I have said so and take responsibility for it.

*However, there is also another side to the matter, namely that if you want to abolish influx control, you should also suggest to me the methods for doing so in an effective and fair manner. I want to tell you that if a Bantu is arrested without his passbook and an irresponsible official takes him to gaol, I shall be one of the first— we have already done this—to rebuke such officials.

What about the police?

But, surely, one should face up to the fact that if one were to allow the Bantu to pour in freely, an impossible situation would after all be developing. That is why we started with the issuing of citizenship certificates in an attempt to apply influx control more fairly.

A question was put to me in regard to housing. I want to state frankly that there is a housing shortage for Bantu. This shortage is not only attributable to the inflow of Bantu from other places, but there is a further shortage as a result of a lack of funds. However, the hon. members will know that we also have a housing shortage for Whites, and that in this respect we cannot develop our infrastructure the way we should like to do it. We must accept that we do not have the money to do everything we should like to do. We can only do as much as our financial means permit. I can tell the hon. member that several schemes have been approved for Johannesburg. Broadly speaking, an additional 2 400 houses will be built shortly. We are trying to expedite this programme in so far as it is in our power to do so.

Mr. Chairman, we know that the hon. the Deputy Minister after this morning’s speech must praise the hon. the Minister this afternoon and say that he was carrying out instructions. We know that he must do that and we do not take it amiss of him, but we do just want to say that we trust that the sympathetic attitude which he revealed in his speech this morning, will not be spoiled by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

If there is one aspect of Government policy in South Africa which has been proved a failure, then it is that in respect of the urban Bantu in South Africa. A great deal has been quoted from the speeches of previous leaders and previous Prime Ministers, but now I want to refer to the creator of the Government’s philosophy, the late Dr. Verwoerd, who presented South Africa with a choice. I have here with me a very interesting booklet with which hon. members from the Transvaal are probably conversant. This booklet was published by the Nationalist Party and its heading is: “The choice: A racially integrated fatherland or a White South Africa.” At the end of this booklet one finds a very interesting quotation of what Dr. Verwoerd said. He said:

In other words, that means that he wanted total segregation for South Africa. That is what we always understood from Dr. Verwoerd. That hon. gentleman laid definite emphasis on the prospects in terms of the figures relating to numbers in South Africa. It is necessary to quote this for the record—

Then he said the following—

Those were the words of the late Dr Verwoerd. The hon. the Deputy Minister admitted that for many years, for as far as we were able to see into the future, there would still be a mass of Bantu in the White areas, of South Africa. Surely this is no longer consistent with the philosophy and the choice of Dr. Verwoerd. The hon. the Chief Whip on that side of the House went into reaptures today about the policy of the Nationalist Party. I can only say to the hon. the Chief Whip, “Events are beginning to overtake you.” At present 46% of the total Bantu population in South Africa are physically present in the areas which are known as the so-called Bantu areas. The rest, approximately eight million, and that is already two million more than the Tomlinson Commission estimated the population in these areas to be by the year 2000, is established on a permanent basis in White South Africa, whether this is described as “temporary-permanent” or as “casually” or as “secondary”. If one takes the 1970 statistics and by using the 1960 to 1970 growth rate, makes a projection to the year 2000. this gives one a possible 37 million to 42 million Bantu population for South Africa by the year 2000. Against the background of the result of the Government policy, one wants to know from hon. members on the other side of the House how many of these plus-minus 40 million people will be in the White areas of South Africa by the year 2000. We are told that 100 000 new Bantu come onto the labour market in South Africa every year. Then one reads the following in the South African Digest of 13th April, as though the Government were very pleased with the progress they were making—

Then, Sir, they go on to tell us where these job opportunities were created—

Sir, when one looks at such ridiculous figures, which are calculated in terms of hundreds instead of in terms of the millions we should really want to see, one wonders where this Government is going with this policy of theirs. In this whole matter of creating job opportunities for the Bantu in the Bantu areas of South Africa, I see the total failure of the whole Verwoerd philosophy. The argument of the “casual” member for Langlaagte was that only 5% of the Bantu population in the White area could be regarded as unspecified. He regarded only that 5% as urbanized in terms of our argument. Surely, Sir, one cannot argue like that. Surely, the mere fact that the other 95% are specified as Venda, Zulu, Sotho, Shangaan or Tswana, does not make them non-permanent in the White area in South Africa. These people are there. Whether they speak Venda or Sotho or English or Afrikaans, they are there and provision will have to be made for them there. The question one asks, is this: What, really, is the so-called principle which concerns hon. members opposite? Is it the promise of Dr. Verwoerd of a so-called “White South Africa”, and that everything which is not White, must be separated into separate national states? If so, then it means absolutely nothing in terms of Government policy. In respect of two other racial groups in South Africa this principle of a White South Africa has already been thrown overboard. After all, it is accepted that the White man in South Africa will have to share this White country with two million Coloureds and 600 000 Indians, both communities or peoples— call them what you will—and this does not fit in with the philosophy of separate national states in South Africa. It is clear, then, that the inclusion and acknowledgment of a third community in South Africa, namely the urban Bantu communities, does not derogate in the slightest from this principle which this Nationalist Party has already accepted.

What of the farm labourers?

Sir, the hon. member must not concern himself now about the farm labourers. The farm labourers are not the problem. The problem lies in the urban areas of South Africa. [Interjections.] Sir, one could remind hon. members of the words of Dr. Werner Eiselen, who said (translation)—

This is the crux of our problem and I believe that in this lies the total failure of separate development in terms of this Government’s policy. Sir, I want to tell you that as long as I live in this country, this Government will not come anywhere near what Dr. Verwoerd hoped would occur by the year 2000, namely that in White South Africa the Whites would be numerically equal to the Bantu in South Africa. They will always be in the majority, and together with the White and together with the Bantu, there will be the Coloured and the Indian, and what, then, are we arguing about? Where is the so-called White South Africa about which we continually hear from this Government?

After listening to the hon. member for Turffontein, I just want to say that I notice that they are now trying to get away from a situation which they created for themselves this morning. I was intending to concur with them to some extent, but unfortunately the Deputy Minister spoke before me. I do not want to pursue the matter any further, but I just want to point out that the hon. the Deputy Minister stated the position very clearly. I want to agree that he made an excellent speech. He is a zealous person and we hope that there will be a lot more from him. But he put it very clearly that be was expounding the policy of the National Party, and he expressly said that he was doing so on instructions from the Government and on instructions from his Minister. In his enunciation of our policy he never came anywhere near the ideals of the United Party. Even to me as a backbencher it was clear that he was advocating the policy of the National Party and nothing else.

Sir, I should like to say a few words on the labour question. The hon. member for Turffontein spoke about all the Bantu who, according to him, were permanently in the White areas, and he said that this did not constitute segregation such as we had predicted. But, Sir, under our policy it remains segregation because those people, as the hon. the Minister said here, are here in a casual capacity. Even the United Party, in the days when they were in power, did not implement this policy which they are advocating today, namely to give the Bantu the right of ownership in the urban areas. If they were to get the right of ownership, would it remain at that? Surely they would eventually demand political rights too, as one of the hon. members said here. Sir, if there is one thing for which hon. members opposite, except for a few of them who are very close to the hon. member for Houghton, are very grateful, then that is that the National Party is implementing the policy it is today. There are certain members on that side of the House who advocate that the Bantu be given more rights in the urban areas—inter alia, the right of ownership—because they work and live here. I say that they are here on a casual basis. Sir, we make use of the labour of those people; we need it. But I want to point out that they need our labour market far more than we need their labour. We can get our labour from other countries. We can get even more labour from Malawi and other African countries.

They will still be Black.

Yes, they will still be Black, but then the argument that they are part of South Africa and that they are part of our people will no longer be valid. [Interjection.] They may be that hon. member’s “peoples”, but they are not part of my people, just as little as the Malawians are a part of my people.

Sir, the argument is also advanced here by hon. members on that side that we are not creating sufficient facilities or employment opportunities for the Bantu in the homelands. The hon. member for South Coast said here that there was a tremendous backlog in this regard in the homelands and that the employment opportunities in the White areas were such that the Bantu here would eventually no longer be interested in working in the homelands and he suggested that it was the result of poor organisation on the part of the Government that the necessary facilities were not being created for the Bantu in the homelands.

Sir, I also want to refer to a speech about the golf caddie which the hon. member for South Coast made the other day. Sir, if there is one man in the United Party for whom I have a great deal of respect, then it is the hon. member for South Coast. But the hon. member made a few statements in the course of his speech with which I am unable to agree. For example, he spoke about a Bantu who had received his training here and he then went on to say that his information was that at present this person was a “master builder” in a homeland. Sir, there is no such thing as master builders in the building industry in the homelands. One is not “trained” to become a master builder; one only becomes a master builder when one is admitted to membership of the Association of Master Builders because they have determined that ones’ work is good enough for one to be classified as a master builder. The master builders have their own association, just as there is, for example, an association which lays down certain requirements for architects. Then the hon. member for South Coast also said that that man was going to be, say, 19 years old. He had passed Std. 6, had received a few years’ training and at present he was a master builder. But what is there for him to do in Zululand with three million people who, according to returns, will be six million in twenty years’ time? We are continually told about the backlog they have there; in fact they have nothing; there is nothing there. But houses must be built for all those people and schools, hospitals, etc., must be built. Now apparently one has a master builder who has had his training and is unable to make a living among his three million people. Oh, really Sir, surely this is no argument for a prominent man in that party to use. And, what is more, the hon. the Prime Minister gave him the chance to make a second speech. We must be consistent. We know that we have a major task to perform. And what is more, we have been in South Africa just as long as these people. As we heard again today, we as a White population suffered many setbacks in this country, more than those people. In the past 300 years, without the help of anyone else, we have attained the position where we are standing today. I must admit that I have much sympathy with these people and that they have a lot of leeway to make up. It is our duty to help those people to make up that leeway, but they, too, have a duty. We are going out of our way to create those conditions for those people. In the course of their speeches hon. members, including the hon. member for South Coast, said a great deal about the labour infrastructure which, as it were, did not exist in the homelands. But take the building industry, for example. Just think of the future there is for people in the building industry in the homelands. It is said that they do not have housing and that they do not have schools, etc. What tremendous opportunities there are for expansion in each homeland, and what a need exists for a building industry. Now we are creating opportunities for them. After all, there they have the opportunity to be contractors, too, and not only labourers or tradesmen. The conditions exist for them to be contractors themselves. This is a tremendous industry which could be practised in those homelands. We are establishing it daily, and it is expanding. After all, we know this. The hon. member for South Coast also said that there was no work in the homelands and I think he referred to the Transkei. Sir, if there is no work there, there is work here with us. We know these peoples’ requirements. Sometimes they work for two months and then rest for ten months because they can live on that. They do not worry a great deal about it. We know that there is no famine in any of the homelands and that people are not starving there. In other words, they are surviving and are making a living. We have the border industries which are creating all kinds of employment opportunities there, such as those with regard to an infrastructure. Those people must have roads, shops, etc., in those border areas. But besides this we have the White areas adjacent to those border areas where there is labour for them and where they can make progress. We have the Government services in all those homelands which we pray will be taken over by them to a greater extent. There are the higher technical services for which, as yet, they do not meet the requirements. I do not have much more time at my disposal but there are still many things which I could mention. I want to mention this to you, Sir, that I think that we are creating jobs in the White area for work which is no longer being done by Whites. I think the Minister must consider consulting the other Ministers concerned about that, so that when we create skilled or semi-skilled jobs here in the White areas, we should create them for and make them available to the people of the homelands only, who could then come here to do that work. The migrant labour system by means of which one gives people opportunities, is a wonderful system of labour. I am here in Cape Town as a migrant labourer and I am none the worse for it. There are circumstances which result in people having to move in that direction. If we have a market for the labour of our homelands and neighbouring states, and can supply them with work, they have to accept that work as we make it available to them. We must, as the hon. the Deputy Minister put it this morning, make it attractive to them. We must be Christian-like and humane but it is our right, the right of the Whites in White South Africa, to continue to exist here and we must make it possible for our neighbouring states and for everyone to exist as well. However, we must see to our own interests first.

Mr. Chairman, I am very glad that the hon. member for Hillbrow is present at the moment, because a short while ago he spoke about the buying power of the Bantu. He told us that the Bantu’s buying power is about R1 000 million per year. Amongst other things he also spoke a whole lot of nonsense, but I now want to see whether one cannot get something like a sensible idea out of him. I want to put a question to the hon. member. I accept those figures which he mentioned in respect of the buying power of the Bantu as reasonably correct. I now come to their federal policy, in terms of which they will give the Whites, and the various national units of the Bantu, representation in the federal parliament in proportion to economic contributions to South Africa’s welfare. I now want to know how much that R1 000 million, which represents the Bantu’s buying power in South Africa, is going to be worth to him in terms of seats in the federal parliament.

Oh, now you are starting with your calculations again.

No, it is a very simple question. The hon. member mentioned a specific figure. He said the Bantu’s buying power is worth R1 000 million per year. If the hon. member does not know what the value of the gross domestic product of South Africa is, I could tell him, and if he does not know how many seats they said there would be in the federal parliament, I could also tell him that. What is more, I think the hon. member served on that committee which worked out the Opposition’s policy. If there is anyone in the House who could tell us how much that R1 000 million is worth in terms of seats, it ought to be the hon. member. I am asking him how many seats it is worth. [Interjections.] Does the hon. member not want to reply to me? [Interjections.] Very well, the hon. member does not want to reply to me; I do not blame him.

What I find strange is the following. Last year, when they were pressured into announcing their policy, they did so. They went all over the country. They even sent Mr. Harry Schwarz from the Transvaal to the Cape, and here he told of the new policy and also pointed out that with this new policy they would take over the Government of the country. They propagated the policy and intimated that it was the policy they would sell to South Africa. Then this session came along, and during the first week they came along with it in the no-confidence debate, but then they suddenly stopped short, because they were asked how their policy would work out in practice. Since then we have never again heard of that policy of theirs.

This hon. Opposition came to light with something new, and everyone yearns to know what it looks like and how it is going to work. I am asking the hon. member, who helped to design that policy, a simple question, but we can get no reply from him and from his hon. colleagues. From that I want to draw one conclusion. There was a tremendous bond of friendship between them and the Sunday Times, and the Sunday Times put all kinds of words into their mouths.

The Sunday Times did their thinking for them.

Yes. The Sunday Times put all kinds of words into their mouths, and up to a certain stage the Sunday Times told them specifically what to do, but when the Sunday Times abandoned them after the conclusion of the no-confidence debate, it stated that their policy was perfect—the Sunday Times probably helped the hon. member to think it up—but the hon. members opposite are too poor a lot to put the policy across. After that the Sunday Times left them, and since then we have never heard of the policy again. The accusation I now want to level at them, is that if the Sunday Times does not tell them how many seats that buying power of R1 000 million will mean to the Bantu in South Africa, they cannot give the answer. The Sunday Times will first have to tell them how many seats this would entail. While they are not being prompted by the Sunday Times, we shall get nothing from them.

That hon. member, and the one who spoke after him, spoke about the urban Bantu. There is one factor that I should like to point out. Since 1960 an urban Bantu population has also been developing in the Bantu homelands. It has developed with tremendous rapidity. In 1960 the total urban Bantu population in the Bantu homelands was less than 50 000, and they were living in 31 towns. Since 1960 that number has increased to almost 600 000. Now hon. members can go and work out what the percentage increase was. It represents, in any case, a tremendous increase in the urban Bantu population in the Bantu homelands. In the meantime the number of towns has increased from 31 to 86. In 1960 the average number of inhabitants of those towns was 1 600 per town. The inhabitants of those 31 towns increased to 207 000 in 1970, i.e. to an average of 7 000 per town. This means that 90% of the urban Bantu were settled in cities and towns in the homelands after 1960. This represents an increase, in those 10 years, of about 1 000%. This represents a tremendous increase in this urban Bantu population.

That, Sir, enables us to draw comparisons between the urban Bantu of the homelands and the urban Bantu of the White area. In the homelands no restrictions are placed on the Bantu with respect to settlement, together with their families, in the cities. The same is the case with respect to settlement on White farms. In South Africa as a whole there were 6,9 million Bantu men and 7,6 million Bantu women in 1970, i.e. a ratio of 91 men to 100 women in respect of South Africa as a whole. In the White urban areas the ratio is 117 men to 100 women. In the Bantu urban areas it is 101 to 100. In other words, the ratio in the urban areas does not represent the average. A tendency is to be noticed amongst the Bantu that when they leave their own area for cities or towns within the homeland, the ratio of men to women becomes higher than the average ratio of men to women in South Africa as a whole. This means only one thing, and that is that not all the people who come from the platteland and go to work in the Bantu towns, are married, i.e. it is the young labourers who push up the ratio so much in favour of the men. This, together with other reasons, causes the man to woman ratio in the White urban areas to be more in the men’s favour than the normal ratio. On the White farms in South Africa the ratio is 103 men to 100 women; and there is no limit. The Bantu can take his family with him to the farms; he can go and live with them there. But there the men are in the majority as well. Therefore I want to tell hon. members that apart from this, that ratio has been changing over the years. According to data made available by Sabra, this ratio was 220 men to 100 women in the White cities in 1936; in 1951 it was 161 to 100; and in 1960 it was 140 to 100. At the moment it is 117 to 100. In other words, Sir, that ratio is changing completely and moving towards a normal level. This is ascribable to the fact that influx control is being applied and that new Bantu are not being allowed to come in from outside in large numbers, and to the fact that Bantu who are born in the cities are being allowed to remain there. In that way a normal man to woman ratio is being effected. We know that the increase in the number of Bantu in the White areas is slower than in the homelands. Consequently the urban areas have not even absorbed their own increases in full. A portion of those increases have been drawn away.

But, Sir, another figure which is very important is the ratio of men to women as far as the foreign Bantu are concerned. For every 941 men there are 100 foreign Bantu women. In the White area the number is 1 032. Hon. members opposite say they have no objection to the people from Malawi coming and settling themselves here on a non-family basis. That ratio is 1 032 to every 100, while in our White urban areas, in respect of the South African Bantu, the ratio at this stage is 117 to 100. [Time expired.]

I do not intend reacting to the hon. member for Lichtenburg. In the short time I have available under this Vote I want to direct myself to the policy of the hon. the Minister in regard to health services in the homelands. It would appear to me, and the hon. the Minister could correct me if I am wrong, that the Government has handed over the health services to some of the homelands on an agency basis. I think that is correct. Secondly, the Government itself takes over the running of the mission hospitals in the homelands, according to the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development. Thirdly, the Transkeian Government takes over the functioning of the hospitals from the Department of Bantu Administration and Development and the churches retain the responsibility of running the hospitals while the medical and technical services are to be controlled by the Transkeian Government. This is a very complicated system and I want to know what control the Minister is actually giving to the Transkei Government or any other homeland in the running of their hospitals. Is it possible, under the agency system, for the Transkeian Government to hire or to fire any person working on an agency basis in the homeland? What control, for example, does the Minister of Health have in directing how these services of the agencies shall be conducted? These are important points. I want to know also whether or not what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said is agreed to by the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Deputy Minister appears to have so much control over the mission hospitals which will now become Government-controlled hospitals but will employ the mission services, that he has said, and said publicly, that unless the mission hospitals do as he says they must do, he will close them down. He did not say that he will restrict their activities, but that he would close them down. I am referring particularly to his reference to family planning. The hon. the Deputy Minister—and I am very sorry that he is not here today, because I would have liked him to deny it —said clearly that unless these mission hospitals institute clinics for family planning, he will not allow them to carry on their work. Now what about those mission hospitals which are run by churches which do not want to introduce any restrictions on families, who do not want to partake in family planning? Will this Minister have the right to stop them doing this essential work? Is he going to take the personnel away from these hospitals and replace them with other personnel? If he intends doing that, I would like to know where he intends getting the personnel from. Right through the Republic at the moment we have shortages of medical personnel. For 15 years I have been standing here pleading with the Government to make provision for what is coming but they have done nothing about it at all. What is the increase in the doctor-rate in the Republic? What is the increase in the number of trained nurses here? As far as Black doctors are concerned, they are not only restricted as to where they can study, but when they have qualified, this Minister prevents them from practising where they would like to practise. He knows as well as I do that, if a Black doctor qualifies tomorrow morning, he will be prevented from practising in the Bantu urban areas. The hon. the Minister has prevented them from practising there. He will direct them to the homelands.

Why not? Their people need them.

Who will look after them here?

Yes, who is going to look after the Bantu in the urban areas? He will have to get White doctors to do it there and there are not even enough White doctors to look after the White people.

What happens at night?

At night they do not count. Let us go further and see what is happening with the provision of Black doctors. The hon. the Minister has had hospitals built. I am sorry that the hon. member for Lichtenburg has gone because there are two hospitals in the Lichtenburg area which are not properly staffed. One of them, I understand, has remained absolutely empty. It is following the pattern of what is happening in White hospitals—lack of staff leaves us with hundreds of beds unoccupied, not because there are not sick people to fill them, but because there are not enough nurses and doctors to do the work. What has the hon. the Deputy Minister said in his panic?—“Let us bring in second-class doctors to supply this service.” Whether he mentioned the word “second-class” or not is immaterial; it is what he indicated. He wanted to make use of people who are not properly qualified. He wanted to provide a crash course for people and throw them in to do the work of doctors. He wanted to create in this country a state of affairs where people will be looked after, medically, by people who are not fully qualified. I can say that this side of the House is absolutely against that policy. We will not have it. We will oppose it.

When is a man fully qualified?

Oh! But that is a silly question for a teacher to ask!

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we are jealous of the standards of the medical services in this country. We do not want that service to get a bad name or deteriorate. Statements such as those which the hon. the Deputy Minister made, should now be repudiated by the hon. the Minister because we cannot have that sort of thing happening here. What the hon. the Minister must do, is to make sure that every single nurse, especially the Bantu nurses, are encouraged to get the highest possible training. There is such a shortage of Bantu doctors that the Bantu nurses must be encouraged to get the highest possible training. They must be sent to universities to get it. There are diplomas that they can obtain. A team spirit should be organized in every part of the homelands between doctors, health inspectors, health personnel, nurses to do with maternity, psychiatry and general nursing, and so on. These people must form a team and it is these teams that will be able to deal with the emergency that is coming if not already here. If we cannot deal with the position as it is today, what is going to happen at the turn of the century with the population explosion that we are experiencing in this country? Where are you going to get an infrastructure for these homelands? You say you want to offer them sovereign independence—sovereign independence!—when you cannot provide for their wants of today. You have one medical school in the whole of the Republic of South Africa. Are you going to have eight in the sovereign independent states, one in each State? Where are these people going to study? What is this nonsense of handing over services when you cannot properly provide the service today for all here in our Republic that need it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rosettenville spoke about a particular aspect of Bantu administration, i.e. health services. The hon. the Minister will probably give him a full reply on that, but just in passing, I should like to say that there are five large Bantu hospitals in my own constituency where specific attention is being given to the training of nurses. I can only say that those hospitals are not small. Tremendous work is being done there, so much so that one of the Bantu leaders, approximately a year or two ago, at the opening of an extension at one of the hospitals, praised the Government for the work that is being done there in respect of hospitalization. Then I also want to tell the hon. member that when I was in Soweto last year I was told that there are various Bantu doctors practising there. So I do not know where the assertion comes from that they are not allowed to practise in those areas. In addition I must mention that I can remember having been told that one or two of these doctors were millionaires. However, I leave the hon. member at that. I think the hon. the Minister will reply to him more fully.

In this year, after 25 years of National Party Government, one asks oneself what progress the Government has made with the policy of apartheid, as we called it in 1948, or the policy of multi-national development, or segregation—call it what you will. How far have we got with this policy?

A casual policy.

In this House, and also fromm political platforms, we have always said that we were creating the machinery for this grand pattern we were establishing in South Africa. This was done in the ’fifties and the ’sixties in particular, because we could not simply barge in on an unprepared public with this great pattern and policy of ours. We first had to create the machinery. Now, in the 25th year, we are telling the people that we have made great progress with the consolidation of the homelands. We can tell the people this, and we may rightly be proud of this great achievement. Now the other enormous task still lies ahead of us. In saying this I do not mean in the least that our task of consolidation has been completed. The other great task that goes hand in hand with consolidation also still lies ahead of us, i.e. the development of the homelands. When I speak of the development of the homelands, I see the matter from two sides. Firstly I see it from the side of the White man, and secondly from the side of the Bantu. What is being done from these two sides in order that this policy may succeed? It is only when we consider that we have to live together in this country and that we have to tackle this policy together, both White and non-White, that we realize what an enormous task we all have ahead of us. We must tackle the policy single-mindedly. The hon. member for Pinelands said this morning that they accepted the homelands. Now I want to say today that we will see the day that hon. members on the opposite side of the House will say that they gratefully accept the policy of multi-national development of the National Party in all its facets. When I say that they will accept the policy, I do not mean that they will only accept the consolidation of the homelands, or the homelands themselves, but also the development that has to take place there.

Which Government created the homelands?

The hon. the Deputy Minister made it very clear this morning that history was responsible for the homelands and that we are merely developing them according to the 1936 Act. Let us now have a further look at what is being done by the White people. I want to place it on record for the sake of completeness.

From the side of the White people a tremendous amount is being done to develop the homelands, and to develop them as quickly as possible. Originally we established the border industry areas. I do not want to discuss this and quote the details; it is well known to all. But when neither the opposite side of the House nor the industrialists in the Republic, gave us necessary support, we necessarily had to take steps to give it impetus. So in 1968 we came with the Physical Planning and Utilization of Resources Act. Its very purpose was to keep the surplus Bantu out of the White areas and to take them to their own homelands. Section 3 of that Act provides, for example, that industrialists may not employ any more Bantu than they had in their service on a certain date. We continued with that border industry policy, and up to this stage that policy was an enormous success; so much so that according to the 1970 report of the Decentralization Board R429 million had been spent on the development of the homelands. Of this amount approximately R120 million was given by the I.D.C. But the Whites have done even more. Industries on an agency basis, also well known to all, were established. The reasons for that are also well known. It is, inter alia, because the manpower is available in the homelands and because we want to keep and utilize it there to the maximum extent. In the homelands there is room for development. We also have the B.I.C. and the X.D.C. there to give the necessary help. There is no time now to quote the details, but if one reads through these reports that have been laid upon the Table, one realizes what an enormous amount of work has already been done by these corporations. One cannot but be grateful for that. There are various ways in which they are helping the industrialists, and this is only to be recommended and encouraged.

But also in other fields the Whites have given tremendous help in developing the homelands. I am referring, for example, to hospitals; reference to those has already been made. Then there are schools and teacher training colleges, not to mention the roads, the dams, the bridges, the agricultural information and the townships that have been established. And speaking of townships, one thinks of the municipalities of the Rand that donated some of their moneys from beer profits towards the development of townships in the homelands, townships such as Itsoteng in the Western Transvaal and the enormous township that is being established at Tsunispoort. This is what is being done by the White people, and it was done to help in the development of the homelands.

One asks oneself: What is being envisaged with the development of the homelands? It is, of course, in the first place to create the work opportunities for the people there and to develop them economically so that together with the White parts of South Africa they can form a tremendous economic stronghold against the rest of Africa and against the rest of the world, so that an economic bloc may be formed. This is also being done in order to form a stronghold against communism. But it is also being done with the aim to increase standards of living and to bring the population groups to their homelands to the maximum extent. Opportunities for development have to be created.

Sir, I also want to mention briefly what in fact is expected of the Bantu. This morning we heard from the hon. member for Transkei, when he gave us an anthology of clippings from what the Bantu leaders are saying, that they are claiming more land. But if these leaders have the necessary sense of responsibility, they will realize that they should not merely ask for more land. What use is more land going to be to them? They should ask for the development of those homelands; they should ask for the creation of industries so that they can develop themselves to the maximum extent. They should ask for more industries, and they should encourage this; they themselves should try to create industries. Sir, one would expect more goodwill from these Bantu leaders towards the development of their own homelands and towards their own development. It is no use asking for more land when their people have no bread to eat. This is the first duty these people have. One would also expect them to help with the training of their own people, with the training of professional people; that they should foster and encourage a national awareness among their own people. In this process they know that they may always rely on the Whites helping them in every respect.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Potgietersrus referred very briefly to the situation of the health services in the homelands. He indicated that the hon. the Minister would be replying to the questions raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Rosettenville. I have further questions to put to the hon. the Minister in this regard, because as far as I can see, there is a woeful lack of Bantu personnel, so far as health services in the homelands are concerned, to undertake these very vital services. We understood, Sir, that on the 1st April, I think, the Transkei Government would assume a certain amount of control over health services in the Transkei. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the Transkei Government will now be in charge of the White professional people who are rendering these services at the present time, or will they have to restrict these services to the very limited qualified Bantu personnel in the Transkei? Sir, I submit that due mainly to a lack of statistics, there has not been adequate planning, and this could lead to a crisis in health services in times of epidemic. I want, in passing, to pay a very sincere tribute—and I am sure that I speak on behalf of all members in this Committee—to the dedicated professional staff of the mission hospitals, who for years have rendered outstanding services in all parts of South Africa, particularly in the Bantu homeland areas. But, Sir, who is going to take their place when they have to go and when the Bantu will be dependent on their own services? Because, Sir, what has been done in 25 years of Nationalist rule to train Bantu to take the place of the White people providing health services at the present time? Sir, these Bantu homelands are heading for independence, independence involving seven million people, and what do we find? We find that apart from nursing services, very little has been done. We find that in the main no statistics have been available for years. A few figures have been trickling through slowly from the Department of Bantu Administration to indicate the number of Bantu doctors, Bantu dentists, Bantu pharmacists and Bantu veterinarians who are able to serve their own people in their own homelands. But, Sir, the present picture is a most depressing one indeed, because the 1972 figures show that for eight homelands there are nine Bantu doctors in State service, and 61 Bantu doctors in private practice in the homelands. Quite simply, it means an average of nine Bantu doctors per homeland, because there is a total of 70 Bantu doctors to serve seven million people in the homelands. But what about Bantu dentists and Bantu pharmacists and Bantu veterinarians? Sir, there are no Bantu dentists in the Republic; there are no Bantu veterinarians in State service; there are four pharmacists in State service throughout the whole of the homeland areas of the Republic, and as no statistics are available— and I had this from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration in reply to a question—it is not known how many of the Bantu, if any, will be prepared or are available to serve their own people in these areas. As far as I know, there are still no Bantu dentists either, in the White areas, who could be transferred to serve their own people. As far as the shortage of Bantu doctors is concerned, it has been indicated that the shortage is an enormous one, and I quote no one less than the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Natal, Prof. Adams. He makes it quite clear that he sees the problem and that he appreciates that it needs a radical approach, but this is his difficulty, Sir; he says—

Sir, this is not an indictment on the ability of the Bantu themselves; it is an indictment on the educational facilities provided by this Government after 25 years in power. I am referring specifically to higher and secondary school education. We know about the facilities at the universities, but when they get to the universities without a good grounding they are unable to maintain university standards and go on to qualify for the professions. We find that the overall result is that there are 167 Bantu who qualified in 15 years since the establishment of the one university which trains medical men. As far as I know seven of those have left the country. Do we really blame them if, when they are in State employ, they will earn a salary which is two thirds of what their White counterparts earn in terms of Government policy? The present qualifying rate is 16 per annum. I believe that the estimate given by Prof. Tobias was that South Africa needed 6 000 Bantu doctors in order to give an adequate service, and I repeat, the present output is 16 per annum. Then we have the position of the dentists. At present we have seven Bantu dental students enrolled at universities but none have qualified as yet. When it comes to pharmacists, 10 Bantu have qualified and graduated in South Africa. To my knowledge three have already left the country. They too find themselves offered, in the service of the State, a salary equal to approximately half of what their White counterparts earn. Can you blame them if they leave and go to Malawi and other countries?

Where do they get the money to study?

The Government provides them with the money to study but then the Government does not pay them properly when they are qualified. What is the present position? In 1972, 66 students enrolled at the University of the North in the pharmacy course, only three of the final year students graduated. This high drop-out rate is something which needs investigation. I have quoted specific examples because I want to try to put the matter in perspective and destroy a misconception which has been created by the hon. the Deputy Minister, Mr. Raubenheimer, himself. Recently, in an address at the Jubilee Mission Hospital, on the 5th May of this year, he said: “To extend to them (the Bantu) in their own homelands all those facilities available in White South Africa.” And then he made an extraordinary statement. He was taking the 1969 population figures of approximately 16 million and then oversimplified the whole situation by saying that there are 10 000 medical practitioners in the Republic, so it means that you have one doctor for every 1 600 people. What an overstatement of the position! The Minister of National Education said only last year—and he is responsible for the training of medical personnel of all races—that there was one African doctor for 44 000 Africans.

I want to come to another aspect which I believe causes concern and I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to clear this up too. With this completely minimal skilled medical personnel we could have the undesirable situation in certain of the homelands that the Bantu themselves will resort to their own traditional customs. Now, we know that traditionally among the Bantu we have Nyangas and medicine men and medicine women and herbalists and midwives. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that until recently these people enjoy, and still have, recognition under the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, under section 98(2) of that Act, whereby it was possible for Natives, as it is worded in the Act, to practise in Natal and also in Zululand as medicine men and medicine women or herbalists or midwives. As I see it, and to the best of my knowledge, there has been no intention as yet to repeal this particular provision. We have the position that in Zululand alone 841 licences were issued during the period 1928 to 1971, but during that same period 816 applications were refused. This is no longer the responsibility of the Department of Health. Maj.-Gen. Raymond gave evidence before the Select Committee on the Health Bill. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of his speech the hon. member for Berea raised matters in regard to health services in the homelands, to which the hon. the Minister will probably reply. In addition he raised aspects which might just as well have been dealt with under the Bantu Education Vote.

The debate yesterday and so far today has proved that the United Party is trying to conceal their political insolvency partially behind so-called claims by Bantu leaders to White land and partially behind a few stereotyped parrot cries which we have heard over and over again in previous debates. One of the cries was the outburst which was made against the system of migratory labour. The hon. member for Jeppes, inter alia, vented his spleen here and referred to “the migrant system with all its viciousness”.

It is interesting that hon. members on that side have never, at least not during the time I have been here, complained about the migratory labour we have in our mines. That they will not do of course. The hon. member for Hillbrow did refer sometime ago to the 90% Black labourers in the mines, but otherwise it does not concern them and they never refer to the treatment of migratory labour as far as the mines are concerned. They do not refer to that because the owners of the mines are of course not Nationalists.

No, the mine-owners have tried to accommodate them.

In any case they are also people for whom accommodation has to be provided there without their families. However, the hon. members of the Opposition always vent their spleen at the migratory labour system which is being applied in our White urban areas. The most ridiculous and the most nonsensical of all the protests I have heard of in this connection was the so-called “protest walk” which a group of English clergymen undertook at the end of last year and the beginning of this year from Grahamstown to Cape Town. It was to have been a walk over a distance of approximately 900 kilometres. They called themselves “pilgrim Christians” and they were also lauded as such by most of the English-language Press. The purpose of that walk was, as they termed it, to demonstrate to Parliament and to the country the “appalling consequences” for family life of the migratory labourers. The Sunday Times, the “good friend” of that side of the House, went even further and even exaggerated it to a great extent. The Sunday Times wrote as follows about this system—

Surely that is absolutely ridiculous. People who are migratory labourers, are here voluntarily; they are here of their own choice. They came here of their own choice to sell their labour here. In addition there are thousands of these migratory labourers who were not yet married when they became migratory labourers, and consequently did not leave a wife and children behind them in their homes.

Migratory labour is an aspect of socio-economic phenomenon which admittedly has a series of implications. One of those implications is disruption of the family. However, the system of migratory labour is not associated with South Africa only. It is a system which one finds throughout the Western Europe. In countries such as France, Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands and even in Russia, there are hundreds of thousands of migratory labourers.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North referred here to a charter given to those migratory labourers to the effect that they would be accommodated in the same way as the citizens of the country in which they were working. The first question: How is that charter being applied? Secondly, that charter does not give those people any political rights of any nature. The charter applies only to accommodation. These migratory labourers come for the most part from Italy, Greece and Turkey. In the United States the migratory labour system has already progressed to such an extent that it has become Such an established institution that highly skilled migratory labourers go to America. As far as the migratory labourers in Europe are concerned, it is estimated that they number between nine and ten million. A small country like Switzerland, with a population of approximately six million—has approximately 800 000 migratory labourers. The vast majority of migratory labourers in those countries are living in conditions which are no better than the conditions in Soweto.

In South Africa migratory labour assumes a unique form. There are a few things which have to be taken into consideration before one can summarily advocate the abolition of migratory labour. Firstly there is the question of whether it is really such an evil as the Opposition and their satellites wish to pretend. The second question is whether it is practical, realistic and desirable for migratory labour to be summarily abolished. The “Pilgrim Christians”, to whom I have referred, and their kindred spirits, in this House as well, want migratory labout to be abolished summarily. They are requesting this without giving thought to the consequences. However, they do not want to stop the Bantu migratory labourers wanting to come here from the Bantu homelands, from coming here; they even want them to be accompanied by their wives and children. In a speech here today the hon. the Deputy Minister pointed out that some Bantu have up to four wives. Then the people to whom I have referred want all of them to be accommodated here. My question to the hon. the Opposition is whether they now imagine that the married worker would be any happier if he were accommodated on the so-called “family basis”, instead of leaving his wife and children in the homeland and visiting them periodically. But have these champions of the abolition of migratory labour and of the so-called “undisturbed family life” or any member of the Opposition, ever investigated what the attitude would be of the married migratory labourers who find themselves in the White ardas at present in respect of the possibility of being accommodated here on a so-called “family basis”? Sir, we must bear in mind that the people there are attached to a tribal way of life, a tribe with its own identity. Sir, each of those migratory labourers come from the rural areas of the homelands. Each of them have a house there, a few goats and sheep or perhaps a few head of cattle. If they leave as migratory labourers, their families look after their wives and children and see to their possessions. That is where they send their wages, and that is where it is used. I ascertained that there is a great deal of money in circulation in the Transkei as a result of the regular amounts which are sent back. The migratory labourer returns sporadically and then identifies himself again in body and in spirit with his community.

Sir, what is it the critics of the present labour system desire? They now feel convinced, without having investigated the matter, that the migratory labourer would prefer to uproot his entire family in the homeland, barter away his possessions there and establish himself in a Bantu township where there already are thousands of houses, all looking alike. If it should now happen that thousands of migratory labourers were allowed to come to the White area, family and all, far more Sowetos will automatically have to arise. Now, it is in fact these advocates on the opposite side, and the other humanistic and clerical advocates who would have us know that Soweto with its 70 000 or 80 000 houses is an evil in itself. Not long ago an English-language newspaper criticized Soweto. It termed Soweto a “dismal dormitory”, a city with an average of 70 murders per month, a city which would remain “violence ridden”, with “children playing dice outside shops and being trained as criminals”. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I am unable to join the hon. member in that long walk from Grahams-town to Cape Town. I should like to come back to Natal.

†I want to raise a matter affecting Pietermaritzburg City with the hon. the Minister. At the outset I want to state that the city council of Pietermaritzburg and myself have always worked in harmony with the Department of Bantu Administration. I am raising this subject because I do have a responsibility towards my constituents in the city. They are worried about this matter and will be pleased if it could be brought to finality as early as possible. I am referring to the transportation of large numbers of Bantu between the city and Sweet Waters. A deputation from the city council and the Winterskloof Sweet Waters health committees were received in connection with the access road from Swartkop location to the Edendale road. As a result the hon. the Deputy Minister informed the city council that in view of the urgent request representations had been made for the allocation of funds for the construction of the road to be started as soon as conditions permit. This letter was dated the 19th December, 1972, but it was later requested that this work be not commenced until requested to do so by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. On the 3rd January, 1973, another letter was addressed to the hon. the Minister asking for permission to commence this urgent work as the council was being subjected to continuous representations from ratepayers’ associations along the route used by these buses. The section of the road between the Uplands railway bridge and Sweet Waters level crossing is deteriorating rapidly and the continued heavy usage of the road by buses cannot be permitted for an indefinite period. The residents along the route are being subjected to various forms of pollution, namely smoke, noise, litter, as well as other social nuisances. The only way of avoiding these nuisances is by diverting the buses on an alternative route. The residents have to endure this continually on weekdays between 3.50 a.m. in the morning till 11 p.m. at night. On the outward journey the buses crawl at a snail’s pace up the hill while speeding, and often losing control, on the inward route, which is a safety hazard again. After continual reminders, the department replied on the 30th March, 1973, that it was anticipated that work could not be started before April, 1974, and that in the meantime no provision had been made for funds. Advice has been obtained that all diagrams necessary for either the land acquisition or appropriation were submitted to the Department of Bantu Administration on the 8th April, 1971, and that none of this work falls within the released area from where land has to be acquired. The work entails merely the heightening electric power lines and the lowering a water main within the existing servitudes. It is considered that work can start immediately in the reserve area where land acquisition problems do not apply as 6.96 kilometres of the road is in the area while only 1,83 kilometres is in the released area. Considerable pressure from all quarters is being brought to bear to bring about the cessation of this non-White bus service through the city. It must also be mentioned that the transportation of large numbers of Bantu through White areas is entirely contrary to Government policy. It must be mentioned too, that the road beween Uplands Bridge and Sweet Waters terminus is completely sub-standard as regards both required width alignment and actual road construction. It has been suggested that the hon. the Minister be advised that axle loading restrictions will have to be placed on that section of the road between Uplands Bridge and the burrough boundary and that the transport manager of the Bantu Investment Corporation be asked to make alternative arrangements. For information purposes, I should like to point out that approximately 250 buses use this route daily, transporting about ten million Bantu annually. Large numbers of the Bantu are to be resettled and housed and this matter is tied up with the question of pollution and resettlement of the Bantu from the Umsindusi River catchment area which has been brought to the notice of the hon. the Minister of Health.

In conclusion I can only ask the hon. the Minister to_attend to this matter as soon as possible as it is of vital importance.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat raised matters of a local nature, and I shall therefore leave him at that. One thing emerged very clearly in this debate, and that was that the Opposition is on the run. As happens with an army in flight, they are waging a rearguard action; and are throwing up smokescreens. What struck me most is not what they said, but what they tried to conceal.

Joker!

I think it is time now that we are approaching the end of this debate, that we tried to separate the grain from the chaff. Allow me, for the sake of a little background information to point out that tomorrow week it will have been precisely 25 years that the Opposition began to make an all-out attempt to defeat the National Party. During this long period their strategy has for the most part and to an ever-increasing extent been geared to causing the relations policy of the National Party to miscarry. How have they not tried to make the policy of multinational development appear ridiculous! How have they not described it as a chimera, a hollow gesture, a political bluff! However, they could not succeed. As far as that important aspect of our relations policy is concerned, viz. the development of the homelands, they have already thrown in the towel. In order to try and keep a foot in the door, they have now, as a last effort, dug a final trench, the trench of the so-called urban Bantu. But it does not take much to see all the way through their strategy. After all, it is patently obvious that they are trying to create a new entity out of the Bantu in the White area, which they want to use as a bridgehead in order ultimately to get all the Bantu in South Africa, or at least as many as possible of them where they want them, viz. within White South Africa. Therefore it is not for nothing that they are so concerned about the families of migratory labourers.

There are many things the Opposition is trying to conceal and one of the most important they want to camouflage is their true view, their real standpoint in respect of the Bantu as such. Let us for the moment forget all other things and let us return to the heart of the matter, to what forms the basis of national existence, viz. civic rights, as they like to term them. They want to give the Bantu proprietary and political rights in the White areas. There is no misunderstanding whatsoever about that. Incidentally, we know them to be a party which is not fond of discriminating. I must therefore accept despite the fact that they are as silent on this point as the grave, that they want to grant those rights to the farm Bantu as well. As a farmer I must at least accept that under a U.P. régime I will in due course have to relinquish some of my land, and it will not be a small portion of my land, for I have a considerable number of Bantu in my employ. I am beginning to wonder whether that was one of the reasons why that side of the House was so vehemently opposed to the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act.

They state that they want to grant proprietary and political rights to the so-called urban Bantu, but then they add this very significant statement, with which they, as it were, let the cat out of the bag. They say that to the urban Bantu their ethnic ties have no significance any longer. It is impossible to believe that the Opposition want to sever the ethnic ties of the Bantu in the White area. After all, they will have to concede that as human beings they will have to find ties which bind them with a nation somewhere; in fact, there is no such thing as a nationless being. If words have any meaning, it means only one thing, and that is that they want the Bantu in the White area to form one single integrated human community together with the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians. [Interjections.]

The hon. members are laughing, but is that not precisely the philosophy which lies behind the vision of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition of one South African nation of 20 million people? That is what they want, despite the resultant consequences of friction and conflict, of overbidding and exploitation and ultimate chaos. Surely to try to make us believe now that the so-called federation policy will be the magic wand which will eliminate all these consequences is nothing but a hollow gesture, a political bluff and a chimera. Are they blind to the lessons to be learned from the history of the English and French-speaking Canadians, the Walloons and the Flemings, the Northern and Southern Irish, the Nigerians and Iboes, the Pakistanis and the Bengalis, to mention only a few examples. These people whom I have just mentioned are in addition people who, unlike the diversity of nations here in this country, shared the same cultural background.

The Opposition is very fond of using, as they did in this debate as well, the word “ideology” as a kind of term of invective in respect of the National Party Government, but this one nation ideology of theirs, surely, is nothing but a chimera. To say the least, it is nothing but a ridiculous ideology. It is the ideology on which their entire federation policy is built. But today we can turn the tables on them. If one wants to talk about an illusion, a hollow gesture and a political bluff, then it is their so-called federation policy. If that policy had meant anything, hon. members could imagine how they would have gone about boasting of it, hon. members could imagine how they would have belaboured us with it and how their newspapers would have fallen over one another’s feet to proclaim and make propaganda about it? Does one hear a single word about it still? Nothing, except when they are forced into doing so. All we are then able to get out of them is that “it is what it is”, and then they want to get away from it as quickly as possible. However, nobody takes it amiss of them for not having much liking for this policy of theirs, and for feeling reluctant to touch it. It is a camouflaged policy which is tremendously dangerous to the Whites of South Africa. They want to give the homelands to the Bantu, they want to give the Republic of South Africa to the Bantu, but at least to the Whites as well.

To try to imply now that the large numbers of Bantu in the White area should supposedly be a criterion of the success or otherwise of our policy is rubbish.

Order! That word may not be used here; the hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir. Does the fact that 10 000 Basutos are working here in the Republic mean that the independence of Lesotho was a mistake? No, the Opposition knows as well as we do that an inevitable inter-dependence exists, and will continue to exist for generations to come, regardless of whether the Bantu homelands become independent or not. The number of Bantu in White areas depends solely on the number of employment opportunities. As a result of this inter-dependence, and also as a result of South Africa being such a vast country, one will not be able to eliminate migratory labour. But, Sir, this is nothing new. It is a centuries old institution in the Western democratic world. As the hon. member for Koedoespoort pointed out, Europe today has no fewer than ten million migratory labourers. And do you know, Sir, where the most perturbing conditions in Europe are today? They are in those very places to which the migratory labourers have brought their families—something which is being advocated so fiercely by that side of the House. To such an extent do these alarming conditions exist in Europe that even in a place like Europe ugly clashes have already taken place between the Hollanders and Turkish labourers. It has happened to such an extent that the Executive of the E.E.C. has already expressed its concern, and issued serious warnings in that regard. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat referred to, inter alia, the 25 years in which this Government has been in power and said that the United Party was unsuccessful in its attempts to attack and understand the Government’s relations policy. But, Sir, to me it is quite clear that the unfolding of the Government’s own policy is at present causing their downfall. The hon. member wanted to know from us why we did not learn the lessons of the past. The question occurs to me now: Why do the hon. members opposite not learn the present lessons here in South Africa and in Africa? We have had a remarkable debate here. We are continually being told that we are now entering the third dynamic decade of multi-national development, but what do we find in this third dynamic decade of multi-national development? A debate is being conducted in this hon. House, and for the first time it is necessary for hon. members opposite to launch attacks on homeland leaders in South Africa. We heard the hon. member for Lydenburg and to a certain extent also the hon. member for Carletonville launching attacks on certain Bantu leaders in South Africa. Two or three years ago this would have been inconceivable. I therefore say to the hon. member for Winburg that he should start learning the lessons of today. Do we have to accept that, in this so-called third dynamic decade, confrontation between hon. members on that side and the Bantu homeland leaders is going to be the order of the day? This is the impression I gained from some of the speeches made here.

But, Sir, I want to try and be as reasonable as possible. We are debating the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration. He should at least justify why the people have to give him the money they have earned in the sweat of their brow for him to continue to apply the policy he says he wants to apply. In other words. Sir, it has become necessary for him at least to give us an impression or some indication that there is some hope of success as far as this policy is concerned. I therefore want to pose a number of questions to the hon. the Minister, questions which I believe are reasonable. These are not difficult questions; these are reasonable questions I want to ask him. In the first place, I want to ask: Does he have any proof that there is any Bantu homeland leader who is prepared to accept independence on the basis of the 1936 Act? In the same breath I want to ask him: Does he have any proof that there is any homeland leader who is prepared to accept the independence of an unconsolidated country? In the third place, does he have any proof that any of these leaders—and there are 10 or 12 of them—agree with the policy of the Government as far as the urban Bantu are concerned? Forget about whether the United Party agrees with it or not; I want to know whether there is one of them who agrees with it. Sir, I am making it easy for the Minister now. Does any one of them agree with the attitude of the Government as far as undisturbed family-life is concerned? I am referring now to the right Bantu have to an undisturbed family-life. Does anyone of them agree as far as freehold in the urban areas are concerned? Do some of them agree with the resettlement townships, such as Sada and Dimbaza, which have been established in the Ciskei? As I have said, we have reached a stage where it is absolutely essential for the Minister at least to furnish certain proofs. I am not interested now in what Chief Buthelezi or Chief Matanzima has to say; it is a well-known fact that they do not agree with this. But let us at least hear what chances the hon. the Minister has of successfully selling his views to the other areas. Sir, I could for example have asked the hon. the Minister a difficult question. I could have asked him what their attitude was in regard to the statement made by the hon. member for Waterberg to the effect that the Whites have the inalienable right to discriminate against other population groups in White South Africa. But I do not want to ask him that question now. Neither do I ask rim any questions on petty apartheid. I am asking him the easy questions on major apartheid. I say now—and I want to emphasize this—that we have a Government here which has been in power for 25 years; we have an hon. Minister here who has been Minister of Bantu Affairs for all these years. And if anybody in South Africa is in a position to furnish us with a reply, it is this hon. Minister. Is there anybody else in South Africa who can qualify as the confidante of Bantu leaders in South Africa? The only person who qualifies as a confidante of the Bantu leaders, even if he is a confidante against his will, simply because they do not have anybody else with whom they can negotiate, is this hon. Minister. Is there any other person in South Africa who has more opportunities to be able to negotiate with the non-White peoples or groups in South Africa? That is why I say to the hon. the Minister that it is time he confided in us and told us and the people the extent of the success he had achieved.

†Mr. Chairman, I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister cannot give us any assurances in this respect because I know that he, like all hon. members opposite, is as convinced as the United Party and the Bantu in South Africa that the Verwoerdian dream of sovereign independent nations will never and can never materialize in South Africa. But, Sir, this is the trouble with the Government. It has the audacity to pretend to its supporters and to the Bantu and to the outside world that it is seriously working towards the realization of the goal of separate and sovereign independent states in South Africa. Sir, I think the public of South Africa is entitled to know whether the Government is in fact going to proceed with this policy, and it can only proceed with this by making major concessions, or otherwise it must say quite clearly that it has in fact started on a new approach and has abandoned its present policy. What the Government is doing at present is purely to create confusion. It pretends to the public and to the Bantu that it is moving nearer to its ultimate object, while in fact every step it takes is a step further away from the realization of sovereign, independent Bantu states in South Africa. Sir, gone are the days when they could find relief in changing the name of their policy. It is not necessary to go into details. At one stage they could create confusion and find temporary relief purely by changing the name of their policy, but those days have gone for ever. We have reached the stage now where they have to take the public and the Bantu into their confidence. At one stage they even visualized separate economies in South Africa. I believe it was one of the Deputy Ministers who spoke about a separate economy in each of the Bantu states.

Blaar Coetzee.

Today they all accept that economic integration is a fact, but they are not prepared to refer to it as economic integration; they still refer to it as “the economic inter-dependence of the nations in South Africa”. Sir, as far as the urban Bantu and the concessions to the urban Bantu are concerned, I know that we are all pleased with the attitude of the hon. the Deputy Minister, but let us also be quite honest, Sir; he is in fact making those concessions purely because he has been forced by circumstances to do so.

And one swallow does not make a summer.

Furthermore, every concession that he is going to make will be contrary to the very basis of separate development. In other words, what the Government in fact is doing today but has not the courage to tell its supporters, is that it is abandoning the very fundamental basis of separate development. That is self-evident.

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Central tried to pooh-pooh the idea of economic inter-dependence as against economic integration. I want to refer him to certain examples which, in a certain way, can be described as almost parallel to the situation in Southern Africa. In Southern Africa we have independent Bantu homelands, we have self-governing Bantu areas, we have White South Africa, and we have economic inter-dependence. In Europe there is the European Common Market, consisting of numerous independent sovereign countries. What you have in the European Common Market is economic inter-dependence, not economic integration. Economic integration would mean that there would be no distinction in economic matters between the countries forming part of the European Common Market. In fact, if there were to be a wage determination in any of the countries which are members of the European Common Market, then that wage determination, if there is economic integration, would have to apply to every single country, but this is not so. For example, the wages in the public services, the wages of doctors and the wages in the various trades differ between Italy and Holland and France and Germany because each nation has its own economy; but there is an economic inter-dependence in that the economy of Germany, for example, is dependent on the economies of France, Italy, Holland and the other countries. There is consequently an economic inter-dependence, but not economic integration. When something is integrated, it becomes an indistinguishable part of one whole, and that is not what we have in South Africa.

That is what we have got.

Sir, in South Africa we have economic inter-dependence because the economy of White South Africa needs the labour of the Bantu in the same way as the development of the Bantu areas is dependent on the know how and the assistance of White South Africa. There is a difference, therefore, between economic inter-dependence and economic integration.

Try again.

Sir, there are a few important points that need clarification. The hon. member for Hillbrow referred to South Africa as an economic entity in the same way as Europe is an economic entity.

Nonsense! [Interjections.]

The question that is frequently raised by the United Party is the question of the so-called urban Bantu.

What do you call them?

The United Party state that they are in favour of the Bantu working in the White areas having the right to acquire ownership of the land on which they live. The hon. member for Zululand used certain words; I do not have the exact quotation here, but he said they must be able to acquire land in the areas where they are employed. The question then arises whether they, on the same basis and on the same principles, would be in favour of the Whites who assist the non-Whites in developing their countries, acquiring permanent title to the land they live on in the Bantu homelands.

They have it in the Transkei.

They have it but only on a temporary basis. It is well known that in the Bantu homeland, in KwaZulu, which is a Bantu area belonging to the Black man, no White man may acquire land in his own rights.

No, there is a 99year lease.

There is this fundamental difference between us, namely that the United Party want to exploit the situation where the non-Whites are dependent on the Whites for their income and then they want to give them permanent title to land in the White areas. They want to throw overboard the whole idea of separate development and separate nations. That is based on the prime concept of an integrated development for the future, irrespective of what the past was. But the development in future must be on the basis of integration between White and non-White. That is the one-nation concept the United Party professes. This is the fundamental difference between the United Party and the Nationalist Party.

There are a few matters which the United Party keeps harping on continually and to which I wish to draw attention. They speak about the Bantu and give the impression that there is very little opportunity for family life for the Bantu in the White urban areas. I want to quote some figures to indicate the fallacy of their argument. I have obtained these figures from the Department of Statistics. On the Witwatersrand there is a total of 1 650 000 Bantu, of whom 700 000 are females or 42,4%. If therefore the females are approximately half the number of those who live on a family basis, it indicates that approximately 85% of them are there on a family basis. In Pretoria there are a total of 234 195. Of them 102 300 are females, or 47,85 %; indicating that 95% of them live on a family basis.

How silly can you get?

In Cape Town there are 107 877 Bantu. This is the one example where there is a large preponderance of males over females, because of the 107 877 only 36 500 are females. Here is an interesting figure. In Port Elizabeth out of a total of 201 500 there are 103 000 females. In other words, 51,5% of the total Bantu population is female. There are more females than males in the Port Elizabeth district. In East London, out of a total of 51 244 Bantu, 28 404 are females—55,43%. The figures for Durban that I wish to quote exclude those in respect of Umlazi. In Durban there is a Bantu population of 234 000 in total, of whom 97 000 are females—43%. In Pietermaritzburg there is a population of 86 000 of whom 49 600 or 51% are females. Consequently, in the majority of the larger urban centres there are more females than males. Therefore, there is not this vast discrepancy as is revealed in the picture which is constantly being held up to the public of South Africa as though there is a complete lack of family life in the urban centres of South Africa.

The system whereby people from the Bantu areas, be it the self-governing Bantu areas of South Africa or the independent areas of Southern Africa, Swaziland, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rhodesia or Zambia for that matter, are allowed in South Africa, provides for the influx of single labour. That system has not been introduced by this Government; in fact, those people who make use of this system are to a very large extent not supporters of this Government. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. members opposite have today stood up one after the other and harped on the same string. They said that since this party supposedly had no successful policy in regard to the urban Bantu, development along individual lines or apartheid had fallen through. We readily admit that the Bantu in White urban areas is a serious problem. It is a serious problem for South Africa just as the “Gastarbeiter” in the German industrial cities is a problem to Germany and those in the French cities are a problem to France. This is a serious problem because those people must have certain basic rights and privileges. If those people living in our White urban areas create a problem for us, in terms of our policy, then they would, in terms of the policy of the United Party be an even greater problem to those hon. members, because the crux of the whole problem with these people amounts to two basic principles. Firstly, it amounts to whether these people should be granted civil rights where they live, whether they should acquire land-ownership rights, yes or no. Secondly, it amounts to whether they should acquire political rights, yes or no. In reply to each of these two questions that party says “yes”. They say that the Bantu living in the White area, should be granted land-ownership rights, they should be granted civil rights. If he gets those civil rights, surely one cannot grant him a kind of right of ownership which is different to that which other people have. One must then open up areas for him, townships where he can buy plots and build houses. One must create the necessary infrastructure for him and one must give him all the usual privileges. Just imagine what the implications would be for our cities, which are already over-crowded. When we come to political rights, it should be pointed out that that party’s policy provides for legislative councils for these Bantu. Those legislative councils will, in their turn, enjoy representation in a federal parliament in which they will eventually obtain a greater say and take over the government of the country.

Here, then, a door is being opened. Perhaps that door is only slightly open. However, that slight opening is an extremely dangerous one, because in every country of Africa where White and non-White have lived together and found themselves face to face it has been irrefutably proved that once that door has been opened slightly, it is forced open more and more. It is simply impossible to close that door again. Therefore, if those people tell us that our policy is failing because we do not have a solution to the question of the Bantu in the urban areas, then that is the very point on which their policy fails and on which they have repeatedly been rejected by the people of South Africa. That is the case because their policy amounts to a violation of that one fundamental right possessed by every nation in the international world, namely to provide for its sovereignty so that it may rule over its own people. Since that fundamental principle in international law is being violated by their policy, the people of South Africa will continue to reject the policy of those hon. members.

However, we say that we shall provide for the Bantu in the White area as well as we can. We shall treat them in a manner worthy of a human being. I hope to come back to this again. However, we also say that we cannot give them rights of ownership here, because that would have innumerable implications. We say, furthermore, that we cannot give them political rights here, because that would prejudice our sovereignty. When we say these things, it does not mean in the slightest that our policy on the urban Bantu is failing. On the contrary.

Be honest now.

The hon. members who maintain that the urban Bantu are not interested in homeland politics, do not know what they are talking about. They do not know the urban Bantu. I can say that two of Port Elizabeth’s most prominent Bantu businessmen were recently elected as members of the Parliament of the Ciskei. I would like to quote a letter which one of these two businessmen wrote and in which that point of view of hon. members is rejected. The letter is addressed to the Director of Bantu Affairs of the Port Elizabeth Municipality, and reads as follows—

I want the hon. member for Pinelands to listen to the following sentence in particular—

In Port Elizabeth there are 205 000 Bantu, and surely this letter is unambiguous proof that the political interests of these people lie in the homelands. I do not say that the political interests of all of them lie there, but here we have unambiguous proof that the political interests of a very large number of them do lie there.

One must of course handle this matter, the channeling of the political idealism of the urban Bantu to the homelands, very carefully. The creation of ethnic democracies in South Africa involves the formulation of new political concepts, the formulation of new dynamic concepts which do not necessarily comprise the old worn-out concepts to the effect that one must actually be living physically in a state in order to exercise one’s rights of citizenship there. New dynamic concepts are now being created here in politics, i.e. that an ethnic democracy does exist. We must of course bring home to the bantu in the urban areas that when we expect of him to exercise his political idealism in his homeland, this does not necessarily mean that he must move there physically. I want to admit, Sir, that we have perhaps erred here in the past, by emphasizing too strongly the temporary nature of the Bantu’s presence in the White homeland. This has given rise to many of the Bantu people feeling confused, and perhaps it did cause emotional opposition to the idea of a homeland, because they thought that we wanted to bundle them off there against their will. I think that it is important that this concept be handled very carefully. I am told that the Bantu word for “being lost” in the religious sense, has the connotation, in certain Bantu languages, of “no certainty” or “no fixed place”. The fact that the Bantu cannot get rights of ownership in our White areas, may create in them that feeling of insecurity. But, Sir, under this party’s policy, with its dynamic township and urban building schemes in these very Bantu homelands, the opportunity is created for thousands and thousands of Bantu to buy plots in a town in the Bantu area and build houses there, and many of the urban Bantu are doing this. Now hon. members must not say that they cannot do this. I know of numbers of Bantu in Port Elizabeth who earn between R300 and R400 per month. These people earn good salaries, and they are buying plots for themselves in the developing towns in the Transkei and the Ciskei and they are building themselves houses there. Usually they allow their parents to live in them. But these people have security. They have rights of ownership there. They can keep some cattle and sheep there, and their interests lie there. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, as this debate is progressing, it is becoming progressively clearer that the United Party has once again rendered South Africa a major service, namely to direct attention to the burning question in South African politics—the urban Bantu. The speeches made by hon. members opposite, have proved over and again that they are beginning to give serious consideration to this matter. The speech made by the Deputy Minister in particular was significant.

To the previous two speakers I just want to say that one cannot compare the situation in South Africa with the situation in Europe as far as migrant labour is concerned; there we have Whites while here the question of colour comes into the picture.

And you over-emphasize that.

Today, after 25 years of National Party government the position of South Africa is an unenviable one. We are isolated in a hostile world. Our neighbours around us and within our borders are less friendly than they were before. The leaders of the evolving mini-Bantu states are already talking about a blood-bath, and are asking the hon. the Minister not to interfere in their domestic politics. Does the hon. the Minister not realize that the policy of separate development, the policy of divide and rule they are pursuing has failed hopelessly?

But now you are talking nonsense, man.

Does he not realize that these little Bantu states, once they have become independent, will have to choose whether they want to follow the road of friendship, like Malawi, or whether they want to follow the road of hostility, like Zambia? How can we four million Whites, surrounded by a sea of 18 million non-Whites within our borders, and so many millions around our borders, live in discord with these people? How can we continue to adopt an imperious (kragdadige) attitude? In this lies the great dilemma of the Nationalist Party, the major conflict in their way of thinking; the thinking Nationalist realizes that it is urgently necessary for a new formula for South Africa to be found quickly in order to rectify racial relations, because they realize that the whole house of cards which is apartheid, has collapsed. But the traditional, arrogant supremacy psychosis of the rank and file Nationalist, a psychosis which has been cultivated and fanned by the Nationalist Party for more than a quarter of a century, makes it impossible for the Government to apply the correct formula, that is, a federal set-up, today. It is interesting to note that one of the prominent columnists of an Afrikaans newspaper told me recently: “The only fault I can find with your federal plan, is that the United Party thought of it first and not the Nationalist Party.”

You don’t say!

The way the Government approaches and handles the problem of human relations, remains tainted with the Nationalists’ obsession with colour.

†What fruits is South Africa picking from 25 years of Nationalist Party misrule? A quarter of a century after the Nats introduced the slogan of “apartheid”, we are still rated to be the “skunks” of the world, to use the word coined by Dawie of Die Burger. Our traditional friends, New Zealand and Australia, have turned their backs on us. What surety does South Africa have …

You are a coward!

… that in the Security Council the United States, the United Kingdom or France …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is the hon. member for Stilfontein allowed to say that the hon. member is a coward?

Order!

Did the hon. member say that?

I said it …

Then the hon. member must withdraw it.

… and I withdraw it.

What assurance have we that in the Security Council one of our friends would veto a motion that force be used to resolve the South-West Africa issue? An awesome responsibility rests on the Minister of Bantu Administration. In fact, it could be said with justification that the very future of the Republic of South Africa and all its peoples rests in his hands. He must pursue policies which will turn any threat of a White-Black confrontation into White-Black co-operation. He must ensure that there is true dialogue between Whites and Blacks, and not a monologue emanating from Pretoria. He must make every endeavour to expedite pre-service and in-service industrial training for Bantu in the White areas; because he should know that to beat inflation it is absolutely essential that the productivity of our workers must like the growth-rate of our economy be increased. It is the task of this hon. Minister to cast off the albatross hanging around the Government’s neck, namely the colour bogey, to change his party’s racial policies which have proved to be so dangerously wrong over the past 25 years, and to secure the goodwill and co-operation of all the peoples in South Africa. South Africa’s tragedy after 25 years of Nationalist Party misrule is this: The Whites are losing the initiative on the political front and have been forced on to the defensive, whilst the Non-Whites are sorely frustrated and are seething with unsatisfied ambitions. I said that the responsibilities of the Minister of this department are to eliminate racial friction at all levels and to avert a White-Black conflagration—this task is even greater than that which faced Hercules when he had to clean the Augean stables. But I fear this hon. Minister is not equipped for this task. I consider him to be the single most dangerous man who could be entrusted with race relations in South Africa, because he has proved to be emotionally unstable; he is a fanatic about a policy which is visibly collapsing; he suffers from a fixation of ideas and he is not open to conviction or adaptable to change. I would urge him in the interests of South Africa, the interests of our children and their children, to make way for a better man, a man who will be equipped to guide South Africa to racial sanity and harmony. I would make bold to say that the voice of that man was heard in this House today. While the Nationalist Party is in power, I would suggest that he makes way for the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education.

Mr. Chairman, I would not like to dwell on what was said by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central …

It would not be worthwhile.

… but there are nevertheless one or two points which he raised and which I would like to reply to. He says that we are living in a hostile world, and it is so easy to say that. America is also living in a hostile world, Russia is also living in a hostile world, England is also living in a hostile world. Every country on this earth is living in a hostile world, and all we have heard this afternoon from that hon. member, is an intimidatory speech. The idea of hon. members opposite is always to intimidate. It is no wonder, then, that Mr. Walter Madeley once described the United Party in these words: “Sometimes they are red, sometimes they are pink, but mostly they are pale pink, with a touch of yellow”.

In a question asked across the floor of this House, someone also wanted to know who had created the homelands. It was then said that Dr. Verwoerd had created the homelands. In the first instance, I want to say in reply to this that it was not Dr. Verwoerd who created the homelands. It has been said time after time in this House that history had given that territory to those Bantu races. It was not we who did so. All we are doing now, is to help those homelands to develop, for them and also on our own behalf. However, there is no question of this having been Dr. Verwoerd’s creation. As far back as 1913 Gen. Hertzog said this, and in 1921 he repeated it (translation)—

Hear, hear!

Gen. Hertzog said that in 1921. That is what he said, and not Dr. Verwoerd. The Whites will not allow the Bantu, or as he called them, the Natives, to get the franchise in their i.e. the White’s, area.

Where?

That was in 1921.

Where did he say that?

In this House.

As far back as 1913 Gen. Hertzog said that there would be separate homelands, where they would have a separate government and where they would receive separate education. He made this speech again in 1921, when the National Party was not even in power yet. The National Party only came into power in 1924, but he made this speech in the House in 1921; but later, too, in 1925, Gen. Hertzog, with whom it was a habit to make his important speeches at Smithfield, said the following there (translation)—

There he referred to spheres of authority with the necessary powers of authority.

Before concluding, I still want to say this. In this debate we have continually heard about the urban Bantu only. During a debate some time ago the hon. the Prime Minister drew hon. members’ attention to the fact that here in the White area we did not have urban Bantu only, but also Bantu living in the rural areas. This was put very clearly to them here. During this whole debate they have simply written off the Bantu in the rural areas, and behaved as if they do not exist. Not one of those hon. members has said a word about the rural Bantu in the course of this debate, which has been in progress since yesterday. Now I challenge them, they who have so much to say about our policy in regard to the Bantu in the urban areas, to tell us what their policy is in every respect relating to the Bantu in the rural areas of White South Africa. All kinds of facilities for the urban Bantu have been pleaded for here. The main point of attack of the United Party against this side of the House was where were the urban Bantu going to live, whether they would be given a permanent place to live here; they asked whether the Bantu would get rights of ownership. Now the question is whether they would give rights of ownership to the rural Bantu in one way or another.

Yes, of course.

Where? On the farms?

In the urban areas. [Interjections.]

Are they then to leave the rural areas? The hon. member says “in the urban areas”. I am not dealing with the urban areas, and I want a reply to this question. Where will the rural Bantu enjoy those rights of ownership?

On what part of the farm?

It is no use making a distinction now …

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question? I want to ask the hon. member where, under their policy, the White “bywoners” would receive rights of ownership on the farm where they were employed.

To compare the “bywoner”—to use the word he used—with the Bantu on the farm of a White farmer! That White “bywoner”, to use his word, could receive the right of ownership in the rural areas when he could afford it. It was possible for him to buy a farm if he could; if he had the means, he could buy a farm. I ask again: If the rural Bantu had the money, could he buy a farm in the White rural areas?

No, please!

I want to ask the hon. member why they are now discriminating between the rural Bantu and the urban Bantu? After all, that is a form of discrimination. This is a double standard which they are applying. This is the party which wants to criticize our policy! They have absolutely no policy as far as the rural Bantu in the White areas of South Africa are concerned. I think that hon. members opposite owe an answer to this side in future in regard to this question which I have now put to them repeatedly.

In the towns or on the farms?

On the farms, the rural areas.

What about the towns?

I am not going to be led away from my point. Let us deal with the farms.

After all, there are towns in the rural areas as well. [Interjections.]

Are they to get land there?

Order! Hon. members cannot all talk at the same time. What is more, the hon. member’s time has now expired.

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman …

Jack, give us a reply to that.

Mr. Chairman, this is indeed a very interesting debate. It is a pity that the time for the debate has now almost expired. With the very limited time at my disposal, I cannot dwell on a lot of questions at this stage. Why I have found this debate so interesting is that we have had questions fired at the official Opposition. This has been done over the passage of time, for 25 years. It does not surprise me at all, but there have been some surprises here today and it has been proved beyond any doubt that what we have said, in the passage of 25 years is being accepted stage by stage by the Government. This morning a speech was made by the hon. the Deputy Minister which is very close to United Party sentiments.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?

I am sorry, my time has almost expired. We all remember what Mr. Blaar Coetzee said here only a few years ago when he placed his political reputation at stake by saying that by the year 1978 the Black people in the White areas would start flowing back to the Native Reserves. We all know this; nobody disputes it at all, but we have yet to hear from hon. members on that side about that statement of Mr. Blaar Coetzee. I think it will be an excellent opportunity for Mr. Coetzee to tell us more about it seeing that he is one of the Sunday Times correspondents nowadays. As a correspondent of the Sunday Times he has plenty opportunity and space in the Sunday Times to tell us more about the eight million Black people living in the urban and rural areas of our country.

The hon. member for Algoa, who unfortunately has just left, mentioned earlier on, that the urban Bantu are—to use his own words—“’n baie ernstige probleem”. He concedes this after 25 years. We have been telling those hon. members for 25 years that the problem is not the Bantu in the Reserves but the Bantu here in the urban areas and in the rural areas of our country.

Our problem is the Opposition.

We have always said that we have to face up to the fact that these people living here and working here together with the Whites and the Coloureds, form what one can call economic integration. Economic integration is a fact, and we have always said so. The hon. member for Klip River enlarged on it this afternoon, when he admitted that it was a fact.

Is that what he said.

Yes. This is something new. The Nationalists, inside and outside this House, have always accused the United Party of having a policy of economic integration. We have always said that it is no party’s policy but a fact, and a fact that we must face up to. Here this afternoon the hon. member for Klip River said in so many words that it was no longer economic integration but economic inter-dependence. What nonsense that we should have all these words about economic inter-dependence today, after 25 years of Nationalist rule. Now we have heard too that these people are here as temporary permanent sojourners of this country. It reminds me of a word the hon. the Prime Minister used earlier on this session, namely “boereverneukery”. If ever I have heard a lot of “boereverneukery” I have listened to it today.

From the United Party side.

With the limited time at my disposal I want to be more parochial and come back to another item which is disturbing many people living on the borders of the Reserves. I mention small villages in the platteland, in the rural areas, as examples. I will name some of these areas which I know particularly well, but I know that this applies to all other areas bordering on the Reserves, the so-called Bantu homelands. I think of an area which includes Stutterheim, which we know is in the Ciskei, Stutterheim is not so badly affected as Cathcart, Queeenstown, Sterkstroom, Molteno and possibly Burgersdorp. These areas are neither in the Ciskei nor out of the Ciskei. They are borderline villages. I would appreciate it very much if the hon. the Minister at some time or other —not necessarily today—could define more clearly which little villages are in fact in the Bantu homeland areas of the Ciskei and which are outside.

You know that well enough yourself.

No; just allow me to explain. Let us take Molteno as an example. The inhabitants of Molteno and the industrialists in that little village still do not know whether the town Molteno itself is eligible for concessions under border industrial development. When one approaches the Department of Planning, you are referred, back to this hon. Minister’s department. I believe that this is where we must start. The hon. the Minister should define all these villages inside and outside the border industrial development area. We understand that the Bantu working and living in Molteno should not be there, that only Coloureds should be working there, but there are very few Coloureds in that area. I do not expect the hon. the Minister to give me an answer today. If the hon. the Minister would rather that I put questions to him by way of the Order Paper I shall most certainly do so but …

I will deal with that on Monday.

… we must have this information and after 25 years it is time this information was given to the people. Our whole economy is becoming weaker in these areas instead of becoming stronger because of the cloud of uncertainty hanging over these small villages.

He said he would give it to you on Monday.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.