I feel that I should like, in the name of every hon. member, briefly to pay tribute to the great services rendered to our nation, our language and our father-land by the late Senator Cornells Jacob Langenhoven.

Mr. Chairman, before the real discussion begins on this Vote, I should like to put a question to the hon. the Prime Minister concerning the position in regard to South West Africa and the recommendations of the Odendaal Commission in the report submitted to Parliament. Sir, we have been promised a White Paper, and the hon. the Prime Minister has indicated that he will set time aside for a discussion of that White Paper. If he can now give us finality as to when we can expect that White Paper and when the debate is likely to come and how long it will be, then I feel that despite the importance of this subject, it should be left out of the discussions on this Vote, apart perhaps from questions to the Deputy Minister for South West Africa Affairs concerning the ordinary affairs of the territory, and that we should proceed on the basis that it be excluded from the Vote at present under discussion.

I gladly give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the information requested. I can inform him that the White Paper has already been drafted, but has still to be translated and printed. I expect it to be tabled on Wednesday next, 29 April, and then I think it is only fair to give hon. members an opportunity to study it. It appears to me that a week will be enough for that purpose and that the discussion can then take place on, say, Tuesday, 5 May. It may be that we cannot adhere to these dates due to delays in printing or if something of that nature goes wrong, but as far as I can see it ought to be tabled next Wednesday and discussion can commence the following Tuesday. Further I think there will be sufficient time for discussion if the House devotes two afternoons to the discussion. In other words, we can then have the discussion on Tuesday, 5 May, and Wednesday, 6 May apart from my reply. As far as I can ascertain from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, that is acceptable to them as affording sufficient time.

There have been few changes in the Prime Minister’s policy or policies over the past year. Hence when one discusses these policies once again before Parliament, one can but adduce additional evidence, growing evidence that those policies are wrongly founded and that there is great danger that they are leading South Africa inevitably on the road to disaster. I have no doubt that when the position in which South Africa finds itself to-day is evaluated, the hon. the Prime Minister will claim credit for the apparent prosperity which exists in the country. I think he will claim credit for it even if it has not yet penetrated much to the ordinary man in the street, and even if it has certainly not penetrated to the various agricultural communities in South Africa.

It seems to me that this prosperity is in a sense acting as a veil which is blurring our vision as to the realities of the situation in South Africa and as to the problems with which we are faced, and I feel it is my duty to-day to face the hon. the Prime Minister and face the nation with the facts as they are, facts of which we dare not lose sight if we wish to understand the situation in which we as a nation find ourselves at the present time. It is all very well to have money in your pocket. Having money in your pocket does not always make you safe against other dangers, particularly external dangers. When one evaluates the facts of the situation, it is perhaps wise to begin with the lot of one of those industries conducted by the people who to a large extent form the backbone of our nation. I want to say at once that no matter what the economists and the statisticians are saying about the growth in our national income, nevertheless the debt of the farming community to the Land Bank seems to be growing as well. I think it is of the order of R134,500,000 at present, and the arrears in interest and redemption seem to be as high as they have ever been. They are of the order of round about R5,000,000. It seems quite clear that the prophecy of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs, that during the next five years we can expect farmers to leave the land at the rate of between 2,400 and 2,600 per annum, out of the odd 100,000 farmers who are operating at present, is going to be proved correct.

But what is even worse than that is that this Government has as yet devised no policy and has enunciated no programme for the adjustment of these displaced people to other walks of life where they can retain the status and the dignity they knew before. Other countries, wealthy countries, have viewed tendencies of this kind with alarm, and where they have been unable to combat them they have regarded the resettlement of these displaced farmers as a sociological problem to be dealt with on a national scale with the full resources of the State. Here I am not talking of the puny efforts of the two Ministers of Agriculture who guide the business of the farmers in South Africa. Their failure was appreciated by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs when he made that prophecy. What I want to know now is what are the plans of this Government to assist the victims of the failure of those two Ministers of Agriculture? What are their plans with these thousands of farmers, many of them middle-aged or older, and how will they assist them to find other means of livelihood? I was looking only the other day at the report of the commission appointed by President Eisenhower on “National Goals”. There it is made perfectly clear that a separate problem concerns farmers who operate at subsistence levels and produce only about 10 per cent of the farm output. For them new opportunities must be found through training and through the location of new industries in farm areas. That is what the commission said. Now, what is this Government doing in this regard? So far we have heard no statement from either of the Ministers of Agriculture, or in fact from any Minister in regard to this matter. We had an appeal from the Chairman of the Industrial Development Corporation for the decentralization of industries and for the assistance promised to industries in what are known as border areas to be given when industry is decentralized in the agricultural areas, but we have had no reaction from the Government. It seems to me that we are faced with a situation in respect of which this Government has no policy at all, and therefore I felt it was right that it should be laid before the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon.

The second of the facts with which we are faced at present is that our prosperity, such as it is, has also not penetrated into the Native reserves, the future Bantustans in the dreams of the hon. the Prime Minister. Because it has not penetrated to those reserves, that prosperity is not making any significant contribution to the solution of our race problems, not even to the solution envisaged by the Prime Minister and which he hopes for. I am not alone in this view. The Prime Minister himself mentioned the poverty of the Ciskei in a recent address he gave. He still sees a solution in the establishment of border industries to sustain these areas economically, despite the infinitesimal and tardy progress that has been made over the last nine or ten years in respect of the establishment of border industries. Even the permanent committee for the location of industries and the development of border areas has made it clear in its last report, issued at the end of last year, that if the development of border industries is to make anything in the nature of a major contribution to the solution of the country’s social and economic problems, by which they obviously mean the racial problems as well, then the rate of development will have to be accelerated. I think that must be the most masterly under-statement of the year, because if you look at this report, coupled with the information contained in it, and replies to recent questions put in this House, you see how pathetically small and inadequate has been the contribution of border industries in this regard. We should realize that during the last three years the number of jobs created for Bantu in the so-called border industries does not seem to be in excess of approximately 4,000 a year, a tiny percentage of the number of jobs envisaged as vitally necessary even by the Tomlinson Commission’s Report nine years ago, which envisaged the establishment of some 30,000 new jobs a year in border industries for the development of the Native reserves. The result is that the extent to which the policy has been carried out has made hardly any impact at all on the pressure of Native labour in the White areas. What is more, it means that the whole programme of the hon. the Prime Minister, whereby he hoped that by the year 2000 the number of Bantu in the reserves and the number outside would be approximately 50-50, is now hopelessly out of gear because there has been this tremendous lag.

What has been even more significant is where these so-called border industries have been located. You see, Sir, the new industrial centres created in places like Rosslyn, Hammarsdale and just outside East London are really just extensions of the so-called White urban complexes of Pretoria, Durban and East London. If that policy had to be logic at all, and if it was to make any contribution at all, you would have expected border industries to be started on the borders of the first of the self-governing homelands, the Transkei. You would have expected to see new industrial areas opened up on the borders of the existing reserves. But economic realities have been too strong for these border industries, and in fact what is happening is that industries are being established not so much on the borders of the reserves, but on the borders of the big White cities. How can this ever afford a solution of the social problem which is involved? Shifting a problem from one place to another does not mean that you solve it, and that is exactly what is being done at present. To think that that solves it is merely a delusion from which this Government seems to be suffering. So much for the prosperity and its effect on those two classes of the community.

If the hon. the Prime Minister wants to take credit for the existing prosperity, as he tried to do in earlier discussions in this House, he must be prepared also to accept the blame for the situation in which this country finds itself, a situation which has very real elements of danger in it indeed, and it seems to be a situation from which the Prime Minister finds it very difficult to extricate either the country or himself. I should like to put certain of those problems to the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon, and let us see what his solutions are.

The first and the greatest of the problems involving our present situation is the growing isolation of the Republic in the international sphere. I know there are those who claim that there is a different approach to our problems overseas at present. I know there are those who claim that there is a greater understanding of the position of South Africa. I can only say that I welcome it if that is so, but I fear what is happening is that there is an understanding of our problems but no greater approval of the manner in which the Government is trying to solve them. We see what a change of attitude there has been, which may in fact result in a more severe judgment against us, because very often when people understand things better they disapprove even more strongly of what this Government is trying to do. Pressures have been building up fast against South Africa. Time does not allow me to trace the history of the growth, and in any event I think it is well known to hon. members opposite, but I would say that every alert South African must be aware of and must be concerned at what is happening. I think every alert South African sees also the southward movement of states which not long ago were akin to us but are now under Bantu control, and are constituting in many cases a threat to those buffer states on our borders on which we rely to a large extent for our security.

Are you scared?

I am interested to hear that interjection. I am always interested when people on the other side who have never been to a war talk about being scared. They think that war to-day is what it was in the old days when you had a rifle and the other chap had an assegai. The situation to-day is very different. Most of us who served in the last war do not understand the new modern weapons, but we have a very shrewd idea of their fire-power and how dangerous they can be in the hands of people who are irresponsible and not properly civilized. It means that our northern boundaries no longer provide the security that they did in the past. Secondly, every alert South African will see how the boycott movement against South Africa has been hardening. I think we can say we do not believe it will be effective unless Britain and the U.S.A. participate, and God forbid that they should, but I think we also see how difficult it can become even if neither Britain nor the U.S.A. participates in boycotts. I want to say at once that however much we condemn, and indeed the Opposition does condemn the recent conference organized in London by the lunatic members of the British public to boycott South Africa, it nevertheless represents a greater measure of co-ordination and organization amongst our enemies than we have seen up to the present.

In addition, I think no alert South African can have been unconscious of the fact that there has been amongst our traditional friends and our major trading partners what seems to me to have been slowly but surely a weakening in their resistance to attacks on the Republic of South Africa in international bodies. In fact, it seems at times as though the-e has been a drifting away from us. The most striking evidence of this is the support by Britain and the U.S.A. for an arms embargo against South Africa in varying degrees. I would say another piece of evidence is the support by the British representative, Sir Hugh Foote, of the UNO Study Group which only last Monday called for steps by UN in support of a policy of one man, one vote in South Africa, and demanding the grossest interference in our internal affairs that we have ever experienced from any international body in any period that I can remember. I do not for a moment believe that those recommendations will be supported by the present British Government because they must see that the whole report is stupid and ill-considered, but the mere fact that somebody there, who has been a representative of the British Government, could feel free to sign a report of this kind, with the possible effects it could have on South Africa, must be a warning to us all that the finger is beginning to write on the wall for South Africa.

The hon. the Prime Minister is aware of these pressures, and he has been aware of them for some time. He sought to find a solution to this problem, a solution which he himself admitted was forced upon him by the forces mounting up against South Africa in the outside world, and he sought to find a solution to that problem by adopting his Bantustan policy in South Africa. It was five years ago, in April 1959, that he announced that policy in this House, and for these five years it has become increasingly evident that one of the major objectives of that policy, namely the softening of world opinion in respect of South Africa, has failed utterly. This policy has not changed the attitude of the world towards South Africa at all, except for the worst. It has not achieved the object with which the Prime Minister announced it. It does not seem to me that it has done anything at all to relieve the pressure of international forces upon us. In fact, we are now facing a situation in which the Prime Minister is steadily withdrawing the Republic from one international organization after another where there is prejudiced criticism and unjust action against us, and sometimes even before the injustice or at least the irregularity of the reports upon us have been made manifest. It is not sufficient that the attacks upon us should be unjust and prejudiced, but it is necessary to show the world that they are unjust. I think there have been occasions when we have withdrawn before that was shown. In the light of these experiences, one is constrained to ask the vital question, as far as South Africa is concerned, as to whether it is the policy of the hon. the Prime Minister that the Republic should remain a member of UN? Is he going to remain a member and fight things out there, or will he withdraw because he cannot answer criticism adequately, even when it is prejudiced and unjust towards South Africa?

This brings one to the second big problem with which we are faced, and that is whether a policy that has resulted in the international isolation of the country so completely from the point of view of external affairs and has created so many problems for us with the nations of the Western world whom we liked to believe were our friends, has advantages internally which make it justifiable to continue to follow it. I do not think so. I think it is a bad policy anyway, but I am not alone in this. Half the White electorate, just about, do not like this policy. [Interjections.] The overwhelming majority of the non-Whites reject it utterly. The hon. the Prime Minister has not been able to persuade one other country in the world, not even the countries with whom he pleaded at the Prime Ministers’ Conference, and not even Portugal, I believe, that this is a just and fair policy. Of course it has certain disadvantages. I believe it is unrealistic because the Bantustans at present cannot support their population. I believe it is unrealistic because South Africa is dependent, and I believe will be for all time, on Native labour, despite the activities of the Minister of Labour. I believe it is unrealistic because, despite the policy of separate development, the influx of Bantu into the White areas is continuing, and I believe will continue at a very great rate indeed. It is significant that after the Government had announced its policy of removing the Natives from the Western Cape, we should find in the Cape Times of 10th instant a report indicating that there is a scarcity of houses in the Western Cape because of the tremendous influx of Bantu labour into this area in the last five months. They give the figures and show what is happening, and they indicate that this influx is bigger than it has been for some considerable time. This policy, I believe, creates dangers for South Africa, apart from being unrealistic, because it will create independent “have not” states within our borders, which will make our labour foreign citizens. It will create strategic problems, one of which we discussed in this House earlier this Session, when we discovered about the strategic road the Minister of Transport is building in the Transkei, at a time when probably it would be far more important to build airfields. But we are also faced with the problem of what the relationship between these new emergent Bantustans will be one day with each other, with the so-called White portion of South Africa, and with the rest of the world. One sees the parallel of the southward movement of Bantu-controlled states. One has seen what happened in Cuba and Zanzibar, and one cannot help but ask oneself what is going to happen if we have a Cuba or a Zanzibar created out of one of these emergent states to which the hon. the Prime Minister is promising independence. [Interjection.] But the policy creates dangers not only with the Bantu population, but so far it has provided no solution whatever for the problem of the Coloured and the Indian populations. Only a few weeks ago the Burger, the Cape organ of the Nationalist Party, indicated that the Government was engaged upon a policy the ultimate result of which they themselves did not know, in respect of the Coloured people. They complained that they did not know where it would lead to, and indeed, I do not believe we do know, because the Prime Minister has spoken of an ultimate Commonwealth relationship and he has said that the Coloureds would be represented at the conference established in respect of that Commonwealth, and he has talked of the Indians having representation. Now, where are those representatives coming from? What is the relationship going to be between those people and the representatives of the White state in which they live? That is something which has never been answered and which nobody sees clearly. There is no doubt that it has all the elements of friction. That is why I say this is the second great problem with which we are faced. How long is it worth while continuing with a policy which has been of no benefit to us externally, which has not achieved the objectives which the hon. the Prime Minister set out to achieve, and which is creating no solution but greater dangers for South Africa internally? [Time limit.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition always surprises one. In this debate, where one would have thought that he would have concentrated upon the great external problems, he started off by referring to the bad state of the farmers internally, and he referred to the Land Bank Report to bear out his statement. He accused the two Ministers of Agriculture of being virtually responsible for the prevailing drought, a state of affairs that has been known in South Africa in the past, and which has afflicted us to a marked degree during recent years. In the Northern Transvaal the drought has already entered into its fourth year. Fortunately I have in front of me the figures the Leader of the Opposition quoted from the report of the Land Bank, and if he wishes to infer from that that the farmers are having an extremely bad time of it, and when one has regard to the extent of the drought in those regions, then I should like to say at once that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot use the report of the Land Bank to prove that the farmers are having a very lean time of it. According to the Land Bank, the farming community are in arrears for the past year on loans of R134,000,000 fixed capital, to the extent of 2.4 per cent on interest and 1.2 per cent on capital. If that is the proof the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wishes to produce that things are going so extremely badly for the farmers, then I think he has failed to produce any proof. We accept that there are drought-stricken areas, and that things are difficult there, and we are worried about that, and the Government has already taken various steps to meet the position, steps more far-reaching than any taken by any other previous Government at any time, and even during this Session steps have been taken, by means of legislation, to render assistance to the farmers in those arid regions. All of us accept that things are extremely difficult there, and that the farmers are having a lean time. All of us are concerned about them, and we are sympathetically disposed, but the Government has gone further than any previous Government to assist the farmers, and further steps are being considered to render further aid in that region. But apart from that region, things are not going so extremely badly with the farming community as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition suggests. We know that this country is from time to time afflicted with droughts, and in that respect too we are now taking precautions to meet these conditions. One is simply stunned that the Leader of the Opposition should raise this point as his first point of attack against the Government. I repeat that the Land Bank figures prove that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is wrong. The other branches of agriculture are faring reasonably well. The figures for agricultural production at the present time are consideraby higher than in any previous year. As regards prices, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should tell us what his policy is. The question arises whether one should push up the prices above the economic value of the product or whether one should pay subsidies, for those are the only two alternatives. One of these two courses may be adopted. If you push up the prices of agricultural products above the economic value of the product, the consumer pays that inflated price. The alternative amounts to the same thing. If you pay subsidies, the taxpayers must pay the increased price. I know the Opposition has been advocating the subsidization of agricultural products since they have been in the Opposition benches.

They know they will always be in the Opposition benches.

Yes, I accept that, for when they were on the Government benches, and were bearing the responsibility, they never favoured a policy of subsidization. On the contrary they had the advantage of rising prices after the war and during the war they kept the price of agricultural products as low as possible. If you wish to encourage agriculture in South Africa you have to do it in one of two ways: You either have to push up the price of the product above the economic value of the product—and it will then be necessary to increase the price of all products, because it will be no use increasing the prices of certain agricultural products only—or otherwise you have to pay subsidies on a large scale, and surely that will then amount to the same thing as taking the increased prices out of the pockets of the consumer. The Opposition cannot say that the prices of agricultural products in general are higher in South Africa than overseas. There are only a few agricultural products one can import into South Africa at a lower price than the local price of those products. As I have said already, one has one of those two alternatives only. It is true that in 1933, after we abandoned the gold standard, the State considered the desirability of subsidizing the prices of wool, but apart from that example, we have never tried in South Africa to obtain a higher price for agricultural products by means of subsidies. As the Opposition have started off this debate by referring to agricultural matters, I should like to challenge them to tell us now in which of those two directions they want to move, that is to say, whether they want to raise the prices of agricultural products above their economic value—and then they must tell us what products they have in mind—or otherwise they must tell us that they want to introduce a system of subsidies for all agricultural products. Whatever they may say, we know droughts will come and go. One cannot tide over a drought with a price, however high it may be. Whatever the prices may be in future, and whatever Government may be in power, there will always be droughts, and it will remain the task of the Government to devise plans to meet the problems created by droughts. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) as an experienced debater has used his experience to avoid the one question I put to him, which was what they are going to do with the farmers who are leaving the land as a result of Government policy. Sir, he concentrated upon the puny efforts of the two Ministers of Agriculture to keep the agriculturists on the farm, but it was very noticeable that there was not one word from the hon. gentleman about the departure from the principles of the Marketing Act under this Government. There was not one word about price manipulation to try to deal with surpluses and shortages; there was not one word about the planning of farms because he knows that they have not got the agricultural economists to plan the farms. No, Sir, he has merely revealed once again the complete lack of policy of this Government.

Sir, I was busy placing certain problems before the hon. the Prime Minister. There is a third and there is a fourth problem that I would like to place before the hon. gentlemen. The first problem is how we mobilize the resources of South Africa not only to meet our growing international dangers but to achieve those increased and better standards of living which are so vital for the promotion of racial harmony within the Republic itself. Sir, when I pose that problem I cannot even begin to answer the question, because owing to the neglect of this Government during the period in which it has been in power and the policies it has been following, South Africa is suffering to-day from a lack of trained manpower to undertake the tasks which it is obviously called upon to perform. For 15 years this Government neglected to get the men and women from overseas whom we needed, and until a few years ago it made no effort at all to get the men and women we needed from overseas. It has failed to give sufficient attention to the technical training and education of our own European people, as the hon. the Prime Minister himself admitted to his own congress at Bloemfontein, and even to-day the Government persists in denying opportunities to our non-European peoples to serve South Africa in the capacities they are eager to develop for the country itself. Sir, our country is weakened and endangered by this bottleneck created by the belief of the Government and the Prime Minister himself apparently that 3,000,000 White people can provide the skilled labour and executive ability for a population of 16,000,000 souls in South Africa. Sir, I have discussed this matter before with the hon. the Prime Minister and I placed certain constructive suggestions before him. I want to say that his answers to me on that occasion were completely unsatisfactory and inadequate. I want this afternoon to offer him the opportunity to tell us what he is going to do about this problem, because evidence is building up to establish the failure of his policies as they exist at the present time, and I hope that in dealing with this problem we are not going to hear from him the same things that we have heard from the hon. the Minister of Labour who says that because there is very little unemployment there cannot be a manpower shortage—one of the most remarkable statements I have ever heard from a Minister of Labour. I want to stress one other thing and that is that the Prime Minister’s own Economic Advisory Council is warning him that unless there is a great acceleration in the training of skilled Europeans there is going to be unemployment amongst the non-European population because we are not developing sufficient skilled people quickly enough to create opportunities for the job-seekers amongst the non-Europeans. There is a great deal of evidence to support this; there are the statements by the Governor of the Reserve Bank; there is the statement from the General Manager of Sanlam; there is a statement from the Federated Chamber of Industry; and every month the evidence piles up that we are experiencing this bottleneck at the present time. Sir, there are those who say that immigration at the moment cannot possibly fill this gap, and there are those who make it clear that we have to seek elsewhere in order to find the solution, possibly along the lines which I have outlined to the Prime Minister in the past.

There is a fourth problem to which I wish to direct the attention of the hon. gentleman, and that is the problem of the relationship between ourselves and the countries to the north of us. Here let me say that Portugal, which plays a vital role from our point of view, is an old friend and an ally, but I think we are entitled to ask ourselves whether we are convinced that she is able to maintain her position. Are we in close touch with developments in those areas, particularly in respect of the communist threat to Angola? I think things are so delicate in respect of Southern Rhodesia that I do not wish to press the hon. the Prime Minister on this point. What of our relations with countries further to the north of us? You see, Sir, one thing seems certain and that is that our relationship with them at the present time cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely, and it would seem that the hon. the Prime Minister thinks along the same lines if I am to believe a report attributed in the Press to Stuart Cloete in which he gives an account of an interview he had with the Prime Minister. It seems that the hon. the Prime Minister’s conviction that things cannot continue as they are must have been the Genesis for the idea attributed to him that he would be prepared to exchange one roving ambassador accredited to those African states that would agree to accept him, in return for one ambassador representing all those states in Pretoria. I do not know whether that is the view of the hon. gentleman, but I should like to give him the opportunity then to deny it, because it seems to me it is not a very constructive suggestion. We have had experience of a roving ambassador before appointed by this Government, and he turned out to be an ambassador entirely at a loss by the time he had served his period in that capacity. Therefore I think what we are entitled to know from the hon. gentleman is what he has in view in respect of the relationships with those states to the north of us. [Time limit.]

Against what back ground does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition come along here to debate agricultural matters under the Prime Minister’s Vote? Surely he knows there are two Ministers of Agriculture; he knows there are a Minister of Lands and a Minister of Finance who are in charge of the Land Bank, State advances, etc., and under whose Votes all agricultural matters may be discussed. Against the background of an international revolution, where Communism on the one hand is beginning to exert influence to a tremendous extent, and where Western civilization does not understand our policy as yet, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition comes forward here and wishes to conduct a debate on agriculture under a Vote that offers an opportunity to debate the policy of South Africa in relation to these great international problems. But how does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition discuss agricultural matters? He comes along here, in the typical manner of a vulture, and he wishes to prey upon the unfortunate natural circumstances which have given rise to agricultural setbacks. I am referring to such setbacks as foot-and-mouth disease and the drought in the Northern Transvaal. He does not make a positive contribution; he does not tell us to what extent the United Party disagrees with the Government’s agricultural policy. Is he then a stranger in the world of agriculture too? He asks what policy the Government intends to pursue in order to settle people who are forced off the farms, or to find a livelihood for them. Is he not aware of the two great schemes the Government has announced? In the first place there is the Orange River scheme, which will involve capital expenditure to the tune of R500,000,000 and which is calculated to provide an agricultural livelihood in South Africa for those who are not living on economic units of land at the present time. Is he not aware of the Pongola Poort scheme, which will cost R38,000,000, and which will provide a livelihood for agriculturists and for Bantu under a proper irrigation scheme? Does the hon. member not know that last year we passed an Act in this House in terms of which, in the case of persons who acquired land under Section 20, 23 or 31 which was uneconomic or too small, that land now may be consolidated to form larger agricultural units, which will indeed be economic units? These are only a few of the positive steps taken by this Government during the past two or three years in order to meet our agricultural problems, and in order to see to it that every agriculturist will be enabled to produce on an economic unit. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition should tell this Committee whether, e.g., he proposes to do away with the present Marketing Act under which there are 17 marketing boards, and under which 73 per cent of the agricultural products are being controlled under properly constituted marketing boards which have been established in collaboration with and on the directions of the S.A. Agricultural Union, which nominates the members of these boards and which is the mouthpiece of the farmer and the producer in South Africa. But that is not all: 73 per cent of our agricultural products are controlled by marketing boards; 17 per cent are controlled under special laws. In this connection I am referring to sugar and the liquor trade, and these people are not complaining at all; there is only prosperity for them. Only 11 per cent of the agricultural products in South Africa are not subject to control, and have no stabilization fund to ensure stability in the industry concerned. This Government saw to it that stabilization funds, at the present time amounting to almost R58,000,000, were established to provide security for the agriculturist in South Africa. In an attempt to show that things are going badly with the farmer, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the Land Bank Report. Sir, here is the latest Land Bank Report. According to this report arrear interest amounts to 2.4 per cent and arrear capital in respect of long-term loans amounts to 1.25 per cent, but comparing these arrear debts with the position in industry and commerce, these percentages are negligible. Does the hon. member not know that during the past 15 years the Land Bank has had to write off only 0.003 per cent of the loans granted by them? Let us take another example. Take State advances as an example. I am taking State advances specifically because this is the Department which assists the less privileged farmer who cannot obtain assistance anywhere else. I find that from 1958 the State Advances Recoveries Office has had to write off only 3.2 per cent of loans granted to farmers. What happened under the United Party Government’s demobilization scheme? Of the loans granted under the demobilization scheme 6.3 per cent had to be written off. The assistance granted by the United Party Government to people was given so injudiciously that no less than 6.3 per cent of those loans had to be written off, and that happened during a period of prosperity in respect of agriculture, according to the United Party. As against this the loss was only 3.2 per cent during this lean period, according to members of the Opposition, under the policy of this Government.

I am going to mention a further example. Take the case of Lands. I find that under the régime of the South African Party from 1929 to 1939, 20.4 per cent of the farmers who were assisted by the Department of Lands to acquire land, abandoned agriculture. From 1939 to 1948, while the United Party was in power, the percentage which abandoned agriculture was 12.8 per cent. What has been the position from 1948 to 1963 under the policy of the National Party Government? I once again include all the farmers who were assisted to acquire land under Sections 20. 23 and 31. As against 20.8 per cent and 12.3 per cent under the South African Party and United Party régimes, only 4.2 per cent abandoned agriculture. No, Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should not try to attack the Government’s agricultural policy under the Prime Minister’s Vote without having ascertained his facts and without having referred to the exact figures and statistics in regard to agriculture. On analysis of agricultural statistics one finds that in spite of foot and mouth and in spite of prolonged droughts, agriculture as a whole is faring much better in South Africa than ever before during the régime of the United Party. [Time limit.]

The Government has achieved a good deal of success in past years in the sphere of party politics, and on the strength of that success it claims to be a good Government. Sir. to achieve success in the party political sphere is no difficult matter. There is an old recipe which always works, if one wants to use that recipe. It is a recipe which works and has worked in every country of the world where the circumstances have permitted it, and that recipe is to stir up race and class feelings: to play off one section of the population against the other. Lenin did that in Russia where he stirred up class feelings; Hitler did it in Germany where he stirred up racialism; Castro did it in Cuba and Nkrumah did it in Ghana. It is a recipe which any political party can use if it wishes to do so. The United Party, if it wishes to concentrate entirely on party political success, can also use it but it refuses to do so. because the history of the world has always shown that if you use this sort of recipe you may well promote the interests of your party but in the long run you harm the interests of your country; you build up a party but you break down a country, and that is particularly true in the case of South Africa at the present time. We have various sections of the population living together here. We have no other choice but to live together in this country, and that is a state of affairs which nobody can change. There is only one responsible approach to the political problems of South Africa therefore, and that is to learn to understand one another. I say therefore that any policy which is designed to put one section against the other, or to play off one section against the other, may well bring temporary party political success— we admit that—but in the long run it must harm your country; and that is why we reject the Government’s claim that it is a successful Government merely because of its party political success, because that same success can be achieved by any party if its approach is to stir up racism. There is only one way really in which one can measure the success of a Government and that is to apply the same yardstick to it that one would apply in measuring the success of an individual. How does one measure the success of an individual? One measures his success by the position he occupies in the community; one measures his success by his standing in the community; by the degree of respect he enjoys amongst his fellow-citizens; those are the things by which one measures his success, and as far as a Government is concerned, one should use precisely the same yardstick; one should ask oneself what that Government’s position is vis-à-vis the Governments of the world; what status it enjoys amongst its equals, amongst the Governments of the world, and what degree of respect it enjoys. If one wants to measure the success of this Government, that is the yardstick that one should use, and I say that if one measures the success of this Government according to that yardstick, then one arrives at an answer which is so damning that one hesitates to give it. The hon. the Prime Minister and the previous Minister of Foreign Affairs themselves gave what is perhaps the best answer. The previous Minister of Foreign Affairs, when he returned after his last visit to UNO said; “Nobody wants to be seen in my company.” L ast year the hon. the Prime Minister said in this House that he could not go overseas to talk to statesmen because he would embarrass them if he visited them. There we have a most damning answer to the question as to whether or not this Government is a successful Government. The position to-day, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has indicated, is that South Africa is being forced out of one international organization after another, not only political organizations but also bodies which have nothing to do with politics, even sports bodies. There are really only two trenches left in which we can make a stand. The one is our membership of UNO and the other is our mandate over South West Africa. I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that if this Government continues with its present policy we are going to lose our membership of UNO and we are going to lose our control over South West Africa. And the reason is not far to seek; it lies in the political approach of this Government; because when one strips the apartheid policy of all its frills and gets down to bed-rock, then it is not a question of the self-preservation of the White man because if it really was the self-preservation of the White man which was at stake one would be able to understand the Prime Minister’s statement that he wants to follow a policy of territorial separation between the White man and the majority of the Bantu, and whether one agreed with that or not, one would be able to understand his attitude. But apartheid does not end there, Mr. Chairman; no, it also affects the Coloureds and the South Africans of Indian origin. The Whites outnumber the Coloureds by more than two to one; the Coloureds therefore are no threat to the White man numerically. The question of the self-preservation of the White man is not at issue as far as the Coloureds are concerned. And what is the policy of the hon. the Prime Minister personally in that respect? A Coloured is not allowed to sit in this House; he is not allowed to sit in the provincial council; they do not want him to be allowed to sit together with Whites on public bodies, and we find that even on the governing body of a Coloured university Whites and Coloureds may not sit together. When one examines their policy therefore and asks: “What is the reason; has it anything to do with the preservation of the Whites?” then there is only one answer. Because he is not White. Sir, whenever one examines the apartheid policy of the hon. the Prime Minister, that is the final answer. It does not matter. Mr. Chairman, whether a man is civilized or not; it does not matter whether he belongs to a minority group or not; it does not matter whether he is of your own kind, whether he has accepted Western standards or not. The law of apartheid is and remains nothing but a permanent affront to the freedom of the individual and to human dignity.

As long as that remains the basis of the Government’s policy South Africa will have no moral leg to stand on and our position in the world will go from bad to worse until we eventually become involved in a clash, which may be a cold war at the present time but which may at any time become a hot one. The Government blames everybody except itself. Look what happens. A few days aeo the British Ambassador celebrated the birthday of the British Queen. The Government was not invited because the Government adopted the attitude that it would not attend the celebration because there would be non-Whites present. The hon. the Minister of Defence also issued an instruction to the Defence Force that if they were invited they must not attend. Sir, how is that interpreted in the outside world? [Time limit.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has expressed his concern over what would happen if one of the national homelands of the Bantu were to become a Zanzibar? I now wish to ask him this: What will happen if Basutoland, which is now becoming independent, were to change into a Zanzibar? What will happen if Swaziland is to become a Zanzibar? What will happen if Bechuanaland is to become a Zanzibar? Those are not problems arising from the policy of the National Party. Those are problems flowing from the fact that we are children of Africa. Whether those things will in fact occur will depend largely upon our shrewdness, our political shrewdness. It has nothing to do with the policy of this Government at all. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that while there is a greater understanding of our policy, there is increasingly less approval of the policy of this Government. He says the boycott movement is better organized and our isolation is more complete than ever before. In his whole speech he actually made only one point, namely that the position in which South Africa finds itself, vis-à-vis the rest of the world, is attributable to nothing but the policy of this Government. I say that is an extremely superficial analysis of the position. At the present time there is another country which is as isolated as we are, namely Southern Rhodesia. Southern Rhodesia is so isolated at the present time that after attending the Commonwealth Conference for 30 years she has to beg for an invitation—one would swear it is an Addis Ababa conference which is to be held in London. Southern Rhodesia has to beg for an invitation. Why? Because there is apartheid in Southern Rhodesia? Because there is a National Party in power in Southern Rhodesia? Because there is a policy of discrimination. as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) has said? Is that the reason why Southern Rhodesia is so isolated? It is very clear that this matter has nothing at all to do with the policy of the National Party. These things started at UN when the late General Smuts was our representative there. Those attacks started then already. Now the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says that this hostility towards us is attributable to one thing only, and that is because this Government pursues a policy of race discrimination, a policy of discrimination against the Black man and against the Coloured man. But the naked fact is that Southern Rhodesia is in that position, and they have no discrimination there; they gave’ the Blacks there not only eight representatives in their Parliament, but 15 representatives; there the Blacks may sleep in the hotels of the Whites; they may belong to the sporting bodies of the Whites; they may swim in the swimming baths of the Whites. That is the Southern Rhodesia in respect of which Sir Edgar Whitehead told UN: Do not pass a resolution against the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia; I guarantee that the Black man will be governing Southern Rhodesia within 15 years. Did that avail Southern Rhodesia anything? No, not at all, Sir Edgar White-head got a vote of 72 to one at UN against him. Now Southern Rhodesia is struggling to get an invitation to the Commonwealth Conference. What do all these things indicate, Mr. Chairman? It ought to be clear to any child that these things are not happening because of hostility to the Nationalist Government; that it is not as a result of the policy of the National Party; that it is not a consequence of the policy of apartheid, but that it is a struggle against the presence of the White man in the Republic of South Africa.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who ought to be a responsible person, says it is happening as a result of the policy of this Government, but what is he willing to do to eliminate these things? I am not referring to the Afro-Asian countries’ demands now; I am referring to the demands of UN; I am referring to the demands of Sir Hugh Foote; I am referring to the demands of the Western countries. To what extent is he willing to do away with that discrimination? If he says now that it is our policy which has landed us in this position, does he for one moment think that his policy would bring about a different state of affairs? Does he think that his policy of race federation will make the Western countries one iota more sympathetic towards us? Then I should like him to reply to this question: Why did it not place Southern Rhodesia in a better light in the eyes of the rest of the world? That surely is a simple question to which a reply must be given. If the United Party says to-day that the Western countries will deal with us less harshly, that the West will be more favourably disposed to us if we were to apply the policy of the Opposition, I can tell them that the West will merely approve the policy of the Opposition as the beginning of an entirely new course. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout says the policy of this Government is being condemned by the rest of the world because it is a policy of discrimination on the basis of colour. But the Leader of the Opposition surely knows as well as I do that their policy is a policy based on blatant colour discrimination. As regards discrimination on the basis of colour, there is no difference at all between the policy of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and that of the hon. the Prime Minister. [Interjections.] Unless of course the policy of the Leader of the Opposition is something different from what he is telling the country. It is his policy that Black people shall not sit in this Parliament because they are Black; it is his policy that the children of Luthuli cannot sit at the same school desks as his children merely because they are Black. It is his policy to give those people a small measure of political rights in comparison with the White people, merely because they are Black and for no other reason whatsoever. With South Africa now being in this dangerous position, is it honest now to say that this hostility to us, this incitement against us at the conference in London, this virulence of which the UN committee of so-called experts has now relieved itself, is attributable to the policy of this Government?

If those hon. members really believe that South Africa is in a difficult position, if they really believe that we are heading for a crisis, then they have an entirely different task from that which they are performing here to-day. If they believe that, then it is not for them to criticize a policy here which, according to them, does not differ basically from their own policy of colour discrimination. Then it is their task to tell us what we should do within the framework of these two policies to escape this crisis which they are continually predicting is just around the corner. Then they should say to the Prime Minister: We offer this and that. Then it is their duty to say to the Prime Minister: We disagree with your policy, but in regard to these boycotts, in regard to these attacks of the UN committee, in regard to these attacks by UN itself, we just wish to tell you that however much we may disagree with your policy, as regards these things we stand solidly by the Government and by South Africa. But this is what they are doing: they are continually trying to create the impression overseas—and that is what I reproach them for so bitterly—in America, in France, in England and at UN and elsewhere, that they should exert just a little more pressure and this Government will break down and the United Party will be able to take over. That is the danger. [Time limit.]

The great mistake which the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) makes is that he refuses to appreciate the fact that our whole attitude is that since there are so many dangers threatening us, we must surely take every step we possibly can within our own house to strengthen our position internally and in relation to the outside world. The hon. member refuses to appreciate that fact; he continually seeks to draw the country’s attention to the most extreme organizations, organizations which we condemn just as much as any other person. We want the Government to do something practical. Our complaint against the Government is that they are doing nothing to strengthen our country in the face of these onslaughts. The hon. member comes along with the Southern Rhodesia argument time and again. Sir, there are two problems in the world; the one is colonialism and the other is racism. Southern Rhodesia, unfortunately, is the victim of the struggle against colonialism. The hon. member says that General Smuts also experienced hostility at the UN. That is true, but there is no country in the world which has no enemies. America has enemies; England has enemies. But the difference is that General Smuts also had allies. General Smuts had his opponents at UNO but even countries like Turkey, Uruguay and other South American countries voted with us. One can afford to have enemies if one has a policy which also gives one allies. The hon. member says that our policy is one of colour discrimination, but there again he is wrong. What we say is that colour discrimination does exist. There is colour discrimination practically all over the world, but the policy of this side is to get away from it.

Entirely?

We admit that there are difficult situations. Our whole approach is that we must get away from it. The Government’s approach is to increase it. to give it the force of law, to convert it into a philosophy. That is the difference between the two approaches. We say in all seriousness that the blame for the present situation lies with the Government. Sir. I mentioned a practical example of the sort of thing which has an immediate adverse effect upon South Africa; I mentioned the case of the British Ambassador who gave a reception to celebrate the birthday of his Queen. Government members traditionally attend that reception. Our Government, however, refuses to take any part in it. Why? Because it is attended by non-Whites. What impression does that make on the outside world? That we have a Government here which refuses to attend a diplomatic function because it is going to be attended by a section of its own citizens! Where on earth would one find such a thing! The Government refuses to be present at a function where a section of its own citizens will also be present! After all. this reception is a foreign affair; it is held on territory belonging to the British Embassy; it is a political occasion; it is not a social occasion. But assuming it was a social occasion, what would have been wrong with it if the Government had attended it? Sir, a few days ago the hon. the Minister of Finance attended a big wedding. If I had heard this privately I would not have mentioned this, but I mention it because it was reported in the Press. At that wedding there were guests belonging to all races. I take my hat off to him; he acted sensibly; I am glad he attended. But why adopt this attitude that his Government cannot attend a political occasion because a particular section of the South African population will be present? That is the sort of thing which destroys South Africa in the outside world. As long as this sort of thing remains the policy of the Government there can be no question of a successful foreign policy in South Africa.

The hon. the Prime Minister is responsible in the last instance for everything that happens. I think the time has come when he should tell the country how long he is going to subject South Africa to this sort of thing which gives us the reputation that we have in the outside world at the present time. Sir, it is late in the day; the dangers are increasing. I think we are entitled to ask the Government to make some contribution to the in provement of South Africa’s reputation. The best contribution that the Government can make, if it wants to make a start in following a successful foreign policy, is to put an end to what is known as little apartheid.

The remarkable thing is that all our friends who visit South Africa—I can mention the Prime Minister’s own friends, people like Field-Marshal Montgomery and Lord Lonsdale—say that they see good things in South Africa, because there are good things in South Africa, but time and again they come back to the harmful impression made upon the outside world by little apartheid in South Africa. Sir, I can give him the name of one person after another in his own party who feels as I do about apartheid, There is his own editor, Mr. Willem van Heerden … [Interjections.] There is not a single intelligent man in the ranks of the National Party feels as I do about little apartheid. There is a man like Mr. C. H. Brink, the managing director of Federale Volgsbeleggings, who recently made an urgent appeal to the Government to throw little apartheid overboard and to concentrate on more important tasks.

What is little apartheid?

I shall tell you. Mr. Chairman. Little apartheid is one aspect of apartheid which is so ugly because it is so noticeable. If the hon. member wants to know what little apartheid is he should walk down the street and there he will see if he enters the shops that non-Whites as well as Whites are entitled to buy goods over the counter. But if he crosses the street and enters a building belonging to the State, a building such as the post office, for example, he will see that the Coloured is not entitled in all cases to enter through the same door as the White man: he is not entitled to buy his stamps at the same counter. When he goes to the counter where one has to collect registered letters, he will see that Whites and non-Whites have to form separate queues. They have to stand in separate queues; they are not allowed to stand in the same queue. And the moment a non-White has been served, he has to force his way through the White queue in order to get out. Is there any logic in that? Why should I be forbidden to ride in a taxi driven S. Marais) again starts interjecting!

Order!

[Inaudible.]

Order! I am calling hon. members to order and while I am doing so the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais) again starts interjecting!

Mr. Chairman, what is the earthly use of having freedom in shops when the non-White, as soon as he enters a building belonging to the State, is subjected to the humiliation of being debarred from using the same door as the White man? Sir, that is little apartheid. It is this, more than anything else, which gives South Africa such an ugly image. I shall tell you, Sir, what else I regard as little apartheid: Our country is smeared with notice boards reading “Whites only”. There are some places where there are so many notice boards that one has difficulty in finding one’s way about. Sir, this image which the visitor to South Africa gets is the worse possible advertisement for South Africa because it is something which strikes him immediately. At one stage in Germany, when the Olympic Games were held there, even a man like Hitler caused the notice boards to be removed which indicated that Jews were not allowed to enter here or to sit there. Even he had the sense to do that.

I think the time has come when the hon. the Prime Minister … [Interjections.] I do not want to hear the reply from a subordinate because he cannot give me a reply. We want to hear from the hon. the Prime Minister that he is going to put an end to little apartheid and to the harm which it does South Africa. [Time limit.]

The last person in this House who should talk about petty apartheid is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson). I shall now read out to him under what flag he fought an election during the time when he still was a member of the United Party of South West Africa. Here are his words:

This is the language used by that hon. member when fighting elections, and he stated further—

Now he is the one who has the audacity to rise here and talk about petty apartheid. He knows it is their policy and that is why he fought for it. But he has now turned a somersault; that is why it is so easy for him today to say it is easy to progress in the sphere of party politics. He cannot say that, Mr. Chairman, for he has already been a member of all the political parties in this country, and in not one of them has he made any progress. He did not make a success of party politics when he was a member of the United Party. He made less of a success of it while a member of the National Party. And his National Union Party days were still-born.

You were afraid of that.

I am not afraid of things that are still-born. At the present time he is once again a member of the United Party, but I make bold to say that he will fit in better with the Progressive Party or, still better, the Liberal Party.

I now revert to the allegation of the Opposition, an allegation they make year after year, that the policy of the National Party is to blame for the bad light in which the outside world regards us to-day. They say that if their party were to get into power, it would save South Africa from the misery confronting it. Mr. Chairman, let us test that statement, and see what other countries think on the policy of the United Party of this country. I have here the report of the last meeting of the United Nations Committee which is now going to be dealt with by UN, and what do they say about the policy of the United Party? They say this—

They will not hear of a race federation. They recommend that a race federation should not be accepted at all; it must be another kind of federation—

So what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition proposes, and what he recently also propagated in South West Africa when he told them: “Accept my policy, and then you will have a secure future”—this also is something that the rest of the world rejects.

What do the other countries say about his policy? What do they say about Mr. Niehaus’s policy? One of the leaders of the non-Whites said this about the policy of Mr. Niehaus, who is a partner of the United Party—

They reject him, Mr. Chairman; they also will not have any part of it. Let us go further. What did Britain say about the policy of the United Party? I should like to read to you what was said at UN on 13 November—

Full self-government must be granted to the Natives of South West Africa. To the Native, but not to the White man! What did he say further—

“Equal rights for all people.” I am putting this to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or anyone opposite: Are you in favour of equal rights being granted to White and non-White in South Africa? That is what Britain expects. That is the country whose favours they want us to win. Do they think Britain will allow South Africa to do what she herself will not allow her own colonies in Africa to do? No, what did Mr. Macmillan say when he made that speech here on the “Winds of change”? And what has become of all the Whites in all the British colonies in Africa? They have simply vanished, their influence has evaporated. And to come closer to the latest occurrences: What has become of the Federation?

What has become of the Transkei?

I am now dealing with the Federation. The Federation has broken up. There were the three parts: Nyasaland, the least developed of the three, has been given independence. Independence has also been granted to Northern Rhodesia, and they will shortly have it. But it is not granted to Southern Rhodesia, the most developed of those three territories, and where there are the largest number of Europeans. Why not? No, England says: We shall not give it to you before there is a majority government. It is true they do not mention “one man one vote”, but they demand a majority government.

It has been given to the Transkei.

The hon. member is obsessed with the Transkei, and that is all he can think of. I knew hon. members would be hurt if I mentioned these things. What is happening in Southern Rhodesia now? They cannot have independence unless and until there is a majority Government in power. And if England is not prepared to give it to her own people in Africa, why do you expect England to have sympathy with us here in South Africa, and to champion our cause, unless we are prepared to surrender the government to the majority of the people in South Africa? No, we can go further. What is the attitude of America towards South Africa, and towards the Whites in Africa? Mr. Soapy Williams has repeatedly said: “Africa for the Africans”. What does that mean? If it has any meaning it means that we in South Africa will have to go under; we shall not be able to maintain our position here and if America is not prepared to permit us to do what we wish to do here, what then is the significance of the pleas of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition? America does not even permit discrimination against her own Negroes. Their legislation forbids it, although in practice it is not enforced. Is there any hope of America saying: In South Africa we shall prevent the White man being overthrown, and we shall not allow the Black man to govern? No, it must be clear to each one of us that they are now mustering their forces against the White man in Africa and against the White man in South Africa. [Time limit.]

I would rather not react to what the Deputy Minister for South West Africa Affairs has said, because I understand that it has been agreed that we should say as little as possible about South West in this debate. But in any case I want to deal with one statement he made, the same statement which was made by the hon. member for Vereeniging when he said: What will the United Party’s policy contribute towards making us more popular in the outside world? Hon. members opposite ask what right we have to say that the policy of the United Party will give us a better opportunity or more time in which to seek our salvation? I shall try to get to that, but I first want to say this, that it has never been the standpoint of the United Party that in so far as the antagonism of the Afro-Asian states is concerned, the policy of the United Party will gain the friendship of that group of nations. We have never said that. I say that neither the policy of the United Party nor the policy of the Nationalist Party, as we will see it developing during the next few years, will ever gain for us the goodwill and support of the Afro-Asian states. But I do say, and I shall try to prove it, that the policy of the United Party may again restore to us the friendship we enjoyed with the Western nations.

Why do you say that?

I am talking about the isolation in which South Africa finds itself at this stage. On one occasion the hon. the Prime Minister said that isolation was just a word; it was not something which meant anything. Sir, we have a feeling that the hon. the Prime Minister is being badly advised when he makes statements of that nature, because the isolation of a country is very sad, and our isolation from our Western friends, as it is developing now, is even more tragic. And it is no use saying that we are not becoming isolated from our Western friends. The hon. the Prime Minister himself said so. And may I say here that just lately we have heard very little of attacks being made here in this country and by our foreign representatives against everybody in the world, and that is a very welcome change. But on one occasion the hon. the Prime Minister stated that in the international sphere South Africa’s relations with her old friends were particularly good. Let us analyse that. Is that the case? Did not the Prime Minister invite the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Scandinavian countries to come here and to see for themselves what conditions are? Did they accept that invitation? If our relations with our former White friends are so favourable, could we not at least expect them to accept this invitation? I want to go further. If the hon. the Prime Minister believes in that statement he makes —and I have never yet accused him of dishonesty and of not believing what he says— why does he not invite the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Britain, America, Italy and France to come and observe conditions here? And if they cannot all come together, invite them separately. If our relations with the outside world are so favourable, why does not the hon. the Prime Minister go and visit the Western countries, when the opportunity offers, and strengthen these good relations? Surely that is the policy of a statesman. Why does he not go to UN and state his case there? How good are our relations with those Western civilized countries, and is the Prime Minister correct when he says that we have good relations with them?

What about boycotts?

I am not talking about boycotts and trade relations. Any right-minded South African deplores and hates these continuous threats of boycotts. I am talking about the relations which are developing between the Republic of South Africa and White Western civilization, which now refuses to take our part in any respect. We do not even have a defence treaty with any of them. We are so isolated in the international sphere that we do not even have a defence treaty with any country.

How do you know?

Apart from the Simonstown Agreement, of course. The hon. the Prime Minister came back after the last Prime Ministers’ Conference which he attended, and therefore we say that his judgment is sometimes not right or that he is badly advised, or as the result of a lack of opportunity to travel around overseas over a period of years he is out of touch with those White nations, because he came back from that conference and told us: “Yes, but there are some European countries which have great sympathy with us, like the Australian delegation and Mr. Menzies. They have the greatest sympathy with South Africa.” But what did the Prime Minister of Australia do a fortnight later? And has the Prime Minister since then ever told us again that we have the sympathy of another country in the southern hemisphere, like Australia? No, we will tell the Government why we are so unpopular among the other White nations. I shall not use my own words, but I will make somebody else speak, who says—

And what does the same person say further?—

There has been no forward motion—indeed there has been retrogression, calculated retrogression. Need I read the bill of particulars? For the past 15 years the Government of South Africa has built a barrier between the races—piling new restrictions upon old restrictions, etc.

And then he says, and these are the important words—

That is the policy of the United Party. [Time limit.]

It was really a deplorable phenomenon to listen to an hon. member like the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) saying the things he did and reading the quotations he read with such obvious relish. That is all I want to say about him.

Just like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson), he referred to the days when General Smuts was Prime Minister of South Africa and, according to him, had so many friends in the world. If the hon. members persist with that story that General Smuts had friends in the world and this Government has none, from which they infer that General Smuts’s policy was acceptable to the outside world whereas the policy Of this Government is not, there is no word to describe such behaviour other than “dishonest”. The hon. member knows very well, as does the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), that fate befell General Smuts at UN. I just want to read what was said in 1947 at a conference held at the Howard University in America, a Negro University, where a symposium was held and where, inter alia, Eleanor Roosevelt also spoke. This is what one of them said of General Smuts—

Now, is it fair, in view of the situation which was then already so clear and which developed from what it was when General Smuts had to deal with it to what it is to-day, and which would have developed to what it is to-day even had General Smuts still been here—is it fair and patriotic of an Opposition to adopt the standpoint they do? We have had another example of the same sort of tactics to-day. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said it was significant that Sir Hugh Foote, as a Briton who served in the UN Committee in regard to South Africa, signed a document in which the system of one man, one vote was recommended.

Does the Leader of the Opposition or any hon. member opposite wish to intimate that it is a new phenomenon for Britain to express herself in favour of the system of one man, one vote? There is the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson). Is it anything new for Britain to express herself in favour of the system of one man, one vote? Let him tell me, then we can argue about it further. The Leader of the Opposition adopted the standpoint that it was a shocking thing that a British representative should sign a document which is in favour of one man, one vote. Now I want to know from the hon. member for Pinelands whether this is something new? Are they shocked because it is new? No, it suits him, and it suits his argument. The Leader of the Opposition indicated that South Africa was becoming increasingly isolated, and that there was increasing unfriendliness towards South Africa. and now proofs have to be manufactured. Surely it is not only from today that Britain has expressed itself as being in favour of one man, one vote. Surely there are many members opposite who were in this building when Mr. Macmillan made a speech here and said that “merit and merit alone” would count. Do they remember it? If they were shocked then, I could understand it, but I do not understand why they are shocked today, except that they are misrepresenting the matter. I want to read to them what their own newspaper, the Cape Argus, said after Mr. Macmillan’s visit—

I can give them other examples also of how long it is that Britain has been expressing herself in favour of it; and then the Leader of the Opposition comes here to-day and condemns the recommendations of that Committee. Did he disapprove of Mr. Macmillan’s speeches here in South Africa? Did he contradict him? Is there a single hon. member opposite who contradicted Mr. Macmillan’s speeches in South Africa? No, not one of them did. But to-day they want to pose as the great champions of the continued existence of the Whites, as people who are shocked at the fact that Britain associates herself with one man, one vote. Why have they not done so before? Because at that time they were trying to create the impression at UN and in the outside world that there was support in South Africa for that trend of thought. They did so consistently. Otherwise I cannot explain why they did not contradict Mr. Macmillan. Did this committee which is now being condemned by the Leader of the Opposition, and which appealed to South Africa, or demanded from us that we should hold a National Convention, come along with a new idea? The hon. member for Yeoville surely knows that the convention idea has been raised in South Africa previously. Mandela tried to sell that idea to us in 1961 already, and all the English-language newspapers tried to do the same, and the hon. member for Yeoville and his leader and the whole of their party had not a word to say against it. If hon. members opposite did not say a single word of condemnation in 1961 in regard to that agitation by Mandela for a National Convention, which was supported and promoted by the English-language Press, did they not thereby contribute towards bringing the world under the impression that in South Africa, and particularly on the part of the Opposition, there was support for the idea of having a National Convention?

We have had many debates here about the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. and Poqo. What was the standpoint of the Opposition? They disapprove of violence. But they repeatedly stated that those actions were due to the policy of the Government. Did they not thereby create the illusion which exists abroad to-day that in this country there is support for those things which are being recommended? That is what they did. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself—I have referred to this previously—said on one occasion: “We must make it clear in the eyes of the world that we disagree with the Government”. I asked on that occasion, and I ask again now: Why does the Leader of the Opposition want to make it clear in the eyes of the outside world that he differs from this Government? Is it not his duty …

But we do differ from the Government.

I heartily welcome the fact that we differ. However, I ask why it is necessary to make this clear to the outside world, when if they want to come into power they must make it clear to the electorate that they differ from this Government? Why do they appeal to the outside world? Let them not thereby contribute to the attitude we see in that UN Committee to-day and which we discern in regard to the conference in London, that if enough pressure is applied then there is an Opposition in South Africa which will agree with those recommendations? That is the illusion which they create. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Innesdale (Mr. J. A. Marais) of course is not correct when he says that an appeal by the British Prime Minister for “merit and merit alone” is synonymous with an appeal for “one man one vote”. The hon. member has not understood the implications of the idea of merit as a yard-stick. The hon. member has not understood that the yard-stick, provided it is applied equally to members of all races, is still non-discriminatory, but that such a yard-stick may indeed still be a qualified franchise. This is completely different from laying down “one man one vote” or universal franchise. To my knowledge that is not being demanded by Britain, in any country in Africa, it is not being demanded in Southern Rhodesia …

Are you so ignorant?

I am not saying that the African countries are not demanding it. I am refuting the statement made by the hon. member for Innesdale that that is what Britain demanded in Africa. She did no such thing. It has never been demanded by the other Western countries, and it was not even demanded by the United States. In fact it might interest hon. members to know that the Civil Rights Bill which has already gone through the House of Representatives in America and is at the moment being considered by the Senate, has indeed a qualified franchise. One of the four points laid down in the section dealing with the franchise is that the sixth grade of education shall be considered as legal evidence of literacy. In other words, if it can be proved that a person has not attended school to the sixth grade, that person can be disfranchised. This applies to everybody. It is non-discriminatory. But it is not “one man one vote”. But the other section of the franchise laws lays down that no qualifications shall be applied on any racially discriminatory basis. Very different from demanding “one man one vote”!

Do you agree that that will lead to a Black Government in South Africa?

It might very well in the future lead to a Black Government in South Africa, and providing it leads to a civilized, evolved and experienced government run by experienced people, I have no objection to that. I and my party have made that absolutely clear. But I can tell the hon. member for Vereeniging that if he goes on adamantly denying all rights to people, that would certainly lead to a Black Government in this country and a Black Government by violence as against a Black Government by evolution, by co-operation in a multi-racial state. Because if that experience and evolutionary trend is continued there is nothing to stop Africans from co-operating with Whites and working together in a multi-racial state, and that is what would happen. I want to say further to the hon. member for Vereeniging that his Rhodesian example is a bad example. Rhodesia waited eight long years before she started to implement the policy of partnership. It is only in the last two years that the practical implementation of partnership has in fact been undertaken in Rhodesia and that is the reason why it now fails because by that time every single educated African had lost all faith, or let me say, every African, educated or otherwise, had lost all faith in the White man’s word. African leaders, extremists, therefore, were able to persuade their followers that they should not accept any concessions granted by the White people. Our position is different. We are in a position of strength. We are able to negotiate from a position of strength and our Africans are anxious not to lose their standard of living which, though low in comparison with the standard of the Whites in this country, is still much higher than that of Africans elsewhere. They too are not keen to lose it, and they know that by the taking over by Blacks in an immediate form, they jeopardize their own livelihood. That is why I believe we still have a chance to negotiate with moderate Africans, and if the Government would do some consulting with moderate Africans, city Africans, urbanized people who form the most advanced section of the African population, it might get somewhere instead of making defiant noises about rather dying in the laager, which as far as I am concerned leads nowhere.

Now I want to say something in reply to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said. He talked about the removal of “klein apartheid”. I agree with a good deal of what he said earlier on. He was not of course expounding his own party’s policy. When he talked about the removal of discrimination on a racial basis as being the only salvation for winning world approval, I agree with him, because this is the issue. Racialism is the issue of the second half of the 20th century. The struggle between the haves and the have nots, labour and capital, was the issue of the last century, but as was clearly pointed out by Professor Carter in a brilliant paper delivered before the Institute of Race Relations, the issue now is racialism. I agree then with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. But that is not his party’s policy, and when he says that the removal of petty apartheid will do the trick, I disagree. Just removing notices is only removing a visible sign which irritates people, but it does not affect the basic policy, unless the racial discrimination underlying that policy also goes. So that is the first thing But there are other things which will do a tremendous amount to set right South Africa’s prestige in the outside world, and I want to ask the Prime Minister now whether he does not think that one dramatic stroke like appointing a commission of inquiry into all the allegations of ill treatment in our prisons will not do an enormous amount to re-establish our prestige in the outside world? Recently we had the Bultfontein case, where three people were found guilty of using the most outrageous forms of ill treatment on prisoners.

That is sub judice.

No, it is not. My information is that the Judge has turned down the application for leave to appeal made by one of the accused. So the Bultfontein case is no longer sub judice and therefore I am fully entitled to raise the matter.

Order! My information is that that case is still sub judice.

May I draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that Sapa has reported that the application for leave to appeal was refused. But leaving the Bultfontein case aside, let us go into all the other allegations, and the case recently heard at White River, which is not sub judice, where the police were found guilty of using electric shock machines on prisoners. On this one case alone, together with the evidence which has come out in (many other cases, the Prime Minister should appoint a commission of inquiry. I want to give him the example of what happened in (Britain a few years ago. I read from a report issued in 1959—

There was one case of alleged ill treatment leading to a legal inquiry. I ask the hon. the Prime Minister what sort of an effect it will have on the relations of this counry with the civilized Western countries of the world if he had the courage to stand up in this House and say that he takes the responsibility for saying that a commission of inquiry will be appointed into the allegations of ill treatment by the police here. This is the sort of example one finds in a country which is not obsessed with a persecution mania, a country like Britain where, if there is a case of ill treatment, it is not considered to be a witch-hunt against the police or as an attempt to blacken the country’s name in the world, but where it is considered important to re-establish the good name of the police in the eyes of the public, and the prestige of Britain in the eyes of the world. Therefore an inquiry is instituted in Britain on one case of ill treatment alone, because it is so essential that in dealing with matters like this the police be kept absolutely in the clear, and if they behave badly proceedings shall immediately be taken against them. Particularly in a country like South Africa, where the vast majority of the people have no say in the laws that govern their lives, it is absolutely essential that no suspicion be allowed to go uncleared as regards the treatment of such people by those who are meant to carry out the laws. Therefore I say that the Prime Minister should indeed follow the example of the British Prime Minister and stand up in this House to-day, as the British Prime Minister stood up in the House of Commons in 1959, and announced that it was his intention to appoint a commission of inquiry.

There is something unreal about this debate at this stage in that the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) has said here that she is representative of a train of thought which can consider with equanimity the possibility of the political control in South Africa falling into the hands of Black people, resulting in this White nation which lives here in South Africa losing its right of self-determination and losing that fatherland which all of us who live here regard as our fatherland; and in that that hon. member could say further that she deprecated the fact that people made noises or mumbled about “dying in a laager”, let me tell that hon. member—and I hope it will be said in these debates also by those in authority— that what she is hearing are not simply noises; what she hears is the very determined voice of a whole nation. Although we may sometimes differ in regard to methods to be followed, I still believe that we are united as a nation in our desire to retain this country of ours and to retain our freedom. I say further that people who openly repudiate that freedom and refuse to recognize this right of ownership that we have to our country, and who seek to attack us on this score, will become the rightful victims of our will to assert ourselves and to destroy our enemies.

I also want to refer to one unfortunate matter to which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) referred—the multi-racial reception given by the British Embassy in South Africa. This is a matter which none of us in these Government benches would have raised because we feel, as do the responsible members of the Opposition that at this stage, we should remain silent in regard to gross injustices of this nature rather than do anything that can be exploited to the detriment of South Africa. But the hon. member for Bezuidenhout did the most reprehensible thing which any hon. member of this House could do, bearing in mind the unfortunate situation that we have in this country where, for the past few years, the representatives of large powers in this country have no longer chosen to conduct themselves in a way which fits in with our customs. We who grew up in a simple and humble way have always been taught that while in our host’s home, we should follow the customs of our host, and we have also heard that it is diplomatic tradition to follow the practice of the country which is the host. We were shocked and dismayed to notice a display of social practices here which were nothing less than a provocation of South Africa’s accepted social policy which has been followed by all parties and through the generations. But while we have tolerated these things in silence and while the State has shown its disapproval by first limiting, and later prohibiting the attendance of members of the Government at such functions, that hon. member has deemed fit to come forward and accuse this Government on that score in this debate and at this stage in the history of our country. And he did this even though he must have read in the Johannesburg newspapers—I am sure he noticed the report—which has been available here in Cape Town since yesterday evening, that the wife of one of the accused in the high treason trial, Mrs. Sisulu, was a guest of honour on that occasion, something which is deliberately and shockingly provocative as far as every South African who has a sense of law and order and a sense of social propriety, and who is desirous of maintaining good foreign relationships with our most important ally in the field of foreign affairs, is concerned. I find it petty and deplorable that the hon. member saw fit to raise that matter and that he did not have the circumspection to allow an unfortunate, disastrous and shameful matter of this nature to be consigned to the limbo of forgotten things.

This brings me to the whole tone of this debate. At this undoubtedly serious stage in our national life, in this most important debate that we could have under the Estimates, attacks have been launched against us by the Opposition that have been based on half truths, attacks on the policy of the hon. the Prime Minister, that the policy of the development of border industries is being pursued too slowly because during the past three years only 4,000 new posts have been established for Bantu there each year and because the policy of the development of border industries is not really to the taste of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition simply because this work was started at Rosslyn, Hammersdale and East London. No, he said, this work should have been started on the borders of the Transkei itself. Every hon. member on that side who has a knowledge of economics would have been able to take us to task in no uncertain fashion if we had neglected those places at which the basic essentials for industrial growth, electrical power, roads, schools, hospitals and so forth, exist, and had gone 80 or 100 miles further into the bush and had duplicated the existing services. Because the essence of the policy of the development of border industries is simply to enable the Bantu to live and work in his own homeland as a free citizen with the prospect of greater freedom in the future, it makes no difference if those industries are established near Durban or East London or at some distance away from these centres. But hon. members opposite tell these half-truths in order to make propaganda and try to prove that the policy in connection with the development of border industries has not been successful.

The presently exaggerated statements in regard to the shortage of manpower have been repeated by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and he rounded off his argument by saying that we were not making use of the potential of our non-Whites in connection with our manpower problem. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party have neglected to tell us all during this Session what the views of their party are in this regard; and to what extent, Within which limits or otherwise, the non-White manpower potential should be utilized. I do not want to mention a large number of statistics to refute the accusation about training facilities but I want to tell hon. members of the United Party that there were 25 high schools in the Transvaal in 1949, when they controlled education in the Transvaal, and that under the National Government this number has virtually trebled over a period of ten years. I want to mention the shameful fact that they only allowed three Afrikaans-medium high schools to be established on the entire Witwatersrand and thus robbed a generation of about 25,000 young Afrikaners of the opportunity of writing their matriculation examination. These then are the people who dare to accuse us of creating insufficient facilities for technical education, and this after there has been a reorganization of our high school system and an expansion of our technical education system! This is another one of those half-truths. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout stood up here in his assumed guise as a prophet and told us that South Africa’s salvation will only be found in a better understanding between the races. He told us that a better understanding between the races would ensure the salvation of South Africa. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) told us that the noises, the muttering, mentioned by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), did not emanate from a laager but that this sound was the voice of the Whites in South Africa demanding that South Africa be retained for the White man, and I take it that here he also included hon. members on this side. This brings me to the statement made here by the hon. member for Innesdale (Mr. J. A. Marais) who asked whether it was fair and patriotic of my hon. Leader to say that if it had not been for the policy of this Government we would not have become so alienated from the rest of the world. I want to put this question to him. Does he really believe that if this Government had not removed the three Native Representatives but had increased their numbers to eight or even ten, we would now be experiencing the same antagonism throughout the world that we are experiencing to-day? And if he does believe this, why does he not tell us that when the last conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers was held, the then Prime Minister of Canada said that South Africa would be given another chance if she showed the slightest indication of a change of heart?

And what became of him?

If the other Prime Ministers of the White nations had not agreed with him, I am sure that they would have interrupted him and would have told him that that was not so. Even though the hon. the Prime Minister says and believes that isolation is no threat to us, the United Party believes that it is a terrible threat to our country when South Africa is expelled from one international organization after another. I am speaking now about the Food and Agricultural Organization, which is an important organization and which is not a political organization; I am speaking of the Scientific Council, south of the Sahara, a body to which this Country of ours would like to give advice in connection with scientific research, and from which we have been expelled; I am speaking of the Economic Committee for Africa from which we have been expelled; I am speaking of the International Labour Organization of which it was so important to us to remain a member. I am not speaking now of sporting organizations. We might still be able to get by without participating in international sport. But it is important as far as the people of South Africa are concerned and it is important as far as the Opposition and the Government are concerned that UN should not talk and act in the direction of interfering in our domestic affairs and appoint committees to come to this country in order to teach us what we should do. We want to govern the country ourselves, without interference. But we shall not be able to govern it for any length of time if the Government persists in its policies which are alienating us to such an extent in the international sphere. Eventually we will find ourselves entirely alone. More than one hon. member on that side of the House has asked us: “In what way will your policy be of more advantage to the country than the policy of the Government?” I want to ask this counter-question: Is the hon. the Prime Minister being honest —I know he will say that he is—when he says that a number of independent Bantustans must be established and that they must eventually also control their own affairs, even as far as defence is concerned? Is there anyone on the Government side who can tell us, if this is the case, why the safety of this country should be based on a confederation of states, on a treaty between those states, even though they know that it is not worth the paper on which it is written? And what international treaty of this nature, this federation of states—I am not speaking now of uniracial states or of White states; I am not speaking about America or Australia; I am speaking about multi-racial states which have concluded an agreement and have formed a confederation so that when trouble arise … [Interjections.]

Order!

I am speaking about a federation of states where multi-racial states and non-White states try to conclude an agreement on a federal basis without having a statutory, federal council which has authority over all parliaments, and I am speaking of an agreement in the sphere of defence which is not worth the paper on which it is written when trouble arises. That is no good; it cannot work; it has no future. All it does is to alienate us more and more from the outside world until we reach the point of no return. It has been said in the international debates of the world that if we give the world an indication that we want to change our policy—I know that the hon. the Prime Minister has said that if the United Party persists with its policy it will be setting foot on the slippery road of “no return”, but if this is an argument, what about the representation of the Coloureds and the Indians and all the things which the Government is trying to do and trying to get away with? Has the criticism of South Africa in connection with the representation of the Coloured people ever been as sharp as it is in regard to our treatment of the Bantu? It has never been as sharp. What reason do hon. members opposite have for saying that the policy which we want to follow will not provide us with a solution and will not make the Western nations better disposed towards us? We believe that if we give some measure of self-determination to the Bantu, as provided for in the policy of the United Party, we will indeed gain the goodwill of the Western nations to this extent that they will give us time to work out our own salvation. That is the most important point. Time is the most important factor. This country has no time under the policy of this Government. Its time has run out. We believe that under the policy of the United Party we will still have the time to enable our country to work out its own salvation.

The hon. member who has just sat down asked the hon. the Prime Minister whether he did not believe that if he had not done away with the three Native Representatives whom we had in this House, and instead of doing away with them, had given the Bantu eight representatives in this House, we would in this way have won the goodwill of the world. I do not hesitate to say quite frankly that we firmly believe that we would certainly not have been able to win the goodwill of the world by that means. We could only have won the goodwill of the world by, firstly, substituting three non-White representatives for the three Whites, although the matter would not have rested there; we could have given the Bantu 18 non-White representatives and their next demand would have been: What is the number of the non-White voters in South Africa? They must be represented in Parliament in proportion to their numbers. That would have been the demand of the world.

The hon. member referred here to what the Prime Minister of Canada asked the hon. the Prime Minister on the occasion of the Commonwealth conference—whether the hon. the Prime Minister would not make some small concession and said that, if he did, they would be satisfied. The hon. the Prime Minister put this counter-question to the conference: And if we do so, will that be the end of the story? Will you be satisfied with that? The reply was: No, that will only be the beginning. Well, once one has started, one has to continue, and what will the end be? I want to come back to what I said. Once we make a start by giving the non-Whites representation here, we will have to go further. The pressure of world opinion will force us to make more and more concessions until eventually we will not be able to make any further concessions. When we reach that stage the authority of the White man in South Africa will be at an end. But the hon. member and other hon. members opposite also said that our country finds itself in a very bad position as far as the outside world is concerned. He quoted to us what is being said about us abroad. I want to put this question to him: What are he and his party doing to put South Africa in a better light abroad? I challenge him to mention one occasion on which they have tried to help South Africa out of her difficulty instead of adding to that difficulty. Their party fellows in South West invite the outside world to cause trouble for us but I wonder whether they realize that they will never be able to subjugate the National Party in South West Africa by means of their policy. I want to tell the House what happened. When Carpio visited South West Africa, the leader of the United Party in South West made a statement. I want to quote the exact words he used. He said (translation)—

I put this to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Does he approve of the fact and do any of the members of his party approve of the fact that a person who is the leader of a party should invite the outside world, and specifically UN, to act as a pressure group in order to take South Africa by the throat and force her to give in? That is what we find on the part of hon. members opposite and I do not hesitate to say that the Opposition will make use of any assistance that they can obtain from outside simply in order to remove the National Party from office. But the people have confidence in the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government. The people have proved this on the occasion of every election and every by-election. It is proved by the numbers of people leaving that pa-ty because they can no longer tolerate conditions in that party and joining this party because they are happy in this party.

The hon. the Deputy Minister asked a very fair question. It was: When you make a beginning, where is the end? I want to ask the Prime Minister: When is he going to make a real beginning with his policy in relation to the Bantustans, and when he makes the beginning and creates the first Bantustan and gives independence to the Transkei, where is the end for South Africa then? The hon. the Deputy Minister and all the other hon. members opposite spoke about South Africa making concessions, but they are always obsessed with the vote. They have in their minds the idea of one man, one vote. But the Deputy Minister went even further, and in support of this fear complex that he wants to build up in people, he quoted the American Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Mr. Mennen Williams. He said that this gentlemen had said: Africa for the Africans. Sir, the Deputy Minister should know very well that Mr. Williams at a later stage indicated that he meant all Africans, whether White or Black; and he should know that the late President of America, the last time he addressed UN, went out of his way to point out that America did not advocate the rights of Black African to drive out White Africans. Surely if the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to state his case, he should do so fairly. But when hon. members opposite talk about South Africa and its relationship to the outside world and about concessions, as the hon. the Prime Minister is always doing, then they must remember that the charge levelled against us at the last United Nations meeting by the United States of America when we were called to book with a sanction motion was not that we were not giving one man, one vote or that our system of vote-giving was inadequate. In the words of Mr. Adlai Stevenson, the charge against us was that “the policy of apartheid denies the worth and dignity of the human being”.

That is not true.

That is the charge against South Africa, and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout went a long way to show in what way this policy did that and in what way this very question of denying people their dignity as human beings was taken up and was unanswerable in many respects. The hon. the Prime Minister talks about concessions meaning surrender. But does the hon. the Prime Minister not realize that it is his attitude, the Government’s attitude, particularly the one aspect of its policy, that makes it impossible for South Africa ever to sell itself and this policy overseas, and that is the inflexibility of the doctrine. The hon. the Prime Minister has shown himself to be inflexible, but his policy is inflexible and he must be inflexible with it. Sir, it is the awful finality of the doctrine of apartheid, as the doctrine of this Government’s policy, which ties our hands behind our backs. How can you ever negotiate with anyone if you have an inflexible dogma which you are not prepared to bend or move to adapt it to given circumstances? The hon. the Prime Minister has said that concessions mean surrender. Sir, that cannot be true in South Africa. If the hon. the Prime Minister means concessions in his policy, then let me say that despite the Government’s policies, the facts of South Africa are different. If you bend to meet the facts of South Africa then the only institution which is going to be harmed by it is the Nationalist Party and certainly not South Africa. Sir, one of those facts which my Leader mentioned was the increasing number of Bantu who came into the urban area; that number is steadily growing, and he predicted that they would continue to flow into the urban area. He is right, of course, and the hon. the Prime Minister knows that he is right. But if you have an inflexible policy such as this Government has, how can you possibly cope with a future situation; how can you possibly tell the rest of the world that you have a plan which is flexible enough to cope with whatever might happen in the future? You cannot do it.

Your flexibility means surrender.

Let me put an example to the hon. member over there. How do you sell the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill to the rest of the world? Mr. Adlai Stevenson, representing the United States of America, says that the policy of apartheid denies the worth and dignity of the human being. Sir, is the answer to that “yes” or “no” when you look at the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill. How is the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs going to explain this Bill away?

Your policy is no different. Your policy is one of discrimination up to the hilt.

Sir, this is the crux of the whole problem. Our policy is not an inflexible dogma.

It is surrender.

Sir, one thing that we do and one thing that the Government does not do and one thing that it has to do if it is to cope not only with the situation in South Africa but with the outside world, is to have at least a flexible approach to the people of South Africa. The Government’s policy is that you have a certain state of affairs for Whites, and for everyone who is darker than most of the Whites you have another, separate and completely discriminating policy; that is their policy. But they do not differentiate between the Coloured people and the Indian people and the Bantu people in the application of those laws which offend human dignity; they do not draw any distinction. But let me say to the hon. the Prime Minister that if he were to unbend, not to the world but to the facts of South Africa, in relation to the Coloured people, then he would have a new deal in Foreign Affairs. He has in the Coloured people the key to the hearts of the Western world, and there is no reason whatever why he should not do it. He is not going to harm anyone in South Africa, but it will be a step in the right direction. Sir, look at job reservation. I do not know how many hon. members opposite have ever tried to sell the policy of this Government outside South Africa.

Have you tried?

The hon. member wants to know whether I have tried. Sir, this is one of the difficulties in which you find yourself as a South African; I as a South African have to try to defend this Government’s policy. I find myself as a South African defending South Africa and for better or for worse I find that it is this Government’s policy that I have to defend. Sir, it becomes increasingly difficult. One tries one’s best but it is very difficult. How do you possibly explain to the world that any person who is darker than most Whites must be allowed no opportunity of development and that job reservation must be applied against him? How do you explain that; how do you justify it? How do you say to a world, not so obsessed with colour as this Government is, “I deny opportunities to certain people who are not White …”

They will have these rights in their own areas.

The hon. member says that they will have these rights in their own areas. That is all very well in theory regarding the Bantu, but what about the Coloureds? Sir, this is a matter of human dignity. What justification is there for job reservation, even in South Africa? Sir, what is anyone expected to think when the hon. the Prime Minister says in a speech at Meyerton that the manpower shortage is so acute that he wants over 45s specially trained to take jobs and when he appeals to people to employ persons over 45 years of age because there is a manpower shortage? And yet here you have a wealth of Coloured people who do not have their own area in which to develop themselves, in which they can enjoy all these opportunities that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development speaks about. [Time limit.]

I sat waiting for a long time to see whether something would emerge from the debate which was really new and worth replying to. I regret to say that neither in the introductory speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition nor in the succeeding speeches of Opposition members could I find anything tangible to reveal a new trend of thought on which one could argue. All these arguments mentioned by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his followers have repeatedly been discussed here already. I can give the replies again, and I shall do so. I have noted the various points raised, but from time to time I looked through my notes in vain to ascertain whether, even by using a magnifying glass, I could find anything new. I must, alas, admit that I did not find it.

I now want to ask myself what the crux of his attack was; what is it actually about? As I see it, his attack is an accusation, born from his desire and the desire of all of us, that South Africa should meet the future in safety and happiness. We at least have that in common. We all want to see a happy, safe and prosperous South Africa in which there will be peace and good order. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, as the result of that desire, has made a reproach, which is that South Africa is in danger because the policy of the Government does not satisfy the outside world, and because as the result of that the outside world is reacting unfavourably to South Africa in various respects. Therefore his yard stick for obtaining peace and safety is what the outside world wants in regard to South Africa. That was also the whole theme of his speech. As against that, I use another yardstick. If I want to ascertain how South Africa can be happy and safe, then I ask myself what does South Africa itself consider will make it safe? If the outside world wants something else which is dangerous for South Africa then, even though the whole world wants it, I will not accede to it because then South Africa will have to suffer because of the wishes of others. Surely we know that in this great world of ours, in spite of world organizations which are allegedly there to facilitate mutual consultation in order to maintain peace, every nation puts its own interests in the foreground. The interests of the great nations are put in the foreground to such an extent that many smaller nations are prepared to accept that the will of those great nations will also bring happiness to them, at least if they live in the same part of the world. Russia’s satellites believe that the way indicated by Russia is the way to world peace, or at any rate the way to benefit themselves. The Western nations think that if Britain and the United States (and perhaps Germany and France also, provided they play along with them) indicate a certain direction, that will be the best way of ensuring peace in the world. But when the two large groups come into conflict with each other, or manoeuvre for position, we find that every Government judges its participation in those manoeuvres in terms of the benefits that can be derived for its own country. However, the Governments of those great leading nations— and that is why they sometimes even come into conflict with one another—judge everything by how it will effect their own nation and their own country. It is therefore not peculiar when we say that we will test what is best for us by reference to our own situation in our own country, our own interests and our own objectives. We have set ourselves a clear objective. It is that we as a White nation which is settled here and which has developed here, and which has developed the country and brought prosperity not only for ourselves but also for the non-Whites in our midst, will continue to exist in future as an independent autogenous nation. That is our unshakeable object, an object in regard to which we will not negotiate and which we will not abandon. Hon. members opposite say that we are inflexible and refuse to make concessions. Very well, let them say so. On that point we are completely unconciliatorv. Is that objective (viz. that South Africa should remain White) equally important to Britain or to the United States or to any other country one can mention? I am not talking now about Africa and Afro-Asian countries: I am referring to the great Western nations whom we are prepared to support in the struggle against Communism if that should come about one day. Is making absolutely certain of the continued existence of the Whites here an equally firm objective for them? The reply is clearly no. In the struggle for their own interests as they see them— whether those are ideal interests or material interests—they only see South Africa as a pawn on the world chessboard. If it gets in the way it must be destroyed. They are not keen on losing it, because a player does not sacrifice his pawns in vain, but if it has to be done such nations will sacrifice that pawn in order to attain their own objectives. They have already sacrificed various parts of Africa. They have also sacrificed their authority in various parts of Asia. That was not always accompanied by great success or benefits for humanity, nor was it even always to the benefit of the inhabitants of those areas, not to mention the small White minority groups there. I am referring particularly to the non-White inhabitants of those areas whom they have sacrificed. The surrender did not benefit them, or at least not in every case. But the White nations acted in that way because they considered that it was to their advantage in their struggle for existence, in their hope of obtaining commercial or political partners, or to obtain a “good image” in the world, which is also one of their objectives. Therefore South Africa cannot test its policy by the yardstick of what suits the large nations of the world, or by what is preferred by our friends or by what is in line with the resolutions of UN organizations. We cannot ask ourselves what suits the great majority of new states which stand together at the meetings of UN in order to achieve their own objects, even though they themselves are poor and weak in many respects. We cannot use those yardsticks to determine our policy. We can apply one yardstick only, and that is: What is the best policy for South Africa to follow to achieve its objective?

In that regard there are two lines of thought. There is the one line of thought which has various shades, and that is that we should ensure our safety on the basis of some form of multi-racial political society; that if we allow the Bantu, the Coloured, the Indian and the White man to govern the country according to one of various forms of constitution, we will then have peace and safety. Among those various shades of multi-racial government, we have the policy of the main Opposition party, the United Party, which sets out from the principle that we must accept multi-racialism but try to have a guarantee (for as long as possible, “for the foreseeable future”) of White domination implicit in it. One should obtain this guarantee by assuming that discrimination is acceptable, that one can draft a constitution limiting the power of the various Coloured groups in order to ensure that the Whites remain in power as long as possible. One can say that formerly this was also the British policy in regard to its territories in Africa.

As against that, we have the other standpoint. namely our standpoint, which is inter alia that the preservation of White supremacy will not be ensured in that way. The history of the development of nations proves it; the history of Africa during the past 10 or 20 years proves it. Whatever guarantees are written into whatever constitutions, and whatever wishes and objectives the Opposition may have, in the final result, if they want to link up the various racial groups in one multiracial society, the majority group will and must eventually become the dominant group in the political sphere. Not only will that happen, but the world, as it is now, will demand that of a United Party Government. It is true that countries like Britain and the United States will now say—and they will mean it—that at the moment they do not expect South Africa to apply the system of one man, one vote, but it is also true that they have stated previously that they just ask for something, and also stand by one in respect of such a point, but have then changed their attitude. In that way Britain stood by us in UN for years in respect of our standpoint in regard to the application of the section that says that no interference is to be allowed in domestic affairs, but under the pressure of the Afro-Asian states and for the sake of her image in their eyes and to gain their support, Britain later decided: “Now I must make concessions; now I must abandon South Africa in that respect.” I know that Britain, as she always does when she changes her course, has always tried to justify it by a pious motive. The excuse is: “Yes, but this domestic matter has now become of world importance!” But that is rationalization. We need take no notice of that. We have to deal only with the actual fact that a country’s strongest friends and supporters amongst the nations, when it suits their own interests, simply put the interest of their own nation first, and to do that they will withdraw their former support and change their attitude. In the same way they will also abandon the idea that the majority group should not govern (and not demand one man, one vote), which was previously accepted by them also in regard to some other countries in Africa, but which later no longer remained the standpoint they adopted there. I shall come back to this in a moment when I approach this argument from a different angle.

Therefore there are these two policies. The Government party says: No, we believe that from a multi-racial society we can expect no other result than the one I have just sketched, viz. one man, one vote, or Black domination, and therefore if South Africa wants to achieve its objective of remaining White there is only one method, and that is to segregate the Whites and the Blacks. The Whites and the Bantu have really been territorially segregated historically, although many of them crossed the borders to the other side, and some of us crossed the border to that side, for various reasons. The fact remains that right throughout our history the White Governments preserved what was Bantu territory and what was White territory. Now we say that if this is accepted as a principle, namely that the Bantu should have the right to have their own territories and to develop them to the greatest possible extent within their powers—also independence, if they can progress so far—it amounts to nothing else but what happened in Europe or in South America when one state after another came into existence after the empires to which they had originally belonged disintegrated. If there is to be an amalgamation of all the people in South Africa, what will the Republic be other than really not a uninational state but a state with various nations living in it, one of which tries to remain dominant in terms of the United Party policy? Now the National Party says: Instead of following that course which has always been self-destructive, let us accept the fact that we have separate nations here, with all the comcomitant problems, even if Black and White states exist next to each other. We need not be afraid of that because something like this will happen in any case, and it will be beyond our control; an independent Black state established by Britain in Northern Rhodesia, and other Black states established by Britain in Basutoland, Swaziland and Bechuanaland, and still more of them to the north of us. Let us then accept as a fact something similar happening so far as the Transkei and the Zulu territory are concerned, if that then has to happen, as well as other territories. Let the Republic, in accordance with that concept of separation, try to build a basis of good neighbourliness and co-operation by which it tries to avoid the possibility of conflict. After all, all these areas are near enough to each other to have common interests. Those common interests must be promoted on the basis of political independence from one another, and not on political conflicts in one area.

As against that, it has been said: Yes, but what about the danger if one or other of these areas now being established by the Republic becomes a second Zanzibar or a second Cuba? The one reply has already been given: Yes, but what if the areas established has independent areas by other people becomes Cubas or Zanzibars? In addition, I again give the old reply I have so often given: A Cuba or a Zanzibar beyond the borders of the White state may be dangerous (not only inconvenient, but dangerous) but if 3,000,000 Whites live together in one state with four times as many of those same people who are liable to create a Cuba, surely it is much more dangerous. Then you are living together with them in that Cuba, with the further difference that you will constitute the oppressed minority inside that Cuba or that Zanzibar. Therefore I and my party adopt the standpoint that separate states are better, and in addition we can try, by applying our policy correctly, to obtain co-operation and friendship and good neighbourliness in the international political sphere and in the economic sphere and in every other possible sphere. The chances of having good relations are much better than when the principle of the suppression and oppression of a group is applied in the same state by giving it only a quarter or half the rights, Nevertheless that is what the United Party’s and the Progressive Party’s idea of multi-racialism entails. Friendly relations can better be built up in terms of the Government’s policy than in terms of the Opposition’s policy. That is the difference between us.

Having said that, I want to add that in spite of this great difference in policy, the standpoint of the United Party, viz. a multi-racial state governed according to its policy, will be just as unwelcome to the Afro-Asian states as the division into states we advocate. In fact, I think it will prove to be much more unwelcome. We still have a chance that in the end they will understand that we are doing with our Bantu areas what they ensured for themselves. Ghana saw to it that it severed its bonds with Britain. How can it blame the Transkei or the Republic if the Transkei becomes independent? Along that road they may still be convinced, but along the road of creating a multi-racial state in which the minority will ensure that it will remain in power for as long as possible while giving the other racial groups merely the crumbs of participation in government, what hope has one of convincing Black Africa that that is a good thing? Therefore both policies are unacceptable at this stage and in respect of both policies South Africa will come into conflict with the outside world. The West and the East, the communist states and the great Western states, all play the same game of trying to obtain Afro-Asian support. In that game they will sacrifice (if they have the power to do so) other people’s lives or the continued existence of a nation. We will not allow our lives and our continued existence to be decided by foreign interests.

Let me now approach from a slightly different angle the attack made by the United Party before discussing the particular points raised by the Leader of the Opposition. His accusation was that our unfortunate position is really the result of our policy. Which policy of ours has hitherto proved clearly that it has failed and has led to unfavourable conditions? Let us presuppose that we are still busy implementing our policy and that we cannot yet claim complete and eventual success. Then at least one cannot say that our policy has failed, for the simple reason that we are in fact achieving better understanding and greater friendship between the Whites and the Bantu in this country. I state that just as dogmatically as the Leader of the Opposition dogmatically alleged the opposite. I say that on the strength of experience whereas he makes his allegation on the strength of his desire to get us into difficulties. Race relationships are continually improving. Moreover, the prosperity in this country is attributable, amongst other things, to our colour policy because it has brought stability and it is only stability which produces the confidence which is the direct cause of this prosperity. That is what our policy has produced.

Let us take the policy of the Western powers which had colonies in Africa; let us take Britain specifically. What was the British policy; what was the British policy as it was applied to Kenya and Tanganyika and also to the Federation of Central Africa while it was still a Federation? Its policy/was precisely what the United Party wants in one form or another— whether it be a federation or whether a central Parliament comes into being with a small number of Bantu representatives—and that is to keep the Whites in power and to console the non-White by giving him a seat in your Parliament because then he feels that his human dignity has been taken into account. The theory was that if that was done it would satisfy everybody and that there would then be good government by the Whites with the harmonious co-operation of the non-Whites. That was Britain’s policy; that was the policy and the theory. What became of this in practice, however? After they had tried to introduce it, they found that the non-Whites were not satisfied. The majority was not satisfied with a subordinate position. They would not have been satisfied either therefore with qualifications of one kind or another which, in terms of Progressive Party policy, were designed to put certain people (the Whites) in power but not others (the Bantu). This was supposed to place all civilized people on a footing of equality, whereas everybody knows that the qualifications which will be laid down will be designed to place the Whites in a privileged position over the non-Whites—for a long period, at any rate. The Blacks in the British territories were not satisfied and the people who were incited and who were least satisfied were the people without qualifications. The resultant pressure forced Britain to adopt a new policy. That new policy was that Kenya and Tanganyika were to become Black-controlled countries.

Take the case of the Federation of Central Africa. There the British policy, and also that of Sir Roy Welensky at first, was to give a seat to a small little group of non-Whites in the central Parliament; secondly, to make use of the prosperity of the Rhodesias to help to build up Nyasaland, and, thirdly, to see to it that the prosperity that Northern Rhodesia derived from the mining industry was divided amongst all three territories. The aim was to meet the demands of the non-Whites by taking them along with the Whites as junior partners. And what became of that policy? Nyasaland, although she was the least prosperous of the three territories, wanted to get out of the Federation because she wished to be a Black-controlled state and her population wanted to be able to say, “This is our country.” The tendency in fact was towards a separate existence. What happened in the case of Northern Rhodesia? Precisely the same thing. And what happened there to the British policy of junior partnership? Britain abandoned that policy. The promise made by Britain to the Federation originally to amalgamate these territories on the basis of White rule with non-White co-operation went by the board. Britain abandoned that policy (which was similar to that of the United Party) and in practice handed over to the Black man the sole control of those territories. But what else is happening? What is happening to the remaining part of the Federation, Southern Rhodesia? After all, there too Britain’s policy was that the White man should rule and continue to rule this multiracial state and Parliament. Now that Southern Rhodesia is asking for her independence on the basis of that British policy, that is to say, on the basis of a policy such as that of the United Party, is Southern Rhodesia getting any support from Britain and will she obtain Britain’s support in the future? We do not know. We have a very good idea as to what will happen, but I leave it at that. The only question I pose is whether the policy of the United Party (judging by the broad basic implementation of Britain’s policy in respect of the African territories which I have mentioned) can be applied with success.

My next question is this: Was the policy of integration successful in Algeria under French rule? Was the integration policy successful in the Congo under Belgian rule? Is the policy of integration in the form in which it is being implemented in the United States of America —where they have strived to achieve integration for 100 years and where the policy of integration has been applied intensively over the past 10 years in order to create a favourable image of the U.S.A. in the world—had any success as far as human relationships are concerned? Even in those cases where Black nations have to be integrated no success can be achieved. Has any success been achieved in Malaya in bringing about integration between the Chinese, the Indians and the Malays? Is integration a success in Ceylon between the Indians and the Ceylonese? And so one could go on. Integration has proved an outright failure. It is a sad thing therefore that South Africa is the only country in the world which is being picked on to-day, and South Africa is being picked on because the Whites are ruling here with great success and because South Africa is envied. If the same standards were applied all over the world, then the reaction of world opinion would have to be the same in the case of virtually most countries of the world as it is in the case of South Africa. Sir, is this the sort of inconsistent opinion in deference to which South Africa is expected to abandon her aim to ensure the survival of the White race here? Or must South Africa stand her ground? Is South Africa’s preservation not dependent upon her adopting a different course to that adopted by the Whites, or the course which could have been adopted by the Whites in other parts of Africa and which they did not adopt, perhaps because of their numbers? Those territories were not independent states. The Whites there were dependent on Britain’s attitude towards them. The Republic is an independent state and nobody acts on her behalf; we act for ourselves. It is essential, therefore, that we ask ourselves whether we can afford to choose the policy that Britain chose for those states which were under her guardianship, a policy which proved to be a failure as far as White rule is concerned. That policy may have been successful as far as Black rule is concerned but it failed in its aim to retain White rule. That is why I say that we must see to it that the colour policy in the Republic does not fail. We can only ensure that it does not fail by following the other policy, and that is the policy that we are following at the present time. Basically at any rate we shall be able to prove that it is only by creating separate nations that discrimination will in fact disappear in the long run. The South African White nation can co-operate on the basis of equality between nations with the non-White nation, whether they be in Asia or in Central Africa, whether they are neighbouring states created by South Africa herself or states created by Britain alongside or within South Africa’s borders. The way in which we are co-operating at the present time with existing Black and Coloured nations is well known. Where there is no co-operation it is due to the unwillingness of the others to co-operate. With Egypt and with India (or whatever other country it may be) we can deal on an equal footing as nation to nation. It is not we who refuse to co-operate, it is they. They want their ideas to triumph in our country so that the White man can disappear from this country and so that they will have a Black state to deal with here. That is the only reason why we are not on good international terms with them.

I think the time will still come when it will once again be possible to have the harmonious relationships which existed formerly. I want to emphasize, therefore, that when we examine the Opposition’s attack it simply amounts to the reproach that we are refusing to hand over South Africa to a selfish world opinion which is based on the self-interest of large groups or of powerful nations.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that he is backed by half the electorate of South Africa. On this point he does not have the support of the electorate. He may still get a large percentage of the votes at elections, but on this point he is no longer supported by the conviction of those people. I do not even believe that all the United Party members who sit here opposite me have faith in their colour policy. I believe that deep down in their hearts there are some members opposite who have more in common with us than with the progressive element in the United Party. I have found throughout the whole country that there are thousands and tens of thousands of persons who still wish to be known as United Party supporters but who specifically support the outlook which I have stated here and who are prepared to stand with us against world opinion in our efforts to achieve the object of preserving a White South Africa and who are prepared to make any sacrifices that that policy may entail.

I go further. I contend that there are many —I cannot say how many because it is difficult to judge—who will no longer support the Leader of the Opposition at the polling booth although they did support his Party at the previous election. I have a great deal of evidence to substantiate that statement. The attack made here by the Opposition to-day is therefore without substance in my opinion. It is meaningless in this sense that it ignores the crux of the problem. The crux of the problem is whether it is more important to be in the good books of world opinion than it is to make up your own mind as to how best you can ensure your survival as a White race in this country. I do not want to push aside the nations of the world; I should not like to be on hostile terms with them; I should like to seek the friendship of others, but I can only seek that friendship within the limits of the right that South Africa herself must have to formulate her own policy in respect of what is to happen within South Africa. The moment those other nations are prepared to stop interfering with the way in which we develop and rule the various population groups of South Africa, that moment there can be the greatest friendship between those nations and ourselves.

In this connection I want to say a few words about the idea of isolation—the reproach which is so frequently levelled at us. Isolation is not a general concept which can easily be applied to a state. A state can be isolated, as I have said previously, in respect of her international policy or it may even be isolated in respect of one phase of international politics. South Africa, for example, is isolated in respect of one issue of international politics and that is her colour policy—not her colour policy as it affects the relationships between the Republic and other states but only her colour policy within her own State. South Africa is not isolated in relation to other countries of importance in respect of many other aspects of her foreign policy. We are agreed on many points and we are continually conducting negotiations. They know that, and they rely on us in that connection. That is why I say that the word “isolation” cannot appropriately be applied to our relationship with these other states in the sphere of international politics, and there are many other spheres in which it can be applied even less appropriately. Here I refer to the spheres of trade, science, art, sport, etc. I admit, of course, that these other things are sometimes dragged into some of the special technical organizations. The F.A.O., for example, ruined its technical task by allowing Africa States to drag in political issues: the I.L.O. allowed itself to be influenced by political disputes. The World Health Organization did the same thing. Sir. it is tragic. It is true that we decided to withdraw from some of those bodies, for reasons which have already been announced, and it is true that we have also decided not to withdraw from others, for reasons which have also been announced. But the fact that we withdrew from such organizations or that we are still members of such organizations in no way detracts from the further fact that we are still retaining our links with other nations in the sphere of health, in the sphere of welfare work, in the sphere of labour and in the sphere of food and assistance. A State may cease to be a member of a particular body and yet its scientists or economists, etc., etc., can still remain in continual and intimate contact with the outside world. And private bodies, companies and persons can retain their old relationships. Those few international organizations from which we have withdrawn are not the be-all and end-all of harmonious relationships. They are just a few of the more visible means towards that end. We are not at all as isolated as the Opposition alleges. In the sphere of international relations our links with other nations are very evident; in the sphere of trade they are very evident. In other spheres where they are less evident, our links with other nations are not as weak as they would appear to be.

Let me say again that in many spheres, including the political sphere, we are not without contacts with other Governments and the leaders of other nations. We know perfectly well what their views are on many issues. We know that in many countries of the world, even at official level, we enjoy a wealth of friendship. We have harmonious relations with other countries to a much greater extent than the Opposition is prepared to admit. And let me add this: The Leader of the Opposition, in trying to suggest to the outside world that almost half the population will stand with him in an attack upon South Africa’s policy and that they would rather support world opinion than the opinion of the Government, is rendering a great disservice to South Africa. Sir, it is when the world believes that South Africa is weakening in maintaining her attitude that its opponents will try to bring more and more pressure to bear on her. Perhaps that is what the Leader of the Opposition wants. Perhaps he agrees with some of his members who tell the public that the United Party will never come into power unless the outside world puts it in power. This attack made here by the Opposition to-day falls within the framework and within the pattern of that sort of aim. That is why I condemn this attack not only because it is weak and because it is the same sort of attack that we have had throughout the years and that has been answered frequently, but I condemn it as a renewed attempt to obtain publicity for the impression which is sought to be created in the outside world that South Africa is divided. I say again that as far as this aspect of its policy is concerned South Africa is not as divided as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would have us believe. By far the greater proportion of the population of South Africa will be up in arms against the whole world if it tries to destroy the White Government of South Africa along the lines that the Afro-Asian nations and all the bodies which support them and establish them are trying to do.

Now I want to pass on to deal with a few of the particular points raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He evidently does not wish the prosperity which prevails in the country to-day to be credited to the Government. I leave him to his envy in that regard. The fact is that it is not so murii we as members of the Government who talk all day about the fact that we have a share in it. The public of the country themselves see it and know it and say it. The newspapers supporting the Opposition have at times also admitted it. People who come from abroad and see the prosperity here realize it and know it. Some of the industrialists who are not bound to us by any ties have said so frankly. Just recently Mr. Collins said so as well. It is not the members of the Cabinet who say that the Government is co-responsible for this prosperity, but people who know and who are honest enough to admit it.

People who have obtained diamond concessions.

That interjection by the hon. member for Yeoville is what I call a base one. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition had a second point of attack with which I do not want to deal in detail. He alleges that the farmers and the agricultural industry have received very little assistance from this Government as far as planning for their prosperity is concerned, or in regard to the care of people who have to leave the farms. I say that he launched this attack merely to catch votes. By doing so under my Vote, his object clearly is to exploit as obviously as possible the deplorable conditions prevailing in some areas of our country as the result of climatic conditions, which saddens us all. The prosperity experienced by the industries and cities in South Africa does in fact benefit the farmers, who obtain a better market for their products as the result of it. This prosperity provides them with a greater internal market, with the assured prices connected with it. It is unfortunate that the farmers should have been afflicted by one of the greatest droughts just at this time of prosperity. The Government is, however, dealing with the situation with the greatest sympathy. Out of the money accruing to it from this prosperity the Government is also providing means whereby it will be better able to combat droughts in future, e.g. by conserving water. The conservation of water is basic if one wants to ensure that agriculture is not so seriously affected by droughts. In this regard no Government has done as much as this one, and no Government can have greater and more comprehensive plans for the future than this one has. What has already been announced is by no means all that we are going to do. We are continually investigating the needs, inter alia, in the drought-stricken areas. It is therefore the greatest nonsense to say that we have no plans. To allege further, as the Leader of the Opposition has done, that one of the most important methods which we should have considered was to establish industries in certain of these rural districts, is no solution for the farmer. Will the farmer who finds things difficult leave his farm and go and work in such local industries at hi’s age? Will it give him the same standard of living he had before? Is that the only direction in which the Leader of the Opposition sees a solution? In regard to the conservation of water, the Government will rather try to place on settlement projects those farmers who have suffered so much from the drought that they cannot continue farming. That is a solution which means something to the farmer. A farmer is a farmer and he wants to remain a farmer. One must care for them by placing them in that sphere of activity which they know, and not by putting them to work in factories in a rural town. Reference has already been made to the Pongola Scheme and the Orange River Scheme. Nothing as large as that has ever been tackled by any other comparable country. The United Party never even thought of anything as big as that.

A further point of attack is that this prosperity has not yet penetrated to the Bantu areas. What does the Leader of the Opposition base that accusation on? The fact is. that the country cannot enjoy prosperity without its penetrating throughout the whole of the community. How many of those Bantu have not been employed in these prosperous industries, which are increasing the wages paid? How many of these Bantu will not increasingly be employed in the industries which are developing and which are still being planned? Because prosperity is not something which comes about in a year and then immediately shows its full effect. It is like a rolling snowball which gets bigger and bigger. We are only in the initial stage, the first year or two of this new period of prosperity, this boom period we are experiencing. From the increased revenue the State derives from it, the Minister of Finance is able to make large amounts available for development in the Bantu areas. All the money being spent there has only become available because we have prosperity here. All the works being set in motion there will in time become productive and lead to even greater prosperity, but at present they at least provide employment. All this is ignored by the Leader of the Opposition as if it does not exist at all. He is a puppeteer; he puts his puppets up and then knocks them down, but they are full of wind. He says that the programme we have drawn up in regard to border industries is already lagging so far behind that what we said in regard to the shift of population by the year 2000 can no longer take place. But I have repeatedly told the Leader of the Opposition that we always alleged that the inflow of Bantu labour would still take place and that there would be an upward curve in respect of the Bantu in the urban areas until at least 1978, and then only would the change come. But now, because there is still an upward curve, precisely as I have been saying since 1950, the Leader of the Opposition says that we are falling behind! But not only that. He says: What progress have we made in the sphere of border industries and the development of the border areas during these ten years? Let me tell the Leader of the Opposition that up to this stage I regard the development of border industries as a good foundation, but also as an absolute triumph for that idea. I personally came along with that idea for the development of border industries, and I had to struggle for years before we got to the stage that the industrialists, who have to co-operate in that regard, could be persuaded that it was a good idea. We had to fight for that idea all the time, in the face of opposition by the United Party, with all the influence they exert on the people carrying on those undertakings and who are able either to make a success of these plans or to oppose them. All that was against us. We decided not to enforce this policy by legislation but to try to win co-operation by convincing them. The fact that at this stage already we have border industries to the value of millions of rand, and that we can already provide a living for thousands of Bantu families residing in their own areas by means of these border industries, is an absolute triumph under these circumstances. And we are only in the initial stages of implementing this policy. We have been reproached because these border industries are situated in the vicinity of certain existing cities, particularly those border industries which are successful. But is that not precisely what I predicted when the attacks were made at the time? In all fairness, hon. members will remember that they said that we wanted to remove the industries to the bundu, and then I replied: No, for a start there are enough Native areas which adjoin some of our cities which are already industrial cities. The question is where, relative to those cities, these industries should be established, whether the workers must then be accommodated in the locations in the White portion of that city, or whether they can live in their own homeland, thereby promoting the development of their homeland. I have always cited Newcastle as my first example, a comparatively small urban area situated between the port of Durban and the large market of Johannesburg, along the railway line, with a water supply and near to the coal mines, while the White town is available just next to it for the managerial staff and the artisans. The Bantu area can be extended to, I think, within ten miles of it. Therefore this whole process of development will be possible there. (Laughter.) What is wrong with that? I also mentioned the example of Pretoria, namely the area to the north of Pretoria, and I mentioned Durban with all its possibilities. The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) was still very glad of it because it would also bring prosperity to his constituency. Together with him I visited the places where we envisaged this development. I was also in East London when I was still Minister of Native Affairs, and I saw the possibilities at East London in regard to how the Bantu area of the Ciskei could be brought nearer, black spots could be eliminated, and the consolidation of the Ciskei could be promoted. All these places, East London, Durban and Pretoria, with which we are now being reproached, were the places where I said we could achieve the initial successes. How ridiculous it is for the Leader of the Opposition, after all this, to come along with the arguments he used to-day.

The next point made by the Leader of the Opposition was that our policy causes much trouble for South Africa in the Western world. I think I have already said enough about that. He also said that, in his opinion, our policy was unrealistic.

Hear, hear!

By what yardstick does one test a policy to ascertain whether it is realistic? One test is whether it is applied and whether things take place which are in line with that policy, and whether success is being achieved. Therefore, one of the tests is whether there are, in fact, existing border industries. And there are, on a much greater scale than one could have expected, and greater development will follow. A second test would be whether one had an area which was being developed as an example of a Bantu homeland with its own Parliament, etc., etc. Well, there is the Transkei. And now hon. members may refer to it sneeringly if they like, but the Transkei experiment, for the short time it has been in progress, has been a great success up to now.

One may further ask whether influx control has been a success, inter alia, in preventing up to 20,000 young Natives in certain cities, who formerly were kept out of employment because unskilled Natives came in from outside and were given preference, still lying idle. It has succeeded in this respect. The question may be asked whether the housing of those who are, in fact, allowed into the cities is adequate, as compared with the bad conditions which prevailed when an unrestricted influx took place. That is also a success. The question may be asked whether health conditions are now better and provide greater safety than was the case when the United Party was in power, and all those squatters’ towns existed. The reply is: It is. These are the concrete questions one asks in order to test whether a policy is realistic. There are numbers of things which are being done and which are successful, including the new jobs created to render services to their own people.

To allege, after all this, that we are doing something dangerous, leads one to the question of what the alternative is. Assuming separate development is unrealistic, assuming it is dangerous (the two allegations made by the Leader of the Opposition in regard to our policy), what is one to do then? Is the stupidity of a race federation, which we have analysed here so often already, a realistic and safe policy which can be substituted for it? Hon. members opposite like to accuse us of not knowing where certain aspects of our policy will lead to. But if the United Party is asked what they are going to do in future, they very quickly say that they are not busy giving a picture for the whole future, and that they can only say what will happen in the first phase. In other words, they have a policy which, in fact, is so unrealistic that their members do not understand it, and it will be in possible to implement, and that they dare not even thoroughly consider the logical consequences of it. That is what I call unrealistic, apart from the dangers which will result from that Graaff policy, as events in Africa have already shown.

Then the Leader of the Opposition also said that South Africa suffers as the result of the fact that we do not have enough trained people. He says there is such a shortage of trained people that our development is suffering. All kinds of bodies are alleged to have drawn attention to this, inter alia, my Economic Advisory Council. What did my Economic Advisory Council and my economic adviser and those who made a study of the situation say? Did they say that we are faced with such a shortage that we must do what the Leader of the Opposition asks, namely to train non-Whites for skilled and managerial posts? The Leader of the Opposition wants the Bantu to be absorbed in our economic life in such a way and at such a level that eventually his political ideal of a multi-racial society can thereby be achieved. That is why he tries to approach labour problems from that angle. Everybody knows that this is one of the problems we in fact have to face. Neither I nor the Economic Advisory Council deny that the fast development resulting from our prosperity, and the increasing growth we still expect, result in great demands being made on our manpower. Nobody denies that. Nobody denies that special attention must be devoted to the training of technologists and highly educated academicians. Nobody denies that more skilled workers will be required. Our immigration policy is directed towards that, as well as our education policy. Our scientific advisers are continuously in touch with the universities in that regard and our economic advisory machinery continuously devotes attention to the position. Nobody therefore denies the importance of this possible bottle-neck. There are two things we do deny. The one is that we are faced with an impossible position in respect of White manpower. The fact of the matter is that the staff of the Economic Advisory Council have conducted a research into this matter and they estimate, that if certain steps are taken, we shall probably be able to carry out the entire programme envisaged for the next five years with the increasing White population without having to depend on the training of non-Whites for that type of work. But in the second place it must be emphasized that that must not be taken to mean that non-Whites are not trained at all or that that is not allowed. As far as the Coloureds are concerned many skilled workers are being trained, even technicians, and in terms of the policy as announced by the Minister of Coloured Affairs, definite provision is made for their own industrial development in which they have to make use of their own skilled workers, managerial staff and people who have received the proper technical training. As far as the Bantu are concerned, they will be given increased opportunities in their own areas where they will be used by their own authorities to perform various tasks, a process which will increase as our policy develops further and further. Provision is also made for their own industrial development. Even in the border area industries where Native labour has to be used, opportunities will be created for them which cannot be created elsewhere at the same level. In that way the non-Whites will be used to wipe out a portion of the estimated shortage of skilled manpower without competition or integration with the White worker. The sum total of all this, therefore, is that one should have an optimistic outlook in regard to the availability of properly trained manpower which is required by the increasing economic development. It is untrue and incorrect to represent the position as though we are in danger. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition can indeed quote people who talk like he does but those industrialists are often the type who would like to see all colour bars removed so as to use non-Whites in preference to available Whites, and often in order to pay lower wages. We shall not play along with them.

What did the chairman of the Board of Directors of Sanlam say?

He said no more than I have just said, namely, that that was the one aspect of our entire economy we should study and approach very carefully and where we must be careful that we do not suffer a shortage. I also say that but I add that we shall overcome that difficulty.

The hon. member also asked what our relationship was with the countries to our north. He wanted to know whether Portugal would be able to maintain her position as the first bastion? What does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition want from me? That I must express an opinion on the safety of another country, on the strength of another country and the domestic affairs of another country? Must I express an opinion as to how that country should act in areas which form par! of its own country, areas which fall under the control of that country? I shall not do that. I do not intend interfering with the domestic affairs of other countries. What I do say is that South Africa would like to continue to be on a friendly footing with Portugal and Angola and Mozambique as neighbouring states and she will do her utmost to remain on a friendly basis with those areas and to co-operate with them. But I shall not be party to an attempt to prophesy what their ability is as far as defence matters are concerned. It is for them to see to the safety and preservation of their own country.

He also asked me what I thought about the delicate position of Southern Rhodesia. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said he would rather not talk about that. Nor is it my intention to deal with that in detail but because certain allegations have already been made in the world outside as to my attitude which was not stated clearly, I would just like to say something in this connection. On the one hand it was alleged that I was supposed to have advised Mr. Field not to take certain steps in connection with the policy of Southern Rhodesia. There has also been a report from London in which it was alleged that South Africa was supposed to have given assurances that she would, in certain circumstances, not support certain actions. I want it to be very clearly understood that I did not say a word either in one direction or the other about the internal affairs of Southern Rhodesia or give any assurances. It is not my policy to discuss the domestic affairs of another country with that country, and even less so with another country. I do not tolerate other countries poking their noses into the affairs of South Africa and I am not going to poke my nose into the affairs of other countries. What Rhodesia does, therefore, is entirely her own affair. But what I do want to say is this: South Africa would like to live on a very friendly basis with Southern Rhodesia as a neighbouring state. It is none of our business, it is the business of the voters of Rhodesia who should constitute their government and who should be their Prime Minister. We do not interfere with that. But we remain friends and we shall co-operate with whomsoever the machinery of that state places in power. I do not hesitate to say that I hope we shall be able to continue being on a very friendly basis with Southern Rhodesia. They need never fear any interference on our part.

Another hon. member has referred to the gathering of British representatives here the other day. I do not want to add much to what the hon. member for Kempton Park has already said in this regard. But perhaps it is desirable for me to express an opinion now that the matter has been raised by the Opposition, and very unfortunately raised. Our opponents who always pretend to be so concerned about our image overseas, are always the first to place us in a difficult position by their questions. Seeing that the matter has been raised I wish to point out that the normal diplomatic behaviour between countries is that you should adapt yourself to the customs of the country in which you find yourself. When a South African ambassador is in London he cannot act as he would have in South Africa. He takes into account the habits and customs of the United Kingdom and acts accordingly. To give another example, when a country is represented in a Mohammedan country that representative keeps count of the habits and customs of that country and does not permit any social happening which will clash with the religious habits and customs of that country. Similarly when other countries are represented in South Africa we expect them to act according to the customs and conventions of South Africa. Britain and the United States did so till a few years ago. Then, for the sake of their own interests and for the sake of the image they wanted to create, they started to act differently. I think they are wrong in acting in this way and the Government of this country cannot, for the sake of courtesy, indirectly approve of a line of action which does not conform with the habits of this country and which even undermines the habits of this country. We have made this attitude, as to what could be expected from a host country and how we would have to act, very clear beforehand. Because we hoped that would be the end of the matter, we were still represented last year by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. But it must be very clear to representatives of other countries in South Africa that while we shall act in their countries in accordance with their customs, we have the right to expect, and do indeed expect, them to act in South Africa in accordance with South African customs. If they do not do so South Africa is not to blame for any consequences, because South Africa is always only too keen to be friendly towards her guests.

I also wish to say a few words about the use of the concept “small apartheid”. When the one person uses it this concept means certain things and other things when another person uses it. When our opponents use it it continues to assume greater significance. In conversations they start off by trying to define the concept by giving examples of comparatively incidental happenings. However, by using this term vaguely they are playing right into the hands of those people who attach a far greater significance to it. Often when I have interviews with people from overseas, and even with people of this country, they ask me questions about this concept. Then I usually say to them: “Well, you object to what you call ‘small apartheid’. However, I do not know what you mean by it. Give me an example of it.” I always found that the examples given were, in one way or another, essentially related to the greater concept of separation, on sound principles, between White and non-White. They often also have a bearing on what serves as a protection to the Bantu himself. In this regard I can mention influx control. That is sometimes referred to as being “small apartheid”, whereas in reality influx control is of tremendous significance as far as the prosperity, the health, the housing and the protection of the Bantu against crime in the cities are concerned. Another example given is the reference book system. When these aspects of our policy are explained to the people they usually realize that they form part of the unavoidable unitary pattern that must be followed in order to cope with the problems that arise when you deal with masses. That is why I say the concept of “small apartheid” is to-day used as a smoke screen behind which our whole policy is indeed being attacked.

Mr. Chairman, I have said that the attack of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was a weak attack and that nothing new emanated from it. I hope my analysis of the subjects raised by him supports this allegation of mine.

I shall therefore be pleased if, during the rest of the debate on my Vote, we shall at least get something from the Opposition which touches upon new problems and evokes lively interest, so that we shall be able to assist one another by conducting a proper discussion instead of chewing old cuds.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question. Courtesy did not allow me to interrupt him when he was speaking. He said everybody on this side of the House and outside did not support the policy of our Leader. I now want to ask him to put his hand in his own bosom and tell us whether everybody on his side of the House and all his supporters in the country and his Press approve of his colour policy and also of his Bantustans.

I have no hesitation whatsoever to reply to that publicly, and before the Party as represented here, and to say that I have not come across any opposition whatsoever. On the contrary. I have the full support of my entire Party as expressed at all its congresses: I have the full support of every member of my caucus in respect of both the Coloured policy as expounded by me and as carried out by the Minister of Coloured Affairs and the policy in respect of Bantu homelands. I have no doubt about it but that that was the very reason why the country, knowing full well what we were aiming at, put this party into power at previous elections. Nor have I any doubt but that my position in this House, as well as leader of the Party, and as a person is getting stronger by the day because of this very policy.

Mr. Chairman, there will be enough opportunities to reply to the hon. the Prime Minister in the course of this debate. At the moment there is one important matter which has come to my attention which, I think, should be raised at once with the hon. gentleman, and with the hon. the Minister of Justice. In this connection I shall be pleased if the Whips on the other side will see to it that the Minister of Justice is present here.

Sir, you ruled earlier on this afternoon that the hon. member for Houghton could not raise the question of the decision in the Bultfontein case when she said she had received a flash from Sapa indicating that the application for leave to appeal had been turned down. Now, however, the evening newspapers have become available and they report that that application for leave to appeal had in fact been turned down. May I now have your ruling, Sir, as to whether this matter may now be discussed?

I have in the meantime received notification from the Department of Justice that the application to which reference has been made has been turned down. Consequently I do not regard it as being sub judice any longer.

In the circumstances, Sir, I wish to raise this matter at once with the hon. the Prime Minister. I am also glad that the Minister of Justice is now present. The situation confronting us is a simple one. In the course of discussions on the General Law Amendment Bill last year I indicated to the hon. the Minister of Justice that if there were any abuse of his powers I would lay it at his door. We also made it perfectly clear that we would be vigilant to see that there were no abuses in cases where he used that power—in the treatment of prisoners for instance.

Now, during the no-confidence debate earlier this Session, I raised this matter in my opening speech and again in my reply to the debate. I told him that I had received information—which I made available to him—pointing to the fact that one of two things had happened, i.e. that either all those detainees who had complained of ill-treatment had been instructed and trained to complain about a certain type of ill-treatment which they might or might not have undergone, or that that type of ill-treatment was a pretty regular practice amongst the police. It is interesting to note that the complaints which came to me came from various parts of the country and were in respect of various police stations. At the time I outlined what the complaints were and what the alleged ill-treatment was. It was made very clear that the ill-treatment which was complained of was the use of electric shocks upon detainees after they had been trussed up, the use of the plastic bag to smother them, and other treatment of a similar nature. The hon. gentleman then promised to have the complaints investigated and stated that as far as he was concerned, he had no knowledge of them whatsoever. But at that time his own police must have been investigating the Bultfontein trial allegations. We now find ourselves confronted with the shocking situation that the Judge-President of the Free State has had to find that ill-treatment of that type did take place—this was admitted by the accused—and had to take strong steps against the accused. One of the accused said something which the Judge concerned said he hoped was untrue, namely that that practise was being followed in many other police stations in South Africa. The honourable Judge said he hoped this was not the case.

Now, at the same time this happened there was a report from White River about two policeman who were convicted and punished for shocking a prisoner. What worries me here is that these cases must have been under investigation when we had the debate in this House. The hon. the Minister, however, told us he knew nothing about it. If that is so, I must say that his police had not played the game with him and that his Commissioner had not kept him informed as he should have done of what was happening in the Minister’s Department. What upsets me is that when the hon. the Minister was attacked in the Other Place, he made a statement to the effect that when a former Minister of Justice was in office, various irregularities took place because the Minister concerned did not know what was going on within his own Department. He used the phrase: “It depends upon who is the boss.” He indicated that he was the boss and knew what was going on in his Department and that these things would consequently not happen. But we have had the findings of a very senior Judge, and we have had admissions by the accused, and we have it not only in the Bultfontein case but also in the White River case, reported during the same weekend. I feel this is a matter which must be brought to the notice of the hon. the Prime Minister. It is all very well to tell me that inquiries are being held and that the police have been told to investigate these cases and that in some or in many cases the police have brought their own fellows to trial. It seems clear to me that this practice must have taken place in several police stations, and that a lot of policemen must have known about it. It seems clear to me that if the officers concerned did not know about it, they were not doing their job; and it seems to me that if the hon. the Minister was not informed about what was going on then, he has either been let down or he is an inefficient Minister. I believe that in any other country in the world the Minister would tender his resignation because these disclosures are a shocking reflection on the administration of his Department. I do not propose to speak about the policemen; they have been punished, but it seems quite clear to me that they must have been set examples by somebody else. I do not for a moment imagine that these young policemen— very young men, tragically—thought these things out for themselves. I am pretty certain that they must have found out from the older policemen how to perform these acts of ill-treatment; and from the information given to me, and given by me to the hon. the Minister, there were complaints of a similar nature raised from a number of police stations in South Africa. I regard this as a most shocking state of affairs and one which I feel must be brought to the notice of the hon. the Prime Minister because I cannot see how he can further avoid what this Minister is at pains to avoid at the moment, and that is appointing a proper judicial inquiry into what is going on in the Police Force at present. What he is doing now is to make the police the investigators in their own cases; he is making them almost prosecutors in their own cases, and he is making them the people to decide how and in what manner these complaints should be investigated. It seems to me that when he has placed his own reputation and that of his Government in issue by what he said in this House and in the Other Place he is placing a very great responsibility on the police indeed, and an entirely unfair responsibility.

Now, I believe that the vast mass of the South African Police are as magnificent a force as one can find anywhere in the world. [Interjections.] Yes, I know them far better than those hon. members opposite, because I spent many years as a prisoner of war with many of the officers in that Police Force. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please maintain order.

All we have here is a lot of noise from people who do not know what they are shouting about. But I think that for the good name of South Africa, this business must be rooted out for once and for all, and I believe the only way in which it can be rooted out is by means of a properly appointed judicial commission, appointed by the authority of the Prime Minister himself.

Mr. Chairman, in the normal course of events I would not have participated in this debate but I am doing so now because it is very clear to me that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is merely seeking to use these incidents which he has just mentioned as a lightning-conductor. He is trying to do so because, just a short while ago, he was for the umpteenth time so soundly thrashed by the hon. the Prime Minister! That is very clear to me now. I was silent while the hon. member launched his attack. It is very clear to me that the hon. member certainly does not intend to carry on the debate under the Vote of the Prime Minister any further.

Just wait and see!

And let me tell the hon. member that I do not blame him. Bigger men than he have not seen their way clear to do so before now. [Interjections.] This is very definitely a serious matter and for this reason I not only blame the Opposition now but I blamed them in the past when they discussed these matters outside this House. I want to accuse the Opposition here now and say that it is not information that they are seeking. What are hon. members seeking in making these attacks upon the police? I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition what he is seeking, and this is the accusation I make against him. He is trying to tie the hands of the police. [Interjections.] What is the position? I know that there are many hon. members opposite who do not hold this view. But what I also know is that there are at present three kinds of members on the Opposition side. There is one section which does not hold this view; the second section consists of the liberalists who at all times hold the view of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) and of Mr. Hamilton Russell. That is the tragedy of our present-day politics. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) must not interrupt me now. I do not want to reply to her interjection because my mother always taught me that I should never interrupt elderly ladies! Mr. Chairman, there is a third group in the United Party and that is the group which is so useless and spineless that it allows itself to be pushed about at will by the liberalists outside; they are people who cannot adopt an attitude of their own …

Why do you not reply to the accusations?

Who started this matter? This matter was started by Mr. Hamilton Russell, and the hon. member knows it.

Discuss the Bultfontein case.

I shall come to that matter; we have all the time in the world to discuss that matter; hon. members must not be so hasty. This so-called inquiry for which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has asked was originally asked for by Mr. Hamilton Russell and the Progressive Party, and I know that in certain circles the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is blamed for not having been the first to make this request.

It was raised at our Congress last year.

I do not blame the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for not having been the first to think of this matter; we are not all equally quick on the uptake. What did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say? He referred to two incidents and those two incidents have nothing at all to do with the question of 90-day detention. These were two quite ordinary cases of ordinary crimes that were committed, one at White River and one at Bultfontein. When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition participated in the debate on the motion of noconfidence he spoke about the 90-day clause and he gave certain documents to me, documents which at that stage had already been given to me by the Progressive Party. Duplicate copies of these documents were given to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition by the Black Sash and he offered these documents to me across the floor of the House. Let the hon. the Leader of the Opposition deny that if he can!

Answer his questions.

I am coming to that; we have all the time in the world to answer these questions; I am going to deal with them in detail. When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition moved his motion of no confidence, the trial in the Bultfontein case was already in its initial stages. What happened at Bultfontein? Certain police officers assaulted prisoners at Bultfontein, in conflict with very emphatic orders, orders which were not only issued in previous years by all commissioners of police, but which have repeatedy been issued by the present commissioner of police, General Keevey. General Keevey, after consultation with me in this connection, went very much further than any other commissioner of police ever went; in other words, he issued orders not only that every constable, White and non-White—all 28,000 of them throughout the whole Republic of South Africa—should take note of those orders, but that he should sign them to show that he had read the order. I ask any impartial person what can be fairer than this?

When was that order issued?

It was issued last year, long before the Bultfontein case, and I may tell the hon. member for his information that all those concerned in the Bultfontein case received those orders and signed them to indicate that they had read them.

Then the supervision was very poor.

Sir, what more could the commissioner of police do? But let us look at the facts. The fact is that assaults take place by men in Police Forces throughout the world. This is to be deprecated and it is deprecated by all Police Forces throughout the world, just as the present commissioner of police and I deprecate this incident.

But they investigate it themselves.

We investigate it. Did Father Christmas and the angels bring the Bultfontein case to trial or did the police bring it to trial? What are the facts? Let us compare the last four years of United Party Government with the last four years of this Government. In the last four years of United Party Government there were 244 cases of assault by policemen and in the last four years under this Government there were 177 cases of assault by policemen. But the difference is this: When the United Party were in Government the Police Force numbered only 16,000 while to-day it is 28,000! I say, therefore, that assaults of this nature are committed by men in Police Forces throughout the world. This fact is to be deprecated, but that is not the cardinal question with which we are faced to-day. The cardinal question is what the police do when these assaults take place. [Time limit.]

Sir, I think all members of this House had a profound sense of shock at the levity with which this hon. gentleman treated a discussion of this nature, a discussion of a subject which not only affects himself and his Government and the force for which he is responsible but the good name of the country itself. I think if ever a man has showed himself as unfit for the high office he holds it is this gentleman by his behaviour.

He has made a number of points which he made before in a newspaper statement, points which I do not think carry the matter any further. He has tried to suggest that this party was led into complaining and into investigating matters of this kind by certain influences.

Of course.

May I tell him and the hon. talkative gentleman who is as ill-informed as usual, that this matter was raised at the congress of our party last year. It was raised by the hon. member for Pinelands who introduced a motion. He asked that there should be a proper inquiry into matters of this kind. The hon. the Minister has tried to distinguish between 90-day detainees and their treatment and the treatment of other prisoners. Surely, Sir, that is begging the issue. The question is have malpractices of this kind infiltrated his Police Force or have they not? If they do it to ordinary prisoners they will do it to 90-day detainees; if they will do it to 90-day detainees they will do it to ordinary prisoners.

The hon. Minister has told us again that his Commissioner of Police has taken the exceptional trouble of seeing that the regulations concerning the treatment of prisoners were brought to the notice of everyone in the force. He went so far as to say that he had the acknowledgments that they had read these orders signed by the police concerned, and I asked particularly when that was done because I wanted to ascertain whether those involved in the Bultfontein case had or had not signed.

I told you they had.

The hon. gentleman has told us they did sign. Then I ask: Where is the discipline in his force? Then we have had the rather childish suggestion that things must be better now than they were when the previous Government was in power because there were more cases of assaults by police during their last four years than there were in the present last four years when there is a bigger force. But, Sir, what is the percentage of successful prosecutions and what is the percentage of unsolved crime? Are these matters being investigated as keenly as they were under the previous Government or are they not? I think that is a most ridiculous type of allegation. I am not even prepared to enter into a dialogue with the hon. gentleman on it.

What I want to get at is this: We faced this hon. gentleman with the existence of practices of this kind at the beginning of the year. We asked for an inquiry. We were told by the hon. gentleman that he knew nothing about them and that no inquiry was necessary. It has now been shown all too clearly that these practices have been taking place. The hon. gentleman has boasted that the Minister responsible, if he does his job, should know what is going on in the force. He criticized a previous Minister of Justice on the ground that there were irregularities because he did not know what was going on. There are irregularities now; did the Minister not know they were going on? He stands condemned out of his own mouth, Sir. The very accusation he has levelled against a previous Minister can now be levelled against him. But I will not do that. I say he is either not doing his job or he has been let down by his force somewhere. I think it is an entirely unsatisfactory state of affairs that there is not only one case but two cases and a preparatory examination of a third case in Johannesburg of ill-treatment on similar lines. I do not mind whether they are detainees or ordinary prisoners or merely witnesses questioned by the police, but if that is the position then there is something wrong in the force at the present time. It is unfair to expect the police themselves to investigate these cases. There must be an impartial investigation in order to clear the name of the thousands of decent, disciplined policemen who are in the force to-day. That can only be achieved by a commission appointed from outside; a judge who can inquire into what has been happening, with the assistance of the police, if necessary, and let us have a full report on the situation. I believe this is one of the biggest blots we have had on the administration of justice in South Africa. I would like to associate myself with the very words the judge used: I hope most devoutly this is not a general practice amongst the police stations in South Africa.

I want to begin where I left off. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition bases his case—he did so in his first speech—upon what a certain constable —I think his name is Coetzee—of 19 years of age apparently said in his defence and which was to the effect that the incident which happened at Bultfontein was not an isolated case but that it was the practice in other police stations. Let me say immediately —I want to remind the hon. the Leader of the Opposition about this fact once again in passing—that when he spoke during the debate on the motion of no-confidence he confined his remarks specifically to the question of 90-day detainees and he asked specifically for a commission dealing only with 90-day detainees. The question of assault by other members of the Police Force was not raised at all. In spite of the fact that he did not raise this matter, he now blames me because at the time I did not discuss the Bultfontein and White River incidents, both of which were at that stage still sub judice, and which were already being investigated. The hon. member now bases his case upon what this young constable of 19 years apparently said in his defence, in an attempt to find excuses for the assault which he committed. What are the facts? This constable has only been stationed at two police stations in his life. The one was at Bloemfontein and the other at Bultfontein. These were the only two police stations at which he had been stationed.

Of course, he had never met policemen from other stations!

No, Mr. Chairman, it is not as simple as that. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition once again—and he can try to disguise it as much as he wants to—that an attempt is being made by the liberalists to blacken the name of the police and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is cheerfully joining in that attempt.

That is a shameful thing to say.

If this is not his intention, why does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not say that this incident has happened and he deprecates the fact that it has happened but that he is grateful that the police acted as they did act at Bultfontein and that they investigated the matter in the way in which they did? What is the complaint of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now? I shall not let him escape in this regard. His complaint is that the police are not capable of investigating charges against themselves; not only that they are not capable of making those investigations, but that they are not to be trusted to make those investigations! That is the important accusation. [Interjections.] No, that was not the accusation of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I shall prove that that was not his accusation. He tried to get away from the figures which I gave him by asking how did he know in what manner these matters were investigated and how did he know that complaints were not suppressed? That was the implication of his reply. He must not try now •to get away from that fact.

Business interrupted to report progress.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.