Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the House I should like to make a statement with regard to the work next week and certain other matters.

It is proposed to start on Monday with the Constitution Bill, and we will go on with it until the second reading has been passed. If there should be any further time available next week we will handle legislation which I will put on the Order Paper for Monday, so that hon. members will know on Monday which legislation we propose dealing with.

I should also like to point out to hon. members that we will be starting with Evening Sittings as from next Monday.

With regard to the Railway Budget, the Budget Speech will be delivered on 8 March and we will have the debate on 13 and 14 March. The Committee Stage will be taken on 15 and 16 March and the second reading on 20 March, and the third reading on 21 March.

With regard to the main Estimates, the Minister of Finance will deliver his Budget speech on 15 March and the debate will be on 22, 23, 27 and 28 March, and the Minister will reply on 29 March. The Part Appropriation will not be taken before Monday, 13 February.

The first recess will be from Wednesday, 29 March, on which day we hope to adjourn round about six o’clock, until Wednesday, 5 April, when Parliament will resume. The second recess will start on Friday, 26 May, and the House will resume on Monday, 5 June.

I move as an unopposed motion.

1. (1) That the following members constitute the Committee of the House of Assembly, viz. the Minister of Lands, the Minister of Transport, Mr. Gay, Mr. Lawrence and Dr. J. H. Steyn; and
2. (2) that two members of each House form a quorum of the Joint Sessional Committee.

I second.

Agreed to.

When the House adjourned yesterday, I was saying that South Africa’s international position can only be eased if we can dispel the illusion that this country will perhaps capitulate in regard to its policy of separate development. How can we dispel that illusion? There are really only two attitudes and lines of behaviour to be adopted by the people of the country which can dispel that illusion. The first attitude and line of behaviour is obviously to support our policy of separate development with renewed energy and devotion and understanding. When I say with renewed energy I mean this, Mr. Speaker, that the concept of separate development was a national idea emanating from the people, but particularly in the past 12 years it was made systematic and it was developed into something more than the vague idea which always existed in the minds of the people. And now the people must again accept this systematized idea as national policy until our concept of separate development is no longer seen as a political policy but as a national policy. By devotion I mean the things which the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Prof. Fourie) indicated last night, that we must realize that the implementation of the policy of separate development is no minor matter, nor is it an incidental undertaking which is part of the administration of the State, but that it is an enormous task which will affect all facets of our national and our economic life; that it will demand an extremely high measure of adaptation from every South African citizen, and that it can be done only at high cost, not only in money but in inventiveness and everything which a nation can offer. But if there is that devotion we will accept this policy as a national one and explain it to the world. Finally, in regard to realization—here I want to cross swords somewhat with the hon. member tor Germiston (District) and incidentally also give a reply to the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje). The first criticism expressed is in regard to the very slow progress made, and reference has been made to the latest preliminary census report. I also want to point out that a very prominent actuary, Mr. Laurie, considers that perhaps a mistake involving hundreds of thousands may have slipped into the preliminary figures. I do not want to express any opinion in that regard, but we must accept that this is a preliminary figure which should be regarded critically. And then the slow progress! What must he done along this road? In the first place the national idea had to be streamlined into a policy. Administrative preparations had to be made for the implementation of this policy. Allow me to mention just one example of the tremendously long period that is required for preparation. The preparation for the development of industries on the borders of the Bantu homelands is an enormous task. A mass of work has been done in the past two and a half years. Much has been achieved. If hon. members take the trouble to make inquiries from the officials entrusted with this task, they will be astonished at the volume of work which has already been completed. But it takes a certain minimum time to make these administrative preparations. And, most important of all, Sir, there has been slow progress because both White and non-White South Africa gradually had to become accustomed to the idea and the consequences of a complete policy of separate development. And in regard to the concept, Mr. Speaker—also in the sense that we must realize that there is a deep-rooted difference between the application of the policy of separate development as far as the Coloureds and the Bantu are concerned We just cannot confuse the two concepts. The Coloureds form part of the civilized community in Africa who face the common threat of Pan-Africanism— they are like us. Together with us they also share in a common Christian culture. They permanently share the White territories. Therefore the apartheid between the White man and the Coloured remains a functional separation, remains a separate stream inside one political and geographical area. But the main characteristic of the separate development between the White man and the Bantu is a political-geographical partition, and from that certain functional exceptions are made as, e.g., in regard to the use of migratory labour. Therefore, in principle there are different approaches, e.g in regard to local government by the Bantu. We should not confuse these concepts.

The final point on which I want to cross swords with the hon. member for Germiston (District) is this. We must not over-estimate the absoluteness of the geographical partition between White and Bantu. Certainly we should not be misled into under-estimating it and considering it less important. But we must accept the tact that, if the separation in principle has been established, then without political disadvantages there can be a substantial exchange of labour by the Bantu in the White area. And if we accept these ideas, if we accept this policy of separate development as a national policy, if we dedicate ourselves to it with a consciousness of the sacrifices it will demand, and if we regard it with understanding, with realism, then I believe we will make a contribution towards convincing the world that we will not capitulate.

But the second thing we have to do is that we as a nation should unanimously inform the world that we will rather die than share the political control of White South Africa with the Bantu. And, Mr. Speaker, I make this radical statement because we are not dealing here with a local problem. The relationship between the White man and the Bantu in South Africa is a facet of a continental struggle, and the tendency of this continental struggle is being evolved not by our own Bantu but by the Pan-African movement which strives for Blark supremacy. We need not go more deeply into these dangers. We can find enough examples of it. I just want to state the proposition that in regard to this aspect the world should know that our policy is absolute. It is not anti-Black. We must give the Bantu the opportunity to build up a new civilization from the roots of his own civilization. We want to give them the opportunity to become the aristocrats of Africa in the economic sense. But we say, in terms of the unity referred to in our national motto, and with the humility of a small nation, and with the devoted determination of a nation which has faith, that although superior numbers may conquer us, at this stage we shall not surrender; and that we shall retain our heritage whether we live or die here, but we will not fritter away our heritage.

Mr. Speaker, my reproach to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is that by means of his policy and his party he is undermining fellow-South Africans like us. Those Progressives are the fruits of the policy of the United Party—those who have become so demoralized that they are rushing to meet defeat and want to accept it as their own choice.

Mr. Speaker, one should perhaps conclude on a lighter note. The hon. member for Jeppes has said that we are fleeing from the lion of a multi-racial state to the precipice of apartheid. The French writer Rabelais, apart from the two well-known giants about which he wrote, also wrote about a small comical character—somebody who always took the wrong decisions and made mistakes. That was the character Gribouille. In his fear of an approaching rainstorm he decided rather to drown himself in the river. That is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is doing. He is so afraid of the rainstorm and the storm-wind blowing over Africa that he now advises South Africa: Rather drown yourselves immediately in the stream of integration. That is what the hon. member showed himself to be in this debate—the Gribouille of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt the hon. member who has just sat down will forgive me for not following him in the delightful field of fantasy over which he has wandered for the greater part of his speech. My time being limited I propose to devote it to another matter altogether.

The motion of no-confidence moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was very largely based on the failure of the Government to promote racial harmony and internal peace, and the consequences that have flowed from that failure. This has so many facets that to dream of putting any confidence at all in this Government at this stage would be just as fantastic as some of the suggestions we have just been listening to from the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn). The Government’s complete failure in this important aspect of our national life has unhappily set in train a series of consequences which not only prevent the building up of racial harmony and all that goes with it such as the general prosperity of the country and its people, but it has now reached a stage in which it is placing the national security of South Africa in jeopardy. The United Party has again and again warned the Government and the Prime Minister of the dangerous position in which he was placing this country by his impractical colour policies and his general attitude towards world opinion. We have warned him of the growing risk he is building up for every South African family irrespective of what their political affiliations might be. Yet step by step, in order to bolster up these impractical and often completely unnecessary new laws, the Prime Minister has been compelled to impose drastic controls and restrictions upon the rights and privileges of practically every person, White and non-White, in South Africa; restrictions far beyond anything that this country has ever seen before. I do not propose to cover that field this afternoon. It was very amply and well covered yesterday by the hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. du P. Basson), I would only add this: I commend the list of restrictions and controls that that hon. member put before the House as something that should be studied by the people outside this House. It would probably open the eyes of many of them. Up to now these restrictions and controls have dealt mainly with individuals or groups of individuals, although the effects of these controls have been felt by the nation as a whole. They have also affected our good reputation overseas. Nevertheless, up to now they were in general limited to individuals and individual groups. Now, however, we have entered into a new and even more dangerous phase of this expanding dictatorship, which will affect not only individuals themselves but the security of the country as a whole.

I want to turn now to the far-reaching and dangerous effects being caused by the failure of this Government’s colour policy. In order to meet the consequences of its failure the Government has found it necessary to recast the entire structure and to re-assess the objects of the Union’s defence system. Until the days of this Government, the Union’s defence organization carried, in the main, a two-fold responsibility, (a) the preservation of internal security where this fell beyond the scope and power of the regular Police Force, which in itself comprises a very valuable section of the Union’s defence organization, (b) The second function was to defend South Africa against external aggression from wherever it came. Both of these functions, but more particularly the second one, have become of tremendous importance under prevailing international conditions, and particularly when one considers the changing events taking place on the Continent of Africa to the north of us. But what do we find? We find that in order to cope with the internal unrest which has been developing in recent years—unrest for which the extreme and impractical policies of the Prime Minister must be held to share the blame— the Government has found it necessary to virtually abandon any defence against external aggression as far as the organization of the Defence Force is concerned. Other than our naval defence, which is developing very well as part of a combined defence system, the Government has had to divert our entire Defence Force organization into what really amounts to a reserve auxiliary Police Force and riot squad. No one questions the need of this Government—or indeed of any Government—to maintain law and order. That goes without saying. But we claim that the most effective way to preserve law and order is to remove the irritations and frustrations which help discontent to breed. To prevent rather than suppress. That, surely, is the statesmanlike way to deal with it.

No one questions the tremendous changes which have taken place in the strategic outlook in Africa to-day; changes which have taken place following the tremendous changes brought about in world strategy generally. But these events only go to stress the greater need for a sound, combined external defence policy; defence against external aggression. More than ever before that is now necessary. The hon. the Minister of Defence made it quite clear that the Government policy as it exists to-day is certainly not in that direction. I want to quote a speech of the hon. the Minister as reported in the Cape Argus of 10 December as having been made in Pretoria that afternoon. The hon. the Minister there said—

The hon. the Minister of Defence then went on to say—

Then a little later he went on to say—

Very excellent sentiments and no one quarrels with them. I want to say outright that as a top level pronouncement on the Union’s defence policy I find the Minister’s statement not only very disconcerting but highly contradictory. It ranges our defences from South Africa dying a frozen death in a cold war to being grilled in a hot war, or we have the other alternative of turning our sons into an auxiliary Police Force. I think that the average citizen of South Africa, irrespective of his politics, agrees with my view of those three alternatives. Apparently, according to the Minister, you pay your money and take your choice, but most South Africans prefer to live their lives in a national security which rests upon good government, wise leadership and a national policy which wins for our country friends beyond our borders who can help us in case of emergency, and inside the country makes for confidence and racial harmony. With that, half the internal troubles the Minister foresees fall away. We are not enamoured of an intolerant isolationism which is winning our country the dislike of the rest of the world. Does the Minister really believe that the communist group will allow him to carry out his hot and cold policy without becoming involved in external hostilities? Have the lessons to be learnt from the Congo not yet reached the perception of this Government? The communist groups have held even the United States back from the Congo. In his amendment to the motion of my Leader, the Prime Minister has asked the House for a vote of confidence in his Government. What we want to know is what is the Government’s defence policy, if such a policy exists, in regard to any form of external aggression. Have we any agreed policy for combined defence with any other of the states that have interests in Southern Africa? Have we any effective contact with the African non-White states to the north of us who are themselves opposed to Communism? Are there any contacts aimed at developing mutual confidence and understanding between them and us? What positive steps have been taken side by side with the hon. Minister’s Internal Security Organization to meet any danger developing as the result of the Congo debacle, something which is very pertinent to the question at issue at the moment, confidence in the Government? We have the clearly expressed views of Communism to use the Congo situation to deal with Southern Africa. Mr. Khrushchev, reported as late as the 18th instant, in his recent address to the communist leaders in Moscow, made it quite clear that Communism claims credit for being behind the unrest in Africa. As he says in his speech, when they are satisfied with the hold they have developed up there, the Fascist dungeons of South Africa and Rhodesia will be smashed. I do not think we can be under any delusions as to what their object is in dealing with South Africa. This Government claims it is the arch enemy of Communism. I would like to know what action we have really taken, apart from internal security, to see that we have the friends and resources to help us when that time arrives.

We have the Simonstown Agreement, for instance.

That agreement is the rock on which this Government anchors all its hopes. It is a naval agreement, and from the naval side it is being well carried out with the combined resources which are being developed there. We can take pride in the South African Navy, but that agreement is not sufficient to safeguard the interests of South Africa on the landward side. We want to know what the Government is doing with regard to its land defences. I leave those questions with the hon. the Minister of Defence. When we come to deal with these aspects I want to refer for a moment to what lies at the back of it, because at the back of the bulk of our troubles with regard to defence and every other difficulty this country is experiencing, is the blind obstinacy of the Prime Minister to face facts. He has developed in this country a dictatorship almost without parallel in the history of South Africa, a dictatorship over every part of South Africa, including the people who sit on that side of the House. That is really the underlying reason for the difficulties in which we find ourselves. How can he expect us to have confidence in him and his Government when he adopts the attitude of cocking a snook at world opinion, of sacrificing the best interests of South Africa to the interests of himself and his party? Sir, the Prime Minister in his speech the other day referred to the danger of making political concessions in regard to the Coloured people. He referred to the danger that the majority of voters would force their will upon the public. Is there any example more striking than the example of that Prime Minister and his party in using their parliamentary majority—not the majority of the voters—to force their will upon the people of this country, as was done by removing the Coloured people from the Common Roll? The enlarged Senate and the High Court of Parliament? We have example after example to prove that he at least speaks from very close personal experience when he talks about a majority forcing its will upon the rest of the country. That is the trouble to-day, the domination of the country by a party which at the time had a minority of the votes and yet used its parliamentary power in order to drive wagons through every loophole they could find in the Act of Union. Only four days ago we had the last glaring example of this dictatorship, a statement made by the Federal Council of the Nationalist Party, of which Dr. Verwoerd himself is the chairman, a statement which has effectively muzzled every member of the Nationalist Party, otherwise they go. The Prime Minister has told them to toe the line, to “pack up” or to “shut up ”, and the majority will shut up.

You misread the statement.

No, that is what the country is suffering from, and that is what is helping to bring about the bad feeling overseas in regard to this country. Will he not see that he is sacrificing the country to his own obstinacy? Half the troubles we have could be solved if Parliament and the people of the country could turn their hands and minds to the development the country needs, instead of having to spend month after month on colour debates saying the same things over and over. Even the more enlightened members of his own party have tried to warn him and are becoming increasingly alarmed at the dangerous situation resulting from his obstinate refusal to give one inch. But he has warned them now, as well as their newspapers, to shut up or pack up; there is no place in the party for you if you do not follow my line—not the party line but my line. In fact, so badly has the ban of silence affected them that we have the astonishing spectacle to-day of the leading Nationalist paper, the Burger, in its recent leading articles in effect pleading with the United paper to attack the Prime Minister as the result of the ban of silence imposed on them by the Federal Council. They asked that we should follow up their attack on the Prime Minister because they have been shut up. Can you imagine such a position, when a powerful party has to appeal to the Opposition to do their work for them? That is what it boils down to. [Interjections.] It is difficult to find more decisive evidence of a granite dictatorship than the one Dr. Verwoerd to-day exercises over his own party. It is against that background that we on this side of the House can see no hope of having confidence in the Government while that state of affairs exists and while the members of the Government themselves are muzzled and gagged and cannot try to do anything for the country because it would mean their expulsion from the party.

Mr. Speaker, because the hon. member who just sat down just put a number of questions to the hon. the Minister, I shall not waste my time on him. I am rising particularly to speak on the matter raised here by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, namely his declared labour policy, the rate for the job, but before I do that, I want to make a few general observations about the United Party’s position and that of the Progressive Party and the Nationalist Party.

We now have in this House three parties with policies pointing in only two directions. The policy of the Nationalist Party has been put very clearly in the legislation passed in this House during the past 12 years and as far as the future is concerned the legislation already passed by the Government is a very clear guide as to which course is being followed. The Progressive Party is following the directly opposite course. The one is facing north and the other is facing south. There is no doubt about the direction of the Progressive Party, namely the abandonment of all colour bars and the elimination of every difference between the races in all spheres. As far as the United Party’s direction is concerned it is described in language which indicates that the party would like to ensure the survival of the White man in this country but at the outset I already pointed out that there are different directions and if the United Party also wishes to go in a northerly direction but takes the first deviation to the left and says that in future it will always turn left it must necessarily mean that it is going in a direction opposite to that which it professes to be following. That is why we have the peculiar position of having three parties going in only two directions. The United Party’s direction becomes so obscure and unclear that even some of its erst-while greatest and most enthusiastic supporters were so befuddled about the policies which were being followed that they were compelled to leave the party, because although they say they are following a certain course they are moving in the opposite direction.

I also want to add this, that it will be a glad day in the history of South Africa—and it is something the Nationalist Party has said since it came to power in 1948—if the time arrives when there is an Opposition which criticizes Government measures from a purely South African point of view, and when there is not an Opposition which regards itself as a remnant of those troops who were at war with South Africa 60 years ago. Sir, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition sometimes does things in his capacity as Leader of the Opposition which I am unable to describe as anything else but being a sin in the political and constitutional sphere. We can find no fault when criticism is levelled at us but when time and again you get the impression, as a result of the remarks made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and under his inspiration, that they almost pray that some-catastrophe should befall South Africa, it is too much. I will say what his favourite remark is, and those words hurt me so deeply that I find it difficult to retain my respect for him as Leader of the Opposition. His favourite remark is always: “South Africa is heading for disaster ”, and in that he is loyally imitated. I am not even referring to the hon. member for Constantia. I think if there is anybody who really and truly hates every good deed of this Government it is he. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not miss any opportunity to tell the world that that is what he hopes for. Very recently he still said on a very important occasion: “And let us announce to the world, seeing that almost 99 per cent of the world is opposed to the Government because of its apartheid policy, and let us tell the United Nations and all the other nations that we are against the policy of this Government.” He speaks about patriotism but why does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition accuse South Africa before the nations of the world?

Why must I agree with the Government in order to be a patriot?

If you do not agree with the Government you should accuse it before the electorate, before the tribunal of the people and not before the communists and the United Nations and the other nations. You must put your case fairly before the tribunal of the people. Let me remind the hon. the Leader of the Opposition of the words of the Leader of the Opposition before the 1948 election. He said to the late Gen. Smuts: “We have put our case and now we challenge you before the tribunal of the people.” And Gen. Smuts and the United Party were summoned before the tribunal of the people and the people condemned the United Party. What does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition his henchmen and their Press do? They do not accuse the Government before the tribunal of the people; they run first to England and get the assistance of the British Press and then they go to the United Nations and get the support of the crudest enemies of South Africa. That is the greatest, the most unforgivable sin which you can ever have in the political sphere. Let me tell the United Party this, that they have my greatest condemnation for this. If you think that the Government’s policy is wrong, go to the electorate but stay away from the enemies of South Africa. That is my accusation against the United Party. But they are the people who always say that they are South Africans. They are as little South African as they are a united party.

Now I come to my real point, the labour policy of the United Party, the rate for the job. This is a matter which has been discussed here before and the United Party has now thought fit to repeat it here. I do not know whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition completely realizes what it means if instead of work reservation for certain groups you base your whole labour pattern on the basis of the rate for the job, and allow all trade unions and all skilled workers and everybody who is in the labour market and also all the office workers to understand that immediately you apply the rate for the job it must mean that the White man, the Bantu and the Coloured man will be brought together in the same trade union and at the same work bench. Before I go any further I want to say this. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition who has so much to say about the Coloureds who must not be forgotten has apparently forgotten that where you had the position where the rate for the job was applied the Bantu came from his territories and completely ousted the Coloured community from the labour market in Cape Town and a great portion of the Western Province. Not even the Coloured is able to maintain his position against the Native when it comes to the rate for the job. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his advisers expect that the White man must maintain his position. The White worker lives at a high level of civilization which he has maintained through the years. To-day he does not stand back for any country of the world as far as his standard of living is concerned, not even for America. The rate for the job will mean that the White mineworker and the Bantu will have to do the same work next to each other. On the Railways and in the building industry the Bantu and the White worker will be treated on the same level. Is there anybody with any sense who will allege that it will be possible for the White worker to maintain his position in the labour market as he is able to do under work reservation at present? And the same applies to the Coloured. It is just not possible. But let me tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this: If he thinks that organized White labour in South Africa will ever tolerate his labour policy then he does not know the worker. The position is that the White man in order to protect his living will resort to all possible means as he has done in the past. Therefore, if we apply our policy more and more with the idea of protecting the White man we want to put the position very clearly for the benefit of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as well as for the benefit of those people outside who echo his words when he says that we are depriving the non-Whites of certain human rights. It is false to tell the world that we deny the Bantu and the Coloured the same rights as the Whites enjoy. No, it is this Government which for the first time has made it possible for the non-White worker to be trained, but not in competition with the Whites. In his own territory he can have the same advancement as the White worker has. Where are the Coloureds pegged by legislation? The Coloured has been ousted from his main means of existence as a result of the absence of any protective measures but the hon. member does not realize this. Do you know, Sir, what the Public Service will look like in a few years’ time unless you have these protective measures? Do these people who propagate the rate for the job think that it will apply only to workers and not to office workers? What about the offices and the Public Service? Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition think he will be able to mislead the office worker to think that it will not be applied to him? If you apply it to industry you will also have to apply it to the Public Service. Then it will be simply impossible for the White man to survive in this country. No, the rate for the job will then be applied and once you apply it in South Africa it is impossible for the Whites to survive. We know what they will seek their refuge in. They will immediately tell you that the White man will then have to be better qualified. As the hon. the Prime Minister has pointed out, our idea of separation is vertical but they want it to be horizontal. They want a certain, number of Whites in executive positions and then you must tell the non-White that he is not allowed to have those positions. Is the United Party going to draw a line there and to mislead the Whites by saying that the Bantu will be allowed to reach a certain level but not to exceed it? That is what happened in Ghana. Years ago they applied the same policy there and said that the Natives should be trained to become skilled workmen but when they opened their eyes the same Bantus told them to clear out. Therefore I say that if you continue along that road the result of the United Party policy must lead to the same result as the policy of the Progressive Party. The only difference is that the Leader of the Progressive Party says that this is his policy and his direction while the United Party say that they are not going in that direction, but the road they are following will lead to the same thing. That is why you have this Press comment where the Rand Daily Mail tells you that you can have the direction followed by the Progressive Party but that you must first follow the road chosen by the United Party. Do you remember, Mr. Speaker, that this attack on the White people of South Africa took place even before Union but it was an important consideration, particularly at the time of Union. In those days the Unionist Party was in the opposition. That was a party which had the same idea as Britain, namely “no colour line ”. When General Botha came into power here, General Botha, who recognized a colour line, they aimed at the day when the Opposition, the Unionist Party, would come to power. We know what the pattern is; the Opposition of to-day is the Government of to-morrow. Thank heavens that will not apply to the Opposition we have sitting opposite us to-day. In any case, they thought that the old South African Party would remain in power for some years but that the day would arrive when the Unionists would get into power and then the time would have been right for the abandonment of all colour bars. That was the pattern which was being followed. The pattern was: Make them poor. And from that day this policy was applied to impoverish the South African people with the idea that it would then forget its colour consciousness. Make them poor and drive them to the mines where they would be forced to become the comrades of the Bantu and then their colour consciousness would disappear. Did it succeed? It succeeded to the extent that in 1924, after 14 years, there were 300,000 poor Whites in South Africa. Pay them 3d. per lb. for their wool; give 3s. 3d. for their maize—that was the policy then. The White masses were driven from their farms and were sent to the mines. There they landed in the midst of the ranks of the poor Whites—that is how efficiently that policy worked. But it was of course never dreamed that a new movement would result, namely the Nationalist Party which took up the case of those people. Thank Heaven, a new movement came into being and a new leader arrived, the late General Hertzog and anybody who knows the A.B.C. of South African politics will remember that the protection of White South Africa in the labour market was one of the cardinal points in the policy of General Hertzog. Very soon after he came to power he passed Act No. 26 of 1925, the first Colour Bar Act passed in South Africa, for the protection of the White mine-workers. The basis of the Colour Bar of 1925 later had to be extended and it still has to be extended daily even now. That was of course directly in conflict with the ideas and the plans which were made at the time of Union. At the time of Union the idea was that the opposition, the Unionists, would take over later and that it would then be an easy task for them to apply their policy when there would have been hundreds of thousands of poor Whites. There were 300,000 poor Whites at the time and they expected that there would be many more. But the history of South Africa continued and the miracle happened; they succeeded in their aims; a process of impoverishment did take place but there is one thing in which they did not succeed. The poorest White man in South Africa retained his self-respect and, strengthened by the suffering which he experienced in the days of the crucible, he revived. As a result of that, eventually the Nationalist Party came into being and the movement came forth to give protection to the White man of this country. That idea spread and it grew and to-day the one protective measure after the other is taken to ensure the position of the White worker because it is his people who are sitting on this side of the House. In those days the idea was to impoverish the White worker and to degrade and demoralize him so that it would be impossible to rehabilitate him. That attempt did not succeed. Those people were rehabilitated and to-day they are not only the rulers of South Africa but they follow a policy which enables them, in spite of the fact that they have to face the cruelest enemies at the United Nations and in spite of the attacks by the local Opposition which is acting in a treasonable way, they are able to maintain themselves. Mr. Speaker, if this is not a miracle in the history of a young nation which had to struggle so hard then I do not know what must be regarded as a miracle. Now at this stage we get people like the Opposition who do not oppose any measure in this House from a purely South African point of view. For this reason the day will arrive when you will see this Opposition obliterated to make way for another political organization, for another party which is prepared to view matters from a South African point of view, a party with love for South Africa and which does not represent other forces in this country. Mr. Speaker, the rate for the job is a diabolical policy, because under that policy you get an alliance between the ultra-capitalist and all the non-White groups, because they regard the non-White groups as the groups to whom they will have to pay the lowest wages. For this reason you always get this unnatural alliance. Therefore you will always find that the capitalistwho wants to exploit South Africa is in alliance with all the non-White groups because in this they see a means of bringing White South Africa to its downfall.

[Inaudible.]

If the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would only think for one moment and not hover between heaven and earth, they would realize that the non-White races and the White race do not have the same standard of living. Is it unknown to them that the Wage Board fixes wages mainly on the basis of the standard of living of people and their requirements in order to maintain that standard of living? The hon. member need not shake his head because then he is a stranger in Jerusalem. The first question the chairman of a Wage Board in South Africa asks is: What is the standard of living of the workers; what is the rent they have to pay; what are their requirements? And on that basis their wages are fixed. I am asking anybody with any intelligence: Are you going to pay a person with file living standard of a White man and a Native from the reserves the same wage for the same work? How can a person who is not completely senseless suggest such a thing? Is it any wonder that in all those constituencies where there are White workers the U.P. is disappearing more and more? It is because it is something which you cannot tolerate in South Africa. Amongst the commercial community it has been the idea in former years to impoverish the Afrikaner and in that way to force him down to the same living standard as that of the non-White. That was the pattern from 1909-10 until there were 300,000 poor Whites. And now they emerge with the new pattern and the slogan: “We must raise the wages of the Natives and lower the wages of the more highly paid White man.” That is the slogan they have now adopted.

Will you explain to me what you understand by the rate for the job, because it seems that you do not understand it yourself.

I gave the hon. member the opportunity to put a question; I did not know he was going to be so foolish or frivolous in regard to this matter. Everybody knows what rate for the job means. It simply means that for a specific class of work you pay the same wage. The term explains itself; you need not ask any questions, unless you have lost your breath swimming in Klipdrif. I have already pointed out that on the continent of Africa, where the rate for the job was applied the White man had to clear out. I have already pointed out that here in Cape Town, where rate for the job was applied, the Coloured had to clear out and if you continue applying the rate for the job you will have all your Whites ousted from industry and in the end you will have only non-Whites in your industries, and what will the position of your own people be then? Do you think we want to be a nation of shopkeepers? No, a substantial part of the Whites, particularly those of Boer heritage, believe that labour ennobles, and we do not intend running away from the labour market. We intend maintaining the position of the White man in the labour market and we are going to confirm the words of the hon. the Minister of Labour, namely, that amongst the White workers we want some of the best and hardest workers in South Africa. We want our White workers to be an example to the other nations and when we fix this high standard for ourselves, we are proud of it and we want to see it maintained. But then we also want to add at the same time that what we want for ourselves, what we want to protect for ourselves, we also want to grant and we also want to give to other racial groups, but in their own territories, because if we allow them, according to the pattern announced by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, to compete with the White worker in this country, then the White worker will not be able to make a living at his workbench, he will not be able to make a living in the mines and his place will be taken in the Defence Force and also in the Public Service by the non-White. This pattern we reject with all our energy and I hope that this will always remain the attitude of every White working man and woman in this country.

I have always had considerable admiration for the personal self-confidence of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. V. d. Berg) who comes here repeatedly, as he has done this afternoon, and lays down doctrines in the labour field which are repudiated by the very large majority of all the trade unions in South Africa. I am for that reason all the more struck and disappointed by his complete lack of communal self-confidence, because his argument this afternoon, as I understand it, revolves again and again round a single point, that he does not believe that the European South African is capable of standing up to the competition of other races. We for our part do not share either his great confidence in his own abilities or his great lack of confidence in the abilities of his own section.

Mr. Speaker, among the many interesting and worthwhile things that have been said in this House, I would place first something that was said by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when he said that one of the cardinal features of the position in South Africa was its urgency. It has been a matter of regret to me that that concept, that feeling of urgency which should permeate the thinking of all of us at this time, has been notably absent from this debate. We have seen, even the youngest of us, history move with bewildering rapidity, as events overtake each other almost before we have had time to grasp what is happening, and for us in South Africa, in our circumstances and at this time, to debate our problems as though we had decades to solve them, is almost more tragic than failing to debate them at all. After that statement, there are two others which have been made in this debate, to which I should like to refer in quite the opposite sense, not in the least in a sense of approval. One was the outstanding statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister himself about the wonderful peace and quiet which South Africa is enjoying. The Prime Minister, apparently feeling some need to motivate so very remarkable an utterance, said that what he meant was that after all there were a few little troubles in South Africa last year, but there have been troubles before and even bigger troubles before, and he mentioned the time when 50,000 Africans marched from Springs towards Johannesburg, and he said that compared with this, the things that had happened in South Africa in 1960 were chicken feed. Sir, at what previous time, when these troubles to which the hon. gentleman referred took place, was there a national emergency that lasted five months? At what previous time, when there were troubles in South Africa, were thousands and thousands of South African citizens put in gaol without charge and without trial? At what previous time in these troubles in South Africa, to which the Prime Minister referred, did we have the Air Force, the Army and even the Navy, too, as the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) said, patrolling the coast of Pondoland? Is this normal; is this the kind of peace and quiet which the Prime Minister holds out for us as the sort of situation with which we ought to be content? I must say that if I required to call witnesses in my support in this matter, it was most opportune that I happened to see the leading article in the Burger this morning, because the Burger does not take the same view as the. Prime Minister. Arguing in support of certain things which the Government has done and against certain things which the Opposition has said, the Burger says—

The hon. the Prime Minister is apparently amongst them. And further, in connection with the comparison which the Prime Minister sought to draw between the recent troubles in South Africa and former troubles under former governments, the Burger has this to say—

They are including the war years—

So, Sir, even without looking anywhere beyond our borders—and I count myself as one of those who believe that we should not look too consistently beyond our borders—even without looking anywhere beyond our borders, we should be able to see the great danger of the situation in which we find ourselves and its grave urgency. If, of course, we do look beyond our borders, as from time to time we should, to see what the trend and what the speed of post-war history has been, then we realize that we and we alone are swimming against the stream, which is a very powerful stream, and that this factor, over and above what I have said about the internal evidence of danger, must make us more alive to our danger. But, Sir, this astounding statement of the Prime Minister’s was, I think trumped by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration. It is true that the Minister of Bantu Administration has a reputation for this sort of thing. He is, I believe, the gentleman who remarked a short while after Sharpeville that race relation in South Africa had never been better. But I think he trumped that one too in this debate. He tells us that there are few countries in the world where the masses have more rights than they have in South Africa Sir, this is, after all, a question of fact. The hon. gentleman has remarkable opinions, but of course he has a perfect right to put them unchallenged, but this is a matter which is perfectly easily met. Of course, there are countries behind the Iron Curtain and there are dictatorships in the world where nobody has any rights at all, the masses or anybody else, but the hon. the Minister refers to masses. Where else in the free world do the masses groan under so complicated a web of restrictions as they do in South Africa? Where else do we find pass laws, influx control, restrictions on the right to own property, restrictions on the right to work and earn; where else do we find a Church clause and an Interdict Bill? Where else do we find the regulation, for my knowledge of which I am indebted to the hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) that what you write on the gravestone requires the approval of the Minister. Where else in the world do we find the masses without any political rights whatever? Sir, I am not arguing the Justice or otherwise of these measures at this moment; that can be done on another occasion, but I am arguing the inaccuracy of the Minister’s statement, to put it extremely mildly.

Where else is the situation as complex as here in South Africa?

The hon. gentleman may be right; I do not think he is but I will argue that with him separately. The situation is complex. I am dealing with the hon. the Minister’s statement of fact, and even if there were justification for it, I still say that what the Minister said yesterday or the day before, with great respect, is not the truth and the same goes for the statement which the Prime Minister made. Sir, I am going to endeavour to argue about certain other statements that he made in this debate, but I cannot argue with these two; I simply reject them, because the facts are there for all of us to see, and on the facts these two statements are incorrect. Sir, we are in danger and the position is an urgent one. I want to argue to-day that the dangers to South Africa, which appear to be various, coming from different angles, flow, very nearly all of them, from a single circumstance—from the circumstance that we in South Africa persist in a policy of discrimination on a basis of race alone. Various speakers, dealing with the problems which we have, have sought various different broad directions in which we can solve them—and very rightly and very properly too—but there is one direction, one policy, which I suggest we cannot hope to follow either with justification or with any success, and that is a policy of discrimination on the ground of race alone. I make no apology for briefly reminding hon. members what I mean when I talk of racial discrimination. I think it is necessary that we should remind ourselves of it. It is the process of the deprivation of rights, privileges or opportunities to an individual on purely arbitrary criteria, criteria which could concern themselves with religion, with language, and, I suppose, with hair colour, but which in the case of our country concerns itself with skin colour or with what we call “race ”. In other countries at other times there has been discrimination on grounds of religion. There has sometimes in history been discrimination on the grounds of language. These too were equally arbitrary criteria. The essence of discrimination is this, that an individual who has talent, who has ability, who may have training, who has ambition to improve his position in the world, finds that the doors are closed to him and that the roads are blocked, by the accident that he was born of a certain mother and at a certain place and time. What man worth the name ever in the long run accepts such treatment; what people worth the name has ever accepted such treatment? The hon. member for Namib quite correctly referred to the history of the Afrikaner people in this connection, but there are few peoples in the world who at one time or another have not struggled against discrimination, and what is important for us in South Africa to realize is that every one of them has struggled with success sooner or later. Indirectly at any rate, the hon. the Prime Minister appears to agree with this statement that discrimination cannot be practised with impunity. In 1959 in a no-confidence debate, he lectured the Opposition on the theme that their policy was in fact discriminatory and he proceeded to adumbrate his own policy of Bantu homelands.

In 1961, just the other day, the hon. the Prime Minister argued essentially the same case with a new terminology. He spoke of horizontal and vertical apartheid. Vertical apartheid was defined as a separation in which every individual within his own community would be able to rise right to the top. Sir, it is not very different from the arguments we have heard since 1948, except that the terminology has changed from time to time to give it a new look, and I think it is time that somebody said that after 13 years we are no longer going to be bluffed. For 13 long years we have heard of apartheid, of territorial apartheid and of “eiesoortige ontwikkeling” which, with your permission, Sir, I will not translate because the English is so indelicate. We have heard of Bantu homelands and now we hear of vertical apartheid. All the time we find that they coin another phrase which, for next year, might be “separation with justice ”. And what in fact happens? More urbanization, more economic integration, less separation and certainly less justice. Thirteen years is not a short time, Sir, at any point in history and least of all at this point in history. Thirteen years is long enough to allow fine phrases to fade into something which is ugly. Thirteen years is long enough for us to turn the veil aside and to see what the policy is that is practised in South Africa, and this policy is one of racial discrimination. Whether the African concerned lives in the White areas or whether he lives in the African areas—and if he is a Coloured man then for practical purposes he cannot live in a Coloured area, and if he is an Indian he cannot live in an Indian area at all—the fact is that they are discriminated against in some or in all of the ways that I enumerated just now when I was talking about the right of the masses in South Africa. Sir, for years we have been told about, and with varying degrees of patience we have waited for, the development that was going to take place that was going to create the circumstances in which we might move away from discrimination. There was a time when we were told about the great curve by the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration; when we were told that after the first 25 years of their reign the number of Africans in the town would increase and that thereafter by some alchemy they would begin to decrease. That theory appears to have been dropped now. A while ago the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) was explaining that there are considerable administrative difficulties in the way of setting up the machine which one day can begin to implement the positive side of the apartheid policy. Sir, there is no member in this House who is not aware of the administrative difficulties; there is also no member who is not aware of the degree of expenditure that is being incurred on the development of these areas; there is no member who is not aware that these problems are being trifled with. We have heard here that there is a very handsome furniture factory outside Umtata. I dare say there is, but there are another 100,000 Africans outside the Witwatersrand. We were told this afternoon by the hon. the Minister that he is spending certain sums—in answer to a question he said very small sums indeed—on developing the Native areas to increase their carrying capacity. How would that sum compare with what is being spent in the City of Cape Town or in the City of Johannesburg every year to increase its employment facilities? Those Africans who have gone into trade and have become shopkeepers are told that they should go to the Bantu areas and that there they can develop to the utmost of their ability. You are sending shopkeepers to the areas where the customers have no money to buy, and the African population is finding itself, after 13 years of fine phrases, either for the most part in the so-called White areas of South Africa where he is told that he is a temporary sojourner and therefore cannot have any rights, or he is finding himself in the impoverished Native areas of South Africa where he is finding himself the subject of the Department of Bantu Administration instead of the subject of the Union Government, but in neither case is there any move away from discrimination or any move towards justice. The hon. the Prime Minister’s predecessor in office used to be fond of the word “baasskap ”. It was a crude word, a word with an unpleasant sound, but it was an honest word and it described what was being done then and it describes precisely what is being done now. I say again that 13 years is long enough; we are sick and tired of fairy tales. Let us discuss this policy for what it is; let us discuss it as a policy of baasskap and a policy of baasskap cannot be maintained, not because of external attitudes, although they immediately constitute a problem; not because of any political difficulty about it, but because these are human beings with whom we are dealing, human beings who have something within them of the dignity of the individual, human beings who try to strive for the integrity of their own personality, and this striving of the human being for its own individuality has been shown again and again to be stronger than the power of authoritarian government. This is why it was most unfair of the hon. the Prime Minister to charge the Leader of the Opposition with having a policy of horizontal apartheid while he himself had a policy of vertical apartheid. I do not deny that the policy of the Leader of the Opposition can be described as horizontal apartheid, but I say that the policy of the Government, so far from being vertical apartheid, is horizontal apartheid, only on a much lower horizontal level than that of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Discrimination is too dangerous and too explosive; it is too immoral and too unjust to succeed. What then? Separation? Total separation in the real sense? The sort of separation that was pleaded for in 1950, for example, at the Conference of the Churches in that year; the sort of separation we have heard about from the intellectuals; the sort of separation which, it has always been conceded, if it was possible might be a solution. But I do not think that anybody genuinely believes it is a total solution to-day. Only a few minutes ago the hon. member for Kempton Park was reminding us that we did not have to concentrate too much on what he called “die aardrykskundige faktor ”. More and more the most fervent supporters of the Government policies have been admitting that they do not envisage total partition in spite of the fact that total partitioning could be the only justification for the policy that they are applying throughout South Africa. But since total participation appears to be discarded there is no need for me to take up much time for it.

Do you expect us to give the Basutos political rights here?

Mr. Speaker, I am asked if I believe that the Basutos should be given political rights in South Africa. If a Basuto has worked and lived in South Africa long enough to have become a South African citizen then, precisely as I would give an Italian or a Pole political rights, I would give it to that Basuto.

The question now arises whether, in a partial sense, there is virtue or there is value in the idea of some separation. Here we come to much more practical and much more interesting grounds. There are hardly any of us in this House who have not, at one time or another, looked in some measure at the possibilities of the population sorting itself out, at any rate approximately, into different areas of the country. As far as this party is concerned, we have said that we believe in the decentralization of power, in a reasonable degree, to provincial government and in the interests of provincial and local self-government; that we can envisage the wisdom, at some future time, of perhaps creating within the borders of what is now the Union, new provinces; and that we have the hope that at some future time we can make of South Africa a greater whole by the addition to it as extra provinces, other territories. And so in that sense we have said that some decentralization of power, some federalization may be a good thing. From time to time among the Nationalist Party spokesmen there has been talk of a federal arrangement between different areas of South Africa. In this debate the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has dropped a strong hint that he believes—I think his expression was that some geographical content should be given to the idea of federation.

Let us, by all means, have some decentralization, some federation in South Africa. It may serve many purposes. There are many of us who believe, in any case, that in a plural society of this sort the federal system is more conducive to freedom. But there are certain conditions which we must observe if our approach to the idea of federation is to be a constructive and ethically justifiable one and a practical one. The first is that we must realize that while there may be areas—as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition suggests—which are predominantly White, and areas which are predominantly African—those there certainly are —we would still be dealing, in each one of these areas of any reasonable size, with a multi-racial society and the problems of a multi-racial society. So whatever the virtues of this arrangement may be, it does not get us away from the major problem of coping with the adjustment of people of different races, each to the other. Particularly does this apply to what are thought of as predominantly White states. There would, in fact, on present population figures be no possibility of a state which was predominantly White existing in South Africa, if it were of any substantial size.

The second thing we must realize is that when we talk of federalization or decentralization we, at any rate, for our part, do not wish to do anything that could lead to the fragmentation of what is now the Union of South Africa. When we talk of decentralization we talk of decentralization within our country, and not of the development which could lead to the secession or to the ejection of parts of our country. Thirdly, and perhaps most important of all—because this is the temptation which lies before us all—the idea of decentralization or federalization must not be yet another trick to deprive qualified citizens of South Africa of the rights which they deserve. Whether we federalize or not, for so long as there is a central Union Parliament the only just—and in the long run the practical thing to do is to give to the citizens of South Africa, whatever province they are in, the representation which they, on their merits, deserve, in the central Parliament.

So the federation that may be of value to South Africa can be a partial solution; it can be a help to us in adjusting ourselves to each other within our country. But the problem is essentially the problem of adjustment within a multi-racial state. And whatever we may do along these lines, we will still remain with that problem.

Are you against Black baasskap?

Yes, certainly I am against Black baasskap. What a really childish question!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in the latter part of his speech during the introduction of this debate, faced the question of adjustments in a multi-racial society. He made certain suggestions to which I want to return, because although I agree with everything he said I think there is more to be said on the subjects that arose. He said what I have already referred to about the urgency of the problem. And he said that in the creation of national unity there were certain things that must be observed and certain tasks that must be fulfilled. He said first of all that Western standards must be maintained. I could not agree more fervently. But I think that this is another one of these phrases and see what we mean when we talk of Western standards. Surely, Sir, if Western standards mean anything, Western standards mean that the individual citizen should be allowed to realize his own abilities and to lift himself in society as high as he is capable of doing without artificial restrictions being placed on him to prevent him doing so. So, in agreeing that we must maintain Western standards I would, with submission, draw the attention of the House to matters like our Pass Laws, our industrial Colour bar, and to the net-work of political barriers on grounds of race that exist in South Africa. And if we are going to move towards Western standards which can stand the test of comparison with Western standards as they have always existed, and as they exist everywhere else in the Western world to-day, then we have got to begin immediately to remove the mass of discriminatory legislation against South African citizens. And if we are not going to do this, then do not let us abuse this fine phrase “Western standards ”. Let us rather say that we are adopting a set of standards of our own.

The second thing the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, and which is, of course, profoundly true, and which deserves to be more closely examined than he had time to do, is that he said there must be justice to the Natives. Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this word justice is one of the words of which each of us, within himself, knows the meaning. I do not believe it is open to wide varieties of interpretation. If I may, I will take an illustration which is important to me and which will serve as an example. There were a number of men who qualified with me at University and who entered the same profession as I did, and who practised. Some of them, when we wrote examinations, did better than I, some did less well than I did. Amongst both groups there were people of colour. And I think of the men of colour who did better than I, who have proceeded to higher professional qualifications, and who are rendering distinguished professional services. Justice, to me, means quite simply that I cannot justify treating that man on an inferior basis to that on which I treat myself. And that is what we, the South African people collectively, are doing. And so, when we speak of justice to the Natives let us apply the lesson of that example all the way down. Let us see that justice to the Native—if that is what we mean—means that in the same sort of measure as any other citizen of the country he must be able to realize the good and the ability and the potential that is in him in that part of the country in which he has to live and in the circumstances in which he has to keep himself alive.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is relevant here to refer to something that was said in almost exactly the same phrase “justice to the Natives ”, a long time ago, at the Convention of Union, by Mr. J. W. Sauer, when the question of the Native franchise was under discussion. He said—

Let us not, in any group in South Africa, take this noble word “justice” and prostitute it in order to disguise policies that are really discriminatory. Because racial discrimination is the opposite of justice. We speak of leadership with justice.

Is it possible?

Of course leadership with justice is possible. Leadership with justice is possible as long as the leadership is leadership on merit; as long as with just treatment, this group or that group give equal treatment to people of equal qualifications. Members of that particular group can preserve a leading position. There is nothing wrong with that, in fact there is something fine about it. But when we talk of the maintenance of leadership and we talk of it by restrictive measures, by discriminatory measures, then I doubt whether that is leadership but I know it is not justice. So when we talk of the maintenance of the leadership of our own group in South Africa, we have to look some distance into the future, and we have to ask ourselves, do we mean merely that for so long as the aggregate of skill and experience and character and education is in the hands of our own group, we will maintain leadership? Or do we mean that we propose to maintain leadership through baasskap? There is the watershed; there is the watershed in the whole approach to this problem of justice to the Natives.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, very truly, that if we are to maintain harmony in our multi-racial state then it is necessary, in the economic field, that we should raise productivity. Of course it is. I do not believe that you can give to people the opportunities that they deserve or that you can keep the peace, physically, between the people of South Africa unless we can maintain constantly rising levels of production. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, with truth, that in order to maintain the highest productivity it would be necessary to do away with job reservations. Now by job reservation most of us mean the provisions recently incorporated in an Act which is a certain, specific piece of legislation, which can be used to deny people the rights to do certain types of work. But, of course, job reservation can have a wider context, and I am not sure how the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was using it. Under the measures that will have to go if we want productivity to be raised to the maximum extent in this country, are certain measures which, quantitively at any rate, are retarding productivity more at the moment than is job reservation. I refer to them only in passing, and I am aware that there are motions on the Order Paper dealing with them. The restriction on freedom of movement, the freedom to sell labour in the highest market as contained in the pass laws; influx control system, most certainly has an adverse effect on productivity. Industrial colour bars which at present exist most certainly have a deleterious effect, perhaps the largest, on productivity. And there is the very great importance, indeed, of the lack of training facilities for many of our workers of all races. These things are preventing our people from producing all that they can. And all of these will have to be dumped, because I think there is almost nobody in this House who would not agree that it is only going to be in circumstances of rising productivity and rising economic potentialities that we will be able to sort, in peace, this dreadful problem of race relations with which we have to deal.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went on to say, quite correctly, that the Coloured people must be treated as part of the Western community. It will not surprise anybody to know that we agree with that. And we applaud the step that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has taken in saying that the Coloured people should be entitled to sit in this House if elected. Again it is necessary to elaborate. We will not be treating the Coloured people as part of the Western community until, on whatever qualifications are thought right, Coloured women are able to have the franchise. We will be treating them as some other part of the population, but not as part of the Western community. We will not be treating them as part of the Western community until their brothers in the Northern provinces are allowed to have the franchise. We will not be treating the Coloureds as part of the Western community if the qualifications we lay down for their franchise are different from those that we lay down for the White part of the community. The hon. the Prime Minister observed, correctly, that in order to treat the Coloured people as part of the Western community we will have to allow them to join our own political parties.

These are all among the steps that must be taken if we are to take this wise and good decision of considering the Coloured people as part of the Western community. Now, Sir, pretty well all these steps which I have said will have to be taken in terms of the suggestions that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made, amount, as I said at the beginning of my speech, to one thing, to the abolition of that discrimination which says to a man: “Because you were born of a certain mother, you will be denied opportunities and doors will be closed against you.”

If we look briefly at our economic difficulties, we see that those flow from two things: Improper use of the labour force, due very largely to discriminatory legislation on the one hand and on the other hand the destruction of the confidence of investors which flows from the fact that our race policy being discriminatory, many investors become nervous about the prospects of their investments in South Africa. And if we look for a moment at our overseas problems—I propose to do so only in passing—what after all do they amount to? I think the hon. member for Kempton Park put them correctly when he referred to the difficulties that flow from the fact that we and we alone in the whole of the world in 1961 uphold as a matter of governmental principle racial discrimination. I return to where I started, to what the Burger called “almost revolutionary state of affairs which has obtained in South Africa in recent times ”, we find that that is fed by a sense of grievance, which in turn is fed by the fact of discrimination. That is why, Sir, I make these remarks in support of the Leader of the Opposition’s motion, with the addendum that my own Leader proposed. Sir, there has been talk in this debate, when the hon. the Prime Minister spoke, of the “uitroei van die Progressive Party ”. Possibly members in other parts of the House may say the same. That, however, is not the test. We might be wiped out all of us in this House. What we have to decide, Sir, is whether in the foreseeable future a method of government is going to be found under which South Africa can be governed peacefully. Sir, when one looks at the prospects under a discriminatory form of government, when one looks at the hopelessness of substituting total partition for a discriminatory form of government, then one ends by quoting the words that the hon. member for Queenstown has used before: That in the end South Africa will be governed in this way, because this is the only way in which South Africa can be governed.

Mr. Speaker, of late we have been living in exciting times. The Santa Maria is on her way, but no one knows where she is bound. We are living in an era when a large luxury ship has been taken over by mutineers, something which one does not expect in this day and age, something which does not fit into this day and age at all, something which fits into the present-day world just as little as the Progressive Party fits into present-day South Africa. The hon. member who has just sat down (Dr. de Beer) has made certain statements, but one thing was clear. It is that he considers everything to be moral, everything to be right, but self-preservation is not right. When one pleads for self-preservation, when one advocates a policy of self-preservation for the White man, then it is wrong. That we may not do. Because the hon. member pleaded this afternoon for everything except for the children for whom he is responsible.

I say that we are living in strange times when we in South Africa have a party consisting of members who sit here but who do not represent anyone, nor do they represent the Black or Coloured people of South Africa. They base the entire policy which they are advocating in South Africa, their policy of equality, on one thing, namely on “merit ”. They are always talking about “merit ”. And now they have tried to tell us everything imaginable, but no one has yet been able to tell us what “merit” is. They appointed a committee to investigate this whole matter, but to this very day they have not yet decided what “merit” is. But not one Black leader of note in South Africa has given his support to the far-reaching proposals which they have advanced. The Black man has continued to adopt the attitude that they do not go far enough. They had two Black men serving on their committee and these did not support those decisions either. I now ask the hon. member: Seeing that they have gone so far that the Leader of the Progressive Party states frankly that he foresees an eventual Black government and a Black Parliament in South Africa, seeing that this was not acceptable to these two Black members on the committee of the Progressive Party, seeing that it is not acceptable to the leaders of the Black and Coloured peoples, what does he think he will achieve by this policy? If that committee had a majority of Black members in line with the population ratio in South Africa, that proposal would not even have been adopted. I therefore do not think that we should take much notice of them because one thing is certain, namely that at the next election not one of them will come back to this House. The White man does not want them; the Black man does not want them. Why should we take any notice of them? I think they have one duty to fulfil in this House and until they do so, they will have failed in their duty. It is to tell us what the definition of “merit” is. I leave it at that. One should perhaps add that we should write off the Progressive Party at the moment as the suicide party.

We have before us a motion of no-confidence in the Government. The hon. the Minister has referred inter alia to the result of the referendum and to that magnificent majority which was gained for the republic. To-day the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is apparently not satisfied with the majority of 75,000 and all I want to tell him is that by no means all those people who voted against the republic belong to his party. It is by no means the position that they all support his party. Consequently, as far as the main opposition party and the Government in this country are concerned, the Government’s majority in South Africa is far greater than 75,000.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has complained that as a result of the Government’s policy we have failed to maintain South Africa’s good name overseas. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants us to have a good name overseas and he also wants us to remain a member of the Commonwealth—I do not want to discuss that matter at the moment. I now want to ask this afternoon whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said one single word or whether any of his supporters have said one single word during this debate which can be used to help South Africa overseas, or which can strengthen the hand of the Prime Minister at the Prime Ministers’ Conference in London? Just one word? Have they said one word which will enable the hon. the Prime Minister to say to the other Prime Ministers: “I have been given by the Leader of the Opposition this support?” The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is going to reply to the debate to-night and seeing that this is such an important matter, let him tell the country and le him tell us what he said in his whole speech that may assist the Prime Minister in his efforts to retain South Africa’s membership of the Commonwealth. No, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has aroused suspicion. It upsets him that Mr. Hammarskjoeld might have formed a reasonably good impression of South Africa. Because what has the Leader of the Opposition said? He has said that perhaps the Government had something to hide away while the Secretary-General of the United Nations was here. He then referred to the assistance which he had offered. In what way has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition offered his assistance? He went to Europe and he travelled there. But the Prime Minister as Prime Minister of South Africa is responsible, and he alone is responsible, for trying to retain South Africa’s membership of the Commonwealth. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said that this was his task overseas. Why did the Leader of the Opposition not come like a man, as the late General Smuts most probably would have done, why did he not approach the Prime Minister before his departure to offer his assistance in the proper way? No, he made a statement, and the Prime Minister had to read it in the newspapers. But as a courteous person he should have approached the Prime Minister and said that he would like South Africa to remain a member of the Commonwealth. Because that is after all his desire. Instead of making a statement, he could have approached the Prime Minister and said: “On this point we agree; Seeing that I am about to go overseas, I offer you my assistance.” No, we no longer have that type of political decency in South Africa. And it could have gone further. If the Leader of the Opposition had approached the Prime Minister, as one would have expected of a Leader of the Opposition who is worth his salt, it would not have remained at that. What would it not have meant to South Africa if the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister had issued a joint statement on this matter. What would it not have meant if the Leader of the Opposition had gone abroad with that statement in his pocket! But he did not do so. No wonder that they took such little notice of him overseas. But then he comes here and he tries to arouse the suspicion that there may be people who do not feel in this way, and he also lets slip the opportunity to tell the world specifically what is good about South Africa. Since we met here last year, there have been disturbances in South Africa, but not one single word crossed the lips of the Leader of the Opposition even to indicate how badly things are going in other parts of Africa and how relatively well things are going in South Africa! After all a very apt comparison can be drawn between what is happening here in South Africa and what is happening in the Congo and elsewhere in Africa. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not do so because it might possibly be used to South Africa’s advantage. On the contrary the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has come forward with this complaint: “The Government were downright neglectful in defending our country. ”

Hear, hear!

There was a time when a United Party Government was in power …

There was a time when the Prime Minister was the editor of the Transvaler!

Thank God there was a time when the present Prime Minister was the editor of the Transvaler! Thank God there was a newspaper such as the Transvaler. I do not blame the hon. member for Orange Grove for being angry because the Transvaler was one of the instruments which contributed towards a National Party coming into power in 1948. There was a time when the United Party was in power and when it was the duty of the United Party Government to defend our country overseas. And how did they do so? Their own newspaper, the Sunday Express, wrote the following on 21 July 1946—

And the Sunday Express went on to say—

Then they went further—

That was in the days when they were in power. Now they say that we are not defending South Africa. But I just want to read one sentence to the House. We know that nothing more can be done and nothing more has ever been done in the interests of South Africa than this Government has done, and in particular by the Minister of External Affairs overseas and at United Nations. When the United Party was in power, Mr. Heaton Nicholls was the representative at UNO of the then United Party Government. Here I have the history of UNO and this is what the historians have to say about Mr. Heaton Nicholls—

It is not a Nationalist who wrote this, nor a South African. This is the history of the United Nations as it has been compiled. Mr. Heaton Nicholls had nothing more to say than that the Natives of South West were left to themselves.

That is quite untrue!

Quite untrue. The impression is being created here that the present Government is doing nothing. In the first place the position has not become so bad all of a sudden. The position of South Africa and of the White man has not been good anywhere in the world for the past 15 years and longer. But allow me now to tell the hon. member that under their regime, even the late General Smuts who was one of the founder members of the old League of Nations and of UNO as well, did not enjoy any influence or respect at the United Nations and they paid no attention to him. In 1946 the great General Smuts was there. At that time South Africa’s position was supposedly so sound and now it is supposedly so bad as a result of the National Party’s policies. The Security Council was then being constituted. There were 11 countries but South Africa was not one of them. The Socio-Economic Council was constituted—it had 18 members but South Africa was not one of them. Fourteen judges were appointed to the International Court, but there was not one single South African judge. At that time already South Africa’s world position was extremely critical. Allow me to say frankly that I am the last one to try to maintain that the position has become any easier to-day. Our position has become more difficult, but not as a result of the policies of the National Party Government but as a result of changes which have taken place in the world, as a result of a sickly journalism which wants to justify everything that is Black, but vilifies anyone who says that the White man also has a place in Africa and even in the world as well. As long ago as 1946, despite the personality of General Smuts, the United Nations did not elect South Africa to any of those important committees. At that time there were 51 members. To-day there are 100 members. In 1946 there were only three African states and the Union, that is to say four. To-day there are 23 African states who have only one thought, namely that the White man must be forced out of Africa and South Africa. Allow me to say this. Apart from the 27 African states, only nine of the 49 additional members are not under the influence of Russia and Communism or of the non-Whites. Forty of them are either Black states or Communistic states. In other words, we have the position to-day that 27 per cent of the states at the United Nations are Black; far more than half are states which are under the influence of the Communists. It is with that atmosphere that South Africa is faced to-day. It is not the National Party Government; it is not our policy primarily which is to blame, because a policy which is far milder than we have to-day, did not achieve any success in 1946 but only met with opposition. To-day the position is far different, Mr. Speaker, our position is also unsound because we in South Africa have people like the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and those hon. members opposite and our press who play into the hands of our enemies. It may be said that I have the press on my brain, but until we ensure that the press is at least loyal to its fatherland, we shall not be able to solve our problems. I have already discussed this matter on various occasions. The Cape Times reacted and the Star took over the report. It discussed this matter and said—

The Cape Times wrote this report and the Star took it over. I shall give a few examples this afternoon. And seeing that this is a challenge which has been issued to me, I think that the press, if it wishes to be at all reasonable, should publish these examples. In the first place I want to give examples of lies and distortions which have appeared in the local newspapers. Let us leave the outside world on one side for a moment, although these reports were sent abroad. Immediately after the Sharpeville riots the Sunday Express published the following words on its front page—

That is an absolute and infamous lie. I want to give a second example. The two reports on the disturbances have now been laid on the Table. We know that many of our non-Whites and our Whites too do not read the newspapers themselves, but they particularly read the poster on which a newspaper such as the Cape Times advertises in the mornings. Do hon. members know what the wording of the Cape Times’ poster was? Just these two words, referring of course to the Langa report—

That is all. That is the impression which the outside word has been given. I suppose this is the “fair play” which the Springboks are also experiencing. On 6 June 1960 the Rand Daily Mail also had a poster which read as follows—

I have the report here, and it does not contain one single word to justify this heading. Now, Mr. Speaker, if this type of thing is not destroying South Africa, what will destroy a country? A little boy criticized the Prime Minister and now he is being banned! Then there is another example. Let us take last Sunday’s newspaper. We know that at the moment discussions are taking place in church circles. This is something which is going on, and the Sunday Times now says—

Dr. van der Merwe has a telephone and the newspaper has one as well. They did not phone him. Another newspaper had to phone Dr. van der Merwe on the following day and what did he say?—

This is the type of Press we have here. I want to read something else which also relates to the reports which have been laid on the Table, and I want to refer to the newspaper which serves the area of Sharpeville and Vanderbijlpark and which at the time published banner headlines about dum-dum bullets. The reports have been laid on the Table in this House. Nevertheless the Rand Daily Mail did not publish one single word about them. They only mentioned the report in a later issue. As far as the outside world is concerned, it is surely very important, particularly in the economic sphere, that we should uphold our good reputation. I refer once more to the Sunday Times. This newspaper stated that the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and the Secretary of the Mineworkers’ Union had decided that they were going to try to nationalize the mines. Both have denied this report and said that it is absolutely untrue. But while this is so important and while we are all so eager that we should remain a member of the Commonwealth, the Sunday Times published this report on 20 March 1960—

Everyone in South Africa knows that this report does not contain a word of truth because the Prime Minister is in fact going to that conference and it has always been his intention to do so.

Mr. Speaker, we are uplifting the Black man. But the Sunday Times on 7 August published the following report—

The Department of Bantu Education issued a statement in which they refuted all these false allegations. But, Mr. Speaker, the worst aspect of the behaviour of our local newspapers is the following. In the world to-day there is no worse word than the word “dictator” or “dictatorship It is perhaps not disapproved of quite so strongly when it takes place in Ghana! On 19 September 1960 the Daily Despatch which supports hon. members opposite published a boxed item on its front page—one can almost describe it as an advertisement, emanating from the editor. It read as follows:

This is a local newspaper. But here I have a few other examples of reports sent from this country to the outside world, reports for which South Africa and particularly its English Press must take responsibility, because they emanate from their offices. On the 22 January 1958 the following report appeared in the New York Times—

This report emanated from Cape Town on the 22 January. But the person who spread the story that the police used dum-dum bullets during the riots, namely Rev. Reeves, has been deported from South Africa. This has been done for various reasons, but not for political reasons. He has been deported because he is a danger and is undermining South Africa, and inter alia because he did not have the moral courage at least to come and give evidence. What did the Sunday Express publish on its front page on 18 September 1960—

But worst of all is the fact that reports are sent from the offices of the Sunday Times by a political correspondent, and I am ashamed to mention his name here. I shall therefore not mention his name, despite what he drew in Ghana. He wrote the following to the Observer, an overseas newspaper with a very large circulation—

Hon. members opposite can laugh, but this report emanated from the office of the Sunday newspaper which supports them. It is their aim to present South Africa to the world in this light. It is not only we who realize what is going on. I just want to read to the House one small report what a very eminent visitor from abroad said. He said the following to the Rand Daily Mail—

But, Mr. Speaker, it is not only the Press who are guilty of this crime. It is not only they who are taking part. Hon. members who sit on the other side of the House are doing so as well. The hon. members opposite are aiding in this vilification by the challenges which they issue here and elsewhere. I shall first mention a member who is no longer here; he is one of the people whom we have expelled, one of the people over whom the hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) shed such crocodile tears. I am referring to Mr. Lee-Warden who stated here—

That was the allegation he made last year in this House. This was news which was broadcast to the outside world, and now the hon. member for Namib is sorry that he is no longer here. Have we read anything about thefts by the police in the reports which have been laid on the Table? Is there any member in this House and particularly the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) because he and his province have needed the protection of the police most in recent years—is there anyone in this House who believes that a policeman would rob a Black man? This report was sent abroad. But what did the hon. member for South Coast himself say on 25th April last year in this House. He said—

If this Government wins the republican referendum, there will be rebellion.

This was the forerunner of his story that they were going to march. But when he did not want to march, he said that he would not allow himself to be “wheelbarrowed ”. That was not true. He did allow it; they did wheelbarrow him on to that lorry from which he spoke. It was after the “wheelbarrowing” that he made this statement. They went further and they nearly pulled his arm out of joint. He was tied up. If we had been foreigners what were we to think when we read that if the vote went in favour of a republic, there would be a rebellion.

Who said that?

You said so.

Quote it.

You made that statement on 25th April, 1960 in this House.

It is not true; quote it.

The hon. member said in this House that there would be rebellion.

It is not true.

Does the hon. member also want to say that he did not say that they would march?

If you claim that I used those words, then please quote them from Hansard.

I have given the hon. member the date, and I shall give the Hansard to the hon. member who follows me so that he can read it to the House but the hon. member will not escape so lightly. I am not even going to treat him as lightly as the Natalians have done. Prior to the referendum he said all he could in Natal to make a rebellion possible. Mr. Speaker, who is marching? Are these peace-loving people? Where did the hon. member want to march—in front or behind? Were those people who met him at Durban airport friendly towards him, or was the newspaper correct when it said that he was as white as a sheet—from anger or fear, I do not know which.

Last year there was a Prime Ministers’ conference. In this House the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) then said—

Louw representing South Africa—a tragedy.

Hear, hear!

A man had to go to the conference to represent South Africa, and that under tragic circumstances. The Minister of External Affairs was going to that conference, but in this House it was said that it was a tragedy that he was going. Now hon. members say: “Hear, hear” but apparently even the Economist is better disposed towards South Africa than the Leader of the Opposition, because what did it write immediately after that conference? I want to read what the Economist said, and this is intended particularly for the ears of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition because he was also overseas and I have not read anything about him in the Economist. He said that it was a tragedy that Mr. Louw was going; he had to go abroad with that reputation to put South Africa’s case. But the Economist showed that it was more loyal to South Africa than the whole Opposition. This journal wrote—

One can only be grateful to the S.A. Government for having been represented at this Conference by the rock-like Mr. Louw, rather than by some misleading and conciliatory figure

Read on.

I shall tell the House why hon. members want me to read on. It is quite true that later in this article South Africa is criticized and unpleasant things are said about South Africa. That is what they now want to hear. I should really read it to them so that they can enjoy themselves because South Africa is once again being vilified. Is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also going to say that it is a tragedy that the Prime Minister is going to the conference? Is he going to say that it is a tragedy that he is taking the Minister of External Affairs with him?

Yes.

And then it is hon. members who say that we should do everything possible to remain within the Commonwealth.

Exactly.

So disloyal are those hon. members to South Africa in their statements; in exactly the same way we find statements in the foreign Press which emanate from here and elsewhere. I want to give a few examples for the edification of the British Press who always say that we make allegations and do not give examples. In the News Chronicle of 5 June 1958 I read the following report—

And Chris Chataway said on television in May 1959 that if the police arrested a Native in Johannesburg and his pass was not in order, he disappeared and his family might never even know where he had disappeared to. And the New York paper, the Reporter, wrote—

But I now want to tell the House about a personal experience. Last year, during the visit of Mr. Macmillan, I was living in a Sea Point hotel. The manager of the hotel is a good South African. Two foreign newspaper correspondents came to sign their names, as is the custom before one may stay at a hotel. While he was handing them the register, they were standing talking. We know that there was a small demonstration by about 250 people with placards at the airport when Mr. Macmillan arrived. With his own ears he heard the one saying to the other: “Let’s make it 25,000.” They did not want to make it 250 because that was too little; after all that does not sound like a procession; that does not fit in with the way in which they want to present South Africa and for that reason they said: “Make it 25,000.” This was supposed to be the procession which protested against apartheid on Mr. Macmillan’s arrival. What else do we read—

This appeared in the Reporter of April 1958. I leave it at that. One thing is certain in regard to South Africa: It is difficult to defend our reputation overseas to-day. South Africa does not have many friends in the world today, not because a National Party Government is in power, but because there is a sickly liberalism prevalent in the world to-day which wants to give the Black man everything and which condemns the White man; and because the good which this policy of separate development has really done is being grossly misrepresented not only by the Press of South Africa but particularly as a result of the distortions which are sent abroad and which are substantiated by statements made by hon. members opposite in this House. Again I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to pay us this one single courtesy. It is his great desire that we should remain within the Commonwealth. When he replies to-night, let him give me one single sentence from his whole speech which the Prime Minister can use with good result at the Prime Ministers’ conference in order to retain our membership of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Speaker, while I listened to the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) I experienced—and I think all of us experienced the same feeling, that we have had throughout this debate, every time a member of the Government spoke —a feeling of unreality; a feeling that we in South Africa—to judge by the speeches of hon. members opposite—are isolated; are living in a vacuum, the feeling that we are not part of the world, that we are not beset by the real dangers that beset the world to-day. I first got this impression while the hon. the Prime Minister was speaking on Monday. It has been confirmed by every speech from that side of the House. The Government gives the impression that they believe that South Africa exists in a vacuum, and that the appearance that we are living in that vacuum must be maintained by all the means at the disposal of the Government. If any member of the opposition warns of the growing isolation of our country, if they warn—as other people who do not think as we do have warned—that South Africa may be becoming the skunk of the Western world, then we are accused of lack of patriotism. In other words we are asked to put ourselves in the position of the householder who, when his house is on fire, must not sound the alarm bell to call the fire brigade because, the argument is, if you sound the alarm it may give satisfaction to the fire bug who set the house on fire. Or even, to judge by some of the arguments that have come from the Government benches, you must not call the fire bridgade because the water used to extinguish the fire may damage your upholstery.

The other impression that one gets is that this Government believes that it has unlimited time. Possibly never in the history of this House has unreality reached a more excessive stage than when the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior again referred to the undertaking given by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development that possibly by the year 1970 fewer Natives will come to the cities and there may even be a diminution …

When did I say that?

I am pleased to see that the hon. the Deputy Minister does not want to be identified with that statement.

Just keep to the facts. I know it is difficult for you but keep to the facts.

I am sorry if I attributed the remark wrongly, but it is very interesting that the Deputy Minister’s reaction should be so violent. Perhaps there are hon. members opposite who do have a slight sense of reality. But can you believe, Mr. Speaker, that in the time in which we live, with the events that are taking place in Africa and in the world, with events marching at the pace that they do, we have to accept as a possible answer for the problems of South Africa a policy which will, as far as the urban Native is concerned, show no results until 1970. Not until then will the first evidence of the effect of that policy become apparent, according to the hon. the Minister.

The third attitude of the Government that I have noticed, and which was again particularly apparent in the speech of the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee), is the conviction that only the Government is right, that only the Government knows, that only the Nationalist Party has the information, and that anyone who dares to make a contrary suggestion, who dares to adduce facts which may persuade them to another opinion, is a traitor. That person is presumptuous and is motivated by all that is evil and base. And only occasionally, as an act of generosity, they may say that the criticism is based on ignorance. We saw it in the statement of the Federal Council of the Nationalist Party a few days ago when an entire paragraph was devoted towards dealing with the intellectuals of the Nationalist Party and of the Afrikaans-speaking people, telling them that they must be quiet, that only the Government knows what is right for every aspect of life in South Africa. Even when we have tirades against the Press in South Africa and in other parts of the world, you will find that hon. members opposite will devote speech after speech to quoting examples of what they call misrepresentation. There are such examples, which I have seen myself, of deliberate distortion of events in South Africa. One cannot condemn them too strongly. But then one should be careful not to make oneself guilty of similar things, that one should not perhaps in a moment of enthusiasm also be guilty of putting a quotation in the wrong context, as happened this afternoon when the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) accused the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) of saying that there would be a rebellion in Natal. I think he should check his facts. He may find that the hon. member for South Coast was quoting a Nationalist Minister. One must be careful. I think it would be very much wiser for my hon. friends opposite, while condemning this distorted criticism of South Africa, also to remember that in the world and its Press we have friends who help us to put our point of view and who, when they criticize us, do it as friends, with all the benevolence of which they are capable.

Are you referring to Stanley Uys?

I was glad to see that occasionally one sees a ray of insight. I was, for example, very pleased to read the second leading article in the Burger yesterday, where in reply to a statement by a former ambassador of this Government to America, they made it clear that one cannot condemn the motives of the Western world without further ado; that those countries, like South Africa, have difficult problems and that a little understanding is due to them, too. We do not get much of that understanding from hon. members opposite. What should we do as South Africans when we consider how lonely South Africa is becoming in the world? I want to say immediately that I agree that we cannot surrender. We agree that South Africa has peculiar problems which require a peculiar solution, but we dare not ignore the fact of our growing isolation and the mounting dangers internationally to the future security of South Africa. If we do that we are negligent in our duty to the people of this country and to posterity. We should not surrender, but there are things that we can do. I want to suggest a few things we can do.

The Government, in determining its attitude and policy, in thinking about the course it sets for itself, cannot ignore world opinion when its hostility tends to become unanimous. I do not say you must surrender, but you should do something about it, and this Government can do something about it. Even if I do not agree with their policies, they can give bigger emphasis to and make bigger sacrifices for the positive content of their policy. When I look at the history of South Africa over the past 15 years, I do not want to use an argument which was so excellently used by the hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson), but you see the people of South Africa enmeshed in the negative measures of apartheid, many of which are indefensible, even according to the traditions of our own people before 1948. Sir, you need a very powerful magnifying glass, and in fact an electronic microscope, to find the positive aspects of apartheid. There has been a slight attempt at expediting the positive in the last few months, but the balance has weighed heavily in favour of what is negative and oppressive in the concept of apartheid. I say that a Government which studies the interests of the people of South Africa, taking into consideration the international situation in which South Africa finds itself, will lay more emphasis on the positive aspects of its policy.

The Government can do something else, and that is to inspect and examine their own policy to look for weaknesses and illogicalities in that policy which make it difficult for anybody to defend the policies practised in South Africa to-day in the world outside. Let me say in passing that there are very few of us who have not been in a situation where, however much we differ from the Government, we have been compelled to defend the Government against some of its critics. But the task of every Government supporter and every friend of South Africa becomes well-nigh impossible unless the Government is willing to look at its own policy, as some members of the Nationalist Party tried to do until the Federal Council met last week, to remove these illogicalities and weaknesses. Instead of that, we get a reaffirmation of an attitude which is more inflexible and more arrogant than one can believe possible, upholding the mistaken policy of the Government and what is wrong and indefensible.

When I speak of weaknesses and illogicalities, I am prepared to mention them. Every one of them appeared again in the speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister on Monday. But before dealing with that, I just want to draw the attention of the House to this, that something else appeared from the speech of the Prime Minister on Monday. The Prime Minister launched a vigorous attack, an emotional attack, upon the United Party because of our attitude to the Coloureds. He went to great lengths and indulged in excessive emotionalism and fear-mongering in telling the people of South Africa what would happen if our Coloured policy was carried out. But he did not attack our Coloured policy alone. That attack, Sir, was not intended for us alone. That attack on the United Party was a pretext used by the Prime Minister to decapitate the intellectuals and moderates in the Nationalist Party. He appeared to attack the United Party, but did so in such a manner that he was doing more injury to the thinking Nationalists than to the United Party. Who are these people whom the Prime Minister was attacking under the pretext of going for the United Party? They are people who normally support the Nationalist Party, people from every walk of life, people who are in revolt, intellectual and moral revolt, because they feel that they cannot indefinitely live with the untruth which is Verwoerdian apartheid. I say his attack on us, in order to reach his own people, revealed illogicalities which make the policy of this Government indefensible and which make the Government under his Prime Ministership unfit to rule the country in the second half of the twentieth century. I wish I had time to deal with all these illogicalities, but I shall take a few examples which go to the root of the question.

The very first one I think of is that the Prime Minister tried to use the technique of giving things names, good-sounding names with historical associations, which cannot with justice be applied to the things he mentioned. I think, e.g., that on Monday he described this new policy of his as a four-stream policy. What was his object? Consciously or subconsciously his object was to ask people to associate this policy with the two-stream policy of General Hertzog. Sir, that is illogical and it is untrue. General Hertzog would never in his lifetime have supported the policy which the Prime Minister re-announced the other day for the Cape Coloureds. General Hertzog would have fought the Prime Minister to the end of his days on something so illogical and unjust and so far removed from the actualities of South African life. The people of South Africa are asked to believe that this is a similar policy to General Hertzog’s, that as General Hertzog believed that English and Afrikaans-speaking people, while remaining a political and economic whole, should seek to develop their own cultural potentials. The Prime Minister wants us to believe that that is his policy for the Coloureds and the Indians and the Natives, but that is not so.

The second and major illogicality, which is indefensible by any South African, is the attitude of the Prime Minister to the Coloureds. I have sought for some logical justification for the Prime Minister’s attitude. I thought I had found it in a report which appeared in the Nationalist Press on 1 December, when the Prime Minister amongst other things said this—

To give that utterance some moral and logical content, the conclusion is inevitable that if you do not want to deny the Coloured people political rights for all time, according to their deserts as a community, you must apply, according to Nationalist thinking, the same principle and the same excuse that they are applying to the Native people. They can say with a semblance of logic that they will not give the Natives rights in certain parts of South Africa, but will give them rights in other parts where they can develop to the utmost of their ability, and there is some moral content and logic in theory for that. Sir, I read that statement by the Prime Minister to indicate that he would apply the same principle to the Coloureds, that somewhere there would be found for the Coloureds a homeland where they, too, would be able to develop to the utmost of their ability.

You must have read it wrongly.

Yes, I am sorry, I often read things wrongly when I try to credit the hon. the Prime Minister with logic, but I realized the tragic mistake I made when I read the Burger’s leading article this morning. Now you must please remember, Sir, that the moral basis of the apartheid policy is that every race affected by this policy will suffer no injustice because somewhere in South Africa there will be found a place where they can develop to the utmost of their ability. There will be no ceiling to the achievement of the people in the homelands to be created for them by the Government. That is supposed to be the moral basis and the very foundation of the thinking of the Nationalist Party, but what do I read in the Burger this morning? Of course they attack the English Press, inevitably—

What a situation that a prominent newspaper supporting the Government must accuse people—who believe that they read in the statements of the Prime Minister some moral justification for their policy in regard to other groups in the country—of attributing to the Nationalist Party something which is insane and mad? We get sanctimonious exhortations from the other side that we must help to defend the Government’s policy in the outside world, but when we seek something on which we can base our defence we are accused of accusing the Government of being mad. The policy in other words now for the Coloureds is not truly a policy of separate development, because if you want separate development, which is a moral policy, you cannot have it unless there is hope for those people that somewhere sometime they will also achieve political expression. No, this policy of the Prime Minister is a policy of separation, limited separation which will give an opportunity to a few of them to become chemists and attorneys in their own towns. Sir, how many Coloureds can become chemists and attorneys? It is a policy of limited separation, giving limited opportunities to some Coloured people to cloak a policy of complete injustice.

In what respect?

I can give the Deputy Minister the facts and the arguments, but not the intelligence to understand them. The fact is that whether we like it or not, the Coloured people are inextricably part of the Western community in the Union. They have no other homelands. They can have no other homelands than, to a large extent, the Western Province. They are part of us. They have been procreated by us. I think it is tragic that an hon. member like the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) should try to indulge in the argument that the Coloureds are of mixed blood but not of White blood except to a small extent. It is also a qualm of conscience, trying to escape blood responsibility for the sins committed by the White men against the Coloured people; and to go further and to suggest that that admixture of blood is entirely due to sailors! I must say that the sailors who call at the ports of the country are very fast-moving. In the few days that their ships take to turn round at the ports of Cape Town or Durban, they make sallies to Pietersburg in the Northern Transvaal to leave Coloured communities after a visit of a day or so! They are amazing people, Sir. In the few days it takes a ship to turn round in the harbour they can scatter their progeny throughout the Western Province, parts of the Free State and Transvaal. They can assume the guise of a Coenraad Buys and create large Coloured communities in the north west, and they can take the name of Dunn and create a whole tribe of Coloured people in Natal. I am sure they are the envy of every Don Juan and Casanova in history! This sort of argument does not make sense and it is not true. In any case it is not a question of blood; it is a question of the standard of civilization that these people have reached as a community. I say that if you look at the standard of civilization the Coloureds have reached as a community you find it is our civilization. To a large extent it is an Afrikaans civilization; and a party like the Nationalist Party which claims to represent the best of Afrikaans culture—they are of all people the last to deny progress and justice to the Coloureds. All of us, whatever our differences may be on definitions, have as our major political object in South Africa the maintenance of civilized standards. I am not one of those people who believe that we can define civilization by simple education tests. I cannot accept that you can define civilization purely on income, because if you did that the most civilized Black people would be the shebeen queens and the witchdoctors. But I do say that objectively it can be determined whether a community is civilized or not, and nobody can deny the observation of his own eyes and say that on the whole the Coloureds are not a civilized community. But the Prime Minister, instead of thanking God that we have in South Africa a million people who are civilized and eager to defend our civilization against all-comers, lives in trembling and fear of these civilized people. He says he cannot give them direct representation in Parliament. Why not? Because they will ask for more. Why, if separate representation of the Coloured people, which is the policy of the Government, which the Government defended for years in this House as being superior representation for the Coloureds to any other form —why, if it is truly representative of the Coloured people, should they be less constrained to ask for more? The Prime Minister’s logic is interesting. Do not let me give my child food because he might over-eat himself; he may ask for more.

Now I want to show a further illogicality in the policy of the Government, as glaring, and that is the refusal of the Government to face the fact that we have in South Africa a permanent Bantu urban population which cannot be retribalized. It is the refusal to face such an inescapable fact and to consider that fact in the formulation of policy which vitiates the Prime Minister’s entire philosophy and defeats every attempt by the Prime Minister at a logical presentation of his policy of separate development. For that whole policy is based on a fiction. The Prime Minister can get up in the House as he did on Monday and make an apparently convincing speech in which one argument logically followed upon the other, but if the first and primary premise is based on a fiction his whole argument falls to pieces. The very basis of the apartheid policy in regard to the Bantu is the assumption, which is a fiction, that all the Natives outside the reserves are temporarily resident in the urban areas and still have their roots and aspirations in the reserves. That is not true, Sir. And you cannot make it true with all the arguments and wishful thinking, all the regulations and all the laws, in the world. So the whole pack of cards collapses. If there is any proof needed, if there is any hon. member opposite who doubts what I say and needs proof, I say that the finest proof that you cannot retribalize all the Natives, that you cannot put them all into the reserves, is found in the policy of the Prime Minister himself, his policy of developing industry on the borders of the reserves. If the Prime Minister really believes that there is a future home for all Natives in the reserves, why is he not logical and put those industries inside the reserves? I will tell you why, Sir. There are only two possible explanations. The one I do not really believe is the true explanation but it is a possible explanation. That is that the Government wishes to place the industries on the borders of the reserves, on the White man’s side of the border, as a concession to the greed of the people of South Africa. The Government wants to have its cake and eat it. They want a degree of development in the reserves, but the plums must come to the White man. I do not think that is the true explanation, but if it is not true; the only other explanation is that the Government is now compelled to make a concession by this preposterous policy to the necessity of fact; and the necessity of fact that they cannot escape is that willy-nilly our prosperity is based on the integration in our economy of non-White hands, and we cannot undo that except at the cost of economic catastrophe, poverty and extinction of the civilized standards of the White man’s way of life. Sir, time flies. Is it not time that we in South Africa should face facts? Oh, let us dream our dreams and have our wishful thinking, but for heaven’s sake let us base the policies on which we hope to solve our problems and to further the happiness of our people on facts. And here are some of the facts. One is that the Coloureds are part of the Western community in the Union, and any attempt to escape that fact leads to injustice, to moral torment and to an untenable position against yourself, against your neighbour and against the world. The second is that the urban Bantu cannot by law be made into a reserve Native and retribalized. He has to be dealt with in a different manner from the Native in the reserve. The problem of the Natives in the reserves and the problem of those Natives outside the reserves who are not in fact domiciled in the reserves are two different problems, and if you try to equate these two problems and try to find one over-simplified solution for both groups, you land in the indefensible position in which the Prime Minister of South Africa finds himself to-day. Let us also accept—and to-day, after 13 years, I see a glimmer of hope—that we must have more immigrants in South Africa, not only to strengthen the White community in this country but also to give us the greater speed and the enterprise and the skills and even the capital that we need to raise the standards of all our people in South Africa as they have to be raised urgently. Let us decide that we shall maintain in South Africa at all costs not necessarily the White man because he is White but that we shall maintain in this country as long as we have the power to do so, civilized standards. We of the United Party feel strongly that any policy which is calculated to hand over power to uncivilized people, no matter by what indirect means one sets about that, is a policy which cannot be justified in morality or in conscience. There I may agree with people who say that one has the right to self-defence, but it must be an enlightened right and it can only be based upon the common desire of all people in this land to maintain civilized standards for those who have achieved it and to extend civilized standards as time goes on to other people who are capable of achieving it. Sir, different interpretations are possible as to what is right; there may be different interpretations of what is moral, but facts are there to be ascertained objectively and scientifically and logic is an exact science. The charge that we make against this Government and the reason why we say that this Government is unfit to govern South Africa is that not only in our opinion do they deny a true moral content to their policy but in the opinion of any objective student of this position, it is clear that this Government has neither logic nor fact on its side and it must fail, and the longer it stays in power the more disastrous for South Africa will be the failure of the Government.

The hon. member who has just sat down …

On a point of order, I heard the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) say to his colleagues: “Let us talk deliberately now.” They are talking so loudly that one cannot hear the Deputy Minister.

We are only paying you back in your own coin.

Order, order!

I just want to tell hon. members over there that they will not put me off by talking to one another; I am also going to talk to them. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) was kind enough to refer to my intelligence when I wanted to ask him a reasonable question. Let me tell the hon. member at once that I do not rate my intelligence very high; I rate it as just so high, as if he gave me his, it would still remain low.

I want to come to a few of the points which the hon. member for Yeoville made. The hon. member, as he has done in the past, referred to our policy—his interpretation of our policy. I am obliged to remind him once again, as I did on a previous occasion, of the fact that I do not believe him when he tells me what my policy is. With all due respect, I cannot even believe him when he tells me what his own policy is, and I want to prove that. In the course of his speech the hon. member attacked apartheid, the policy of this Government and the policy on this side of the House, but it is very striking that while they attack our policy on this occasion and on all other occasions, when they contest an election against the Progressive Party, as they are doing at present in Green Point, they peddle our policy at Progressive Party meetings—and I could call many witnesses. Just listen to the questions which the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. Basson) asks at meetings; at these meetings, judging by their questions, they pose as people who are propagating the policy of the National Party. The hon. member also tried to make capital out of quotations from the Burger. But I do not want to pursue that. I just want to read to him one passage from the parliamentary summary of Mr. Schalk Pienaar, and I would advise the hon. member to make a mental note of it—

The hon. member comes here and tries to create the impression among the uninitiated that the United Party’s new stand that Coloureds should be represented in this House by Coloureds has always been the policy of the United Party. Mr. Speaker, it is not even the policy of the United Party yet; it is still just an hallucination of the Leader of the Opposition; it still has to be confirmed by their congresses. But they have suddenly taken this stand because they are being forced by the Progressives to adopt some sort of stand. Alternatively, they have taken this stand because they believe that they can prey on what they believe to be dissatisfaction in the ranks of the National Party. That is why they have accepted that policy.

The hon. member advanced three propositions. He began by saying that “there was a feeling of unreality” during this debate. He says that for days he has had that “feeling of unreality ”.

When you talk; I have it again now.

I do not hold it against him that he has it. Psychologically speaking he need not be worried about it. All boxers who are punch-drunk become like that at times, and in the nature of things the hon. member has not yet recovered from the knock-out blow which he received on the 5th of October. The hon. member need not be perturbed about it therefore; he need not go and consult a psychiatrist about it; it will right itself again. In the second place the hon. member says that we accused them of not being sufficiently patriotic. As far as that accusation is concerned I want to say “amen ”. The hon. member says that we shout to high heaven because they call for the fire brigade when the house is on fire. But who set the house alight? Who is pouring oil on the fire? And, Mr. Speaker, they are not calling the fire brigade. If only they would call the fire brigade or even try to play the role of firemen themselves one could still forgive them, but they are calling other people to pour even more oil on the fire. That is what their conduct amounts to, and as time goes on, not only to-day but in the course of this Session, we shall see that that is indeed the case.

Then in the third place the hon. member says that the Government adopts the attitude that “the Government knows best ”. That is not the attitude which the Government adopts, that is the attitude which the voters of South Africa adopt; that is why we are sitting here and they are sitting over there. The hon. member accused my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) of having quoted incorrectly when he said that the effect of the speech by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) last year …

He never used the word “effect ”.

… when he said that the hon. member for South Coast had advocated rebellion in this House.

He was quoting.

I want to go further now and repeat that accusation against the hon. member for South Coast, because what do I find in Hansard of the 25th April at the end of the speech of the hon. member for South Coast—that speech in which he tried to frighten us? This is what he said at the end—

In other words, the referendum.

Why do you wrest it from its context?

This is what the hon. member said at the end of his speech and he wanted to frighten us with it. Mr. Speaker, I have not even read out what he said and he is objecting already. He said—

What does it mean? But I want to go further. If one looks at the trend of the whole speech, one can only come to one conclusion and that is that the hon. member was trying to frighten us, and when the Deputy Minister of the Interior spoke after him, he put this question to the hon. member for South Coast (because this was also the impression he got after having listened to the hon. member for South Coast). “Are you advocating open rebellion?” To which the hon. member for South Coast replied—

Yes. That is a totally different story.

It is not necessary for me to make any further comments on those words.

Mr. Speaker, we have listened to this debate for many days. It has indeed been an interesting debate. By the way, one of the most interesting aspects of the debate—I do not want to draw any inferences from that— it just struck me—is that on the Opposition side 12 speakers took part in the debate. Of those 12 ten were originally, and some are still, Afrikaans-speaking. I am not drawing any inference from that. It just struck me.

How many of you spoke English?

As far as opposition to the Government is concerned, I want to lump the whole of the Opposition together, including the hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson). It is interesting; we have two independent members here. The one was a Nationalist and he is fast becoming a United Party supporter; the other was a United Party supporter and he is fast becoming a Nationalist.

You can have him.

I want to make this prophecy in respect of the hon. member for Namib that when the next election is held in South Africa, he will be a candidate of the United Party. I think that is very clear to all of us. If one takes the whole of the Opposition on the other side, it is perfectly clear that their speeches radiated frustration, that their speeches radiated disappointment, that the attitude of some of them— the hon. member for South Coast, for instance —suggested that they were furious. One almost gets the impression when one walks into the Chamber that he is saying under his breath “left right; left right I say that is what their speeches radiated—frustration and disappointment—because we are listening here to a debate on a motion of no confidence, just after the referendum held on the 5th of October, and in that referendum the Opposition had everything one needed to win a referendum—and they said so themselves the best organization, the best propaganda. They lacked only two things; one was their fault and the other was their choice, in other words, they did not have the voters and they did not have a leader. That is why they lost. And that is why their speeches radiated the tone to which we have had to listen here.

Now I want to confine myself to the motion of the Leader of the Opposition and I want to pause for a few moments to deal with two aspects of it in particular. The first aspect is this that he accuses us of not having succeeded in maintaining racial harmony. I want to confine myself particularly to the question of English-Afrikaans relationships. In the second instance the Government is asked to resign. I notice that the Star says that the Leader of the Opposition made a mistake; they say that he should not have tried to attack the Government on merit. He should have attacked the Prime Minister personally, because that is what he and his fellow-party members did during the referendum, so much so that in a newspaper report of his speech, a report which occupied a column and a half, the Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Prime Minister’s name 37 times—so personal were the attacks against the Prime Minister.

Impossible.

The Leader of the Opposition was worried—and every good South African will justifiably be worried—as to whether or not South Africa had a good name abroad. He was not only perturbed about the fact that we have not got a good name abroad but he made the charge against us that we were doing nothing to restore our good name. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition was oversea recently. I did not accompany him, and consequently I do not know what he did there. I am dependent upon Press reports in South Africa to ascertain whether or not he did anything for us there, and I did not see a single Press report to the effect that he stepped into the breach for South Africa. As a matter of fact I did not even see a report indicating that he stepped into the breach for the United Party. Perhaps it was because the hon. member for Maitland (Dr. de Beer) was there before him and explained the Progressive Party’s policy there, and in the circumstances the Leader of the Opposition perhaps thought it wise not to explain his policy or the policy of South Africa. If the hon. member is so concerned I want to ask him to tell us where and how he tried to defend South Africa’s name abroad. I should very much like to hear that from him. Mr. Speaker, I listened here to the Leader of the Opposition and I once again read his speeches, as reported in the newspapers, and it was very clear to me that apart from the present frustration on the part of the Leader of the Opposition and his party, they had to find a scapegoat, and that they then decided that the proper course would be to use the Government as a scapegoat in connection with this. But it was something that struck me and the impression that I got from the speech of the Leader of the Opposition was that if I had been an enemy of South Africa and had wished to attack South Africa, I would not have wanted anything more than the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. I would have welcomed it with all my heart as ammunition against South Africa. I do not blame the hon. member for wanting to find a scapegoat after the recent election. It is only human to do so, but why, while his actual purpose was to shoot the Government, does he have to use South Africa as a target? The cardinal blunder which hon. members on the opposite side have always made during the years I have sat here, is that they cannot distinguish between the National Party and South Africa, they believe that the more they can slander South Africa the sooner they will overthrow the National Party. As far as they are concerned, South Africa and the National Party are one and the same thing, and as far as they are concerned both are free game. Mr. Speaker, he was annoyed and he wanted to find a scapegoat. I am not the only person who thinks so. It so happens that the Rand Daily Mail also thought so on the 26th October, just after the referendum, when they wrote in their leading article on the front page—

The hon. member can be pleased; that too will not be permanent—

That is what they are to-day, “unduly despondent about the future ”. But there is hope for them. I want to bring them a message of hope. It comes from the affable and loquacious member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty). He made a speech on October the 25th in Johannesburg, and this is what I read in the Rand Daily Mail—

They will simply have to try again. But what incentives have there been in the past for the Opposition? What incentives have there been in the years that I have sat here? I know it is difficult to be in the wilderness for 13 years. It is difficult if you have to confess to yourself that you are going to remain in the wilderness for another 13 years and another 13 years; it is not a pleasant feeling, and that is why I can understand their utterances. In the years that I have sat here the Opposition has had five expectations of coming into power. They entertained five expectations, one of which they hoped would put them in power. The first was—and one saw this especially after 1948—that they believed that the views of the voters would change. They believed that we had come into power by accident, and that very soon they would once again come into power. But let me take the calculations of the hon. member for Yeoville himself. According to him, we only had the support of 40 per cent of the electorate in 1948; according to the figures we now have the support of 52 per cent of the electorate. It is a futile hope the Opposition entertains if they believe that the voters will change their views. But the second thing that has kept them alive till now has been the fact that they have believed that an economic disaster is going to hit us and that that will perhaps bring them into power. But that is also a futile hope, because South Africa’s economy is fundamentally sound and is going from strength to strength. The third thing they hoped—I do not want to accuse them of having brought it about or welcomed it—was that internal revolutions would perhaps overthrow the Government, and that is why they are particularly angry with the Minister of Justice at the moment, as has been apparent in this debate, because the Government acted so quickly and effectively to bring about peace and quiet in the country. And that is why suspicion is being cast on the steps taken by the Government. Then, Sir, they hoped that there would be discord in the ranks of the National Party, which would stand them in good stead in any election in the future. I want to say to them at once that if they are pinning their hopes on discord in the ranks of the Nationalists, discord on which they can then prey, they are underestimating the solidarity of the National Party. Moreover, they are underestimating the confidence which the Nationalist has in the Leader of the National Party, the Prime Minister. In the fifth place, they hoped that pressure from abroad—and one gets the impression that this was their only remaining hope—would put them in power. That is why —and that is my charge against the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—they are doing little or nothing to uphold South Africa’s name abroad. I do not ask them to uphold the name of the National Party, because that would be too much to ask of the Leader of the Opposition, but it is certainly not too much to ask a patriot to defend his country, South Africa. You noticed, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition, in the course of his speech, referred to Reeves’ book about Sharpeville. The speech which he made on that occasion was an important one which was published throughout the world as one coming from the Opposition Leader in a police state, and this was an ideal opportunity to repudiate the statements made by Reeves and to do something for South Africa. Mr. Speaker, he had an open line in front of him to score a try for South Africa and he preferred not to do so. I accuse the Opposition—and their behaviour in this House bears witness to it at all times—of doing little or nothing to uphold South Africa’s good name abroad. Now the Leader of the Opposition comes along and demands that the Government should resign. Why must it resign? Because it won the referendum? He says that the Government should resign. He comes along with a motion of no-confidence in the Government and in the Prime Minister. Many reasons were mentioned in the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech as to why the result of the referendum can be regarded as a motion of confidence in the National Party—not because we wanted it to be like that but because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wanted it.

Various reasons were mentioned. During the short time at my disposal I should still like to mention two. The one is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said time and again “a vote in favour of the republic is a vote against the United Party His lieutenants said that. That was the blatant way in which it was put to the electorate. Why then does he not now accept it as a vote against the United Party and be done with it? After all he himself said it and invited it! Now the hon. member pretends to have forgotten that he and his followers said that. But the hon. Leader of the Opposition also went further; he should realize that I am a reasonable person and I want to warn him not to doubt it because I have the quotations here. He went further and said: “a vote against the republic is a vote against Dr. Verwoerd ”. Does he deny having said that?

Not at all.

You did say it?

Yes.

In view of the fact that you asked the country for it and now that the country has given its judgement in no uncertain terms, what right have you to come here and to ask the Prime Minister to resign? That is, as my grandmother used to say, “absolute foolishness ”.

I wish to say that this referendum which we have had was not only a motion of confidence in the National Party and the Government, but I go further and say that because of the unprecedented bitterness with which that campaign was launched against the hon. the Prime Minister, it was a personal triumph for the Prime Minister.

Seeing that we have been referring to the manner in which this campaign was carried on against the Prime Minister personally as an individual during the referendum, you will allow me, Sir, to give a few examples of that.

From the nature of things, some of them are unpleasant, Mr. Speaker, and I ask your forgiveness for that in advance. I cannot be held liable for what hon. members opposite say, but I think the personal spirit in which those hon. members opposite conducted the referendum campaign should be placed on record. According to the Cape Times of 20 September 1960—and the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) can start getting annoyed, because I am going to refer to him— a meeting was held in Durban and here I have the report which appeared in the Cape Times about that meeting. Referring to the meeting they say—

It is a pity I cannot say that about the speakers who addressed that meeting. They continue—

Surely that is not what you expect of a decent politician, Sir? You do not expect him to make a remark like that about any opponent, let alone about the Prime Minister, whether or not he agrees with him. But let us go further and see what kind of argument was used against the Prime Minister and against the National Party. A meeting was held here in Cape Town, at Camps Bay. A report appeared in the Cape Argus of 30 August about that meeting. But before I come to the section which I really want to quote, let me read the caption to you Sir, because that is something which should be preserved for posterity and accordingly appear in Hansard. This is what the Argus said—

We have made great progress in the interim, Sir. We remember the bitter attacks when “Die Stem” was declared the national anthem, and now the only difference between the United Party and us is that they sing it before a meeting and we sing it after a meeting. The speakers on that occasion were the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) and the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson).

What about the Progressive Party?

The Progressive Party was actually there, but they were not allowed to speak. Unfortunately they were satisfied with that. I do not know, however, why they dimmed the lights, Mr. Speaker. I do not think it was really because the hon. member for Sea Point was there. I have a vague suspicion that they did not want the people to see that the hon. member for Wynberg was one of the speakers. Because the Argus says the following—

Hear, hear!

I hear “hear, hear” Sir. Mr. Speaker, it would have been a tragedy if hon. members opposite who now shout “hear, hear” as far as the hon. member for Wynberg is concerned, were doctors and you called them in a case of illness in our home, because they would only have been able to diagnose two types of illnesses: If you do not suffer from khaki fever you suffer from German measles. According to them it will be a Nazi republic which we are trying to establish. That is how they try to make us suspect. I see, however, that my time is running out. I want to go further and say that not only was that campaign conducted against the person of the Prime Minister, because that could be illustrated by dozens of examples, but the English-speaking section of South Africa have never before been so recklessly incited by any political party as they were by the Opposition. But they will reap the fruits of that. Do you know, Sir, I am not very popular in Natal. The first motion of no confidence which I experienced was in Natal. But the person who is less popular than I am is the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell). I say that the English-speaking section who have been so misled by hon. members opposite, that section which was so recklessly incited, will yet call hon. members opposite to book. Is it surprising, therefore, that the United Party is on the decline? Their numbers are decreasing and decreasing. Let us be honest. The hon. member over there is looking me straight in the eyes. Is it not a fact that many people have to-day lost their respect for the United Party? They have done so because of the opportunism of the United Party and its lack of policy, because of the manner in which they have acted. I repeat that never before has the English-speaking section of the country been incited in a more reckless fashion. Just listen to this appeal which the party opposite issued during the referendum—

That was as big a boxed report as that to which the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) referred. That was a straightforward appeal to the English-speaking section to vote against us, not because they were against a republic in principle, or opposed to a republic on its merits, but surely and simply because they were English-speaking. Is that political morality? Are people who act in such a manner, people who love South Africa, who want to protect South Africa and who want to see South Africa flourish? But more than that: What sort of propaganda did they make amongst the English-speaking section with those gallow-noose advertisements and the like which they published? Listen to this one—

That was what they told the English-speaking section would happen if the Government side won the referendum. There are many similar reports that I could quote, but time does not permit me to do so. But just listen to this caption which appeared in the Star of 4 October, the day before the referendum, this illustrates how recklessly they played upon the feelings of the people. This is the caption—

Hear, hear!

“Doomsday” has arrived and hon. members are still sitting here. I would have expected to find the hon. member for Yeoville somewhere else. No, Sir, hon. members opposite are disappointed, frustrated, some of them are annoyed, and they are annoyed because they have had the thrashing of their lives. What has happened to the mockery we always had to listen to: You represent the constituencies, but the electorate outside is behind us. Even the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) will no longer dare to allege that. hon. members opposite have sown dragon teeth and they will reap dragon teeth. There you see the hon. members of the Progressive Party, Sir, they were reared by the United Party. To an increasing extent people are leaving the United Party. But this Government is growing from strength to strength and it is growing from strength to strength not because it is a super perfect Government, not because it is a Government which never makes mistakes, but because it is a Government which gives expression to what is happening in the soul of this nation and because it is a Government which the electorate of South Africa know truly loves South Africa and will take up the cudgels on behalf of South Africa. Because that is the position, it is ridiculous— to use the words of the hon. the Prime Minister—on the part of the Leader of the Opposition to ask the Government to resign. No, the Government must not resign, it must carry on. Neither is it necessary for the Opposition to resign, they will be extinguished on their own.

Mr. Speaker, I have always regarded the hon. the Deputy Minister who has just sat down, as a somewhat robust politician, with his background of generalship in the Ossewa-Brandwag. I could see with what nostalgia he watched the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell), marching, because it reminded him of the days when he marched “hotklou, haarklou, hotklou, haarklou!” He comes here and protests against the attacks on the hon. the Prime Minister during the referendum campaign.

Personal attacks.

Personal attacks, very well. Here is what the hon. the Prime Minister has stated—

Mr. Speaker, if there was anything needed to give encouragement and hope to this side of the House, and it is not needed, then it was the sort of speech we got from the Deputy Minister the last 40 minutes. What point has he made that has contributed to this debate in any respect whatever?

This no-confidence debate, in spite of the fact that it lasts four days, is a somewhat limited debate. It was very difficult to get the speakers in on both sides. We have had the experience in this debate, Sir, that certain members of the minor parties and Independents speaking in this House devoting quite as much time to the policies of the Opposition as to the policies of the Government. It seems to me that it is not the right place for time to be wasted on that sort of thing, and I want to remind hon. members of those minor groups that they were elected by United Party voters to fight the Nationalists, not to come here and waste the time of the House trying to criticize the policies of the United Party. I do not want to be unkind to them. I want to tell the members of the Progressive Party that we still believe that their policy is a complete abdication and is going to lead to a Black government in South Africa in the comparatively near future. If they have any doubts on the issue, it is always open to them to resign their seats; then we can test this matter. Because it will be a good thing, Sir, to get the ring clear before the big fight which has got to come during the next general election when this Nationalist Party will have to give account of its stewardship during the time it has been in power. It has been held together up to now by certain ideological ideals. Whether they will continue to hold them together is another matter. One thing is certain and that is that the public and the people of South Africa are becoming more and more impatient of their administration of South Africa.

Let us come to the motion itself, and let us deal with the charges made and the answers given by the Government, in so far as we have got any answers at all. In that motion I accused the Government of being neglectful in maintaining the good name of South Africa, and I indicated against what background that motion was introduced. I conceded at once that in a world in which there was acceptance on many sides of self-determination at all costs, South Africa’s position was a difficult one any way. What have we had? Over-sensitiveness to press criticism as illustrated by some of the examples quoted by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) about alleged skulduggery in the referendum. He should have read what was written in the United States after the presidential election, to realize what it is to give and take criticism in a true national spirit. They can’t take it! What did we hear? That our position is a difficult one, because of the conflict between the East and the West, as the hon. the Prime Minister said. I accept that. I think that is sound. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark comes here and contradicts him and says that we are in a difficult position because of a sickly humanism. Now who is right, Mr. Speaker? I go further and say that the policies of the Government and the attitude of the Government have made the position doubly difficult for South Africa. One of the instances of the difficulties with which we are faced was mentioned by me in regard to South West Africa, in respect of the Fourth Committee, in respect of our position in the United Nations Organization and in respect of the pending case before the International Court of Justice. The hon. the Prime Minister took exception to that, as did the hon. Minister of Justice. I would like to tell both those gentlemen that in conducting that case, that case is being conducted on behalf of South Africa, not on behalf of the Government alone, and the first duty of a reputable attorney is to let his client know what the position will be if he wins or if he loses. Instead of which what has happened? No proper warning has been given to the people of South Africa either as to what is involved or to what may be involved. I think that that is a very sad state of affairs for South Africa to be in at the present moment. I gave examples why I thought this Government had been neglectful in defending South Africa’s good name, and I instanced the delay in the publication, the tabling in this House, of the reports of the judicial commissions on Langa and Sharpeville. What explanation did we get from the Minister of Justice? First of all he told us that because the commissions had been appointed at request of Parliament, it was right and in accordance with the privileges of Parliament that the reports should be laid on the Table of this House. No one will deny that. But I do not believe there is one member of this House who would not have been prepared to waive those privileges if he thought he could save South Africa from the criticism we have had overseas because of those reports not being available. Then the hon. Minister said that the one report came in July and he held it back because he wanted to publish the two together because they happened to deal with the same subject. Did they? Did they have to do with the same subject? Their terms of reference were not to enquire into the entire circumstances giving rise to those unfortunate incidents. They were to report upon individual incidents. The hon. Minister could have done South Africa a great deal of good if he had released the Langa report in July last year, and let the world know what the Judge felt about the happenings there. Then we had the story of it affecting the credibility of witnesses. Good gracious me, Mr. Speaker, what difference would it make? In cross-examination you challenge the witness and if you were to say that the commission had disbelieved him on a certain point, he would be perfectly entitled to say that the Judge was wrong—it is not a judicial finding for all time, it does not stand against his record. And there are still 45 cases outstanding. I have the greatest difficulty in understanding how a government, jealous of South Africa’s good name, could have this information available and be so lax and slow and neglectful in publishing it and making it available to the world. The hon. Deputy Minister of Education in one of the few passages that was of any importance said: Why did I not repudiate the statement in Bishop Reeves’s book? For the simple reason that I had not the report available and did not know where I stood. If I had been in possession of the report it would have given me great pleasure to repudiate some of the statements that were made in that book.

Reeves’s book is banned. You can’t read it.

I will tell the hon. the Minister where he can find a copy. He may read it under your surveillance in the library, Mr. Speaker. I criticized the Minister because of the numbers of people detained and not charged during the emergency. What was the reply we got from the hon. the Minister? He said: “Yes, I was complaining about the ‘arme, bandelose leegleërs en tsotsi’s en diewe Is he prepared to say that those were the only people who were detained—“arme, bandelose leegleërs en tsotsi’s en diewe”?

I said “a large percentage of them ”.

Now he is qualifying that. You see, Sir, he challenged anyone to get up and to say that it was wrong to detain these people “waar hulle verantwoordelik was vir hierdie dinge ”. If they were responsible, they should have been charged and nobody would have criticized it. What horrifies us is the small percentage apparently charged, having regard to the total number of people who were detained.

Is it the first time in South Africa’s history that that has been done?

The hon. Minister is now suggesting that it may have been done on other occasions. That does not interest me. It probably did South Africa’s name harm then. He should have learned from experience. If we have had that experience before, he should have learned what to do on this occasion.

Sir, I criticized once again the failure of the Government to appoint a commission to go into the root causes of the disturbances at Sharpeville and Langa. The hon. the Prime Minister in replying to that said that he knows the reason but that others would deal with that matter. Who? No one in this debate so far has dealt with that point. The hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development referred to the bad character of Sebukwe, the leader at Sharpeville and referred to the fact that Kgosana was a Basuto leading proud Xhosas. What about it? They would not have succeeded in doing what was done unless there were grievances. Because never could they have had the success they have had unless there were people who were dissatisfied and unhappy and ripe to listen to the sort of nonsense talked by some of those people. And it is exactly those grievances we wanted to get at, and the Government can never remedy those grievances until they know what they are. What does commerce think, what does industry think? But from the Government we have as yet had no statement as to the causes of those happenings. The result is that the world is drawing its own conclusions, as irresponsibly as you like, and we have no proper explanation and are not in the position to defend ourselves.

The fourth charge had to do with the trouble in Pondoland. The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said that it was part of a pattern. Bizana had been a trouble centre always, that the trouble had been inspired by White communists, that Whites slept at night in Pondoland, inciting against the Bantu Authorities, that they would not dip, that they were against development, against the educational system. He had a commission of inquiry, which supported some of the complaints. He has never told us what he is going to do with the results of the commission of inquiry. He has never told us whether they were right or wrong, he has never told us what action the Government is taking to see that that state of affairs does not arise again. Meanwhile we had the story overseas that the Navy is patrolling the coast. In answer to a question this afternoon, the hon. Minister of Defence said that it was not so. Why was that not denied at once?

I denied it months ago.

I am very glad to hear it. I wish it had been published overseas as well. But where are we? Once again we have the position that had there been no grievances, there would have been no trouble. The Minister appoints a commission. The commission says there are grievances. Apparently he never told the Native people themselves what he was going to do about those grievances. He certainly has not told us. I say that this is a most irresponsible way to act, and it is an irresponsible way to treat the Press of the world who is interested in South Africa, and it places the friends of South Africa in the position that they are absolutely defenceless against the attacks of people overseas. That is why I say that this Government has been neglectful.

I made a further charge that as a result of the action and inaction of the Government the entire moral content of apartheid had been destroyed. The hon. the Prime Minister had a great deal to say about the struggle between East and West as a background to the difficulties with which we were faced. I think we all know that. I think many of us could have made out that case as well, many of us here made it out before on behalf of South Africa when we ourselves were overseas. But then we got the suggestion that General Smuts had exactly the same troubles as we have, that we are just as unpopular to-day as we were then, and that in fact it is the unreasonableness of the world and not the fact that this Government is unable to justify the morality of the actions which it is taking. Mr. Speaker, look at the voting at the United Nations Organization over the last 13 years. In 1947, the South-West African question came up and 20 nations voted with us, 4 abstained and 27 voted against us. Amongst those voting with us were some of the biggest and most important nations in the world. In 1957 as many as 56 voted against us, 12 abstained and only 5 voted with us. In 1960 not one single nation voted with us. We sit before the Fourth Committee alone. We do not deserve it. If proper steps had been taken, I am satisfied that that position could have been very much improved.

There are other examples, but I do not want to go into them in detail. What is the justification the hon. the Prime Minister is now giving for his policy of apartheid? He is talking now of parallel streams and vertical apartheid. I want to say to the hon. gentleman that in South Africa, to an ever-increasing degree, the art of staying in power and of retaining government in this country is going to depend less and less on negative criticism of positive suggestions than it is going to depend upon taking the right action at the right time. And the tragedy with which we are faced, which becomes worse every year, as time becomes shorter and shorter for South Africa, is that this Government seems quite unwilling to grasp the nature of the problem with which it is battling or to take its courage in its hands and grasp the nettle which is the essence of that courage.

The hon. the Prime Minister has time and again spoken of the races flowing in parallel streams, and “we shall keep them that way,” he says. Now, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman thinks our racial streams are running parallel then all I can say is that he has a very different notion of parallel lines from the notion I have. My definition of parallel lines is lines which move in the same direction but never meet. But what is happening here, applied in its simple terms? Many millions of Bantu live in our urban areas. Many work in our mines, many work in our factories. Our Asiatics and Coloureds are inexplicably interwoven in the economic life of the European in South Africa. And the numbers grow from year to year, as the census figures have just shown once again. The fact of the matter is simply this, that the whole apartheid theory seems to be based on a misconception of these racial streams, because what we have, in fact, is one broad economic stream for the whole of the Union of South Africa and all its races. And it seems to me you have the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government trying to put fences in those streams to keep the races apart and saying “Now there are four different streams” despite the fact that the water is flowing through the fences as much as it likes. The fact is that insofar as there is separation it is in the political field, and only in the political field that the hon. the Prime Minister maintains that separation, apart from some measure of social and residential separation.

And then the hon. the Prime Minister talks of the morality; the pillar of morality which stretches from the bottom to the top in each stream. But where, Sir, is the morality when there is job reservation? Where is the morality when certain people are only allowed to do certain things in certain areas, where it would probably be less profitable for them? Where is the morality of the application of the Group Areas Act in such a way that it is undermining the livelihood of a large sector of the population? Where is the morality of the treatment of the Cape Coloured people? The Cape Coloured people to-day have less than the Natives had a few years ago. They have representation in Parliament, it is true, but what is their ultimate development going to be? What is the position in regard to job reservation as applied to them? I ask the hon. the Minister to deal with this, but he fobbed me off and said he would deal with it later. I am still waiting, because he cannot justify it and he knows it. They talk of the development of those 2,000,000 morgen for the Cape Coloured people. What does that prove? It is not a national home, said the hon. the Minister. Well, what is it then? An area for land settlement? And does their future lie in this multi-racial area? What hope is the hon. the Prime Minister holding out for them? We hear from the hon. the Minister that the Coloured Affairs Council will get more responsibility. Mr. Speaker, where is the morality?

Let us take the question of the urban Native. The urban Native permanently settled in our industrial areas, by a fiction is deemed to be domiciled in the reserves, for purposes of his political rights. Where is the morality now? And this is the sort of thing that makes it difficult, if not impossible, to defend the policies of this Government overseas. The hon. the Minister talks of dividing up the land into areas for Natives which are going to be their home lands; something like 80 per cent of the population are going to have their home lands in something like 17 per cent of the land. Then you must go overseas and defend the morality of that action! I think the hon. the Minister is beginning to appreciate what I mean when I say it is difficult to defend South Africa’s good name overseas while these policies are followed.

Then I charged the Government with having failed to promote peace and racial harmony in South Africa, and the reply I got from the hon. the Prime Minister was that we must not forget what the position had been like in the past; there had been disturbances which we had forgotten about; 50,000 people had marched from Springs on Johannesburg. But has there ever been one year in our history when there has been a Cato Manor, a Sharpeville, a Langa; difficulties in Pondoland and other areas; a state of emergency declared twice, once for five months? And the hon. the Prime Minister says race relations are excellent! He says there is peace in South Africa and harmony as we have never known before! And the Government takes no responsibility. Everybody is wrong except the Government. Then the hon. the Prime Minister proceeds to try and suggest that under his policies there is more chance of harmony, more chance of peace than there would be if there were a United Party Government. Mr. Speaker, can he honestly say that he believes that because the Cape Coloured people have four Europeans representing them here in this House, and because there is a Coloured Affairs Council, that they are not themselves thinking from day to day of making further demands? Will it make any difference if they are represented by Coloured people or by Europeans in this House? Why, because they are Coloured, must more demands be made than if they were Europeans? Does he believe that the Coloured people are going to be as happy with job reservation as they will be without it? And then he talks about greater harmony under his policy than that of the United Party. I raised the question of the Asiatics. I still do not know what the Government policy is.

We don’t know what yours is.

I have stated mine, and I have stated it in writing. I have published it for you. You can read it in the statement “Ordered Advance ”—“The Charter of Hope” that so interested the hon. the Minister of Finance. But what is the policy of this Government as regards the Asiatics? Do they not exist? Have the hon. members opposite forgotten that Asiatics exist in South Africa?

They were going to repatriate them in six months.

Yes, they were going to repatriate them, we heard that. And then the hon. the Minister of Finance, when he was Minister of the Interior and had been on the job for three years had to admit that 14,000 of them had got into the country somehow, but he did not quite know how.

What is the position with regard to the native population? The hon. the Prime Minister’s policy is still Bantustans; competing patriotisms, competing nationalisms, dismemberment of the Union of South Africa. They will have no representation in this Parliament which controls their destinies, and the vast number of the African population living in our industrial areas, by a fiction regarded as citizens of states not yet created. Is that going to lead to happiness? Is that going to lead to harmony in the future as against the realistic policy of the United Party? Our policy which recognizes that the Native permanently settled in the urban areas has come to stay, and that you have to help and foster the emergence of a responsible class of Native; that you have to allow for the development of self-government in those Native areas, which may be different in the different areas. I have said I can see a future Union Parliament granting rights to the responsible local institutions in those areas, perhaps containing certain elements of federalism. Surely that is a better solution, having one patriotism, one nationality, one love for South Africa, instead of different little states all over the country.

You have a supporter, Jannie!

I think that if I talk a little longer I would gain a few supporters over there, because this is very close to what some of them were talking before they were led astray by the hon. the Prime Minister. But let us go further. I spoke about insufficient economic prosperity to carry out the policies of the hon. the Prime Minister; for the development of his border industries; I showed, for the type of Native policy he wants to apply, he must have vast supplies of capital. And he can only do it with an expanding economy. But what have we seen in the last year? We have had no estimate yet of the cost from those hon. members. We do not know what the effect is going to be in regard to wages; we do not know what the effect is going to be insofar as skills are being wasted. And, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman says South Africa is flourishing, yet nothing is being done that is adequate enough to impress anybody in the world that the hon. gentleman is really serious in carrying out that policy.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) took me to task. He said I was un-South African to suggest for a moment that this Government was not defending South Africa’s good name overseas. But what was that party of his doing during the war years, when he was a recruiting officer on this side of the House? He must remember very well what they were doing. It ill-befits one on that side of the House to make accusations of that kind to this side of the House. And even if the hon. gentleman is occasionally carried away with enthusiasm and forgets that he has changed sides, I would suggest he be a little more careful in the future.

Then comes the suggestion that I have no right at this stage to introduce a motion of no-confidence because the United Party lost the referendum. Well Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister left it free to his people to vote as they liked. I replied to him, in this House, that our people were free to vote as they liked, and the result makes it quite clear that there was voting across the party line in many constituencies. But do not let us worry about technicalities of that kind.

The hon. the Prime Minister took a second point. He said: “What has changed since October the 5th? Everything you have spoken about was known on October the 5th.” Was Pondoland known? Was another state of emergency known? Was it known that £79,000,000 net of private capital had left South Africa? Have there not been actions and inactions by this Government in that period? Was it known what was happening at UNO? The hon. the Prime Minister said nothing had happened since the 5th of October. But there is something else that has happened since the 5th of October. There has been what the Nationalist organs describe as a free exchange of opinion in the Nationalist ranks on colour policies. If it was free, it must be the first time in the history of the Nationalist Party. But it has left its mark. There are hon. members on that side of the House who do not agree with the decisions taken. There are hon. members on that side of the House who are very unhappy about those decision.

Nonsense!

I know the Chief Whip has to say “nonsense ”. I know that as a good, loyal party man, he will keep on saying nonsense—but he cannot hide the facts. And he knows, as well, that there are many thousands of supporters of that Party outside who are unhappy. There are tens of thousands of them who are unhappy at the sort of policies this Government is following at the present time. And I believe, Mr. Speaker, that I am right in moving a motion of no-confidence at this stage. I am right because the seeds have been sown. It may be a little while before they come to fruition, but it may well be that the first republican session of Parliament is the last session of the Nationalist Party.

Question put: That all the words after “That ”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: H. C. de Kock and A. Hopewell.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. von S. von Moltke.

Question accordingly negatived, the words omitted and the amendment proposed by Dr. Steytler dropped.

The substitution of the words proposed by the Prime Minister was put and the House divided:

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. von S. von Moltke.

Tellers: H. C. de Kock and A. Hopewell.

Substitution of the words agreed to.

Motion, as amended, accordingly agreed to, viz.: That this House expresses its fullest confidence in the Government.