When the House rose last night, I was indicating that we in this country find ourselves in a situation which is fraught with danger and peril, probably the most serious situation in which we have been in the course of our existence as a Union. Sir, nothing that has happened overnight, as reflected in the morning Press, has done anything to change my view. I see, for instance, that the Lord President of the Council in London yesterday said that South Africa by her policy of apartheid was “ bent upon a course of action which would lead to disaster”. I see also, Sir, that we have for a change voted at the United Nations, and that the result of that vote was that we with one other nation opposed 79 countries. As I say, nothing has happened overnight to change my views on the situation, a situation which cannot be improved by ignoring the dangers which exist, by whistling at the cemetery, by proceeding on the path which this Government is set without a reappraisal, without heart-searching, and without a very serious re-assessment of the policies which have led us to this grave pass. How have we got here? I think we have got here for two reasons largely. Firstly, in the course of the past 60 years, hon. gentlemen on the other side and their predecessors have directed their major efforts in South Africa to the avengement of the past. They have directed their major efforts towards the winning of the Boer War. They brave done that in the course of 60 years by building up in this country a nationalism not built upon the loyalties or the patriotism of all the peoples of South Africa, not even built upon the loyalty and the patriotism of all the White people of South Africa, but a nationalism built upon a section of the Afrikaner people, only a section. That has been the course of history, and what we have to-day is the end result of that course. In doing this, gentlemen on the other side and their predecessors have undone everything that the great leaders, the great visionaries of the past in South Africa achieved. I speak of the Bothas and the Smutses, who in their preaching of tolerance, conciliation and mutual regard of one another’s tradition in the bitter period after the Boer War …

The English War.

There we have precisely the sort of thing I referred to, the destroying of any prospect that we as White people in South Africa can ever have of achieving national unity.

Why call it the Boer War?

Call it the “ Vryheidsoorlog ” if you like. I am a South African, and I think my antecedents had something more to do with that war than those of the hon. gentleman had.

Mr. Speaker, in this narrow concentration upon the avengement of the real and imaginary grievances of the past—over 60 years—we have had smashed down in this country any chance of building a united White South African nation. The example I referred to, the example set by General Botha and General Smuts, has been ignored in favour of the creation of a very narrow and exclusive nationalism which has led us to the pass in which we find ourselves to-day, and coupled with this attitude we have over the years the distortion, the twisting of the traditional policy of social and residential and racial segregation in South Africa into a barren ideology, the ideology of apartheid. Over the past 13 years we have seen grow from an election slogan, apartheid, a new ideology. In 1947 apartheid meant, in most men’s minds in South Africa and out of it, simply the traditional policy of the European in South Africa; the policy of social segregation, of residential segregation, of no miscegenation. That was the policy of every White man in this country.

And political segregation.

No. Does the hon. member not know about General Hertzog’s Pact of 1936? Does the hon. member not know the history of this country?

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I am sorry, but my time is very limited. Since 1947 we have had the distortion, the conversion of that traditional policy in South Africa, the policy of segregation, into a barren ideology which has come to stink in the nostrils of the world. And it is a barren ideology. And we are now asked, at this pass in the affairs of South Africa, to stand together as South Africans behind the hon. the Prime Minister and behind hon. gentlemen on that side of the House in the name of unity. We are asked to do that without any reconsideration, without a single move towards re-appraisal by the hon. the Prime Minister; without any re-assessment of the path which he has traversed and which brings us to where we are to-day. One does find, in the streets outside, that people say “ What else could the Prime Minister have done?”

Most people.

Well, I must say it is very difficult to find what else he could have done at this particular juncture. But he has put himself in this position. To a certain extent I sympathize with the hon. the Prime Minister because he has been put in that position by the actions and the omissions of people who preceded him over the years and who, for 60 years, have been engaged in this barren Nationalist struggle. Now we are asked to stand as South Africans behind the Prime Minister without, as I say, any re-appraisal on his part or on the part of his party of the actions and policies which have led us to where we are to-day, and which will inevitably lead us to destruction if they are pursued.

Sir, the South African is a creature of great loyalty. He loves his country, and he has demonstrated that over the years. In the last war, the 1939-45 war, I had in my battalion many young boys whose political beliefs did not agree with those of the government at the time. They were not United Party supporters. But they went to war and they gave their blood and their lives in many instances because of their loyalty to South Africa. They did that in a great cause, in the cause of world freedom and the freedom of our country. What I now want to warn of is this: I want to ask and implore of the hon. the Prime Minister that he will not, in this situation, exploit and abuse the loyalties of South Africans who love their country by asking them to follow him on this path which can only lead to the abyss.

The hon. member who has just sat down said last night that the time had come for serious discussion. We on this side agree. I listened very attentively to the hon. member, but he was definitely not in earnest in his discussion of the position of South Africa and he made no contribution towards improving the position of the White man. He was only in earnest in one regard, and that was in his attempt to harm the hon. the Prime Minister, the Government and the National Party. That is the only serious attempt he made. But he further said that the Opposition had been loyal to South Africa for 13 years. You know, the loyalty which South Africa has been given over the past 13 years by the Opposition has been of the same type as was given by the Opposition during this debate yesterday. For 13 years the United Party have covertly associated themselves with the Black man. But since yesterday they have openly chosen the side of the Black man and not only the side of the Black man in South Africa, but the side of the Black man throughout the world. The fact of the matter is that we could in fact have remained a member of the Commonwealth, but what was the demand that was made? We had to grant equality to everyone in South Africa, and it is this demand which the United Party wanted the hon. the Prime Minister to concede. The hon. the Prime Minister has refused to sell out the White man and in that regard we stand as one man behind him. Mr. Speaker, I say they have associated themselves with the Black States in the Commonwealth. As far as racial policy is concerned, the United Party can no longer conceal its nakedness and I prophesy that from now on its supporters will leave it in droves.

During this debate it is the United Party who have provided our enemies, including our enemies in the Commonwealth, with ammunition. The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), who was the first United Party speaker during this debate, has said that the racial policies of the Prime Minister are the cause of all our difficulties. Have the United Party now thrown overboard all colour bars in South Africa? What are their supporters outside to believe? What has happened here, and what also happened at the Commonwealth conference, has been that the Prime Minister and South Africa have upheld the traditional colour policy of South Africa. I should like to ask the United Party: Why are the members of the Progressive Party sitting over here? Why did they oppose one another in Green Point on the question of the colour policy? The United Party has always claimed that the Progressive Party is too liberal and wants to go too far. But during this debate the United Party have gone at least as far as the Progressive Part. During this debate they have solidly supported the Black man. They are at one in heart and in mind. We just want to tell them that as far as we are concerned, this is not the end of the world. We have the faith to persevere, and we have the will to triumph. In the past our slogan has always been South Africa first, but from now on we shall add something else: Increase production and buy South African. This is so because we believe that this is not the end of the world, but that by struggling a nation becomes great. This struggle is for the continued existence of our nation, of the White man in South Africa.

I think that the prophets of doom amongst the Opposition are glad about this red herring which they have been given by this question of our membership of the Commonwealth because this Budget is absolutely water-tight. There can be absolutely no criticism of the Budget itself, and I think the hon. the Minister of Finance and the Government can pat themselves on the back for having been so successful in maintaining the economic and financial position of the country that, after being in power for 13 years, there is not one loophole. This is a balanced diet, and first things come first; that is to say our defence, the development of the Bantu areas, border industries and the establishment of a development corporation for the Coloureds.

But, Mr. Speaker, because we believe this is not the end, but the beginning, of great things for our people—why else have we suffered and struggled—and because we believe that we must provide for future generations, I want to bring one or two matters to the notice of the Minister and the Government. During the debate on the Part Appropriation Bill and later on private members’ days during this Session, we have discussed the drought position and the position of our farmers in the country. The United Party has claimed to be particularly concerned about the depopulation of the platteland. Now I must honestly admit that, if I was a United Party member, I would have been far more concerned about the depopulation of the platteland, because the more depopulated the platteland becomes, the more nationally inclined the cities become and the bigger the majorities gained by the National Party and the smaller the representation of the United Party in this House. During this debate hon. members have tried to hold the Government responsible for this position. The fact of the matter is that the farmers throughout South Africa, as well as in the drought-stricken areas, are infinitely grateful to the Government for the assistance which has been provided over the past five years. I do not want to go into that matter, but I have figures here which show that, over the past five years, the assistance which has been given to farmers, including assistance in respect of mortgages, etc., totals more than R200,000,000. But we are all grateful that it has started to rain in these drought-stricken areas. But we must take steps for the future, and, with this object in mind, I want to associate myself with the speech by the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. J. D. de Villiers) during the debate on the Part Appropriation Bill, when he gave us figures which gave cause for concern regarding the White population of the Cape. What we must not forget is that the major portion of the Cape is traditionally a White man’s area. For that reason we cannot afford this area to lose its White people.

As I see the position, there are three methods which can be adopted and which can be used to very good effect by the Government in order to keep the White man in this vast part of our country. Much has been said recently about the first method, namely, the utilization of the Orange River. I do not want to say much on that point because the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs made a statement in this House last Friday. But I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance and the Government to keep in mind that this river, the main source of water in South Africa, runs through the heart of these drought-stricken areas, and, although the droughts have lasted five years and longer in those areas, this river never ran dry for one moment, and a vast quantity of surplus water flowed into the sea. I do not want to associate myself with the people of the Sundays River or with any other side. I just want to say that a great deal of land is available in the heart of this drought-stricken area. The hon. the Minister has given figures showing the land which is still available along the banks of the Orange River. But along the Sak River there is also the most fertile land to be found anywhere in South Africa. A great deal has been said about fodder banks which should be established. I believe that the solution is that this water should be used to enable the farmers to establish their own fodder banks by making a piece of irrigable land available to each farmer.

There is another method which can be used. In this regard I want to urge the establishment of a branch of Iscor in this area. Unfortunately, no coal is available in this vast part of our country which covers two-thirds of the Union, but there is a plentiful supply of iron ore. It has already been accepted in principle that Iscor must be expanded. Four stages have already been decided upon, of which two are nearing completion at a final cost of R112,000,000. But there are another two stages which it is calculated will cost another R520,000,000. It is considered that all four stages will be completed by the end of 1972. But it has not yet been decided where the other two development stages will be undertaken, and I ask that these two further stages should be undertaken somewhere in this area. The principle of division and decentralization has long since been accepted; that is to say, when a branch of Iscor was established at Vanderbijlpark. In establishing a branch elsewhere, we are, therefore, not dealing with a new principle. I just want to point out that there is scope for development. We have coal and large quantities of iron ore. From 1958 to 1959 the domestic consumption of steel declined, and we could then export. We exported a total of 755,000 tons of steel to 30 different countries. There is a heavy demand for South African steel products; Japan, the United States, the United Kingdom and Argentina were amongst the most important buyers. The increase in the consumption of steel since 1959 has resulted in the export of steel having to be stopped, with the result that we shall have lost those markets when we one day again have the position that we are producing more steel than we need. Mr. Speaker, I now want to say this: By establishing a steel factory nearer the coastal areas, we can improve the export position. It is true that it will cost a great deal to convey the coal, but, by bringing the steel nearer our coastal cities, we shall be greatly reducing the cost of exporting that steel, and I therefore think that it is correct that there should be this decentralization.

Then there is one other matter which we can seriously consider, namely, the establishment of a nuclear reactor somewhere in this vast area. In this regard I am not an expert. But precisely in this area, where coal is not available, and in view of the fact that it costs a great deal to convey coal for the generation of power, we must think primarily of the use of nuclear power. The experts say that a nuclear reactor should really be established in a desert. There is such an area along the west coast, and a nuclear reactor can provide power over a radius of 600 miles. By establishing one nuclear reactor, the whole Orange River area, the interior and the western Cape could be served. One argument can be used against this suggestion, namely, that vast quantities of capital have been invested in the railways, and that the loss of coal traffic would be a tremendous setback for the railways. On the other hand, I say: By producing more steel and by establishing a great export market, we would once again be providing the necessary traffic to the railways and the railways would definitely not suffer the losses which some people claim they will suffer.

I just want to come back for a few moments to the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Horak). In his speech he has said that the United Party still follow the traditional policy which was laid down by the 1936 Act as far as relations between Black and White are concerned. I wonder whether the hon. member realizes that he is completely behind the times. Did he not hear the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) say in this House that the 1936 legislation was only an experiment and that it had been a failure? For that reason the hon. member on behalf of his party can no longer rely on the 1936 legislation.

Furthermore, the hon. member has once again tried to beat on the old war drums. That will not help us. We are living under changed conditions. The United Party is co-operating with the enemies of South Africa. When we look back over the past week, when we consider everything that has happened, we can see how the United Party do not care a scrap what happens to South Africa. As we have seen, the East and the West are bidding against one another for the support of the Black man in Africa in order to gain his favours, in order thereby to strengthen and to enrich themselves, and with that end in view they have no qualms about sacrificing the White man of South Africa. The United Party is prepared to accept that position. Mr. Speaker, the members of the United Party are so filled with hatred and envy of the National Party Government that they do not care whether the Black man eventually governs South Africa, but they just do not want this National Party Government to remain in power. They are not even as South African-minded as the Prime Minister of Australia or many members of the Conservative Party in the British House of Commons or even certain members of the Upper House. Many of those members are more South African-minded than the United Party because they feel that the hon. the Prime Minister of South Africa could adopt no other course than the one which he adopted in London. They agree with it. But the members of the Opposition do not see their way clear to agreeing with what he has done. This is because they are so filled with hatred and envy of the National Party Government. They are even prepared to agree with those representatives who vilified South Africa at the Commonwealth Conference. They are prepared to concede to the Black States in the Commonwealth that they are correct. They agree with them. The intention is to humiliate South Africa. This is the South African feeling of the Opposition! They are co-operating with Ghana, Malaya and India. They wanted the hon. the Prime Minister to give way to the Black States. That was what they wanted, and they wanted to sacrifice the White man in South Africa in order to remain in the Commonwealth.

We have already been told that when our representative at the Commonwealth Conference refused to allow a discussion of the domestic affairs of South Africa at the Commonwealth Conference last year, hon. members criticized that representative. They said he was wrong and he should have allowed that discussion. This year such a discussion was in fact allowed in order to facilitate matters for the Commonwealth in order that we could remain in the Commonwealth. Now hon. members are asking why this concession was made. If the concession had not been made, and the hon. the Prime Minister had refused to allow the discussion and matters had come to a summary end, hon. members would then have made the reproach: Why did you not make that concession? We would have had that reproach. I do not even want to refer to South Africa’s self-respect which she had to preserve, but I feel that I would rather be outside the Commonwealth and be faced with some difficulties than allow the White man to be betrayed in the Commonwealth. That is what they wanted. They wanted the hon. the Prime Minister to let the White man be betrayed in the Commonwealth; they wanted him to betray the White man by making concessions so that the policy which we follow in South Africa could be destroyed. Concessions had to be made, and it has also been made quite clear that these were only temporary concessions and that they eventually hoped that all the concessions would have to be made so that every person in South Africa, White or Black, would have a vote. We know that is the policy of the Progressive Party. They do not mind the White man being betrayed.

Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the United Party are so obsessed by hatred and envy of the National Party Government—it is for no other reason but simply because this is a National Party Government. Had there been another government in power, they would not have been filled with such hatred. The reason why I say this is because in 1948 when our Government came into power, the United Party followed the same policy as to-day. They can therefore not say that it is the policy of this Government which has caused these difficulties. And at that time the United Party were already trying to sabotage South Africa. In 1948, when this Government gained the victory, their then leader was already saying that because our country had a National Party Government, she would be destroyed economically, money would flow out of the country and the banks’ doors would close. At that time they already tried even to sabotage the Government financially. They did not care a scrap whether it would ruin the country economically or whether the people of South Africa would suffer as a result of their behaviour. They simply wanted to cause the Government difficulties in the hope that in 1953 they would come into power again, and when they were unable to do so, they became even more bitter. To-day they do not even care whether they co-operate with the Black States in order to bring South Africa to her knees. On two occasions they have tried to drive a wedge into the ranks of the National Party, but on two occasions we have seen that as a result of their policy they have split asunder. First the Conservatives left them, and now as a result of their Native policy they have a second splinter party. This shows that they do not have any colour policy and if they should come into power one day, which will never happen, they will crash down a precipice.

When we discuss economic matters, they try to frighten the people into believing that because we are becoming a republic outside the Commonwealth, things will go so badly for South Africa. I do not want to discuss what has already been said, but I should like to say that England enjoys far more benefits than South Africa under the protective policy which has been followed in the past. If England were no longer to receive the gold, the uranium, the wool and all the raw materials of South Africa, her financial position would be far weaker than ours. In addition we must assume that England imports products from South Africa which she cannot buy elsewhere. It is not so easy simply to buy those minerals and raw materials elsewhere. But we also buy manufactured goods from England which we could easily buy from any of the other great countries of the world and perhaps even at lower prices. That is the difference between us and England as far as trade is concerned. They now say that we enjoy preferential tariffs. I can say from experience that there are in fact products which sell abroad, not in England but in other countries, at better prices than those paid in England, even with the preference tariffs. If our trade agreements with England are to be abrogated, if England no longer wants them, I am certain that if the products which South Africa exports are offered to other countries and trade agreements are entered into, some of those countries will be most eager to enter into those agreements. I see that some of our friends in the Opposition are laughing at this, but it is the actual truth. South Africa supplies raw materials which are not easily obtainable elsewhere.

I want to make an appeal to the English-speaking people, and I hope that there are still some sitting here who are not so blinded by their hatred. On the platteland there are many English-speaking people who are well disposed towards the National Party, and as a result of the attitude the United Party is adopting to-day there will be more and more of them. I appeal to the English-speaking people to examine the position in the old Free State Republic and how the Afrikaans- and English-speaking people co-operated at that time, and to remember that there was not the same feeling between them at that time that there is to-day. There was co-operation. Those English-speaking people who came from England learned to love the republic, and I hope that there is still a chance that some of our friends opposite will also learn to love the republic because I know of many English-speaking people outside who will love the republic and who will cooperate with us and who will learn to love the republic just as much as the English-speaking people loved the Free State Republic, so much so that they fought with the Afrikaners for the preservation of that Republic.

Seeing that the British Parliament has now discussed the Protectorates and the need for a new agreement with our Government in connection with the Protectorates and, in view of the fact that the Basutoland Government has placed police posts all along the borders wherever one can cross from the Free State into Basutoland, and in view of the fact that the White man is stopped on entering Basutoland and has to indicate where he is going, what route he is following, when he is coming back and by what route he is coming back, I should like to ask the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance also to take note of this fact and I say that we for our part should do the same. When the White man wants to enter Basutoland, he is provoked by these Native constables. His motor car is inspected, but from Basutoland they can enter freely and there is no one to stop them. If the United Party talk about a police state in South Africa they should go to Basutoland and see what the position is there.

Apart from that, the border farmers along the Caledon River are in almost the same position as the border farmers of the Eastern Province were in the old days. Along the Caledon River the position to-day is such that a farmer cannot leave anything on his lands. He must take everything home with him at night if he does not want to find the next morning that half his equipment or half his plough has been stolen during the night. The Government is also paying a large subsidy to the consumers in South Africa to-day and to a large extent the Protectorates are also enjoying that subsidy. When one goes to Ficksburg for example and one sees all the foodstuffs going to Basutoland in respect of which this Government is paying large subsidies to the consumers, I want to say that we should ensure that the Basutoland Government repays that subsidy. If the Protectorates do not want to form part of the Union, they cannot expect the Union Government also to subsidize their population so that they can have cheap food.

In addition we find that thefts are increasing tremendously in the border areas. When a farmer, on arriving in the morning and finding that some of his stock have been stolen, follows the trail and finds it crosses the Caledon River, he has to turn round there, even if he can see that stock just on the other side of the river. Then he must go to our police and they have to go to Maseru or Labibe, and they in turn have to obtain permission from the police there. Then they go together but they cannot simply go after the stolen stock. They must first go to the chiefs kraal and the chief then says he will see whether there is any stolen stock. He instructs his village to bring their stock together and they then bring a number of animals into the kraal and he says that you must point out which is your stock. But the stolen stock is not brought into the kraal, and then one has to leave. That is the type of co-operation we are receiving from the Protectorates.

Then there is another matter. As a result of the fact that the Protectorates and particularly Basutoland, are located in the heart of the Union, it is difficult to regulate our system of justice because if an accused person is released on bail, he simply flees across the border and they refuse to extradite him. He becomes an agitator in Basutoland and he starts inciting the Basutos who have always been law-abiding. To-day we are finding that Natives go so far as to agitate and to distribute pamphlets in the Free State. People park their motor cars in Ficksburg and when they come back they find that pamphlets have been thrown into their cars. These pamphlets are even being distributed amongst the Natives, and they are inciting the Natives in Basutoland against the Government of South Africa. This is because Basutoland is so easily accessible to the agitator in this country; when he sees that the Government are on his track, he then simply flees across the border. As I have said, as far as Basutoland is concerned, we find that over the past 30 years the population of Basutoland has not increased. Nevertheless when we go into Basutoland we see large numbers of children, but the population of Basutoland remains constant. The increase in Basutoland’s population is being transferred to the Union and the time has come for us to say: Look, if that is the position, the Protectorates must come under the control of the Union so that we can help them to absorb more of their population increase themselves and so that they will not simply stream into the White areas. I shall appreciate it greatly if the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister will have the position regarding the Basutoland border investigated. As far as trade is concerned, for example, we find that in the case of kaffircorn, a levy has been imposed on all the malt produced in the Union, but that when kaffircorn is exported to Swaziland, a levy cannot be imposed. The malt is simply manufactured over the border and the same malt is then brought back to the Union to compete with the malt manufacturers in the Union who have to pay a levy of 4s. 6d. to 6s. per bag. That is the advantage which they enjoy because they can produce malt in that area, and that malt is produced from kaffircorn which they import from the Union. I think it has become a very unreasonable position that we cannot impose a levy on products which leave the Union. While we are faced with surpluses, the Protectorates dump mealies on the Union’s markets without paying a levy. We shall have to devise plans so that a distinction can be drawn. As I understand the position, the agreement is that if we do not impose a levy on any article in the Union, we may not do so when that article goes to the Protectorates and vice versa, but under present conditions I think we shall have to review that position and introduce a change.

I think that so far as Government members are concerned, this week has shown their lack of reality because they are running away from the realities of our difficult situation in an almost incredible way. The hon. member who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not follow him, but I think his speech, particularly in regard to the last few sentences, shows the position in which the Government members are placed in this debate. South Africa’s isolation in the world to-day is of little account compared with the export of our kaffir-corn. I think the hon. member should now call it Bantu-corn out of consideration for the whims and fancies of the Minister of Bantu Administration. It is a lack of reality which is almost frightening. Member after member is not getting down to what matters, to the realities, to our isolation in this world. Our country is isolated. Even the Prime Minister in his speech of nearly two hours carefully avoided our isolation. There have been two realistic speeches made so far, one by the Leader of the Opposition, which I think is one of the most outstanding speeches I have ever heard in this House. It was the speech of a statesman, a man who was not trying to score small debating points or take advantage of the obvious chinks in the Government’s armour. The other was that of the member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst). He brought a breath of reality to this debate. There was not one touch of politics in his speech from beginning to end. He merely pointed out the position we were in, defenceless and isolated. What are hon. members opposite doing to grapple with that situation? They are trying to talk party politics again and we have had speech after speech on the old theme of: You are kafferboeties.

Who said that?

The Chief Whip especially. It is no good hon. members getting angry. They can get angry when they make their speeches. I am not going to lose my temper. The hon. the Minister of External Affairs was one of those who ran away from reality, and in his speech the hon. the Prime Minister aided and abetted him. The picture painted to hon. members behind him was one of intransigent non-European Prime Ministers at the Conference who were ganging against White South Africa on a colour basis. That was the picture. When they move away from colour they come to our internal policy, which is our affair. They say no one has any right to discuss our internal affairs because it is our domestic affair. Where is that carrying us? Who was against it? The non-White Prime Ministers? No, every Prime Minister was against us. The White Prime Ministers opposed us as much as the non-Whites. It is a completely wrong picture to present to South Africa, of a White Prime Minister from South Africa battling with the Afro-Asian Prime Ministers. It is no good the Prime Minister coming here with this talk of how he resisted any attempt to discuss the constitutional change. That was not the issue. The issue was the policy of South Africa, which was condemned by both the White and the non-White Prime Ministers, and what was the net result? Six White Prime Ministers and six non-Whites came together, because our Prime Minister funked the issue and ran away and left six White Prime Ministers to deal with six non-Whites. Do not let us misinterpret the reports coming from overseas about the speeches of the British Prime Minister and other Prime Ministers, and run away with the idea that he was sitting there with the sympathy of any of the White Prime Ministers. The Minister of External Affairs was guilty of one of the most irresponsible statements which could have been made in this debate when he accused the Prime Minister of Canada of telling a deliberate untruth. How will that get us friends? I want to say to the Minister that I personally resent this reflection on the Prime Minister of Canada, because for the moment he is condemning us. I fought alongside Canadians. [Interjections.] Suppose the other White Prime Ministers who were there and who know what took place say that our Minister of External Affairs is wrong in his facts? I say I fought alongside Canadians and I do not want the Minister throwing aspersions on the Canadians, on the Prime Minister of Canada. They went there with a mandate, but they threw away that mandate. That was a betrayal of the people of South Africa by the Prime Minister when he did not carry out the mandate to keep us within the Commonwealth. But the Minister of External Affairs now ranges himself behind this theory that diplomatic representatives could not be accepted here. The point was made by the Prime Minister yesterday and presumably from what is coming from overseas now, possibly the turning-point upon which the whole of the decision was reached at the conference hinges on this matter. Why does the Minister run away from this issue? Before the days of the present Prime Minister, he was suggesting in this House that houses should be built in Bryntirion to house these ambassadors from the non-White states. He is the man who suggested it. Why was that dropped? It stands in Hansard and the hon. the Minister can look it up. When we pressed it from time to time because we wanted it to be done, he ran away from it and now the whole thing has been dropped, and to-day most people do not even remember that this same Minister made those suggestions.

Where did you get hold of that? It is quite untrue.

Now we cannot have these ambassadors. The Minister of External Affairs, in referring to the speech of my leader, could not find one single little chink in the logical arguments of my leader. He is a very good debater. If there is a weakness anywhere, he is as liable to seek it out as anyone else, but what did he do? He said that my leader was willing to stay in the Commonwealth at the price of full racial equality. My leader eventually had to invoke the rules of the House to compel the Minister to accept the position that he had never said anything of the kind.

That was the implication.

You cannot have an implication of that kind from the categorical statement that my leader made, that we are not prepared to accept that position … [Inaudible.]

Then he agrees with the Prime Minister.

The hon. the Minister of External Affairs will no doubt in the days and months to come, when he has had time to think it over, by implication be able to attribute all sort of things to the speech of my hon. Leader, but he could not think quickly enough yesterday. He had to come with something which was demonstrably false; it was not true, because it is there in my Leader’s Hansard, unexpurgated, for the hon. the Minister to satisfy himself about it, and when he has done so this morning, as undoubtedly he will, because he would not like to do anybody an injustice, he will no doubt then get up and apologize to my hon. Leader and to this House for the statement that he attributed to my Leader yesterday.

That will be the day.

The hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of External Affairs tried to make history start Monday a week ago when the London conference started. The hon. the Minister of External Affairs says that my Leader is wrong when he contends that at that point, the hon. the Prime Minister only had to sit still and say “ no ” at the London conference. The Minister of External Affairs tried to make out that there were all these difficulties—he elaborated on them—which had been raised by the hon. the Prime Minister. He goes on to get himself tied up in a mess and then he starts about the unanimity rule. Sir, for the expulsion of South Africa was the unanimity rule not to operate in exactly the same way as the re-admission of South Africa required the unanimity rule to operate —a unanimous vote for us to come back? Did it not require a unanimous vote to expel us? He then proceeds to tell the truth, this time in a frank manner which is really quite unusual; he says “ the unanimity rule does not matter. National pride and self-respect demanded that we could not remain in a club where we were not wanted”. Sir, was this a question of remaining in a club or were the vital interests of South Africa at stake in the whole of the negotiations that were taking place in London? Were we to walk out of the club and take with us not one single member of the club? Were we to walk out without even the sympathy of a member of the club? Were we to isolate ourselves as far as the United Nations are concerned, which is a far bigger organization but of which the members of the club are also members and where they will be given another forum in which to show their dislike of us and of our policies? He says the unanimity rule does not matter. Mr. Speaker, what was the position that we were faced with here? We were faced with the fact that the Prime Minister over and over again in South Africa had said that the domestic policies of this country cannot be discussed by the Prime Ministers, that that is our affair, that it belongs to South Africa, that it is our affair here in Parliament and on the public platforms throughout South Africa, but it is our business and nobody else’s business. The hon. the Minister of Finance, who was then Minister of the Interior, read a prepared statement in this House as a result of a question put to him by the hon. member for Queenstown (Dr. Steytler). It was not an off the cuff reply that he gave; it was a prepared statement, worked out and written down and read out to this House after due consideration. Sir, I quote from Hansard, Vol. 105, Col. 8072. The Minister of Finance said this—

That language, I submit, Is plain enough. And who breached that first in the conference? Our Prime Minister. He admitted it himself, in the same way that the communiqués from the other Prime Ministers have said categorically. Three or four of them have done it in their personal capacities. In fact, Mr. Diefenbaker went so far as to say that “ if the Prime Minister of South Africa had not agreed we could not have discussed the internal policies of South Africa”. The Prime Minister said yesterday that he had allowed this to happen because he had had a previous discussion with Mr. Macmillan.

He thought he could convert them all to apartheid.

Sir, this decision of our Prime Minister was the fatal decision that lost us our membership of the Commonwealth, if he was thereafter found to be entitled to withdraw our application. That decision was the fatal decision; it was the crucial turning point. He had repeated over and over again in South Africa, and he got his deputy, the Minister of Finance, to assure this House, that that was the first inviolable principle and he breached it. It is no good his coming back and blaming Mr. Macmillan for it. What else is he going to blame Mr. Macmillan for? He turned round to us yesterday and started to harangue the same Mr. Macmillan at the end of his speech and said that he was entitled to do it because Mr. Macmillan had referred in some respect to what had transpired at the Prime Ministers’ Conference. So even he turned on Mr. Macmillan yesterday. He virtually says, “ I acted on Mr. Macmillan’s advice when I did this ”. In other words, he is not going to take the responsibility for his own action, notwithstanding the conviction that he had voiced repeatedly in South Africa in and out of Parliament. He made the fatal blunder of agreeing to a discussion on South Africa’s internal affairs. Sir, what made the Prime Minister believe that he was going to persuade other Commonwealth Prime Ministers that South Africa’s policy was the right one and that through that medium he was going to get their votes for our re-entry into the Commonwealth when we become a republic? If the advice that the Prime Minister was given from official channels meant anything at all, if it was in the slightest bit reliable, then he must have been aware for months and months past that our policy was anathema to so many of the other member states. Sir, history did not start Monday a week ago. It started in January 1960 when the Prime Minister came with his proposal for a referendum. When he came with the proposal for a referendum he knew—and he was repeatedly warned at the time—that he would put our Commonwealth membership in jeopardy. I am not going to read out the statements that my hon. Leader read out yesterday of all these cast-iron assurances that were given by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Deputy Minister of Education, Arts and Science and all sorts of lesser speakers in regard to our remaining in the Commonwealth. The Prime Minister knew that our policy was anathema to many member states. The Minister of External Affairs had been warned at the Prime Ministers’ Conference a year ago that our re-entry into the Commonwealth could not be taken for granted.

I also objected to our affairs being discussed there and I was criticized by you people for being obstinate.

You had better start looking for the cuttings.

Sir, Mr. Diefenbaker said—

That was at the Prime Ministers’ Conference in 1960 when the Minister of External Affairs was representing South Africa—

Why did the hon. the Minister come here and rely on his colleague to give us assurances in regard to these matters when it had been denied last May? He goes on to say—

Does he deny that?

Yes, does he deny that that statement was made?

You are twisting the whole thing about now.

I am not twisting anything; I am quoting from a speech made by Mr. Diefenbaker, in which he says that the Minister made that statement in May last.

That is the question of advance consent before the referendum; that is quite a different matter.

Well, let us take what Mr. Macmillan said two days ago in the Imperial Parliament—

That was the Minister of External Affairs—

Because they said it would influence the referendum. That is a different matter; you are misleading the House.

Order, order!

I am concerned with reporting what was said by Mr. Macmillan in the British Parliament, and there is no question of misleading the House. I stopped at the full stop which came at the end of a paragraph in Mr. Macmillan’s speech. Sir, I quoted those two Prime Ministers. The fact is that the Minister of External Affairs was at that conference. He was told and he acquiesced when he was told, that each individual Prime Minister in the Commonwealth would have to agree to our re-entering. Why did he not come back and tell this House that that was the position?

Before the referendum …

Order! I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister of External Affairs will give the hon. member an opportunity to proceed with his speech.

May I rise on a point of explanation?

No.

The hon. member has it all twisted.

Order! The hon. member is not prepared to allow the hon. the Minister to rise on a point of explanation.

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. the Minister entitled to say that I have it all twisted?

Yes. There are two different issues. Will you give me an opportunity to explain?

No.

Order! If the hon. the Minister wants an opportunity later on to rise on a point of explanation, I shall allow him to do so but he must give the hon. member an opportunity to proceed with his speech.

Sir, the picture we have is this: The Prime Minister returning from overseas; South Africa to-day virtually in complete isolation; Britain, out of her desire not to hurt us any more than is absolutely necessary, so I understand, busy with a design to keep the present trade relationships, and possibly other relationships as well, between South Africa and herself frozen for ten months to allow us to take stock of the position in South Africa. Whatever the other arrangements are, whether they deal with defence or otherwise, that is for Britain to determine. It does not help us in that regard to have these gibes which are being made at the Prime Minister of Great Britain and this criticism of him that we had yesterday from our own Prime Minister. Sir, kissing still goes by favour in this hard world. You kiss a girl you want to kiss, not because there is a law to say so but because you like her, and she is willing to let you do so. It cuts both ways, and these Prime Ministers’ conferences have always created opportunities for very friendly social contacts between members of the Commonwealth, but I am afraid to-day legal barriers, if I may put it that way, are going to intervene and stop some of the joys and enthusiasm with which these meetings have been greeted in the past. As I have said, Sir, to-day we have the Prime Minister back and South Africa stands in isolation, but I repeat that history did not start Monday a week ago. It started when he came with the Bill to have the referendum to take South Africa out of the Commonwealth. This pretty picture that the Prime Minister paints, I am afraid, has a lot of loopholes in it. My hon. Leader said that the Prime Minister should have sat there and simply said “no”. Firstly, he should never have agreed to a discussion on our internal affairs. He knew that we all agreed to that. What has he done, and what could have happened? He has got out so as to allow Ghana to come in and possibly Tanganyika. From the point of view of South Africa, is that a fair exchange? Do we deem that tp be a fair exchange? The Prime Minister said that if he had stayed there and forced the issue, it would have embarrassed Mr. Macmillan and possibly Mr. Diefenbaker and possibly Mr. Menzies and possibly the Prime Minister of New Zealand. What about it? They are going to be embarrassed in any case. Are they in a less embarrassing position through continuing the relations that we are seeking to maintain with them? What has happened to the non-European Prime Ministers who opposed us at the Commonwealth conference? Have they left Africa? Have they resigned each in his own homeland? Are we in any better a position vis--vis those Prime Ministers than we were three weeks ago before the conference, or are they not now more free to attack us and to bring pressure to bear on Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand because we are, by our own deliberate design and choice, to be out of the Common wealth by 31 May? Does it not put them in a privileged position? Sir, let us put the shoe on the other foot for a moment and assume that South Africa has stayed in and that, as a result of our staying in, Ghana has said: “In that case we are out ”, and that Ghana was out of the Commonwealth from 31 May. What would hon. members on the other side have done about that? Would they have regarded that as a great defeat for the Prime Minister of South Africa? Is there not one who would hail that as a great defeat for South Africa? Why then do they reckon that it was a great victory when Ghana stayed in and South Africa was shouldered out? This is a most incredible way of looking at things if one wants to deal with realities. No, Sir, Mr. Macmillan and Mr. Diefenbaker and the others are going to have their trouble anyway, and it was better that they should grasp the nettle then at that conference. If we had wanted the Commonwealth to remain as we had known it, a good Commonwealth of which the Prime Minister would have been prepared to remain a member, and if we did not want the Commonwealth to change its character and become something else in which the Prime Minister felt he could not stay, then the way for him to have fought that battle was to have stayed in that Commonwealth and to have used his influence to see that it was a Commonwealth which he knew and which he appreciated. That was his duty—not to run away from it by withdrawing South Africa’s application and leaving the door open now for further non-European nations who may have very strong views about South Africa’s internal policy, and who will come into the Commonwealth, which will still remain, Mr. Speaker. I know that it may be a happy fantasy for the Prime Minister to believe that, because South Africa leaves the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth is going to disintegrate. That is the kind of unreality that we have to deal with. The Commonwealth remains, the United Nations Organization remains; other non-European nations will be seeking admission and will be admitted to the Commonwealth, and this organization, which has been built up by our erstwhile friends, is the organization which, in the end, because the White Prime Ministers will be in the minority, can be placed under pressure and duress by the non-White Prime Ministers, so that the Commonwealth itself takes action against South Africa. It is an inevitable conclusion that we are forced to.

And how long will they allow us to enjoy preferences?

Yes, that is another question. We have ten months within which Britain is prepared to help us. I hope that the realization of that is going to bring reality to the thinking of the Prime Minister and the members of his Cabinet. We have been given ten months’ grace, breathing time. I hope the Prime Minister is going to withdraw his Bill before 31 May, so as to allow himself ten months’ breathing time. Let him make our change to a republic coincide with the day that Britain’s ten months’ breathing space comes to an end, so that Britain withdraws all economic and defence facilities for South Africa at the same time as we become a republic, so that the people of South Africa shall see and appreciate the significance of the two events taking place together. But, Sir, what is the outcome of this conference? Whom has it helped? Nobody can say that it helped South Africa. What grave and mortal danger it is going to expose us to nobody can tell. What disabilities in the economic field we are going to suffer, we cannot yet evaluate. But, Sir, what good has it done us? Where has it found us one friend in the whole world? Nowhere. The Nationalist Party, since they came into power in 1948, has lost us every one of the friends built up by previous great Prime Ministers in South Africa over the last 50 years, and now we stand alone. And on the other side of the picture, who do we have cheering? The Nationalist Party organizes great welcomes for their Prime Minister; they are entitled to do that as long as they do not try to pretend it was South Africa welcoming him back. Let them make it quite clear that this was an organized political gathering to welcome back the Prime Minister.

Who organized the welcome in Johannesburg?

Sir, we get this paean of praise, we get this great welcome for the Prime Minister, and at the same time we get the plaudits of Chief Albert Luthuli, who says he is overjoyed at the outcome of the Prime Ministers’ Conference. Surely he makes a strange bed-fellow with hon. members opposite. Sir, the Prime Minister’s withdrawal of his application is being accounted a big victory in certain circles. Mr. Macmillan has said in the clearest terms possible that there was no question of South Africa’s expulsion. The hon. the Minister of External Affairs put his finger on it. He and the Prime Minister decided to get out of it; they could not stand criticism, so they decided to get out.

Did you listen when I read the reports yesterday?

Other people acclaim his withdrawal as a great victory. I will tell the Prime Minister, Sir, that there are two great victories that are being claimed by other people —by the non-European people in the Commonwealth who are to-day opposed to us and by the non-European people who are out of the Commonwealth and who are opposed to us. The first great non-European victory was when this Government closed down on General Smuts’s immigration policy and stopped the flow of White men to the Union of South Africa. That was the first great non-European victory in South Africa made possible by the Nationalist Party. The architect of African victory was the Nationalist Party. It is all very well for them to come now in the year 1961 and decide that they are going to resurrect the immigration policy, that they are going to bring White men to South Africa, to an isolated South Africa standing alone in the world, a South Africa with its policies abhorred, as one of the White Prime Ministers said the other day, by all civilized people. The architect of the Africans’ victory was the Nationalist Party. The second victory for the non-European against White South Africa was this withdrawal by the Prime Minister of our application to remain within the Commonwealth. Yesterday over the radio we got this broadcast from Moscow, reported in Pravda, the communist newspaper. Their second main headline was—

That is what Pravda said. The victory of the Nationalist Party in South Africa is a victory for the Afro-Asian bloc, according to the communists—again strange bed-fellows,—Chief Albert Luthuli and the communists and the Nationalist Party in South Africa all as happy as they can possibly be together in one common community! Are we beginning to find where we are to look for our future friends seeing that it is possible for the Nationalists all to be so happy in that company? Is that their future for White South Africa that is now being depicted in shadowy colours but perhaps to be brought out in harder and harder colours as time goes on? Sir, we have to get down to it. The Prime Minister has ten months that Britain has given him. He has professed to be a great friend of Great Britain’s and he has said that Great Britain is our best friend. It is true that he then went on to blame the Prime Minister of Great Britain and to take umbrage at what that Prime Minister had said yesterday. The whole thing is a curious hotchpotch, if I may put it that way—praise one minute and condemnation the next; Diefenbaker is a man who deliberately does not tell the truth, and so on and so forth. It is a curious hotch-potch. Let us get down to reality. We have ten months to do so, and I hope that the hon. the Prime Minister is going to lift himself above these party political considerations. I would like to see South Africa becoming aware of the situation in which we are placed. I would like them to realize that South Africa can take a fatal turn which will bring us to complete ruination in this country, to complete and utter catastrophe. If we can get comprehension to the minds of our people we may still survive. We will have to grapple with very difficult problems, of course we will have to grapple with difficult problems; we are living on earth not in Heaven. But there is an onus on the Prime Minister that can be shared with nobody else. Before I sit down, Sir, I want to quote the words of Byron, who is one of the few English poets that the communists have not claimed so far—

Sir, I hope that is not going to be the epitaph on the grave of White South Africa. After all the years and years of building, are two or three fatal mistakes now to lay our country in the dust? The Prime Minister, Sir, has made two grievous mistakes, two bitter mistakes. He betrayed the mandate we gave him to go to Britain and to keep South Africa in the Commonwealth. It is for him now to take a completely fresh view of the whole situation, and if it means a re-orientation of the thinking of the hon. members who sit behind him, then he must not lack the courage. He must not be inflexible in wrong-doing; he must be equally inflexible when he is determined to take the right course and to re-think and to re-assess the position, and in that way, Sir, we may still save something from the utter wreck which is facing us at the present time, because make no mistake about it: We need not worry about what is going to happen in South Africa once the pillars start to tumble. Let us be quite clear on that point. I do not want to pursue that subject. Too many people take comfort from warnings that we give the Government, but I say that if the pillars start to fall let us beware. We will be attacked from without and from within. Let the Government call a halt. If they are trying to get the support of English-speaking South Africans, it is up to the Prime Minister to do something—not to make appeals. The first thing he could do, admittedly, would be to get out and resign as Prime Minister, unless he is prepared to give a lead to South Africa which both sections of the White population can follow. On unity and unity alone are we going to build the salvation of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, we were already asking ourselves yesterday whether this debate had not already been talked out. And after this morning I am convinced that it has in fact been talked out, particularly now that we have heard the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) who has just sat down. All of us, including myself, looked forward with some anticipation to the speech of the hon. member for South Coast. I think hon. members will agree with me that he gave us the impression of a satellite which did not get into orbit and if I might quote something which the hon. member for South Coast said about his previous leader, Mr. Strauss, I should like to remind hon. members that when they came back from Bloemfontein —not the Bloemfontein of the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), but the previous one—the hon. member had this to say on 27 November 1956 about Mr. Strauss. I give it back to him to-day—

I think the hon. member for South Coast is tired as well. He has become tired and his whole speech shows that he has become tired. This South Africa which must now be built does not have place for people with weak backs and weak knees. The hon. member for South Coast has said that if we want the support of English-speaking South Africa, we must do this or do that. Mr. Speaker, I want to say here to-day that nothing anyone has ever done, no action ever taken by any leader or Prime Minister in South Africa, has done more to bring English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans together than this action of the Prime Minister.

Hear, hear!

I was one of those who always believed, and I still do so to-day, that the most certain way of bringing Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking South Africans together is to give them a common task and to give them a common cause for which they can fight. To-day the English- and Afrikaans-speaking peoples know that there is a common cause for which we can fight: We can fight for the preservation and the continued existence of South Africa, even if we must do so against the whole world.

The hon. member for South Coast has reproached us for the fact, to use his own words, that South Africa stands “isolated and defenceless ”. Is that so? Mr. Speaker, South Africa is no more isolated than any other small country which is free. Why should we at this stage suddenly become isolated and “ defenceless ” because we have become free? In the case of other small nations this is a virtue, but only in South Africa is it a sin if we want to be free as regards our relations with the entire world. I say that we shall be just ¿s isolated as any other small country which, is free, with this difference that South Africa’s strategic position is such—and hon. members know it—and our position is such within the Western world—and hon. members know it—that if there should be a war in future, which we hope will not happen, South Africa will take its place in the Western world exactly as she would under any other circumstances.

I have done my best—I want to be fair to the hon. member—to follow what the hon. member for South Coast was really trying to tell us. On the one hand he accused us of acting in such a way that all the Prime Ministers, White and non-White, were unequivocally opposed to us. On the other hand he reproaches us for sacrificing five White Prime Ministers to six non-White Prime Ministers. On the one hand the hon. member and his party claim to be a Commonwealth party and that they stand for the preservation of the Commonwealth under all circumstances. But what is his main complaint against the Prime Minister to-day? His main complaint against the Prime Minister is that he did not tear the Commonwealth apart and come back here with the pieces and present them to this House. It is in fact his complaint against the Prime Minister that he did not make such a fuss that he tore the whole Commonwealth apart. Perhaps he holds it against the Prime Minister that he behaved in such an exemplary way and did not tell them: “ Go and be damned ”. In all seriousness I want to ask the hon. member this: Did he not listen to the explanation which the Prime Minister has given as to why he allowed South Africa’s position to be discussed as an exception to the general rule? Did he not listen when the Prime Minister explained his actions by saying that he did not want to place Britain in an impossible position? Does that mean nothing to him? Does the exemplary way in which the Prime Minister has behaved mean nothing to the hon. member and those who sit with him? Mr. Speaker, I shall tell the House what is happening in South Africa at the moment. Hon. members opposite are angry. Why? They are angry because their supporters have refused to become angry with the Prime Minister. The hon. member for South Coast knows full well that that is so. His supporters are refusing to become angry with the Prime Minister. What is the score at the moment? We for our part have not done anything as yet. Thousands and thousands of people gave the Prime Minister a spontaneous welcome at Jan Smuts Airport, and thousands and thousands did so here at Cape Town airport. And what is the score on the other side? They have done their best to incite feeling amongst the public. And what is their score? Five of them have been able to get 1,000 people together. Five of those hon. members opposite, including the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) and he after all is the “ box office attraction ” of the United Party. I am afraid that after this morning they will write off the hon. member and I cannot blame them. But it is after all a fact that the supporters of hon. members opposite agree with the Prime Minister and they are very grateful to him, and I want to express my personal thanks to the Prime Minister for having saved South Africa’s honour on that occasion. The hon. member’s supporters are not angry. They feel exactly the same way about this situation which has now developed here in South Africa. Mr. Speaker, do you think for one moment that if his supporters were angry, the hon. member for South Coast would not once again have built up a wall of telegrams here in this House so that everyone could see them? What has been the reaction which all hon. members opposite have found in their constituencies? Has any hon. member opposite found a sharp reaction amongst their voters? Have they received protests from their voters? Or has the reaction which has emanated from their constituencies been like that of my constituency, namely that Nationalists and supporters of the United Party, Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people, believe that the Prime Minister has done the right thing by South Africa? I challenge any hon. member opposite to say that he has found any other reaction in his constituency. The House can see how quiet they are. They can see what the answer is. There has not been the slightest reaction amongst hon. members’ voters, except a reaction which they do not want to tell us about, namely that their voters want them to support the Prime Minister of South Africa at this time. We do not expect them to support the Prime Minister as leader of the National Party. That is asking too much of hon. members opposite. But it is not asking too much of them to expect them to stand by the Prime Minister of South Africa at a time such as this.

What has been the other reaction of the hon. member for South Coast—a reaction at which his speech hinted? It has been that he blamed the hon. the Prime Minister for not crawling at the conference. Mr. Speaker, what has surprised me has been that at this time when South Africa needs its sons perhaps more than ever before, the hon. member who is the leader of a province, an hon. member who is a front bencher in this House, in calling for evidence, only calls in those witnesses who condemn South Africa; he does not call those people who have tried to defend and protect South Africa. I ask the hon. member for South Coast: Why has he not told us what Mr. Menzies has said, namely that in respect of this matter he adopts the same standpoint as our Prime Minister? Why has he not given Mr. Menzies’ version to this House? Why has he not indicated for the sake of his own supporters exactly what, according to Mr. Menzies, the position was at that conference?

Quote everything Mr. Menzies has said.

It was not necessary for the hon. member to quote everything that Mr. Menzies has said. He could just have quoted the few things which were in favour of South Africa. Why has the hon. member not told his supporters, and why has he not told his supporters in Natal—I am glad the hon. member has now turned his face so that I can talk into his ear—that Mr. Menzies has stated that he listened (and he was there), and that at the stage at which our Prime Minister withdrew his application, he (Mr. Menzies) told himself that he would have done exactly the same thing at exactly that stage? He would not have waited any longer than the Prime Minister waited. Does that mean nothing to the hon. member? Does it mean nothing to him that he can call such a witness in defence of South Africa? But preserve the hon. the Minister of External Affairs if he should dare to correct one statement Mr. Diefenbaker has made! Then the hon. member criticizes the hon. the Minister as though Mr. Diefenbaker is his twin brother; then he cannot find words strong enough with which to condemn the Minister of External Affairs! And what has the Minister said beyond merely putting correctly what happened at that conference because he too was present there? Does he expect the Minister to remain silent when South Africa’s case is put incorrectly no matter by whom? No, the same applies to the hon. member’s argument which he has used for the sake of a little political capital he hopes to make—and he needs it; I know that; he must do everything to try to gain a little political advantage and I do not blame him, but one should then at least remain logical while trying to gain a little advantage. On the one hand, as the hon. the Minister of External Affairs has correctly said, he was reproached last year for refusing to allow South Africa’s affairs to be discussed. And now?

At that time it was said that he created the impression that he had something to hide.

The hon. member is quite correct. At that time the accusation was made that the fact that Mr. Louw remained silent could be interpreted as indicating that South Africa had something to hide. That was the argument they used at that time. Now that the Prime Minister has explained why he allowed such a discussion, under the conditions which he has explained to us, and which I accept absolutely, and which every one of us should accept, and despite the fact that Mr. Macmillan has repeatedly stated that he was very grateful that our Prime Minister adopted that standpoint, the hon. member for South Coast, for the sake of a little political capital, criticizes the Prime Minister because he allowed such a discussion. No, Mr. Speaker, every one of us has one prominent characteristic, and this is particularly true at this time in South Africa, namely that we all have an inherent sense of justice and the inherent sense of justice which has been aroused in the people of South Africa to-day is to the effect that under very difficult conditions the Prime Minister did what was best for South Africa at that conference. Not only did he do what was best for South Africa, but he acted in such a way that he has made more friends for South Africa, I go so far as to say, than she has ever had before.

Who are these friends?

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) introduced this debate the other day, he said “ the sole responsibility rests upon the Prime Minister ”. He alone must bear the responsibility for South Africa leaving the Commonwealth. That is not so. It is true that the decision was the decision of the Prime Minister, but that is a decision which every member on this side wholeheartedly endorses, and the Prime Minister will not carry that responsibility alone. I and every member on this side will carry it with him, as hon. members opposite know. And it will not only be the National Party which will carry that responsibility with the Prime Minister, but supporters of the party opposite will help us carry that responsibility because they are better South Africans than the hon. members of the United Party who sit opposite. It may have been the decision of the Prime Minister, but we shall all carry the responsibility together.

An argument which the hon. members opposite have used is that we stand alone in the world. The hon. member for South Coast has placed great emphasis on how we stand alone in the world. And while he considers it wrong of us that we stand alone in the world, to an ever-increasing extent he wants to stand alone in Natal. They have used the argument that we stand alone in the world and that we must give way before world opinion. Must we then sacrifice our self-respect at all times in order to satisfy world opinion? Ever since I entered this House, hon. members opposite have put forward a new policy every year. That is the position, is it not? Hon. members can scarcely keep pace any longer with the various policies which they have put forward from time to time. But does the House know that I formed the impression while the hon. member for Sunny-side (Mr. Horak) was speaking that their policy is no longer going to vary from year to year, but that it is going to vary from day to day. Did hon. members listen to the hon. member for Sunnyside last night? And the very first thing he said on resuming his speech this morning was that he had adopted a certain standpoint last night, and that he had listened to the radio and read this morning’s newspapers but that nothing had happened to persuade him to adopt a different standpoint. Is that how a political party should behave? Is this how a political party can expect to make progress in South Africa, when it has to change its policy from hour to hour? Perhaps that is why hon. members opposite and the hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) are so seldom in the House—they’re listening to the radio. In the nature of things, when one draws up one’s policy one must take world opinion into account. One must do so to a certain extent. But is there any hon. member opposite who wants to argue in all seriousness that we should continually trim our sails to the prevailing winds? That because we are a small nation, we cannot hold our own opinions, we cannot believe in any principles, but that we must allow world opinion to dictate to us? Must we always sacrifice ourselves on the altar of world opinion? There are hon. members opposite who argue that South Africa will be destroyed under these circumstances because we have taken this step. There are hon. members who say that we shall be wiped out here in South Africa because the Prime Minister has adopted this standpoint and because we support him in subscribing to that standpoint. I do not know what awaits South Africa. I do not know whether we shall continue to exist as a nation. I believe that we shall do so because I believe we were placed here in South Africa for that purpose. I still believe and my people still believe and the supporters of hon. members opposite still believe that we shall continue to exist, no matter what difficulties may be facing us at the moment, and no matter how dark the future may look. But if it should happen that this nation must go under, let us then go under because it is our fate, not because it is our fault! Because the future looks dark to hon. members opposite, must we capitulate to-day? If we as Whites in this country do not have a message for the world to-day, then we have never had a message. May I submit this for the consideration of hon. members opposite? I do not know how sombre the position looks to them, but the late Dr. D. F. Malan said on one occasion: “ If everything suddenly gets dark around you, then it is time to halt and to cling to the anchors you know, because if you do not do so, you will bang your shins against every rock and you will very easily fall into a ditch.” If it is dark all around us, then it is time for us to halt and to cling to the anchors which your fathers and my fathers put down for us here in South Africa, and which are not a whim of this Government or of the National Party, but the White inheritance which your fathers, just as my father, left for us in South Africa. If they considered it worth while to fight and to gain the victory under conditions which relatively speaking were far more dangerous than the conditions facing us to-day, why then is it not worth while for us also to fight for that victory? Hon. members opposite are so fond of saying that it is quarter past twelve. Mr. Speaker, it is not quarter past twelve. Here in South Africa we stand before the early dawn. For that reason, and because I believe that in my heart, because this debate offers the opportunity for all of us to ask ourselves where we shall stand in this struggle and whether the time has come to serve South Africa and how we shall do so, and because I feel in my heart and many hon. members opposite also know that this Prime Minister will lead South Africa under the conditions which have now arisen and that under this Prime Minister there is the possibility that the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking peoples will find one another on a basis of common love for South Africa, on the basis of a common allegiance to the Republic of South Africa. Because that is the position, I for my part want to pay tribute to the Prime Minister for what he did at that conference and I want to thank him for having protected South Africa’s honour, and for not allowing the self-respect of our nation to be trampled in the mud.

I don’t propose to follow the line taken by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Education, nor the line taken by the preceding speakers on the Government benches, because it is quite obvious that the Government has decided not to face up to the realities of the position this country is in to-day, not to face up to the consequences of the Prime Minister’s dismal failure in London, but rather to set up a smoke screen in an endeavour to distract the attention of the country from the realities of the dangers that we are now in. The hon. Deputy Minister of Education has given us a long exhortation on past follies of this side of the House and what we should do and what the country should do. That we now should stand together in this situation that we find ourselves in. He again has invoked (the somewhat nauseating references that we get constantly) the divine aid which was rendered to bring about this state of affairs. I think it is a phase of what is happening in the country that cannot be too strongly deprecated in the damage that it is likely to cause not only to the people of this country, but to what remains of the good relations between the people of this country and the outside world. It is a species of side-tracking to which we are so used in this House. The Government have no answer to the position that has been created and in order to hide their barrenness, they adopt these tactics. I refer to the hon. the Minister of External Affairs, who is not here at the moment. He has shown us the way to make friends. Heaven help us, Sir. If that is the policy he adopts at UNO and as Minister of External Affairs, no wonder that South Africa is almost friendless to-day. His policy apparently of making friends is first to accuse them of untruths, then to attack them on their own procedures in their own countries, to attack them on their basic beliefs and what is honestly their policy, and then finally, having done that, to run away and leave them in the lurch. Those are apparently the hon. Minister’s tactics. Can you wonder that when it was announced that that hon. Minister was to accompany the hon. the Prime Minister to London, to the most important Commonwealth Conference that this country has ever participated in, that we on this side of the House, without any equivocation objected to his accompanying the Prime Minister? How right we were in that objection! Can’t you see the influence of this Minister of External Affairs in what has happened in London? The very selfsame tactics which he introduced into South Africa’s representations at UNO: To run away, to beg the question, instead of facing up to it. I want to refer to the hon. the Prime Minister’s position itself. This country. South Africa, in the world at large, far beyond the confines of the Commonwealth, has enjoyed a reputation in sportsmanship probably unequalled by any country of our size in history. You would probably have to go right back to the early Roman days, or the Greeks to find it. As a small country we have enjoyed an amazing reputation for sportsmanship. Sir, the very foundation on which that reputation was built, was by our representatives who have represented this country in practically every part of the globe facing up to their responsibilities, and never running away. No matter how grim the battle was on the sports field, no matter how much the odds were against them, they stayed and saw the fight out, even when they were defeated. Our hon. Prime Minister now has come back to us as the first International Springbok representing South Africa—because he represented South Africa at the Conference, not the Nationalist Party; he represented every person in this country—he is the first International Springbok that we can recall who has thrown the towel in before the fight was finished. What a fine reputation! I suggest that instead of being “ Springbok ” he was a “ Spring Back”. But what a fine reputation it is to bring back to a country like ours! He is the first man wearing the colours of this country to throw in the towel and walk out, leaving the field clear to the opposition. The real fact is that the hon. the Prime Minister, when he was in London, found himself in a completely new position. In this country he has had at his back the well-disciplined majority which serves him through thick and thin to carry through his proposals, no matter whether they are for the good of the country or to its detriment. But when he went to London he found himself in the same position that we on this side of the House have found ourselves in for the last 13 years, faced with a big majority opposition. He found himself faced with a majority opposition of people who were prepared to voice their arguments and to oppose his. And he cracked. He could not face that opposition. The hon. the Prime Minister cracked before the battle was ended and he walked out and left those who were our friends in the lurch, left them to try and defend us in his absence and to carry on the fight on his behalf after he himself had walked out. He could not remember that he was representing South Africa and not the Nationalist Party. That is the crux of the whole position. For the first time the hon. the Prime Minister found himself in the minority and he could not face up to the strain of that.

I want to carry that theme a bit further. The final decision has not yet been taken. We may have had the results of the London Conference and we may know clearly what will flow from those results if things take the course which was planned before the Conference was held. But at the present moment the Prime Minister of this country is the man solely responsible for what is going to happen eventually. No matter what consequences may eventually flow from his withdrawal of the application for our membership of the Commonwealth, nothing can happen until the day that his Excellency the Governor-General signs the Republican Bill if and when it is put through Parliament. It is from that particular moment that the consequences of the Prime Minister’s action will start to flow. And the hon. the Prime Minister can suspend all that. He can hold it all up by declining at this stage to carry on with that Republican Bill, to let it stand in abeyance until there has been time for second thoughts, until time has been given to the country and to other countries to consider just where we are heading. And that responsibility rests entirely on the shoulders of the hon. the Prime Minister. We are not out of the Commonwealth until this Prime Minister forces this Bill through Parliament and it is approved by His Excellency the Governor-General. Therefore I say the onus rests entirely on the Prime Minister and it is for him to consider, as never a man was called upon to consider before, what the consequences of inaction on his part are likely to be as far as the people of South Africa are concerned; consequences in every direction that you can attempt to think of. That is the responsibility with which I charge the hon. the Prime Minister to-day. Until that particular fact is accomplished, no matter how certain of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers may criticize what we are doing, or may dislike what we are doing, they will be completely powerless to act within the framework of the Commonwealth, at least until another Commonwealth Conference is held. Surely the welfare, the safety and security of the country, the well-being of our people must count more than the pride of one man when you come to deal with a state of affairs like that. Surely one man has no right to put his own political pride before the safety and the security of the whole nation. Yet that is the position in which we find ourselves to-day.

I would say, Sir, that this is one of the strangest anomalies which has ever been created by what has happened overseas, that this Prime Minister who poses as the arch-disciple of the fight in this country against Communism, as the leader of White South Africa in our fight against Communism—in which he has the support of the entire country —surely it is anomalous to realize that he has done more by his actions in London to bring comfort and solace to the heart of the Kremlin than any single South African has ever done before. What the hon. the Prime Minister did in London for the uplift of the morale of communistic nations, of those who are working that way in Africa and those who are inclined that way outside of this country, is worth a dozen army brigades to the Kremlin. That is what the leader of this country, that is dedicated to oppose Communism, has done for the communistic peoples of this world. And that is an additional burden which he has placed on us in South Africa.

I then want to refer to one other aspect of this matter before I come back to the Budget itself. We have heard so much of this divine miracle which has suddenly, out of the blue, given this country this wonderful freedom. The hon. the Minister of Education, Arts and Science has just mentioned this wonderful freedom so suddenly accorded to South Africa. But I have always understood from very responsible leaders of the Government that this country was as free as it ever could be. Let me make this point. If we now have to celebrate this wonderful, divine miracle which has given this country this first free republic, this unfettered freedom outside of the bonds of the British Commonwealth of Nations, how can one do that and at the same time reconcile that amazing sentiment with the claims made by the hon. the Prime Minister that he made every effort in London to keep us within the Commonwealth? How can you tie those two sentiments together? It is impossible. They are two sentiments which are diametrically opposed and no man who thinks in the sense of the one can dare to say that he also thinks in the sense of the other because if he did so it would be a gross untruth. Those sentiments do not marry in any shape or form, and I would like an explanation when the hon. the Prime Minister replies, as to how he can reconcile the fact of his devotion to this sudden freedom, this divine interference which has given us this unfettered republic, with his duty to South Africa, his pledges and his mandate from South Africa to keep us within the Commonwealth. Can he explain how he reconciles those two factors?

Mr. Speaker, I now want to come back to another feature of the whole issue. I want to deal for a moment with the question of defence and the security of the country. This is a matter which has already been clearly and lucidly put before the House in language that no person in the country can misunderstand, by the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig Bronkhorst) who spoke last night. He put this case in questions to the hon. the Minister of Defence, questions actuated by a sense of the highest responsibility for the security of this country; questions which any thinking man who thinks a little ahead, will want answered. Questions as to where we are going as we stand alone and what is to be our responsibility. And I would like to follow along those lines for a moment. The last comprehensive statement we have received from any responsible representative of the Government with regard to our defence responsibilities will be found in Hansard No. 73 of 1950, Column 9694. The Minister of Defence at that time, in replying to questions then stated that our policy was, firstly—

He said that secondly our policy was—

And thirdly, he said, that in any war against Communism—

The Minister then went on to say that we have entered into commitments only in regard to African Territories higher up, and in regard to the Middle East, to co-operate with countries which have other interests in South Africa and the Middle East. Then there were certain other provisions which were made, some of which have since fallen away. But I take it that those three major responsibilities still exist, although one finds it somewhat difficult to appreciate, particularly the latter one, namely our defence against Communism.

I want to deal particularly with the second phase of this policy, South Africa’s ability to defend the Union against an attack from outside. The first one goes without saying, I do not think it needs any amplification from this side of the House, when it comes to the question of maintaining internal security. The debate which took place recently on the Defence Amendment Bill gives, I think, absolutely clear proof that this side of the House supports the contention that internal security is paramount to anything that takes place in regard to the defence of the country. That was also made amply clear last night by the previous speaker on defence from this side, who said that it was impossible to maintain forward forces in any field of action for any length of time unless they could absolutely rely on the security of the base from which they have to operate. Arising out of what happened in London, we have heard from the hon. the Prime Minister in statements made both through the Press and over the radio, and we have heard from hon. members of this House, references to the Simonstown Agreement as a part of the defence measures which will be retained, although we are no longer a member of the Commonwealth. I want to refer to a statement in the address given by Mr. Sandys, Secretary for State in the House of Commons two nights ago when speaking on this matter. He said—

That we quite understand, and we did discuss that in this House—

Now this is the pertinent part of the statement—

I think it is necessary that we should examine the position with regard to the Simonstown Agreement, that we should refresh our minds as to just what the Simonstown Agreement was and what it covers.

The Simonstown Agreement formed a portion of the exchange of documents between the Union Government and the British Government in connection with the taking over of the Simonstown Naval Station. As you will remember, Sir, there were several such documents, partly dealing with the taking over of the assets of the dockyard and our future responsibilities, and then there was an agreement between the two countries with regard to the allocation of responsibility for the seaward defence of South Africa in the event of certain eventualities or hostilities. There were two types of hostilities envisaged, one in which South Africa was involved, and the other a war in which Great Britain was concerned but in which South Africa did not participate.

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

Mr. Speaker, just before the adjournment I was commencing to discuss the implications of the Simonstown Agreement as it will now be affected by the position in which South Africa finds itself. I was saying that what is known as the Simonstown Agreement forms part of an exchange of letters between the two Governments at the time of the Simonstown take-over. The Agreement provided for two separate phases. One was for the maintenance of the Simonstown Naval Base and its occupation by our navy, including certain necessary measures of expansion there. Amongst other things was the provision for the retention of a Royal Naval Squadron at Simonstown and certain facilities to be accorded to them in peace time. The other leg, which affects us now more closely is in regard to the external defence of this country and allocates certain responsibilities as between the Union Government and Great Britain for the defence of the seas off our coasts. It allocated certain areas in which each government accepted responsibility, both separately and co-jointly for defence under certain conditions of hostilities. Our own responsibility, as we envisage it under the Simonstown Agreement embraced the full length of our seaward boundaries extending to a considerable distance off the coast, for the protection of our sea routes round our coast and defence against submarine attack on shipping or on our coast itself. It provided for certain substantial expansion of the South African Navy and shore bases in order to permit acceptance of that responsibility. And, in passing, I would like to say that this is perhaps the one bright spot in the defence record of this Government, the build up of the South African Navy and the services that go with it to enable it to fulfil that part of the agreement. But even there it was never at any stage envisaged that we would stand alone. I refer again to Mr. Sandys’ remarks in the House of Commons when he made it quite clear that even the Simonstown Agreement will have to be given very careful consideration to establish what it actually means in the light of to-day’s position.

There is another very important feature provided in the Agreement, namely that under certain types of hostilities in which Great Britain may be involved but which do not involve the Union, a war in which the Union was not participating, the South African Navy would vacate the base at Simonstown which would then be taken over by the Royal Navy and its allies as a base from which to conduct their operations. In that event our Navy would be based on other Union ports. That is a conception which was completely impracticable in the light of reality under any conditions. It is certainly completely impracticable in the circumstances in which we now find ourselves. We, as a nation, would not be the deciding factor as to whether we were going to be at war or not. Can you conceive of any conflict in which one of the opposing forces, the attacking force, would permit a neutral nation —a foreign nation as we will now be—to allow a portion of its harbours to be used as a naval base for part of the Commonwealth forces that they were fighting? Can you imagine that we could remain outside of that conflict? The whole thing is so fantastic that it does not bear investigation. But that is a very important feature of the Simonstown Agreement, one which I feel will have to be very closely analysed and re-examined in the light of the position we now find ourselves in. I want to make this observation, that I would make a request from this side of the House to the Government that when the time comes for this examination of the Simonstown Agreement as foreshadowed in Mr. Sandys’ speech, that the Government will approach that examination not in the intransigent manner in which the hon. the Prime Minister approached the London Conference, not with the hands up policy that he adopted there, but that he will approach that examination in a spirit which will be in the very best interests of South Africa as a whole; that they will approach it in that spirit, in the wider interests of South Africa as a whole, even if that means the swallowing of a certain amount of political pride.

I now want to deal with one or two aspects of the Budget which deal with defence. I want to support the request made last night by the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) who asked for certain information with regard to Government policy on defence. In introducing his Budget the hon. the Minister of Finance, as also when dealing with earlier financial proposals such as the Additional Expenditure Bill and the Part Appropriation Bill, referred to the increased expenditure we were incurring on defence. I want to remind this hon. House that since 1952 defence expenditure from Revenue alone has amounted to something like R400,000,000. That is the amount expended from Revenue in this small country, in addition to many additional millions expended from Loan Funds; in addition to the R61,500,000 covered by the present Budget, and in addition to the Special Equipment Fund provided by Parliament to enable the defence authorities to equip certain brigades for duty in the Middle East at that time. Since 1952 something like R150,000,000 has been appropriated by Parliament for that special fund. In total that is no small amount to spend on defence when considered in relation to the size and capacity of this country. It may be small when measured by greater countries, but certainly not when measured against the resources of this country. With that in mind and in the situation in which we find we have now been driven to by the Prime Minister’s dismal failure at the London Conference, I think that we have every right as an Opposition to ask of the Government what effective build-up of defence, what value are we getting for the money that has been spent? I appreciate that this is a difficult question for the hon. the Minister of Defence at the moment, because by far the greater portion of this amount was spent long before he was either a member of the Cabinet or Minister of Defence. It was spent in the time of his predecessor in office. But in a world as explosive as it is to-day it is something to which we require an answer. We have every reason to be apprehensive that South Africa is not getting value for the money spent on defence.

I should like to give one or two examples in support of this allegation. Let me deal first with certain aspects of the navy. If we consider five vessels of the navy, including two of the major ships, the Jan van Riebeeck and the Simon van der Stel, two ocean-going minesweepers, the Pietermaritzburg and the Bloemfontein, and the ex-survey ship the Protea, we find that in the last four years, since the end of 1957, approximately R155,000 has been spent on those ships. But those ships have not been used at all during that period. They have been tied up to their buoys. Those ships have cost this country R155,000 to maintain and now, except for the Bloemfontein and the Pietermaritzburg they are being put up for disposal. In other words, that is just so much money down the drain. Expert technical opinion on the two destroyers is that if the Government does not do something about them very quickly they will wake up one morning to find that they have sunk at their moorings because they have been allowed to deteriorate so much. Yet that is money which we vote year after year, being spent on these ships to the tune of R155,000, for which we have practically no value at all.

I want to turn to another one, dealing with the Army, viz. the disposal of certain military equipment. I want to say at the outset that I regard ourselves as being very lucky that we have been able to get back the amount we have got back on the sale of this equipment. I am not criticizing it from that point of view, but I want to quote it as an example of what has happened. Again it is a legacy we inherited from the previous Minister of Defence. We sold 100 Centurion tanks. 10 armoured recovery vehicles, one trailer tractor and a lot of spare parts, 20 universal carriers, etc. The total amount we received for the sale of these vehicles and equipment, which had practically never been used even for training purposes, was about R4,500,000, and we have lost on the sale of that equipment approximately the same sum, R4,500,000. I repeat that we were lucky to get back what we did, but again this transaction shows the reasons we have to doubt that the country is receiving full benefit for the monies spent on defence. The question has been put whether we have any tanks left. I understand that we have, but one might ask what their condition is, and how ready are they to be used if required. I understand we have some Centurions left, but the story of those tanks was a very sorry tale ever since they first landed in Durban and they could not be moved.

I want to refer to the next matter, and that is the naval development that took place under the Simonstown Agreement, and it is a good development. That is the acquisition of three new frigates, the President Kruser which will arrive here in about September 1962, the President Pretorius which will arrive about April 1963. and the President Steyn which will arrive about the end of 1963. Those shins are estimated at present to cost £4,230,000 each, so we are going to spend about R25,000,000 on the acquisition of these three new frigates. They are very fine ships. They will require when they come here a total peace-time complement of about 30 officers and about 624 other ratings, or under war-time conditions about 48 officers and about 732 other ratings. I want to ask the Minister of Defence what progress the Government has made in preparing for the manning of those ships, because they are ships of the electronic age, packed with electronic equipment from one end to the other. Like all vessels of that type it is practically impossible to lay them up because they deteriorate so rapidly if laid up. Manning our ships has been one of our biggest problems, and the manning of these new ships will call for the highest technical ability on the part of the crew. They are far beyond the ordinary accepted category of seamen. They have to be specialists in their jobs, and if we are going to get value from the ships, we have to be certain in advance that we have the men trained to man them. Certainly the record up to date does not give us too much confidence that that is coming.

These are just three questions out of a number which one could put, but I ask them to show the reasons why we feel we will not get value from Defence expenditure. They are the reasons for the questions in the speech of the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) last night. And we want to know not only in regard to the actual use of the equipment when it is here, but we also want to know what policy the Government has, if any, for the external defence of South Africa. We have been hearing a lot about the laager. This Prime Minister has taken us outside the laager in which we previously sheltered, the Commonwealth. We are now outside and on our own and if we want to feel secure we have to see to it ourselves that we can provide for our security I have no doubt that we will get some defence assistance because of our strategic position, but what we got before as a right, we will now get as charity, because the other people in their own interests have to do something to help us, whereas before we had that assurance as a right, and there is a vast difference between what we enjoy as a right, and what we will enjoy on goodwill, the grace and favour of the people who help us. That is why we want to know what Government policy is in regard to our external defence. I understand that there is a policy with regard to internal security, but the two are as different as night is from day. The training and equipment of the men differs and the two cannot be mixed. In each case we are dealing with the same manpower plus also the maintenance of the base in South Africa from which they will have to operate. That industrial and engineering base which will draw on the same small reserve of manpower due to this Government’s folly regarding immigration. That is where the Prime Minister and his policies have taken us to. The Prime Minister is the man who put us into this position. The choice was his and the responsibility was his. He has failed in his responsibility to the people of the country, and having failed in his responsibility he should now try to save what can possibly be saved in regard to our defence position and to safeguard the future security of the country. It is his responsibility to do that now without any further delay, or else to make way for somebody else who will be prepared to do it. Someone who will be prepared to do his best in the interest of the country and forget his own political ambitions which have been placed to a large extent ahead of his responsibilities to the nation as a whole.

I think the best answer I can give the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) is to depict a different picture for him so that he can realize once and for all that he does not only live in the Peninsula but also on the Continent of Africa. South Africa as well as the entire Christian Western civilization feels threatened to-day by international Communism and I think that every member in this House will agree with that statement. If that is the position, it is also clear that we must counter that danger not alone, but together with the rest of the Western world. But the White man not only in the Cape Peninsula but elsewhere on the continent as well, is faced with other difficulties. We are faced with the problem that the United Kingdom, the United States, Soviet Russia and Red China are competing with one another for the favours of the Black man of Africa, and there lies our danger. But Communism bases its policies on the sayings of Lenin, their great apostle, and what did he say? He said: War is inevitable for so long as Socialism has not triumphed throughout the world. We have heard this morning that the U.S.A.’s Mr. Adlai Stevenson has said with a pious face and a catch in his voice that he appeals to the world, please, not to wage a cold war in Africa. He knows as well as you and I that the cold war has already been going on in Africa for the past 16 years and he knows that he and his country are playing a prominent part in that cold war. This is a cold war which could break out into a hot war at any time. The aim of the communists with their cold war is in the first place to gain control over Africa for economic, political and strategic reasons. Russia and China with their satellites are waging this cold war against the West for just as long as they are on the winning side, but as soon as they realize that they cannot win they will not hesitate to spark off a hot war, and when one reads the signs of the times, one cannot but think that that time is near. Their object is to bring about the triumph of Socialism throughout the entire world and they do not care whether they achieve that object by means of a cold or a hot war. I want to indicate to the hon. member for Simonstown what the position in Africa is so that he can escape from the atmosphere of the Peninsula.

In the course of this cold war Russia is broadcasting 3,000 hours per week in 55 African languages. May I ask the hon. member for Simonstown whether he knows in how many African languages the Union and the whole Western world are broadcasting in order to counter this propaganda? Since 1953 Russia has undertaken more purposeful and more thorough research on the African continent than all the other great powers together, and if I have the time I shall prove my submission. They have already published a whole series of historical, linguistic and scientific works in various African languages which testify to a thorough knowledge of Africa, apart from the propaganda they contain. They have already published two geography works in Libya and Abyssinia for school use, and they have published a whole series of brochures dealing with other areas in Africa. They are now engaged on compiling dictionaries in Swahili, Hausa and the Bantu languages of South Africa. The Institute for Asiatistics in Russia has been instructed to undertake research in connection with Egypt, Algeria and Morocco, while the Ethnographic Institute of Russia has received a similar instruction in respect of Africa south of the Sahara, that part of the continent in which we are most interested. The Soviet experts and students who are writing these theses, cannot speak too highly about the untapped wealth of the continent of Africa, and in this regard they mention Ghana, Mali, Zongai, the Sudan, the Rhodesias, the Congo, Angola, Mozambique, and the Union of South Africa and South West Africa. Apart from the political trend of these works—I have read many of them—they testify to a thorough knowledge of conditions in Africa. Only in a few African countries are there official communist parties to-day, that is to say in Nigeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt and the Sudan, but in all the other African states the communists use puppet movements. We find such movements in the Congo, Tanganyika, Kenya, Northern and Southern Rhodesia, Angola, Mozambique, in the Union and in South West. The reason is that in recent years, since 1953, Communism has no longer placed the emphasis on the economic welfare of the proletariat or the masses of the world, but on the political and constitutional liberation and on the human rights of the masses in Africa. I now want to ask the hon. member for Simonstown whether he has ever studied the military strength of Africa. Does he know that throughout the African continent there are scarcely 75,000 trained White soldiers and of those 75,000 the Union together with Southern Rhodesia controls hardly 25,000. The remainder are in the service of the Black States in Africa, and if a war should break out, they would have to fire on their fellow White men, or be put against a wall and executed. What potential strength is available to us? There are less than 5,000,000 Whites in all Africa and 3.000. 000 of them are in Southern Africa. It is from these people that we can derive our strength in the future, but Black Africa has 210,000. 000 people. The argument is often used: You can see what is happening in the Congo; there is chaos because they do not have trained military and political leaders. Sir, that may be true of the Congo to-day and of the other states as well, but for how many years will that continue to be the position, seeing that the U.S.A. together with the United Kingdom, Russia and China are openly offering their assistance and guidance to Africa in all spheres? I now want to ask the hon. member for Simonstown who has so much to say about defence matters whether he has considered which countries have already entered into mutual agreements aimed at freeing the Black man in Africa. I shall mention them to him. They are Ceylon, Ghana, Liberia, the Republic of Malia, Abyssinia, Morocco, the United Arab Republic, the Sudan and Indonesia. I now want to give him the names of the countries which support the establishment of an African army which could be used against him and me and all of us. They are Morocco, Guinea, Ghana, the United Arab Republic, the Sudan and Ethiopia. I wonder whether the hon. member knows that as far as manpower and equipment is concerned, the United Arab Republic is just as strong to-day as the Allied Forces were at the battle of El Alamein.

Ask the Prime Minister.

Countries which are already receiving military aid from Russia, are the U.A.R., the Sudan, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Libya, and Gizenga of the Congo, whose troops are using automatic weapons which they could only have received from one power in the world, namely, Russia or one of her satellites. Allow me also to tell the hon. member that this is Russia’s cheapest way of fighting wars. On the one hand she is waging a cold war and she is winning “ all down the line” in Africa. On the other hand, she is providing armaments on credit to the liberated African States, and these States must provide the soldiers, their equipment, their food and their pay. This is the cheapest way Russia can recruit millions and millions of soldiers in Africa so that she can achieve her objects as far as we are concerned. [Interjections.] That is in brief the position of the White man in Africa.

Now, what is the attraction which Africa offers to these nations of the West to which I have referred, and to Russia, Red China and the nations of the East? Their eyes are on the uncivilized millions in Africa whom they can easily exploit economically if they can only gain economic control over Africa. And then, as Mr. Stevenson has done, they call it “ partnership ”. The other attraction is the great “ lebensraum ” and the unequalled surface and subterranean resources of the great African continent. This explains to me, Mr. Macmillan’s “ winds of change ” speech, and all the nations I have mentioned will be prepared unhesitatingly to sacrifice the White man in Africa who has established civilization on this continent, and who has carried it to the far north, if they can gain their own objects. Africa south of the Sahara is 7,399,038 square miles in extent, and in 1951 its population was only 25,500,000 people, or 16.96 persons per square mile. This is negligible when compared with the more densely populated countries of the East or even of Europe. At that time there were 37.15 Natives for every White man, and to-day the ratio is different, because thousands of Whites have already fled from the north. Africa offers all these interested nations in ample abundance all those things on which the modern world is built, namely, fertile soil, ample water, coal and other fuels, gold, uranium, iron, copper, asbestos, manganese, itrium, beryllium, and a whole series of other metals and minerals which are required for the progress of the world. What progress has our great enemy, Communism, already made? It has succeeded in driving one powerful spearhead right through Red China deep into the Malayan Archipelago, and it is succeeding in driving a vast spearhead right through the Near East and Africa north of the Sahara—we must not always refer to Africa south of the Sahara—and it has succeeded to such an extent that Russia to-day has gained two strong footholds on the continent of Africa. The one is in Guinea which is communistic and the other in Ethiopia which, financially, is completely in the clutches of Russia. On the other hand, we have Red China, which is trying to compete with Russia for influence in the communist world. China has gained two firm footholds in Algeria and Uganda. I do not have the time to give the House all the information I have available, but in the space of 18 months 54 delegations from Africa visited China, and not one of them came back empty-handed. I now want to say that if Communism should succeed in driving its second spearhead deep into southern Africa, we shall have only one alternative. We are the basis from which the Western world can once again try to regain what it has lost in the Mediterranean area, in the Red Sea and in the East. We are the basis from which the West will start again to regain what it has lost, and, as a student of military matters, the hon. member for Simonstown will agree with that point. This is the only warm water route which will be left between the Eastern democracies and the West, and he will agree with me that, with its spearhead right through Red China and deep into the Malayan Archipelago and with the spearhead which it has driven deep into southern Africa, Communism can cut the West from its Eastern democracies within 24 hours. That is only logical. During the last world war, Germany and Japan did not have a single base along our coasts, and they succeeded in sinking 238 allied ships from the Mozambique canal to a little north of Walvis Bay. But to-day they are in a strong position as a result of spearheads which they have driven in and which they are still driving in, to cut us off within 24 hours when they can no longer win the cold war and want to wage a hot war. I now ask the hon. member whether he cannot get away from these petty matters? Will they answer and tell us that, if this is the position—the position in which we would find ourselves whether South Africa remains a monarchy or not, whether she is in the Commonwealth or not, whether she becomes a republic inside or outside the Commonwealth, because our enemies have been winning this cold war for the past 16 years. I ask whether it is not time that we, as White people in South Africa, in the famous words of the late Dr. Malan, should make this confession of faith and tell one another: Believe in God, believe in your people, and believe in yourself, and that we should take up a firm stand as White people, not only in the Union, but in Southern Africa, and that we, with the approval of the whole House, should provide all the assistance which other White people may require of us when they are faced with danger. We can and we must, or else we shall go under. May I make an appeal that in the face of the danger which threatens us, we should agree with the Deputy Minister of Education and say that we shall rather die if that is to be our fate, because then it will not be our fault. Seeing that we are now discussing defence matters, I ask that in this debate, we should see the whole matter in its overall perspective and realize that our enemies who want to become “ partners ”, as Mr. Stevenson admitted this morning, are our enemies and not our friends, that they are prepared to sacrifice us, and that, in the words of Mr. Macmillan and others, it means that: “ We are expendable.” Once we realize that, I think we shall be able to maintain a higher level in our defence debates than merely pottering around here in the Peninsula as the hon. member for Simonstown has done.

I would have liked to have followed the hon. member for Karas (Mr. von Moltke) because there is quite a lot in what he said that I agree with, particularly the last sentence that it would not be our fault, provided we are sure of it. In my opinion it would not be so easy, in view of the spirit that I have seen so far, to determine whose fault it is.

But, Mr. Speaker, I feel in a somewhat poetic mood to-day and a vision of Jan Celliers gives me in figurative speech, and also in proper perspective what I have sensed here since yesterday and also since South Africa has been out of the Commonwealth. My memory goes back to many years ago when I started with the establishment of a “ Native ”—and in those days we still spoke of “ Native ”—study group in 1927. Then the cloud of the Native problem already came floating along. “ Soos ’n vlokkie skuim uit die sfere se ruim ”. And in the meantime it has—

We had an event last Wednesday which came like a flash of lightning for South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister went overseas with the good-will and support of practically the entire population, with the support, I believe, of even the large majority of the non-White population, that South Africa should remain within the Commonwealth when she became a republic. Then came the flash of lightning and South Africa was out. It does not matter if it is only effective from 31 May; South Africa is out. The fact that South Africa is out of the Commonwealth is very important on its own, but that is not all. It is clearly a symptom of an enormous number of circumstances built up in this country over the years I recall that already in those early days I foresaw and told my students that the matter that would eventually determine where South Africa would stand was not the question of a republic or anything else but the question of race relations in South Africa. Many say it to-day, and I think that we all agree with it. To-day the flash of lightning has come but the lightning, as I know the Free State, is usually the forerunner of terrific storms. That devastating hailstorm can still come and this is the great significance of our withdrawal from the Commonwealth, that it is a symptom of many greater dangers.

It sometimes also brings us nice rain.

It sometimes brings nice rain, and sometimes devastating hurricanes and hailstorms. We have been busy attacking each other during the past few days about the symptoms and we are now seeking scapegoats. The hon. the Prime Minister is made the scapegoat by the one side and by the other side he is made the hero of the situation. Mr. Speaker, we must be very cautious. One must come to the actual realities of the matter. I have listened to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) and also to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and once again the type of leadership coming from that side in a time of crisis was disappointing. If ever there was one who championed South Africa’s membership of the Commonwealth then it was I.

And now?

To me it is, of course, one of the greatest disappointments and because it meant so much to me I can appreciate the feelings of my hon. friends on the Opposition side of the House, but above all that there is still South Africa and however strongly I stood throughout my life for Commonwealth relationships I wish to state now that I stand by South Africa.

Who stands by anything else?

I stand by South Africa and I am not going to cry about spilt milk. To my mind the matter has been finalized, much too our disappointment. But it is going too far to want to make the hon. the Prime Minister the scapegoat and to propose that the coming of a republic should be stopped in an effort to return to the Commonwealth. Mr. Speaker, it is said that a dog does not return to his vomit. I do not see the way clear for South Africa to crawl back to the Commonwealth hat in hand now. The matter is finished. The hon. the Prime Minister did not fail, or let me rather put it this way: He failed but it is not only he who failed.

It is the whole party.

If he failed then the whole South African nation failed. Let us consider the matter objectively and stop looking for scapegoats. I am not going to look for any scapegoats because I could point out many. I say that if the hon. the Prime Minister failed with the mandate from South Africa then the whole South African nation failed and now the question arises: Why did he fail? In view of the fact that the great majority of the people believe in racial discrimination the people gave a virtually impossible mandate to the hon. the Prime Minister under the existing world and Commonwealth circumstances of to-day. We know what the causes are. The fact that we are becoming a republic, which the hon. member for South Coast and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition emphasized, has in my opinion practically nothing to do with the entire matter. The basis of the whole trouble is the clash between the views of other Commonwealth countries and us about the question of race relations in South Africa. That alone is the cause and the challenge has been in existence for us here in South Africa for many years. I want to state this afternoon that the reason why I am standing here, away from my former party, is because they could not accept that challenge. I differed from my hon. friends on that side for many years because I believed that they were not really accepting that challenge. The main problem in the world to-day in connection with human relationships, race relations, is the question: Can any nation continue with a policy of deliberate discrimination against another race? Whether it be South Africa or the rest of the world, I believe that a human revolution has been in progress for years now, unparalleled in the entire history of mankind and it concerns this question of vested interests and the privileged position, particularly of the White races of the West towards the non-White races over the length and the breadth of the world. Those former big nations awoke and said that racial discrimination should disappear from the world. And, Sir, nothing will stop it, and that also applied to South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister declared in London and here also that his policy was not based on racial discrimination; in other words, our policy was not based on the question of the maintenance of the privileged position of the Whites here in South Africa. I would like to believe that. It would really inspire me if it is true that we actually reject unconditionally racial discrimination and the privileged position of the Whites; that we are no longer fighting about that but that we are actually fighting for the rights of the non-Whites. If it is true, and the proof is there, then I promise that I will immediately cross the floor of the House.

Then do it now.

But let me see if we can really claim that for ourselves. The time has come for us not to bluff ourselves any longer. In my opinion, and apart from what the hon. member for Karas said, South Africa is in deadly peril and everything depends on whether we can convince ourselves and our non-Whites and the world that the White man in South Africa, in harmony with the rest of the world, is now steering away from White preference in South Africa and from discrimination against the non-White races, and that she will now once and for all do away with racial discrimination in South Africa. Our history proves that racial discrimination is really a fact, and no argument that anyone can advance will controvert it. In other words, we must stop relying on the sort of idea that caused the trouble in the Commonwealth Conference. There the fundamental trouble was that the hon. the Prime Minister relied on the old principle which held water in the Commonwealth since before the last world war, namely the principle of sovereign independence and equality, which made interference on the part of the member states impossible in what we considered to be domestic matters. After the advent of the United Nations and in view of the development that has taken place at a tremendous tempo during the past few years, we must realize that the old concept of national sovereignty, on which we base this claim of ours that we will not tolerate any interference in our domestic affairs from any other country, and especially not from Commonwealth countries, is to-day outmoded by at least 50 years in respect of one particular aspect, namely human rights. The concept of national sovereignty will not be tolerated in the sense that it prohibits other countries from interfering in our so-called domestic affairs. Human rights are not limited to national boundaries; it surpasses national boundaries and it concerns humanity as a whole. I have said in this House on a previous occasion, following on a speech made by the hon. the Minister of External Affairs, that we are entirely unrealistic if we think that Section 2 (7) of the United Nations charter is still in force to-day in the sense that other nations will not interfere in our domestic affairs. Throughout the history of the world, and particularly to-day, human rights, human freedoms, have never acknowledged the concept of national sovereignty. The concept of national sovereignty always had to give way to the greater sovereignty of the Creator towards His creatures. If I can believe to-day that South Africa wants to steer away from the old paths, that we are not going to stand in the way of other races in our country but that we really and truly want to help them to achieve their freedom and their rights then it will be a happy day for me. That was the great problem at the Commonwealth Conference. The other countries of the Commonwealth are determined that that antiquated idea of the Commonwealth, of non-interference, and which I have always supported, shall be rejected. That idea is outmoded. The hon. the Prime Minister and many other members opposite say that we have a different kind of Commonwealth to-day than we had before. But that is so, of course, and I am surprised that we have not realized it before. It is quite unrealistic for us to believe that the Commonwealth could remain unaffected in such a worldwide revolution of humanity. The Commonwealth has naturally changed, not only as far as its members are concerned, but an entirely different spirit has set in there; an entirely new concept has taken root there and South Africa must ask herself: Can we bring ourselves into harmony with the new Commonwealth of today, as it was in fact since after the first world war? The question is whether we can bring ourselves into harmony with it or not.

No.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anyone here who could have put South Africa’s case better than the hon. the Prime Minister has done, as he sees it and as a large part of the population sees it. I do not think that anyone else could have carried out the mandate given to him any better. I do not believe what the hon. member for South Coast and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, namely that it was merely a question of sitting there and allowing them to punch us on the nose, left and right, and that we could then have remained in the Commonwealth. It is not only a question of sitting still. I agree that no nation which is proud of its nationhood, which has a sense of pride, could sit still and permit itself to be slapped and kicked left and right. As long as we could not succeed in convincing those other nations that our policy was really, and perhaps more so than theirs, steering away from racial discrimination than did the policy in the Western world or in India or wherever racial discrimination is avoided, then I regard what happened there as unavoidable. This is the test before South Africa and on this question our future will be determined. Are we going to continue with a negative policy of apartheid, as in the past? No person who considers matters objectively and impartially can believe that what we have done so far was actually steering us away from the policy of racial discrimination. On the contrary, with all the legislation we have passed here over the years we gave the impression that we wanted to maintain White supremacy in South Africa, come what may, and that we were even prepared to die for it, as the hon. member for Karas said. Therefore I say: Let us die if we must, but let us be very careful when we determine whether it is our fault or not. Let us understand one another. I am of the opinion—and I will be surprised if our White population does not come to their senses— that the White man is to blame for the conditions existing in South Africa to-day and also for the attitude among Commonwealth nations towards South Africa, but let us steer away from it and the first requisite, in my opinion, is that the White sections of South Africa must reject the sort of thing said here by the hon. member for South Coast and by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. That sort of thing, which must lead to a new racial struggle between Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking, must be stopped. I always believed that the Commonwealth and our membership of the Commonwealth, together with our becoming a republic, could become the two main foundations for national unity among the Whites in this country. Apparently that is no longer so. All our supports have now been pushed from under us—English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking—and we must now stand on our own feet in South Africa and we must in the first instance seek our security in each other, Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking together. Mr. Speaker, I stand unequivocally for national unity between the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking sections, but why do we want to stand together? Sir, I dread kraals. I have seen the effects of kraals over many years, where the Afrikaansspeaking section want to isolate themselves more and more in their own kraal and where the English-speaking section in turn want to isolate themselves in their own kraal. If ever South Africa wants to destroy her own future then we must now go into another kraal— White kraals on the one side and non-White kraals on the other. The time has come for us to break down barriers. We must penetrate the barriers in the country. Seen from this point of view I am of the conviction that what has happened now, as dangerous as it was, may have the positive effect of breaking down the walls of the kraals that we have built up over the past years. May the Lord preserve us from building kraals for the Whites on the one side and the non-Whites on the other because that will really be the end of White South Africa. We must penetrate those walls. The kind of talk we have been hearing here through the years gave one the impression that an opening should never be made in those walls. My personal experience is that anyone who wants to break loose from a kraal is beaten back into it, as we used to drive back calves that have broken out of the kraal.

But if you make a hole in the dam wall it breaks.

I want to say this to my hon. friends opposite: Even if they get 90 per cent or 95 per cent of the Whites behind them, even if they should succeed in getting them all to become good Nationalists, even if they came so far as perhaps to have only one or two Opposition members while the rest are all Government members, it will not save South Africa; it will actually put South Africa in greater danger. The time for a party struggle on this issue is past. As far as it concerns that great question which will determine our weals and woes and our future, parties are totally antiquated. Even in this debate, where we have the danger before us, it has become more obvious to me than ever before. Hon. members opposite say that what has happened is the very best. From the Opposition side they are throwing back stones: The scapegoats are sitting on the Government benches, from the hon. the Prime Minister downwards, and from their side comes the reproach that the scapegoats are sitting on this side. On that basis we will get nowhere. We must penetrate the walls; we must break loose from the kraals and I believe that there must now be a compromise based on actual conviction in connection with the matter, and as far as the Whites are concerned we must find a few points of agreement. That granite-like immovable inflexibility must lead to destruction here in South Africa. The question is: Where can we find a few points on which we can really stand united without sacrificing any of our principles? Firstly, I believe that the destiny of our Coloured population is bound up with that of the Whites historically and in every other respect, whether we like it or not; and whether we are going to give them certain civic rights now or over a period of years, in that lies the outlet from these kraals in which we find ourselves in connection with race relations as far as the Whites and non-Whites are concerned. Mr. Speaker, as I understand the hon. the Prime Minister he has practically locked the door on the Coloureds and their future on the one hand and where he, on the other hand, tries to give them a comprehensive plan for development. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I consider that the statement of the hon. the Prime Minister to the Federal Council of the National Party in connection with the Coloureds as one of the most unfortunate events in South Africa during the past few months. There the hon. the Prime Minister missed an opportunity and it caused incalculable harm to South Africa at the recent discussions in London. I still feel that if the hon. the Prime Minister could have said there that we have not got a granite-like policy, at least as far as our Coloureds are concerned, but that we believed in all sincerity that the time for full citizenship for them was not yet ripe, and that we were, however, busy preparing and developing them for it and that all doors were wide open for our Coloureds to take their full place alongside the Whites in the future, then I believe that the policy of open doors for our Coloureds would have made an impression on Commonwealth countries which would have resulted in us not meeting with that hard attitude which was adopted towards South Africa. As far as our Natives are concerned we will also have to come to our senses. My hon. friends of the United Party cannot continue to be neither flesh nor fish about the matter. If we really support apartheid—and I believe from my personal experience in that party that 95 per cent of the Whites in South Africa support the basic principle of separate development-then let us say so and act accordingly; and if that is so then let us stop this farce. Let the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. the Prime Minister arrive at a compromise on this question. Let us realize that the Native question is the overriding problem on the outcome of which we will either be destroyed or saved, but let us stop playing with the matter. Are there no points of agreement even on this question? The nation believes in separate development, whether it is right or wrong. I do not think the people have yet assessed the price of that policy, but they believe in it. We can start where it will not land any of us in trouble, so that it cannot be said afterwards: “ Yes, I warned you, but I later agreed in despair.” This, in fact, goes for me. I still want to warn that the policy of separate development will be the shortest route to the death of the White man in South Africa if it is not regulated and if it is just idle talk. But the extent to which we can make it a positive actuality could be the salvation of both the Whites and the non-Whites. We must make a positive start now and cease our negative outlook; we must stop building a colour Maginot Line here in South Africa. Let us begin with separate development now. I fully support any positive measure taken to develop the Native areas. I will give my support to any step taken in that connection and I believe that the larger majority of my hon. friends on the Opposition benches, however confusingly they may have spoken, will agree with it. Call it Bantustans if you will, call it Bantu homelands if you will, call it the beginning of the future independent states if you like, call it whatever you like, but let us begin to show the world and ourselves and the Natives that we now want to start with the positive implementation of separate development. Let us put everything into it. Let the Government again take into consideration the fact that the time factor is of the utmost importance, that we cannot develop those Native reserves as the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is trying to do, at the rate at which it should be done if we want to save ourselves, with the world situation as it is, if we are not going to base that development on the basis of the Natives and their stage of civilization. That enormous industrial structure which must be created, and speedily too, cannot be built to-day on the basis of the Native alone. One must reconsider the development of the Native reserves under White guidance, with White initiative and capital. If we cannot get the capital then we will have to take it from our own pockets. But everything depends on that, Mr. Speaker, and on that point we should agree. As far as the urban Native is concerned, which is the crux of the matter, we agree on many points. I think we can agree on social segregation and separate residential areas, provided we know what we mean by it. We agree on the absolute necessity of having wage increases for the urban Native labour. We agree that the Native is an indispensable factor in industry to-day and that we can forget about the development of the Native reserves if we do not look after the Native in our industry, who is already integrated on a high qualitative basis in our economic structure. There you must produce the wherewithal, you must produce the means in that sector of your economy to realize something in the other sector of your economy in the Native reserves.

Here we have a few points where this stone wall we have erected can be broken. My advice to the people to-day, if I may make it in my solitude, is that we must get away from party governments, the kind we have had in the past. We must get away from that policy of the Afrikaner, namely that “We shall go it alone ”. We will have to get away from the idea that “You will have to become Nationalists, you must accept our principles ” otherwise “ We shall go it alone ”. I repeat that that is the danger, that the Afrikaner will try “ to go it alone ”. We must join hands, and I say that unless a leader comes along; if it is not the hon. the Prime Minister or the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or someone from outside, then it will be a tragic day. But let us in Heaven’s name, during the emergency in which South Africa finds herself and which will continue to increase, come to an actual National Government instead of a Nationalist Government as we have had up to now. In this I see our salvation, that English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking sections where they can get together in this respect should join hands and form a National Government which will be able to help the nation through this crisis and perhaps lead it to security.

I think that I am speaking on behalf of every member on this side of the House when I congratulate the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Prof. Fourie) on his clear-headed approach to these great problems with which we are faced. It is not necessary for us always to agree on a matter, and what we in fact would like the Opposition to do is to adopt a clear-headed approach to our problems, without emphasizing any party political points of view and without us criticizing one another as we always used to do, and without harming the interests of our country. It is not necessary that we should always agree. We on this side of the House particularly welcome criticism. We do not want to be over-sensitive and even though we differ in many respects from what the hon. member has said, we appreciate the manner and the methods he has adopted in putting his case. He has done so in an exceptionally clear-headed way. We genuinely appreciate it. I say sincerely that I appreciate his speech and the way in which he has put his point of view. May I just say that I should like to start by referring to the metaphor of the hon. member regarding the flash of lightning in the Free State. He says that there has now been a flash of lightning which reminds him of the lightning when the storms are brewing in the Free State. I agree with him, except that I want to say that this is not the first roll of thunder, this is not the first flash of lightning which has come signalling the coming storm, and that this is not the first flash of disillusionment. If only it was the first flash of lightning! As has often happened in the past, I believe that we in South Africa must make a choice for the sake of self-preservation. We have had to do so in the past, in the years which are passed, in respect of the old policy which is now fading away, namely, the old colonial policies of the former Western countries which have now come to an end. At that time there were also great crises and we had to take a decision for the sake of self-preservation. At that time we also had to face the flashes of lightning signalling coming storms, and at that time we also had to take decisions for the sake of our self-preservation and we thank Providence that those decisions were taken and that we succeeded in protecting ourselves and in taking decisions which have safeguarded our nation over the ages. Because we really believe that we have come to South Africa, as was the original idea, to establish a refueling station, and that we have been sent by the Almighty with a far greater purpose, namely, to bring light to South Africa and to establish a spiritual refuelling station here. Yet we live in a new world, a most interesting world, but also a very dangerous world. We appreciate that fully. The old world has passed and a compact and new world has arisen. Distances have been wiped out in this new world. The old ideas and the old beliefs are something of the past. The old colonial policies which have caused us our greatest difficulties are something of the past and we are now experiencing the dying convulsions of the old colonial policies of the Western powers. Power has shifted to other nations and two main groups have arisen, the communistic group and the Christian civilization group. And these colonies which have now been liberated, must choose between these two groups, and we have been thrown into the vacuum which is arising. In these circumstances we see one ray of light for which we are particularly grateful to this Government, namely, that for a long time past it has been clear without the slightest doubt to the Western Christian powers, where the Union of South Africa stands, and that as far as the rest of Africa is concerned, we are certainly the most outspoken anti-communistic country. As far as that is concerned, the world knows where South Africa stands. Under these circumstances it is also no wonder that the undecided countries have become an important factor, and our policy of self-preservation at this time has for that reason quite naturally been subjected to violent criticism. The hon. member has referred to human rights, and it is true that as a result of this shift, the freedom of the individual and of the less privileged nations are being concentrated upon in the propaganda campaign between the two powers, and this has caused us to be dragged in because, in the light of that policy, we in South Africa have made ourselves guilty of a certain measure of oppression. However that may be, we have never, and to-day less than ever before, had an unconditional recognition of the arguments of pure logic. There are these great problems facing the world. We cannot get away from that. It is this same self-preservation which forced the hon. the Prime Minister to take this decision at this conference. I think that if we as a nation are grateful to him, then we are grateful to him for taking the decision he took under those circumstances. Under the circumstances he had no alternative. Seeing that this decision has been taken, can we not consider our own internal differences in the light of that position and with a view to our self-preservation in the future, pick out those points on which the parties do not differ. Can we not concentrate on those points? Can we not in the future regard and approach the differences of the past in that light, the future which may await us. Because the world position is there. It is not an easy position, but a most dangerous one. The position was dangerous before the Commonwealth Conference; it is just as dangerous thereafter, if not more dangerous. Seeing that there are these two world movements and that these two groups of nations have been formed, can we not find points of agreement? Seeing that South Africa is in this critical position, where she in fact is, in conflict with the world principle of “ one man one vote ”, can we not seek these points of agreement? We in South Africa cannot under any circumstances accept this principle of “ one vote one man ”, a full vote, because of our need for self-preservation. Can we not concentrate to a greater extent on these points because in this regard the United Party has never yet differed completely from us?

Mr. Speaker, it is also clear that the failure of the Commonwealth Conference is not due to the fact that South Africa wishes to become a republic. The dispute arose over the concept of human rights: One man one vote, irrespective of colour. Let us then differ in certain respects, but the United Party does not differ from us in this respect. Let one single member of the United Party rise to-day and tell us that he disagrees with the policy of discrimination. Let him rise and say that he is going to give in to the demands being made in the Commonwealth. He cannot. As far as discrimination is concerned, the United Party have never differed from us, although there may be differences between us as to the extent of the discrimination. If we can find one another in this regard, can we not work in that direction and try to eliminate the sharp differences of opinion between ourselves?

My time is unfortunately nearly up. I should like to discuss another point in this regard. How can we strengthen our position at this time? I know that this is one of the points on which the United Party have already been concentrating for years, namely, the strengthening of the White population by immigration. Can we not tackle this matter and see if we cannot supplement _ and strengthen our White population by immigration? Let us examine the resource available in our country and let us plan, in order to see whether we cannot strengthen our position by bringing in immigrants, the right type of immigrants. We immediately ask ourselves the question: What resources can we use to a large extent to bring about immigration. Can we do so on the basis of our agricultural industry? Let us examine the position. Can we do so in the industrial sphere, or can we do so on the basis of our mineral wealth? Can we develop our mineral wealth on a larger scale and base our immigration policy on it? One thinks of this great principle: A country’s capacity to carry its population and to develop industries does not depend on its size, but on its resources: Soil, rain, minerals, etc. Without water one cannot develop the most unlimited resources and the richest soil. Let us tackle this task. At this time of need in which we find ourselves, let us see how by using the resources available to us in South Africa we can strengthen our White population, not in order to throw them onto the streets, but to give them a livelihood. In which sphere can we bring in thousands of people into South Africa in order to strengthen the White population? Not to start clashes, but to provide the resources for the development of South Africa as a nation which will be of importance in the world.

I want to conclude in the firm faith that in view of the lines along which South Africa is developing—it is a question of time—and with a view to her situation and her strategic importance, South Africa is developing into a power which will be of importance, a power which will in fact have a say in world developments, and that this will be the position within a comparatively short time. The important question at the moment is to bridge over this time gap. Allow me in conclusion to make an appeal to the Opposition: Can we not place less emphasis on our differences and can we not try to find points of agreement and can we not try to find one another for the sake of our self-preservation?

I find it difficult to reconcile the line of argument of the hon. member who has just sat down with the facts with which he purported to be dealing. We are faced here with a situation where South Africa finds herself isolated from the rest of the world, and that hon. member spent the greater portion of his time explaining the dangers which face us, yet he started off thanking the Prime Minister for having placed us in this impossible position. What sort of outlook is this that a man should thank the person who has created the difficulties for you, that a person should thank the creator of the dangers for your own fatherland, and for your own country? This situation in which we stand to-day is of our own choosing, it is a situation which we ourselves have chosen—not we on this side of the House, but the Prime Minister in the name of South Africa. He chose to put himself in the position in which he found himself in London. Whether he was right or wrong that is immaterial. He created the circumstances in which he found himself and he alone must carry the responsibility for what flows from that. And the hon. member thanks him for it and then spends the rest of his time pointing out what a dangerous world we live in and what difficult days lie ahead of us. Having pointed that out, he then says: What we need in this country is immigrants, is people, is money and development—when his Prime Minister has just slammed the door in the face of every thinking White man in the world who might have come here before we were isolated from those who were our friends and our associates. This Government has slammed the door in the face of people who would have come out here to become part of a great family of free nations. What people does he expect to get now? Those who are fleeing from dangers in other places? Or people who are coming here to play their part as South Africans to build up this country? Let me tell him this, and I say it to that hon. member and to all other hon. members who face this issue, let me tell him clearly that if the time comes when this country should be tested, we on this side of the House will do our duty to South Africa as we have always done in the past, and it will be we on this side of the House who perhaps will have to save that hon. member and his friends from this catastrophe in which the Prime Minister of South Africa has plunged us.

At 3.55 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the resolution adopted on 23 March and the debate was adjourned until 27 March.

The House thereupon, in terms of Standing Order No. 41 (3), proceeded to the consideration of Orders of the Day of which private members have charge.

I move—

In rising to move the second reading of this Bill, I think, Mr. Speaker, you will readily understand that I have in a sense a feeling of doubt about the wisdom of moving the second reading of this Bill at this stage in view of the blatant manner in which the Broadcasting Corporation has been used by the hon. the Minister, particularly over the last few weeks, for nothing but blatant political propaganda. But when Í think, Sir, I am placing into the hands of the hon. the Minister with this measure, if adopted by the House, extensive powers over another very powerful medium such as television, I console myself with the thought that it is quite probable that the hon. the Minister will not be very much longer in his portfolio, and that at least within a period of two years, which is the time stipulation in the Bill, there will be another government and we will be able to proceed with this matter in a happier atmosphere than we can do at the present time.

I introduce the Bill against the background, one may say the practically universal request, for a television service from the public of South Africa, also, Sir, because it has been clearly stated by the hon. the Prime Minister on behalf of the Government that it is not Government policy to permanently keep television away from the public of South Africa. He clearly indicated when he dealt with the matter in this House on 9 March 1960 that that was the attitude of the Government. Let me quote the hon. the Prime Minister’s words on that occasion—

In the same speech he said a third time, “ television cannot be kept out permanently ”.

The third reason is that we have been told of the introduction of a new service, to be known as V.H.F., “ frequency modulation ”, costing the country, the taxpayer, some R30,000,000 within the next four or five years. That will require a loan from the taxpayers of South Africa to the S.A.B.C., which is financed by contributions from the taxpayers, a loan of R30,000,000. But not only will it cost the taxpayer another R30,000,000 by the introduction of very high frequency, but the public of South Africa will be called upon to purchase new receivers to the extent of many millions more. [Quorum.] This expenditure, both in the way of finding this necessary capital expenditure and for the purpose of new radio receivers immediately raises the question of the wisdom of such a policy when, with the same expenditure, a television service may be introduced to our country. The object of this Bill, therefore is to compel the hon. the Minister to ask the S.A.B.C. for the introduction of the television service. And in the event of the S.A.B.C.’s inability to do so, to compel the Minister to hand the introduction of the service to private enterprise. I emphasize the word “ compel ”. Hon. members will note the wording of the proposed new Clause 15bis. This Bill seeks to introduce that clause into the original Act as compulsive in that in the exercise of the power conferred upon the Minister he shall require the corporation to inform him whether it proposes to institute a television service and, in the event of a negative reply from the corporation, the Minister shall direct the Postmaster-General to issue a licence to any other person who may apply to institute a television service in the Union, such terms and conditions as he may prescribe. In introducing this measure I want to make immediate mention of the principle of this Bill, for the reason that whenever the matter of the Broadcasting Corporation is considered in this House the hon. the Minister has retreated and sheltered behind the proposition that he cannot interfere in what happens in the S.A.B.C., that he cannot dictate to them. He says he cannot tell them what to do and what not to do. And I use the words “ he cannot dictate to them ” because I am using the hon. Minister’s very own words as pronounced in this House on previous occasions.

The S.A.B.C., in the existing Act, has the power to introduce a television service. This Bill gives the Minister power to compel the S.A.B.C. to proceed with the institution of a television service, or to take steps to use private enterprise for that purpose.

My task in introducing this measure to-day is made very much easier for me when presenting arguments in favour of the principle of the Bill because I am in the position to rebut the Minister’s objections, and the main objections of the Government as defined by the Prime Minister when he outlined Government policy in regard to the introduction of television in this House last year. I intend to ignore the arguments of the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs for three main reasons. I intend to ignore his argument as outlined in a Press statement in October 1959 that television is nothing but a miniature bioscope brought into the home merely to lower the moral standards of our nation and to make our children slaves to pornographic exhibitions and nothing but moral perverts. I intend to ignore those arguments because, as I think all hon. members in this House will agree, they are just too ridiculous to warrant any contradiction from me.

My second reason for ignoring the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is that I assume that the reasons given by the hon. the Prime Minister on another occasion for refusing this modern medium of entertainment, information and education of the people of our country, was based on notes and information prepared for him by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. And I have another reason for ignoring the arguments of this hon. Minister. I intend to take the unusual step, in introducing this measure to-day, of asking for the resignation of the Minister. I intend to ask for his resignation on two main grounds: in that he has misled our country in announcements made about the introduction of V.H.F., very high frequency, and its full purpose and, secondly, that he has withheld information from the hon. the Prime Minister in regard to the full implications of the programme of expenditure involved in the introduction of this service. I will return to that later.

Mr. Speaker, may I first put the case for the introduction of a television service. I wish to do so by answering the three main objections, the three main principles on which the opponents to the introduction of this service usually base their statements. The first objection that is usually made is that there exists in this development in the science of electronics, spiritual dangers which can lead to the destruction of community’s social life and the destruction of the minds of men. It is argued that with the introduction of television husbands, wives and children become slaves to the instrument, that family relationships, home and school work suffers. Is this true? Is it a proven fact? We have much experience, when considering the institution of a television service from which to judge this argument. Television is no new invention. It has operated in some countries for more than 20 years. To-day its development is a major phenomena of the post-war era. From information that I have obtained it is considered that there are some 60 countries in the world with approximately 1,500 television transmission stations, and with some 90,000,000 television receivers. And that involves it is estimated some 300,000,000 television viewers. The only countries in the whole of the Western world without television to-day are Albania and Iceland. The only continent in the world which is what one might almost call a blank as far as television is concerned is the African continent. I use the words “ almost a blank ” because there are certain exceptions. I refer to a country like Western Nigeria which introduced a television service last year. I understand that Northern Nigeria is now busy with the installation of a similar service. We had the introduction of a television service last year in our immediate neighbour, the Federation. We have seen that this year Egypt, the United Arab Republic, will introduce a television service. Even Ghana, having established a Commission of Inquiry to investigate the merits of television now proposes to introduce a television service towards the end of this year. There can be no doubt in my mind that television is a powerful medium of education and entertainment and is here to stay in Africa. Yet our country, the most modern Western state in the African continent, lags far behind any development of this nature. With all these millions of viewers throughout the whole of the Western world there is little or no evidence to show, from surveys that have been made, that there have been any disastrous effects whatsoever on the populations of the many countries served by these services to-day. Their morals have not been lowered, nor have their spiritual values been reduced to the level of the worship oí Satan and all his works, which is the impression that the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs attempted to create in this country in respect of this little bioscope as he has referred to it. He said it was nothing but a little piece of glass in the home. That is an out-of-date argument. It is a Mother Grundy type of argument produced in this sophisticated world of the 20th century.

This argument advanced by the hon. the Minister can be likened to the argument heard at the beginning of the century that the motor car would destroy the home. When motor vehicle transportation was first introduced a man had to walk in front of a motor car with a red flag because it was purported to be such a danger. Then later we heard the cry that the development of motor transportation was destroying home life, and taking people away from their homes. Was that true, or has the motor car to-day become part of the home? And can we use the same argument in respect of radio transmission? Can we say that the wireless has made of the minds of men nothing but receptive dummies? Neither argument will be accepted by any hon. member in this House as reasonable, either in regard to the development of the motor car or in regard to the development of the radio. Why then, in regard to an electronic marvel of the 20th century, television, apply arguments of such a nature?

Mr. Speaker, no one will deny that the radio receiver in the home has brought the cultural fruits of mankind to the masses. Through the wireless the world has been brought closer together. It has brought the man in the street, through his sense of hearing, into daily touch with the events of the day. What is evil or wrong in using not only our sense of hearing but also our sense of seeing and our sense of motion to enjoy the field of entertainment, information and education? That is what television offers us. It is a vivid and compelling medium which can be harnessed. [Quorum.] Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I am in order in drawing your attention to the quorum bell, but it was common talk by Government members that this would be a good way to sabotage the discussion of this Bill on television.

Order, order!

There is no doubt that television is a vivid compelling medium which can be harnessed to help in raising the standard of hygiene of our nation, of child welfare, of soil conservation, of farming methods, of economic thinking. It could even be an instrument to help solve the problem of literacy. Television can be the most compelling medium with which to raise the cultural level of our nation with its two languages. In the English language we have a ready made cultural heritage, a rich heritage which can be exploited; a culture for which there is so little outlet for our English-speaking people of talent. I could cite the tremendous advantages of presenting the works of South African authors and poets in a vivid fashion onto the public of South Africa, to the widest possible audience, in a manner that could not possibly be done through the mediums we have to-day. I do not want to mention any names, but one could take as an example the work of Mr. Tony Delius. Just imagine his cynicism, his language, the flowing words which we read practically daily, presented in a live way to the people of South Africa, and the tremendous impact it would make upon the public. The English language has a heritage and there is a great deal to draw upon. But what about Afrikaans?

It has often been said—and I think the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs on one occasion used the argument that with the introduction of television it would bring about a threat to the spread and the development of our Afrikaans culture. That argument is based on the fear of Afrikaans culture being dominated by its more powerful brother, English culture. But does not television give the opportunity to Afrikaans culture to expand? It is a wonderful opportunity for Afrikaans playwrights and authors and actors who are to-day restricted to small audiences spread over vast distances, to spread their talents and bring the benefits of Afrikaans culture to the people of the country. Limited audiences make uneconomic large scale cultural development. That is proved by the fact that Afrikaans drama is the least highly developed part of Afrikaans literature. Indeed, one may say that what exists of Afrikaans drama today is a result of the sacrifices of the devoted few, and let me mention a few names: Paul de Groot, Hendrik Hanekom, Wena Naudé and André Hugenot. Many of them have faced bankruptcy and starvation; they have sacrificed themselves for Afrikaans culture and many are living in dire poverty. But overnight, with the introduction of television our best Afrikaans culture could be brought to the homes of millions. What is more, it could create vast opportunities for the latent talents that at present have no means of expression.

I think I have said enough to show that the Mother Grundy argument that television is a danger to the morals of the nation, can be termed as nothing but unsound and foolish; an argument which cannot in any way be substantiated.

I then want to turn to the second main principle on which the objectors to television base their arguments. They say it is dangerous to place in the hands of private enterprise such a powerful instrument for reaching the masses. Such an argument is based on the false premise that commercial television is completely free of any control both in regard to the nature of the programmes and the type of advertising that is put over in order to make a programme pay. Not one single country out of the 60 I have mentioned has found this to be the case. Hon. members will note that the Bill emphasizes this point in subsection (2) of Clause 1. The Minister is there empowered to prescribe the terms and conditions in this regard in the event of the Broadcasting Corporation not being able to carry out the functions of introducing a television service and the Minister then handing over the development of this service to the initiative of private enterprise. Strict controls and standards can be laid down for any commercial service. They can be laid down by the Broadcasting Corporation in consultation with the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. That is done to-day in our commercial service of the S.A.B.C. Any advertising, any programme put over by any sponsors on the commercial service to-day is subject to the approval of the S.A.B.C. Surely the same can be done in regard to a television service.

Most commercial television services in the world are under the control of broadcasting institutions. It is therefore interesting to note what happens in the Federation and the arrangements that were arrived at by the Federal Broadcasting Corporation with the Rhodesian Television Service. The Rhodesian Television Service is a privately owned company which was established with an initial capital of £110,000. I mention that figure because when you relate it to the globular sum of R150,000,000 mentioned by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs you realize how ridiculous is the argument that he has advanced. Here is an up-to-date modern television service established with an initial capital of £110,000 with a potential number of viewers of 150,000. This private company loaned money to the Federal Broadcasting Corporation to purchase transmitters, buildings and installations. They have also to pay the Federal Broadcasting Corporation for the operation of the transmitters. And all television licence fees accrue to the Federal Broadcasting Corporation, precisely the same can be done in the Union. In addition, there are further conditions laid down for the programming of the telecasts. There are no great dangers in a national corporation established to control broadcasting services. They can lay down the conditions for controlling sponsor’s programmes in their local programmes, in advertising time and hours of transmissions. They can all be controlled as indeed they are by the Federal Broadcasting Corporation as far as television is concerned in Rhodesia. [Quorum.]

All of these vital matters which have an impact on the public through a television viewer, although conducted by a private company, are controlled by a corporation established by the Government. And exactly the same principle could apply in our country. But the great point is this, that the Rhodesians now have television at no cost to themselves, having allowed private enterprise to exercise its initiative. There is no earthly reason why the same principle should not be applied in the Union. Rigid programme standards to ensure elimination of harmful material could be laid down by the Government as a condition for the granting of a licence. Even the claims of advertisers could be checked and a code of advertising ethics could be laid down by the Government in consultation with a body such as the Newspaper Press Union. This Bill provides precisely for that.

I now come to the third main opposition argument that is presented to us whenever the question of television is raised. That is that the benefits of television do not justify the so-called enormous costs involved. I will not deny that there are costs, and considerable costs involved in the introduction of a television service. But they are most certainly nothing like those that have been quoted in this House on other occasions when this subject has been discussed. I do not intend today to go into the details of these costs for the very important reason that the Government has already committed themselves to the costs involved.

I would be very pleased if the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel), who may have no interest in this subject, would allow the hon. the Minister to take some interest in this debate. And I think it is most discourteous of the Minister to conduct a private conversation when I am putting a case to him on behalf of this side of the House.

As I have said, I do not wish to go into details of the costs that would be involved because the Government has already committed itself to the cost of introducing V.H.F. Now what does V.H.F. mean in simple terminology? It means radio broadcasts on wave lengths between 4 and 8 metres. And it is on these V.H. frequencies that television is broadcast, with one slight difference. Television receivers receive two wave lengths at the same time, one carrying the image and the other carrying the sound track. In a broadcast on 6 December 1960 to the radio listeners of our country the hon. the Minister said that the introduction of V.H.F. would cost something like R24,000,000. My information, and I have good cause to believe that it is authoritative, is that the actual cost of these services will eventually be as high as R30,000,000. What was the effect of the announcement made by the hon. the Minister on 6 December 1960? It had the effect of making out of date practically all radio receivers in South Africa. Every radio listener who had not purchased a new radio within the past 12 months discovered he owned an out-of-date radio overnight. The public are therefore being asked to spend millions of rand on new radio receivers when there is no need for it. With slight modifications to the V.H.F. service which it is intended to introduce at the end of 1961 and the addition of some small capital expenditure on the transmission of an image, the public could have television in South Africa within two years. Let me put it in the words of the hon. the Prime Minister and I quote—

The hon. the Prime Minister on that occasion was referring to television and he was using the argument that we should wait for the best development in television before introducing it. But surely the same argument applies to the vast expenditure envisaged for V.H.F.? And these costs could be used by the country for the introduction of television. The fact is that the taxpayer is being asked to finance the S.A.B.C. for Very High Frequency to the tune of millions of pounds, and he is being asked to pay this money on a hoax or a bluff by the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. He is being asked to have two expensive bites at the cherry. It is in order to expose what I will refer to in a minute as a public scandal that I have introduced this Bill.

I said earlier that I would call for the resignation of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. But I do not wish to be unfair to the Minister. I want to ask him a question across the floor of the House. When the hon. the Minister was approached by the S.A.B.C. for this loan of R30,000,000 he must have acquainted himself with the full implications and the full details of what it was required for. I now want to ask, with respect, if the hon. the Minister will deny that in the introduction of complete V.H.F., directives were given by the Board of the S.A.B.C. that whenever practicable due allowance was to be made for a future television service? I do not want to be unfair to the Minister and would like to ask him that question again: Will he deny that in the introduction of a complete V.H.F. system, directives were given by the Board of the S.A.B.C. that wherever practicable due allowance was to be made for a future television service?

I will give an answer at the appropriate time.

I do not want to be unfair to the hon. the Minister and I would be glad if he would indicate yes or no.

I have said I will give the answer at the appropriate time.

The hon. the Minister now compels me to bring other matters to the attention of the House and of the country. He leaves me no alternative because I have to imply from that answer that he is running away from the issue. I ask for the Minister’s resignation on two grounds, firstly, that he has misled the country by not giving the full facts in regard to V.H.F. and thereby involving the citizens in considerable expense and additional taxation; and, secondly, which I think is even more serious, that whilst he knew the full implications of V.H.F., in seeking Cabinet approval for the expenditure the Minister did not impart the full information to the Cabinet and the Prime Minister. In regard to my first contention, whilst V.H.F. has been discussed in this House last year, the public were given their first official information in the broadcast announcement by the Minister last year of the introduction of V.H.F., in which he stated clearly that in order to listen to broadcasts on the news service—these are the Minister’s words-—“ they would have to acquire other receiving sets ”. Nowhere does any reference appear to television. I have before me, on official Broadcasting Corporation paper, a statement that states squarely that in a directive given to the S.A.B.C. engineering division—these are the exact words —“ wherever it was practicable due allowance was to be made for a future television service ”. I am prepared to submit this letter, but I do not want to disclose the signature of this high official, and those directives refer to the institution of V.H.F. The implications are clear, that the public are being duped to purchase one type of receiver whilst the actual installation of V.H.F. provides for television. I want to ask the Minister why was this vital information withheld from the public. Why has the information about the increase in licence fees to meet the increased burden calculated at 5½ per cent on the R30,000,000 loan to the S.A.B.C. for these new services, been withheld from the public? The revenue of the S.A.B.C., even if there was an increase of 100,000 in the number of listeners overnight, cannot meet the interest burden on this loan of R30,000,000 for V.H.F. Sir, I am driven to one conclusion, that where the Minister has landed himself in this mess, is it any wonder that the Minister said in this House a few days ago—and I quote again— “ It is my attitude that as long as the Government is willing to subsidize the Corporation in accordance with trends which are evident in the world to-day, it will not be necessary to increase licences.” Why did he not tell this to the Prime Minister when the Prime Minister last year gave as one of his main reasons for the refusal to introduce television the cost involved to the listener? The Prime Minister argued that it involved the listener in considerably more costs in licence fees and special fees for a television service. If the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs now adopts as his policy the subsidization of the S.A.B.C. for V.H.F., and there are instructions issued by the S.A.B.C. that there should be due regard to the institution of a television service, why does he want the Government to subsidize the S.A.B.C. to the tune of R30,000,000 for V.H.F. and not for the institution of a television service? And what about my second charge that the Minister failed to impart information to the Prime Minister and to tell him the full implications of what this service meant? I refuse to believe that the Prime Minister would have wilfully made his statement about the introduction of television and the Government’s refusal to do so and that he would have given the reason he gave on that occasion if he had been fully advised by the Minister. It is equally clear that he must have made his statement on the basis of the information supplied by the Minister. I am quite sure that the Prime Minister was never acquainted with the uses of V.H.F., otherwise he would not have used the arguments or given the reasons that he did in this House. The question is: Was the Minister in possession of this information at the time when the Prime Minister made his statement in the House? There is no doubt that the Minister has all the available information, and these directives of the Corporation to the technical department that there should be due regard for the introduction of a television service, when the Prime Minister made that statement, because the Prime Minister made his statement on 9 March 1960 and on a question put to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs on 13 May 1960, about the introduction of V.H.F. he said—and I quote from Col. 7586 of Hansard of last year—

The clear implication of this is that the Minister had already some time before that date placed the matter before the Cabinet. Sir, I view this matter as nothing but a public scandal, revealing the stark and naked incompetence of the Minister, and I hope he will do the honourable thing and resign his portfolio because there is no doubt that in regard to this matter the millions that are involved as far as public expenditure is concerned that is an additional burden which is placed on the taxpayer … [Interjection.] There is no doubt that it is a scandal in the fullest sense of the word. That is why I ask the House to support this measure, because by supporting the Bill as it stands it will enable the Government to go to the S.A.B.C. and ask for the introduction of this service on the plans which have already been conceived with these planned 123 V.H.F. stations throughout the country at the cost of R30,000,000, which with small additional cost can give us television services overnight, and it would save the public a double expenditure and a double bite out of the cherry at the same time.

I think I have said enough to make a case for the acceptance by the House of this measure, but there are one or two other minor points I would like to deal with in conclusion. I took the trouble to notify the Minister through his Private Secretary of an obvious misprint that exists in regard to sub-sec. (1) of the first clause of the Bill, which should read “ sub-sec. (3) ” instead of “ sub-sec. (2) ”. It is an obvious misprint. But we are accustomed also to having this Minister taking hold of minor points in order to make a case for himself, and in anticipation of that I am compelled to deal with this point. The Minister will attempt to argue that the S.A.B.C. does not need to come to him or to have a yearly renewal of their licence. Be that as it may, let me point out to the Minister that before he uses that argument there is in fact in the existing Act no legal provision in that regard other than that the Minister in terms of Section 15 of the Act, which is now being amended, has the power by modification and regulation to instruct the Postmaster-General to grant a continuous licence to the S.A.B.C. to enable them to carry on, and they do not necessarily have to apply every year. I anticipate this point being raised by the Minister because he may attempt to argue that the provisions of the Bill as I am presenting them are worthless because this continuing licence is already provided for.

Let me conclude by saying that this side of the House is completely convinced that there is a universal public demand in the country for the introduction of television services and that a considerable saving in useless expenditure by the public can be effected by the Minister agreeing to the acceptance of the Bill and by the introduction of television. We have the firm conviction and belief that the introduction of television will be a further step forward to the cultural advantage and development of our people, no matter to which language group they may belong.

Mr. Speaker, having listened to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) I do not think he has in any way benefited the cause of television in South Africa; I think he has harmed it considerably. He has, in the first place, made certain wild statements which are characteristic of him, wild bombastic statements to the effect, for example, that I have misinformed and misled the Prime Minister. Can he tell me in what way I have misled the Prime Minister? That is typical of the bombastic and rude arguments for which he is well known.

On a point of order, may I ask whether the Minister is entitled to say that it is a rude argument?

The hon. the Minister must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir, and I say it was an unmannerly argument. He then advanced the voluble argument that the whole country demanded television. This was the first occasion on which he has spoken like that. The people on whose behalf he speaks, a small group of radio merchants, have for years threatened to come to the Government with a formidable petition, but we are still waiting for that petition. At some places where they did their utmost they only succeeded in getting 200 signatures and they felt so ashamed that they did not have the courage to submit that to the Government, because they know that the public of South Africa is wiser than that hon. member and understands what the implications are. The opposite is the truth, namely that I have been requested by the prominent economic interests in South Africa in the interests of the country never to think of introducing it. I have received petitions from the biggest trade unions in the country not to agree in any circumstance to the introduction of television in South Africa. Those are the facts and not what the hon. member is trying to make this House believe. In a manner typical of that hon. member who usually makes baseless accusations, he spoke about the so-called instruction “ to make allowances for television ” which the S.A.B.C. is alleged to have issued to its engineers. Well, I did not issue such an instruction. If the S.A.B.C. issued it, it is their affair, but they are not the people to decide whether or not we are to have television in South Africa. It is only the Government who has the power to make such a decision. He now tries to use that argument in an attempt to make the public believe that the Government is misleading and deceiving them. Because of that hon. member’s irresponsible attitude, Sir, one is reluctant to take any notice of his arguments. I am surprised at his mentality, which is typical of him and his friends opposite. One of his main objections against the introduction of a V.H.F. radio service is that we should rather introduce television. If he were at all interested in the welfare of the Black man he would realize that they cannot afford television; it will therefore be a service for the White man alone. If he does not know that, it is needless to argue any further with him. One of the main reasons why we are introducing V.H.F. is to provide a service to the Black man. It is typical of this side of the House to say that we grant the Black man what we grant ourselves. But that hon. member and the people whom he represents think only of themselves. They have a great deal to say about the Black man when they wish to stir up feelings in the world outside against South Africa, but in point of fact they are not at all concerned about the Black man. It is essential that we introduce this service because it will have a civilizing effect which may promote goodwill; it may lead to a better understanding between the different peoples, but he does not want that; he wants a service for the rich man at the expense of that essential service. Something else which strikes me about that hon. member is that he is apparently indifferent to the influence television may exercise, that television about which he had so much to say this afternoon. He is indifferent to the effects of television and the problems connected with it. The hon. member apparently does not know that in England the Pilkington Commission is at the moment conducting an investigation into the effects of television.

Do they want to abolish it?

It will not be so easy to abolish it, because very big financial interests are already involved to-day. The commission was, however, appointed because the public was deeply concerned about the effects of television in England and in the whole world. Leading educationists in England gave evidence before this commission—

They are so concerned about the decline in the educational standard that they have specifically asked the Government that if the particular television channel could not be stopped, it should not in any circumstances be left in private hands. That was the request made in recent years by prominent bodies in England, bodies who have seen the misery caused by television, and here we have the hon. member for Turffontein who does not know what he is talking about and who does not know what the effects are of the television that he is asking for. He introduces a motion whose object is not only to allow the S.A.B.C. to introduce television but even to allow a private undertaking to do so. That is the crux of his Bill. That to my mind, Sir, is a very irresponsible attitude. It accounts for two things, in the first place that it is mainly due to ignorance on his part and secondly that he is not only the mouthpiece of certain radio interests who have been trying for many years to introduce television into South Africa …

That is untrue.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. the Minister entitled to put words into my mouth and to say that I am the mouthpiece of radio dealers?

I did not say that the hon. member had used those words, Mr. Speaker. I say he is the mouthpiece of those interests. If there is anybody in South Africa whose opinion probably carries weight with that side of the House, it is the opinion of a person whom they hold in fairly high regard, a prominent journalist, Mr. Gary Allighan. He said the following to the Rotary Club the other day in Johannesburg after he had again been to England and studied television.

Does the hon. the Minister know that Mr. Allighan was thrown out of the British Parliament?

Many members have also been thrown out of this House. He said this—

This is a former British Member of Parliament who is interested in the British nation who tells us what a curse it is in England and that he hopes South Africa will be protected from the misery of that evil. Mr. Speaker, I know the House is anxious to rise …

No, no.

When we talk about television, we must do so as sensible people, because we are dealing with something which is a social force and it may be a bad or a good force. You have to consider both sides of any question, Sir, and everything has a good and a bad side. A price has to be paid for everything and everything has its credit side and its debit side and you have to weigh the debit side against the credit side. If the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, you may decide in favour of such a thing, but if the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, only a fool would decide in favour of it. The hon. member employed the tactic, which is typical of all people who ask for television in South Africa, of presenting television as something wonderful, something that will bring civilization, a wonderful charm that will improve everything in the world. Let us try to make a rational analysis of that veil which the hon. member has thrown over it. Television is nothing more than a miniature cinema in your home. [Laughter.] Can you tell me what else it is? Hon. members laugh and try to ridicule the position, but it is nothing more than that. It is a cinema in miniature with a screen that is usually 18 in. × 24 in., and the picture is transmitted from somewhere else, whereas in the case of the ordinary cinema, even the cinema which the child has in his class-room, is 6 ft. × 8 ft. I am not even talking about the big cinemas. Television, therefore, is largely the same as a cinema. There are differences, of course, and I shall come to them. The so-called live shows which you see are not always live shows. In most cases they are reproductions of films, sound films, which are transmitted over the television service at a convenient time. This even happens to-day in the case of sports meetings because the organizers of such sports meetings do not wish the sports to be televised while they are in progress. Even in the case of sports meetings to-day they are first recorded on sound films and broadcast subsequently. Even interviews and narratives are in most cases first filmed.

What is your argument?

The hon. member does not wish to understand it and neither will he understand. In England the Nuffield Foundation recently appointed a commission, under the chairmanship of Dr. Himmelweit, to inquire into television and they say this in their report—

Television is for the greater part merely a convenient cinema within the home. There has to be a reason why you introduce it. While television in the main offers what a cinema offers, and in view of the fact that big costs are involved in television, you must surely have a reason for regarding the cinema ineffective and why you want it in your home every day of your life. Let me read what one of our prominent South African journalists, who has just returned from overseas, have to say—

The hon. member has not replied to that question at all. He wants us to spend huge amounts of money on television but he does not reply to the crucial question. He should tell us why the cinema is not good enough and why we should introduce it into our homes.

Let me go further, Sir. I want to point out the differences between television and the cinema, because that is important when it comes to the question of the introduction or non-introduction of television. Firstly in the case of the cinema you usually have one programme per week lasting for 2½ hours, or sometimes two programmes. Let us assume that television will only operate for five hours per day; that means it will have to offer two programmes every day. In other words it must offer 14 programmes of 2½ hours per week instead of one. That means immediately, in the case of television, that its choice of programme is much narrower and more difficult. It means that whereas an ordinary cinema uses 52 programmes per annum, in the case of television they will require twice 365 programmes per annum. In other words they will need 730 programmes per annum and if you show the same programme twice a day you require at least 365 programmes, and that Sir, gives you an idea of the problem which faces the person who introduces television, the problem of providing a decent programme over that period. If we also take into account the fact that we have a Bantu nation who will also be looking at those programmes and that we will have to be careful to ensure that we do not show programmes which will teach them how to commit murder or crime, you realize, Sir, that the task of providing a sufficiently effective programme poses a problem of the utmost magnitude. There is another problem namely this that the figures in the case of television are far less stable than the figures which you see on the screen in the cinema. There is always a certain amount of flickering. The fact that the small figures are less stable than the figures on the screen, causes children to strain their eyes. This has become so serious that the British Medical Association have submitted a report to 25,000 physicians in England to impress upon them the detrimental effect of television on the eyes of children. But let me go further. I do not intend dealing with the social aspect of the problem; in the first place I wish to say something in general. The effect of television is more intensive than in the case of a cinema because you are in a more intimate relationship with it; you sit in a darkened room close to the television set. It makes a deep impression upon you with the result that television is an excellent advertising medium.

As in the case of a cinema.

I said that it had a more intensive effect than the cinema. Because its effect is so intensive it constitutes a very big danger to any country if it is abused. Indeed the Royal Commission on Television of Australia warned against that and said—

That is of general interest. What I really want to do is to deal with the economic burden and the economic consequences that will face South Africa if we introduce television.

Does that compare with your V.H.F. programme?

The hon. member for Turffontein has quite rightly said that you could erect a television station at a cost of £100,000, a station which will probably only be capable of serving an area of a few miles in extent. You can erect a television station that will serve a bigger area and a station that will serve the whole country. The costs involved vary considerably, of course. The price can be anything, but that is not the test. The question in South Africa is not whether it is possible to introduce television. You can introduce a limited system and the programmes can be cheap or expensive, the programme can consist of “ cowboy ” films or they can be of real cultural value, and the radio dealers for whom the hon. member is the mouthpiece today, have indeed suggested …

That is not true.

Order! The hon. member cannot say that it is not true; he must withdraw that.

I still say it is not true, but I withdraw the accusation.

On a point of order, is the hon. the Minister entitled to insinuate that the hon. member has introduced a measure in the economic interests of a group in which he has an interest?

I never said that.

On a point of order, I told the Minister that his allegation was not true. Is the hon. Minister not obliged to take my word?

Order! That has nothing to do with anything that has happened in this House. The hon. the Minister may continue.

The radio dealers, those people who are so anxious to have television for their own benefit, say—

They want to introduce a cheap television system, and suggest that we can introduce it cheaply by _ showing “ cowboy ” films on a large scale in South Africa. However, if you wish to offer a decent programme you cannot possibly use cowboy films or crime films because you must remember that those films may be seen by our Native population. The hon. member is quite right; a television film programme can be cheap. It can cost £100 per hour, but you will not get a decent programme for less than £2,000 up to £4,000 per hour. Let us, as sensible, people, ask ourselves a few questions: If we wish to introduce television into South Africa it has to comply with certain requirements and I think every sensible person agrees with me in this respect. In the first place it will be unfair to serve one city only or a few cities. You will have to serve all the densely populated areas of South Africa.

You do not do that in the case of the Springbok radio service?

The second requirement is this: There are two White sections in this country who will probably use that service and it will be wrong to introduce a service which will not be equally good in both Afrikaans and English. Then there is a third requirement namely that it should operate for a reasonable number of hours, because if that time is too short the public will simply not buy television sets; they will not consider it worth their while looking at it, and consequently the service will not serve its purpose; on the other hand if you introduce a service which takes up too much time it will not be a payable proposition. I want to remind hon. members that the National Broadcasting Corporation of America which operates practically day and night runs at a big loss. According to advice given to us, it is desirable for South Africa to introduce a service in South Africa of approximately five hours per day, in other words, a service tantamount to two cinema performances of 2i hours each. I wish to make a few calculations however, firstly, on the basis that if television is introduced into South Africa, it will be introduced in all cities in South Africa; secondly that the service will be equally good in Afrikaans and in English and thirdly that it will operate for five hours per day. A few years ago a joint committee was appointed which consisted of experts from the S.A.B.C. and the post office to make certain calculations in connection with the possible introduction of television in South Africa, including the economic and financial implications. That committee made careful calculations and after having allowed for sites, buildings, such as studios and offices, television terminals, sound tracks, transmission cables and all the equipment, they calculated that it would require approximately £20,000,000 capital, that is to say, calculated at present-day values. Of that £20,000,000, £17,000,000 is capital which depreciates fast and which one will probably have to replace every ten years. But let us now look at the running expenses. The running expenses per hour in South Africa will not be cheaper than it is in England. England is in a much more favourable position than South Africa. It is a small country with a concentrated population and with few hills, and for the most part it is level, so that one station, the Crystal Palace, can to-day serve the whole of South-Western England. We also have to take into consideration that Britain has only one language group to be served, whilst we have at least two language groups, and if that is taken into account, the financial experts say we can take it that the cost of a television system in South Africa will not be cheaper than in England. What is the position in England? I do not want to take the latest figures; I want to take the figures for which I can find comparative figures. In the year 1956-7 the cost of television in England was £3,265 per hour. If we calculate that at the same cost in South Africa, at five hours per day, it will cost us approximately £6,000,000 per annum on the basis of the costs in 1956-7.

Is that the position in Rhodesia?

This expenditure of £6,000,000 per annum must be covered by the revenue of the television system, and that can be done in four possible ways, firstly out of the licence fees of the viewers; secondly, out of a purchase tax on radio sets, thirdly, out of advertising, and fourthly, if the Minister of Finance would ever be agreeable to it, by a subsidy which will in fact amount to this, that the rest of the population will have to be taxed to subsidize television, and I do not think that he will agree to that. If this system develops over a period of ten years and the number of licence holders increases according to the Committee’s estimates, and they accept that every licence holder will pay a licence fee of £8 per annum, which is not exorbitant —it cannot be less—and that in addition they pay a purchase tax of £20 on every set, which according to the opinion of the Committee will also not be too much or too little, and if we assume that no subsidy will be paid by the Government, then the total revenue in ten years’ time will be approximately £2,000,000 per annum.

But the revenue of the S.A.B.C. to-day is £2,500,000 per annum, and half of it comes from the commercial programmes.

I have not even referred to advertising yet. I have hitherto referred only to revenue derived from licence fees and purchase tax on the sets. The rest of that £6,000,000, i.e. £4,000,000, will have to come from advertising. If one wants to introduce this system one would, in other words, have to collect £4,000,000 from advertising on television. But now we are faced with another problem. One cannot use that 2½ or 5 hours exclusively for advertising. There is an optimum time which one can devote to advertising, and that optimum time is six minutes in every hour. That does not mean that one can show advertisements for more than six minutes consecutively; the optimum time, according to experts right throughout the world, is six minutes every hour. In other words, out of a five-hour programme day one will be able to devote half an hour to advertising, and out of that half-hour per day one must collect £4,000,000. At half an hour a day— and I take it that one would be able to advertise also for half an hour on Sundays—the advertising revenue would be £11,000 per hour. I hope hon. members will not think that this is too high. Until recently the tariff in England was £60,000 per hour. It varies from hour to hour, but on an average it is approximately £60,000 per hour.

But that is for 53,000,000 people.

In America it is approximately £100,000 per hour. In other words, you must get £11,000 per hour, or £200 per minute from the advertisers. Then one comes to the next problem. If one has to charge £200 per minute for advertising, one will not get the small man to advertise on television. Therefore only the big companies will be able to make use of it. Some of the big companies have told me that in other countries they originally did not even dare to advertise on television—and that was not in America or in Britain but in countries where tariffs were much lower. Therefore if television should be introduced in South Africa only the big companies will benefit. In other words, we would then have introduced a system in South Africa by which the big companies would be enabled to squeeze out the small man to a larger extent.

But let us go further. I want to show the economic consequences of television. I have now shown what effect it will have on the small business man. Let me now show the effect of another section of the commercial community. The annual amount spent by commerce on advertising is to-day approximately £16,500,000 per annum. That is the money spent by firms to advertise their goods, and of that amount approximately £10,000,000 goes to the daily Press. If, therefore, they advertise on television, the Press in South Africa will be the first to suffer as a result. In other words, of the amount of £10,000,000 paid to the newspapers for advertisements today, approximately £4,000,000 will go to television. What will then be the consequences to the newspapers in South Africa? It will probably be the same as in the case of the newspapers in England, viz. that many of the newspapers would simply go under. Various newspapers will probably have to close down. But let us now consider a further consequence. I would like hon. members also to have regard for the economic consequences to the public. The people who will mostly buy television sets will not be the rich people; nor will they be the intellectuals. Experience in America and Britain has shown that the people who in the first place buy television sets are the poor people, the workers.

They are buying radio sets to-day.

Let me quote from the Cape Times, if the hon. member does not want to believe me. The Cape Times published the following report—

And why not?

It shows that the man who looks at television to-day is the poor man.

But the poor man to-day also listens to the radio.

Order! The hon. member for Turffontein has already made his speech and he is now making a second speech by way of interjections.

The Cape Times, a newspaper in which hon. members opposite have great confidence, said this about television—

It is important that these facts should be remembered. The man who watches television is the one who will have to bear the costs of television, and he is the poor man. Let me now make a calculation as to what it will cost the poor man. It has been proved that the owner of a television set does not keep that set for longer than eight to ten years because then the set is obsolete either technically or in its design. He then buys a new or a better set. If we now take it that he has to buy a new television set every ten years and pays, say, £100 for it in cash, which is relatively low, or £120 if he pays it in installments, as the workers usually do, and if it is taken that over that ten-year period he has to pay licence fees of £8 per annum, and that his repairs will amount to about £3 to £4 per annum, and that in addition he continually has to replace the valves, because they generally do not last longer than three years and cost about £25, one finds that the television set over a period of ten years, together with the licence fees, costs the man £310 or more. If one takes into consideration the fact that the man to whom the set is sold is usually a worker with a salary of approximately £60 a month who has to support a family, one can realize how difficult it will be for him to set aside £2 10s. a month from his salary in order to enjoy television. His cost of living is increased by more than 4 per cent, or almost 4y per cent. That is not the only effect it has on the poor man. The effect on this man is even much greater, because the television advertiser, who has to pay tremendous sums of money for the advertisements— £11,000 per hour—will only be able to afford to advertise if he can recover the additional cost from the sale of the product he advertises in this way, and it is a fact that the prices of such goods are often increased by from 10 per cent to 25 per cent. In other words, the consumer must pay from 10 per cent to 25 per cent more for the goods he buys—he is paying for those advertisements. Hon. members therefore want to lay a tremendous burden on the shoulders of the worker, and that is the reason why the trade unions approached me with the request not to agree to the introduction of television in South Africa at this stage.

But let me go further. The Commission to which I referred and which made the calculations in regard to the possible introduction of television in South Africa estimated that after the system had been in operation in South Africa for ten years, there would be approximately 305,000 sets, which are sold or hired out, and consequently the costs of those 305,000 sets together with the running expenses for each licence holder which I have mentioned will over this period of ten years amount to a total expenditure of approximately £94,000,000. If we had the capital expenditure on equipment in the television broadcasting stations which recur every ten years—not the £20,000,000, but only the £17,000,000 to which I referred—and if one then still adds the ordinary running costs over a period of ten years, television will cost South Africa approximately £151,000,000, or in other words, about £15,000,000 per annum. The cost to the population of the country will be £15,000,000 per annum, and where will that come from? We would simply be impoverishing the other sections of the community by enriching the radio trade. That is also the reason why the radio trade stated that “ they must get a shot in the arm ”. They must now suddenly be enriched, but they will be enriched at the cost of the other sections of the commercial community. And then we should never forget that the cost of television never remains constant; it increases every year. Let us take Britain as an example. From 1956 to 1957 the cost of television there increased by 29 per cent, i.e. from £7,000,000 per annum to £9,000,000 per annum. The cost will increase every year; it will never diminish. Now I ask myself: Does that justify the so-called advantages which the hon. member never explained, the cost we will have to incur to introduce television, the advantage of watching a film every evening instead of going to the cinema once a week. Is that advantage so great that we should put this extra burden on the people for this luxury, a burden which will amount to an extra £15,000,000 per annum and which will gradually increase.

Give us an opportunity to participate in the debate.

And now I want to quote the opinion of somebody who can state the case better than the hon. member, viz. the Star. Listen to what the Star said two years ago—

That was not said by me, but by the Star.

Mr. Speaker, when I see the impatience of the House, I think that it will be welcomed by all sides if I move—

I second.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to oppose the motion for the adjournment of the debate. I think that it is most unreasonable on the part of the hon. the Minister to move a motion for the adjournment of the debate at this stage. There are members on this side of the House who have strong views about these matters and who wish to express those views quite apart from the fact that there are other parties in the House who have not yet had the opportunity of expressing their views on the matter. Here we are dealing with an extremely important issue of considerable public interest, and the hon. the Minister is taking this opportunity to terminate the discussion before full expression can be given to the wishes of the House about this matter. There is also the additional reason that there is no other opportunity as far as private members are concerned for a discussion of this matter. The Government have already taken private members’ time. But I am prepared to accept the motion for the adjournment if the hon. Minister will give an assurance that the Government will give time so that this matter can be further discussed in the House. But unless such an assurance is given, I must oppose the adjournment of this debate.

I should like to address the House on the motion for the adjournment of the debate. Mr. Speaker, this subject television has been brought forward in this House on many occasions, generally on the hon. the Minister’s Vote, and on every occasion, the hon. the Minister himself has talked it out by giving us the same kind of speech as we have had to-day, 80 per cent of which is irrelevant. We have had that every year, and this is the first time that we have had an opportunity to discuss this thoroughly because there is a definite Bill before the House. I think it is most unreasonable that the hon. the Minister should have taken up this attitude. I think that the very least he could do is to give a day to this House for a debate on television. This subject has been raised throughout the country. The hon. the Minister quotes to-day the Star as the final word. He could quote the Vaderland, he could quote other newspapers. They don’t like advertisements on T.V.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the motion for the adjournment of the debate.

I wish to associate myself with much of what the hon. member has just said on the motion for the adjournment of the debate. We are here debating a matter of very great public importance. The time is not such that it is essential in the normal course of events for hon. members to get away. There are a number of members here who would like to take part in the debate. They are not all as voluble as the hon. the Minister, and there will be every chance before the normal time for the adjournment of the House arrives, for several further speeches, and the cause of the public interest can scarcely be served by having two speeches in a debate of this sort, and there seems to be no reason at all for the Minister after monopolizing the floor for this length of time, to suddenly, without showing any sign of finishing his speech, move the adjournment of the debate, thereby stopping other hon. members from taking part.

Mr. Speaker, I also would like to address you on the motion before the House, that is the motion for the adjournment of the debate. We as public representatives here when a matter of vital importance to the country, comes before the House, should be entitled to put our point of view in the manner which we think is the correct manner, and to represent that point of view. The hon. Minister has taken part in this debate and has put forward certain arguments which we would like to reply to, and we would like to continue this debate. Therefore I register my strongest protest against the adjournment of the debate.

May I just say that this is the customary time to adjourn and we felt that whilst there was no opportunity for a full discussion, because that would surely take a day, it was fair to allow the case for and the case against to be stated. It is on that basis that it was discussed with the Whips this morning, and they accepted it as a reasonable basis, that we should give each side an opportunity and then adjourn more or less at the usual time. That is the only reason. It cannot be discussed finally and fully to-day. Hon. members who still want to express their opinions about the matter can do so when the Minister’s Vote comes to be debated. Then they can express their views. But we felt that it was necessary that the case for and against should be stated properly. I think the two hon. speakers devoted about the same amount of time to stating their cases. Therefore I agree that the adjournment should now be moved.

I would not like the House to be under the impression that there is a Whips’ agreement that we should adjourn at half past five. What was made quite clear was that this was a private member’s Bill, and the hon. the Minister advised me that he intended the House to adjourn at about this time, and I replied that as this was a private member’s Bill I would note the desire of the Minister that this was his intention, but I made it perfectly clear to him that it was a private member’s Bill and that the matter was not in the hands of the party but in the hands of the private member who was moving the Bill. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that I made that perfectly clear to him at that time, and I also made that perfectly clear to the Chief Whip on the other side. There was no agreement.

That is so.

I am glad the hon. Minister concedes that because I would not like the House to get the impression that there was any agreement. I will concede that the hon. the Minister who is leader of the House, conveyed to me that it was his intention to suggest to his side that the House should be adjourned at about this time.

I do not want there to be any misapprehension either. I know that no agreement was arrived at, but still there was a mutual discussion and it was felt that if the matter was discussed here today and the hon. member stated his case and the Minister replied, we would bear in mind that it is practically a tradition of this House to adjourn at about 6 p.m. on Friday afternoon. I also want to point out that the quorum bells have had to be rung several times already and I feel that it is a matter of good taste that the debate should now be adjourned. The hon. member also knows quite well that, in view of the fact that the Minister has now stated his case, there is plenty of opportunity to discuss the matter later during the debate on the Minister’s Vote and to react to what the Minister said. That is how all experienced parliamentarians feel, and I think the hon. Chief Whip of the Opposition also feels the same, although no agreement was arrived at, and that is why I think we should now go home quietly.

Motion for the adjournment of the debate put and the House divided:

Ayes—64: Bekker, H. T. van G.j Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Çoetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Pisanie, J.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Erasmus, F. C.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. L; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: J. J. Fouché and J. von S. von Moltke.

Noes—30: Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Butcher, R. R.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Beer, Z. J.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eglin, C. W.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Higgerty, J. W.; Horak, J. L.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W V.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swart, R. A. F.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Williams, T. O.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Motion accordingly agreed to.