The: I move—

That the report be printed.

The report of the Commission announced on 9 February has now been issued, and I propose to lay it on the Table of the House, and to move that it be printed. There is, unfortunately, only one copy available, so, until it is printed, it will probably not be available to hon. members, as that copy will*be required for printing. Then, after it has been printed, it will naturally, in due course, be considered by the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders and by the Cabinet. I move.

I second. Agreed to.

Last night I was pointing out that there were several matters still outstanding between the Committee and the hon. the Prime Minister. There was the question of the S.A.B.C. which was showing signs under the present administration of serving the ends of one political party at the expense of the general public, which is the first indication of totalitarian tendencies. I hope that in dealing with this matter the Prime Minister will not shield behind the pretence that the Government has no control over the S.A.B.C. That may technically be the position, but it is quite clear that, as the Board of Governors is appointed by the Minister concerned, by the Cabinet, the Government must be able to exercise some influence on them. A word of disapproval or a public warning by the Prime Minister to the people that the news should be regarded as suspect will have a very salutary effect. The other question we have to put is this, that if the S.A.B.C. is to continue on its present course, can the Cabinet allow the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, which is directly controlled by the Government, to continue to act as the agent of the S.A.B.C. to collect licence fees from the public in order to support this misguided organization?

I also pointed out that the Prime Minister owes an answer to this Committee on how he intends to protect South Africa from the consequences of the cold war in which he has involved South Africa with practically the whole world. Then he owes an explanation to the Committee of what his immediate policy is in the sphere of race relations in order to ease the tensions building up in South Africa among the various racial groups and the tensions which are becoming more severe in our international relations.

But perhaps the most important question the Prime Minister should answer is what is the ultimate pattern of the race policy he has devised for the Union. In his previous speeches in this Committee he could give us many suggestions as to what he would do to-day and to-morrow, but when it comes to defining to the people of South Africa where his policy will end, he deteriorates into vagueness and uncertainty and the people have no idea of what their ultimate future will be. Finally, I think the Prime Minister owes this Committee —we have asked him again and again—an explanation of how he hopes to further the idea of national unity, as apart from political unity, when he is deliberately being sabotaged by other prominent members of the Nationalist Party who hold important posts. During the discussion two examples were quoted to the Prime Minister—only two—the example of the utterly irresponsible conduct of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and the more recent example of the activities of the Transvaal Administrator in diminishing the influence of English-speaking people in the Transvaal in the school boards and over the education of their children.

I may just add before I go on that it is interesting to see the shrill contrast between the activities of the Transvaal Administrator, who is a Government appointee, and the policy also adopted by the Nationalist Party in the Cape Province towards school boards. I was most interested to read in the paper only this morning that in the Cape Province English-speaking provincial councillors who differed politically from the Administration are appointed to the school boards. I believe the Nationalist Party in the Cape should be congratulated on that. That is a very healthy policy, but surely it proves to you by contrast how very far distant from any conception of national unity in the best sense of the word the Nationalist Party in the Transvaal, of which the Prime Minister is the leader, is from any idea of national unity. Surely the Prime Minister owes some explanation to the nation on this point. We are waiting very patiently for the Prime Minister to answer these points. I think that if he has no answer he should tell us, and if he has an answer he should give it. I can say that we of course can be very patient. We have 125 hours in Committee of Supply. If the Prime Minister so wishes, we will gladly devote the full 125 hours to his Vote. We do not wish to do so, but we do feel that the Prime Minister owes a duty to this Committee to answer these very pertinent questions we put to him, answers which the people are awaiting from him. But we are perfectly happy to adopt the attitude of the Prime Minister. Two people can play at this game. What is more, we are glad that he is delaying these answers, because at last the people of South Africa are beginning to realize the difficulties in which the Prime Minister finds himself and his total incompetence to deal with the situation. [Time limit.]

Like other members, I looked forward to the moment when the hon. member for Yeoville would take part in the debate, because many questions have been put from this side of the House to hon. members opposite which have not been replied to. Now we know that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not here, but the hon. member for Yeoville is the future Leader of the Opposition and one would expect him to give replies to those questions. [Interjections.] Now the hon. member says it is cheap of me to say that the hon. member for Yeoville is going to become their leader, but surely the hon. member for Yeoville is not cheap, in spite of what hon. members say. The hon. members need not take exception when I praise the hon. member for Yeoville.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) put questions to the hon. member for Yeoville last night, and it surprises me now because I have respect for the hon. member for Yeoville. He is not a man who ever runs away from questions. I am just surprised that he did not reply to those questions which were put to him pertinently. Now it can be only one of two things. Either the hon. member for Yeoville does not have the answers to those questions, or else he would have given them to us, or he is acting on the instructions of his present leader not to reply to those questions. Now the hon. member for Yeoville, when he commenced, started with the old story about the S.A.B.C. Is it fitting, I ask, that these matters should be discussed under this Vote?

Yes.

I at least expected him to leave that to his backbenchers who cannot speak about anything else. Sir, do you know what the hon. members remind me of when they come along with these stories under this Vote? They remind me of the old man in the Bushveld. All his family ate was meat three times a day from January to December and then a visitor turned up and asked whether they did not feel like eating vegetables once in a while, and his reply was: Yes, but when we feel like eating vegetables we slaughter a pig. [Laughter.] The hon. member for Yeoville considered it his duty to refer to another matter also in his attempt to evade answering the questions put to him, and that was to refer to the Administrator of the Transvaal and to interpret the matter as if rights were here being taken away from the English-speaking parents. But surely he knows that that is not so. No rights are being taken away here. The English-speaking parents in the Transvaal to-day have more rights as the result of the amended ordinance than they ever had before. [Laughter.] Hon. member may laugh, but the fact is that the ordinance was amended to give English- and Afrikaans-medium schools representation on the new school board, and in the rural areas of the Transvaal where the English-speaking parents never had representation before on the school boards they have it right through to-day.

But I do not propose to allow the hon. member to escape from the questions put to him in regard to this new federation. I now want to accuse the hon. member for Yeoville of the fact that their policy is aimed at or will result in Coloureds being represented in this House by Coloureds, Indians by Indians and Bantu by Bantu. Not only the Bantu in the White areas will be represented in this House by Bantu, but also those who are in the reserves. I want to level this accusation at the hon. member for Yeoville and I am going to do so not only here but also in Bethal-Middelburg that it is the policy of the United Party that Bantu should be represented by Bantu in this House. Now I ask the hon. member, and I know he is not a man who will evade answering if he can answer in any way: Is it the policy of the United Party that Bantu should be represented by Bantu in this House?

You know that is not our policy, but you nevertheless say so.

Mr. Chairman, I now want you to listen to the reply. He says I know it is not their policy, but I still say so. In other words, I am telling an untruth when I say it is their policy. Good. Let us accept that I am telling an untruth, but row I ask hon. members who have so much to say: Do they know Marais Steyn, M.P. for Yeoville? Surely he is not a person who tells untruths, and I want to call him as my witness in this connection. On 14 July 1960, according to the political correspondent of the Rand Daily Mail, Mr. Marais Steyn, M.P. for Yeoville, addressed a meeting of women in Pretoria and this is what he said, referring firstly to our policy—

[Hear, hear!] Now I would like to see whether hon. members will again say “ Hear, hear! ”—

[Interjections.] I very clearly asked the hon. member whether it was their policy and he said that I knew it was not and that I was telling an untruth when I said so. Why does the hon. member then tell it outside and tell the women of Pretoria that it is the policy of the United Party that “African representatives would come ”?

I did not say that.

Now the matter becomes even more interesting. Now the hon. member denies that he said it. Then why did the Rand Daily Mail publish as if he did not say it? Why did they put words into his mouth?

Ask the Rand Daily Mail.

That is even more interesting.

Berman also said it in the Senate.

Yes, precisely. This is now the alternative Government which has been asking for days that we should be rejected. If one asks the Leader of the Opposition what their policy is one get no reply. Then the hon. member for Yeoville announces policy outside and if one questions him in the House about it he says one must ask the Rand Daily Mail. But that is so; I must go and ask the Rand Daily Mail because that is their master. But now I want to ask the hon. member this: Did he tell the Rand Daily Mail that he had not said this? This report was very prominently featured in the Rand Daily Mail. Did the hon. member see it when it was published? He should not tell me that he does not read that newspaper. [Time limit.]

It was interesting to see the Prime Minister joining in the Bethal-Middelburg by-election diversion a few minutes ago, and what we have just listened to for the last ten minutes has been typical of the attitude of this Government throughout the debate. They have tried to run away from their own failures and follies. It is not the United Party’s policy which is being discussed under this Vote, but the policy of the Prime Minister. My Leader has stated our policy in this debate. We have asked the Government to deal with their policy and their failures, and this Deputy Minister and every other speaker come back every time to evading action, trying to cover up the refusal of the Prime Minister to answer the questions put by this side of the House. It is the complete inability or the deliberate refusal to answer. Either the Prime Minister cannot or he will not answer. If he will not answer, then he is hiding the facts from the people of South Africa. If he cannot answer, he should make way for the Leader of the Opposition to take his place.

The hon. the Deputy Minister asked why we raised this question of the S.A.B.C. under the Prime Minister’s Vote. He knows perfectly well it is because in debate after debate we have tried in vain to get any answers out of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, because he has refused time after time to give the people of South Africa or this House the information to which they are entitled, and we therefore come to the Prime Minister who appointed the Minister of Posts and we appeal to him under his Vote to give us the information. What is more, we come to the Prime Minister because the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs whom he appointed and who serves under him in the Cabinet has for months now been doing his best to destroy every vestige of good spirit between the English- and the Afrikaans-speaking people, because he has gone out of his way to create bitterness and hatred, because he lives in the Anglo-Boer War. He makes violent speeches. In speech after speech he goes back to that period of division and so we come to the Prime Minister as the only source from which we can get relief, both from the attitude of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and his refusal to answer questions on his Vote. But we also had no answers on the question of Defence. The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) pointed out that it was not the technical administration of defence in which we were interested, but the position of South Africa as the result of this Prime Minister’s action in withdrawing us from the Commonwealth. We are entitled to ask him where the borders of South Africa are to-day and who are the people to whom we are turning for help. With whom are we negotiating? What is the form of the negotiations taking place; what is the objective we are seeking in securing agreements to protect South Africa against possible aggression? We are entitled to ask the Prime Minister what steps he is taking in regard to the protection of our borders if those borders should be endangered by international action and if, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, other nations should leap-frog Angola into South West Africa and our border should then be even closer to us. What action is being taken for our protection? We are entitled to ask who does South Africa consider as a potential enemy, and what steps are being taken in regard to our planning against aggression. We are entitled to ask what the position is in regard to the defence of our 4,000-odd miles of coast line. Have we sufficient ships to protect our coastline? We are looking at the broader picture now, the picture for which this Prime Minister is responsible. He cannot pass the buck to the Minister of Defence. He has put South Africa into this isolated position and we are entitled to demand of him an answer as to what he has done to make up for what he has thrown away. We are entitled to ask what negotiations or agreements he is contemplating in regard to inter-continental missiles and modern forms of warfare, whether he is in touch still and will be able to keep in touch after 31 May with the sources of information upon which efficient defence must depend. We are entitled to ask of him whether the policy of the Government in regard to defence, whether the proportion which defence will now assume in our Budget will remain unchanged, or whether because of our isolation, Defence will now take up an increasingly greater proportion of our expenditure. These are issues which the Prime Minister should answer. No matter how much the Deputy Minister or any other diverters try to get away from the fact that their Prime Minister is not answering the questions about his own policy, we will not be diverted and be led astray by red herrings. If the Deputy Minister wants to fight an election at Bethal, let him go there and distort our policy.

On a point of order, may the hon. member say that the Deputy Minister distorts their policy?

I withdraw that, and say that the Deputy Minister misrepresents our policy. He has said in this House to-day, and he admits that he knows it is our policy to have White representatives representing the Bantu in Parliament, that he would go to Bethal and say it was our policy to have Black representatives. I say that is a misrepresentation of our policy and the Minister has admitted the tactics by which his party misleads the people, in order to win votes. The Minister admitted here flatly that he was going to Bethal to tell the voters that the United Party stands for something which he knows we do not stand for. That is shocking. [Time limit.]

The hon. member has now accused me of deliberately misinterpreting the policy of the United Party.

Yes.

I have never yet given an interpretation of the policy of the United Party which they themselves and their Press did not give to it.

Whose newspapers? We do not have newspapers.

Now the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) says they have no newspapers. Let us accept that. I am now going to make a further statement. Seeing that the hon. member says they have no newspapers, I want to ask him whether the Weekblad is a United Party newspaper.

Yes.

Yes, the Weekblad is a United Party newspaper. Now I am going to make a further accusation against the United Party, namely that through the Weekblad and prominent United Party members who write in the Weekblad the United Party reproaches the hon. the Prime Minister and says that the sin he commits is that he wants to keep us White in South Africa. I make that accusation and I base it on what appeared in the Weekblad. the official organ of the United Party, seeing that the hon. member for Green Point now dissociates himself from the other newspapers of the United Party.

He put his foot into it. (Hy het sy bek verbygepraat.)

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words. They are not parliamentary.

I withdraw.

The hon. member now dissociates himself from the newspapers which keep the United Party alive. There was a time when the hon. member thought that the Argus was his newspaper, so much so that he made representations that Mr. Broughton should write no more articles in the Argus. But let us go further. The hon. member for Green Point admits that the Weekblad is their paper, and I now want to quote what was written in the Weekblad by the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell), the man who says that he does not want to be in a laager with me. When the hon. member said that and, like the Pharisee, beat his chest and thanked God that he was not like others, I was even more thankful that there is a difference between us. Because when one goes into a laager with a man he must be a dependable man.

Good neighbours.

But what does the hon. member say in the Weekblad, the official organ of the United Party? He says—

What is wrong with that?

Then he continues to say in another article: “ Dr. Verwoerd wants to protect our whiteness, not our Western civilization.”

Quote it.

I want to come back again …

Quote that article.

I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he will give us the date of that report and also the date of the other report he has just quoted as to what the hon. member for Wynberg is supposed to have said?

Do you want to go and do research?

The date is Friday, 23 September 1960 and the other one I will give to the hon. member as soon as I have finished speaking. I will fetch the newspaper in which it appeared.

He is struggling now; he does not have it.

The hon. member now says that I do not have it. I will quote it to him and I ask the hon. member for Wynberg now whether he used these words or not: “ He wants to protect our Whiteness, not our Western civilization”?

That is precisely what he does.

He therefore admits it.

I will bring him this article in which he said it.

What else is he trying to protect?

In other words, this United Party which now denies that they are in favour of Bantu being represented by Bantu in this House …

You know that is untrue.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw the words that he knows it.

I will hand the other quotations to the hon. member as soon as I sit down. The hon. member now says that I deliberately misrepresent the policy of the United Party. Will the hon. member deny that this report I quoted from the Rand Daily Mail of 14 July 1960, not even a year ago, was published under the name of the hon. member for Yeoville?

Are you saying that you know what our policy is?

If the hon. member for Yeoville says that is their policy, am I not to accept his word? Now I come back and pertinently put this question to the hon. member for Yeoville: This is such a cardinal part of their policy; why did the hon. member for Yeoville not deny it when it appeared under his name in the Rand Daily Mail and was printed very prominently? There can be only two reason, either that the hon. member said it or else that he was prepared for this to be published as the policy of the United Party. Otherwise I cannot with the best will in the world understand why the hon. member did not deny it. Will he now get up in this House and tell us why he did not deny it? Is he prepared to do that? I am prepared to accept his explanation if it is in any way reasonable. But can hon. members now blame me for drawing this inference when it stands under the name of the hon. member for Yeoville, and can they blame us for believing the hon. member for Yeoville? Can hon. members blame us if, moreover, we draw all kinds of inferences if they consistently refuse to reply to the questions put by this side of the House and to say what their policy is?

Whose Vote is under discussion?

Can we be blamed, in view of the fact that it was very clear to us in the past that this is precisely the thing for which hon. members opposite are playing; that they do not want us to have a White South Africa, but that they eventually want one South Africa, quite Black? Does the hon. member for Yeoville want to tell me that one can be so naïve as to believe that one can give the Bantu eight representatives and that that will be the end of it? The hon. member knows that it will have to be 16 to-morrow, and 32 the day after, and then 64, and then 128. One must eventually reach the position where the Bantu will say: We want representation according to our numbers and we are in the majority. If one concedes the principle that he should be represented in this House, it must eventually lead to that. I am now going further, and until the hon. member for Yeoville takes part in this debate I say that he did in fact say this because it is published in this newspaper, and he tells me that he did not deny it. If one then goes further and says “ African representatives will come ”, then one’s policy must eventually result in South Africa becoming Black and this Parliament becoming Black. Surely there is no alternative. Sir, to the hon. member for Yeoville and others who are still young and who still have to live in this country for years and to us it is of cardinal importance to know whither we are going. We put these questions and we expect the hon. member for Yeoville, as the chief propagandist of the United Party and as one who has always spoken with authority on behalf of the United Party, to get up in this House now and give us the replies to these questions.

I think it is time for us on this side to set an example to the Prime Minister and not to try to evade pertinent questions. The hon. the Deputy Minister is now trying to protect the hon. the Prime Minister by making a counter-attack. I understand his motives and I admire his loyalty.

Just answer the question.

The counter-attack consists of a quotation from a report which appeared in a newspaper of a meeting of the Women’s Council of the United Party which I addressed in Pretoria. The whole attack is based on one sentence. As I remember, and as the Deputy Minister quoted it, that sentence states that the policy of the United Party is that Natives right throughout the Union will be represented in this Parliament on a separate roll by Whites, but that later Natives would represent them. If my memory is correct, that is more or less the quotation. I want to say immediately that I did not read that report. I hope the Deputy Minister will accept that. I did not read it but I know very well what I said, because I know very well what all of us in the United Party say about this matter. What we say is this, that it is impossible in any state to deny sections of the population representation in the highest council which controls their fate. It is not only impossible, it is dangerous, and one of the most dangerous steps taken by this Government—and now I leave aside the international repercussions for the moment—in regard to internal affairs and internal peace, was the mistake made a year or so ago when the Natives’ Representatives were put out of this House. The United Party will restore that system and extend it to the other provinces. Our policy is determined by the Union Congress of the United Party. That policy says very clearly that that representation will be through Whites. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had already declared in this House that although that is the policy of the United Party, that does not mean that future Parliaments may not decide differently, and that is what I told the women in Pretoria.

“ Cannot decide differently?”

The Leader of the Opposition said that that was the policy of the United Party, but he did not exclude the possibility that future Parliaments should decide differently. But that does not in the least derogate from the fact that the policy of the United Party is that if we should come into power the Natives will be given representation through Whites who still sit here.

For the present.

No, in so far as our policy is concerned, it will be Whites. In so far as future Parliaments and future generations are concerned, they will have to decide.

With reference to what you have just said, is that the basis of the racial federation your leader propounded here the other day, viz. that it will be a federation where the non-Whites will be represented here by Whites?

The basis of the racial federation is that every race in South Africa will have a definite share in the government of the country. That is the basis. There is no other basis. I hope it is clear now. [Laughter.] Sir, I am glad of that reaction. I hope it is now clear that the policy of the United Party is that that representation will be by Whites.

Also in the federations?

That is the policy of the United Party. Now I just hope that we will have an equally clear reply to our questions from the Prime Minister. We asked a number of questions and we are patiently awaiting the replies. The Prime Minister is still cogitating; he is still considering. At the moment, because of the silence of the Prime Minister in regard to the policy of his party— and that is the policy in operation in South Africa to-day—we find these peculiar speculations …

I will get up in a moment.

It is high time. I wonder whether the Prime Minister realizes that the fact that he is so vague, that he refuses consistently to face his policy—even when he gets up the most pertinent questions remain unanswered in a spate of words without any actual meaning—I wonder whether he realizes that speculation is rife amongst the people, not amongst the United Party supporters but amongst his own followers. For example, we see in the newspapers of the Nationalist Party that the Prime Minister intends immediately to establish five independent Bantustans and to ask that they should be represented in UN. Why are there those speculations in the Nationalist Party newspapers? Because the Prime Minister cannot tell his own people what his policy is and they are guessing and speculating; they confuse the people; they create unrest and uncertainty in the minds of the people. It is the duty of the Prime Minister to give those replies, and I am glad to hear that he is going to speak. I for one will listen to him with great interest in the hope that there will be clarity for the people of South Africa in regard to what their future will be as long as the hon. gentleman is Prime Minister of South Africa.

This debate has, of course, followed the usual pattern, and that is that hon. members on the other side reproach me in the first place for replying to them in too great detail. They then refuse to give us some sort of indication as to the duration of the debate so that I can know when it would be reasonable for me to take part in the debate again to reply to all their questions, so that it becomes unnecessary for me to rise too often. And then, when I wait patiently until they have apparently said all they want to say, they suddenly represent it as though they have to force me to reply! Those are the old tactics. We have had the same tactics frequently before. The instrument for the last stage is usually the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I was really waiting for his speech therefore as an omen that they had more or less had their say and that they had no more questions and that they were becoming anxious to hear something from me again for a change. The fact that I rise at this stage only is not an act of discourtesy to the House therefore, and it has never been my attitude that I am not going to reply. Everybody could see that I was sitting here making notes. Everybody probably saw that I was trying to sift the wheat from the very great quantity of chaff (“ kaf ”), and I must say that there was a great deal of “ kaf ” (nonsense) and little wheat. What happened was that I could not get the slightest indication, in response to inquiries, from hon. members opposite as to when they will have reached the stage where I could reasonably enter the debate to reply.

I propose to deal with the various points which have been raised but first of all I want to deal with the episode that we had here a moment ago. The reply that the Opposition only wants White representation is one of the most amazing replies, and the denial of the member for Yeoville is one of the most astonishing denials I have yet heard. This whole debate deals with the Opposition’s submission that we must be realistic and that our policy does not comply with world opinion and is not in consonance with the basis on which we have been able to retain our membership of the Commonwealth. The gravamen of the attack upon me at the moment is that we are being unrealistic. The Opposition, however, is supposed to be very realistic. It has also been stated that the reason why we are having all these difficulties with the Commonwealth and with UNO and why all these questions have to be raised here about defence and the dangers facing us, is because we are discriminating against the Bantu and the Indians, and the Opposition allegedly does not want to discriminate.

Who said so?

Where do you get hold of that?

Do they admit then that they do discriminate?

There is not one party in this House which does not discriminate.

I am pleased to hear that admission. I have always contended it but have never heard an outright admission from them. Here we have a specific admission that the United Party policy deliberately discriminates against non-Whites in South Africa. If they deliberately discriminate, I am 100 per cent right in my contention that they would have been obliged to withdraw from the Commonwealth just as we were obliged to do so. The fact of the matter is—I have said it previously and I want to repeat—that when the Tunku and all the others indicated that they would have been satisfied with minor concessions, they meant, as Mr. Macmillan also put it, that they would only be satisfied because there would then be “ hope for the future ”. In other words, they would have accepted a certain amount of discrimination now provided it was not the policy to apply discrimination permanently, and further changes would therefore follow. He also wanted representation for the non-Whites by their own people, even though that representation was small. Hon. members opposite have now told us that it is their policy to continue to apply discrimination in the future and to have White representatives only. That, however, is at the root of our struggle here and overseas. That is why I constantly try to explain that I believe that our policy is one in terms of which it will be possible in due course to avoid discrimination. Hon. members opposite do not believe that that is going to be the outcome of the policy of apartheid. I do believe it.

The Opposition has now come forward with another policy, and that is the policy of racial federation. It is true that my Vote is under discussion now, but when the Prime Minister’s Vote is attacked, then the Opposition should tell the country at the same time what they propose to do in connection with the essential points at issue if they should come into power. They cannot, as this Opposition always is, simply remain negative. An Opposition must become positive, otherwise it cannot be weighed up as an alternative government. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has now accepted that that is his duty and that is why he has said; “ I am going to adopt a positive attitude now and I am going to put my new colour policy to you, namely the policy of racial federation.” All the criticisms which have been directed at our policy should be used as a yardstick now to test their policy to see which of the two policies will give us peace with the nations which are our friends and peace with the world. What is the policy that they put forward? They put it forward as a policy not only for the moment but as a policy for the future—a policy which is to develop in the future and which is to solve all our problems. That is the attitude that the Opposition adopted. I want to add that when I stated in connection with the Coloureds that I had only outlined the development up to a certain stage —it does not indicate the absolute limit of development because I believe that at that stage one will be in a better position to judge how to go further forward along the same road— the hon. the Leader of the Opposition reproached me for not having given a final blueprint. In other words, I am expected to describe every detail of our constitutional planning up to the very end, but when he himself referred to his policy he stated that that was how he saw the position for the immediate foreseeable future, and that one must leave future developments to be determind in the future. In other words, he adopted precisely the same attitude as I, that it is not necessary to describe all future development in advance. Yet this reproach was levelled at me! Illogically enough, he demands that right for himself. To-day it has come out more clearly than ever before why he adopted that attitude. It now seems that the Opposition realizes that their policy will lead to one result only but that they dare not admit it to-day. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) must be aware of the fact that he has put his foot into it to-day, in this respect: The Opposition’s claim that it has given a reply, which satisfies the world, to all the questions in connection with colour policy by putting forward a policy which it now calls racial federation, can only succeed if this policy will result in complete equality of rights, and the member for Yeoville cannot tell me that his party supports that.

I put it to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition how I understood his racial federation and thereafter, although in fairly vague terms, he explained what he meant. What he said he meant did not differ much from what I said I had understood him to say. I want to repeat it. I understood in the first place that in that federal government the Black representatives of the Bantu reserves would sit as co-rulers. That is the first place therefore in which there will be Black people in his central federal government, and in the same way there will be Coloureds. There will also be Indians in their central federal government. If they are not going to have direct representation there, I said it then meant the following; that there will be a mixed area, which I call White, and in the Parliament of that mixed area the Coloureds will have to be represented; the Indians will have to be represented and the Whites will have to be represented and, as the Leader of the Opposition stated, the urban Bantu will also have to be represented there. I went on to say: I understand that the intention is that to begin with the representation will have to be through Whites, but that in due course it will have to be through representatives of the people themselves, in other words, Whites by Whites, Coloureds by Coloureds, Indians by Indians and the urban Bantu by Bantu. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not then say that I was wrong in this interpretation, but it is now being stated that I was wrong, except in so far as the Coloureds are concerned, and that that is not the policy of the United Party; they do not know how their future congresses may change this, but it is not their policy to-day. That was fair enough; it is the same as I had said previously, that as far as the Coloureds are concerned, direct representation by Coloureds themselves is not the policy of my party. Congresses may change it, but the policy of this party as it exists at the moment, is that, for all time to come, Coloureds will not be represented by Coloureds in Parliament. Hon. members opposite, in order to be consistent, have to say the same thing. For all time to come, therefore, their policy is that the various groups (except the Coloureds) must be represented by Whites. If that is so, then the whole racial federation is a fiasco on the one hand, because it will give no satisfaction at all to any one of those groups. The Coloureds will not say that they can now support the United Party because it offers them a future, if United Party members say: “ Under our policy you personally will be kept out of Parliament for ever; there will always be Whites here to represent you.” Similarly the Indians will not be satisfied and India will not be satisfied; the world will not be satisfied, and the Commonwealth Conference would not have been satisfied with a United Party which says that the Indians will be represented forever by Whites only. Neither will the urban Bantu, who think that they have an ally in the United Party because they think its intention is that eventually they themselves will be able to come to Parliament, be satisfied. In other words, it will not be possible to obtain peace in South Africa along the lines of this type of so-called racial federation. Hon. members on the Opposition side adopt this attitude, of course, because they are afraid of the voters of South Africa, because they know that the electorate is not prepared to have a mixed Parliament. But then there is another point that I made in my previous statement that still stands, and that is that since the United Party says that this is going to be a racial federation and that therefore there must be a federal parliament—and in this connection they admit that there are going to be Bantu homeland areas which may be represented in the federal parliament and therefore also in the federal government—Black people will at least have to come from those areas into the central federal parliament and into the federal government. The supreme parliament and the supreme Cabinet will therefore be mixed, in spite of White representation of Indians and Bantu in the present parliament which will then be a provincial parliament. The United Party cannot get away from the fact that, as far as the supreme government of the country is concerned they are going to institute a mixed parliament and a mixed government in South Africa. All the consequences that they visualize in connection with our policy will then also follow in respect of their federal plan. They continually ask us how the Bantu homeland areas, as its neighbours, are going to act towards the White state. Those arguments are going to apply also to the United Party policy. After all, the Bantu who represent those homelands in the federal government are going to oppose it if the Bantu in the mixed parliament of this mixed (or White) area under the United Party plan cannot be represented by Blacks but only by Whites. Their whole policy has therefore collapsed like a pack of cards this morning. It has now been proved to be no genuine solution for South Africa’s problems, either as far as our race relations are concerned or with regard to our relations with the outside world if the aim is appeasement by way of concessions. All these concessions that the United Party would be prepared to make under this plan, will not be good enough unless they go further. At the same time such a federation would give rise to discord and strife in South Africa, such as no other plan that we have ever heard of.

Let me warn hon. members opposite. They should look at what is happening in the Federation of Central Africa, the Federation of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland. There they also have a federation, and this federation has at least one Bantu homeland in it, namely Nyasaland. Not only is this Federation collapsing in the sense that that Bantu homeland wants to be out of it and become just an independent neighbour—in other words, it wants what we want to give our Bantu homelands but what the United Party refuses to give them—but we also notice that in Northern Rhodesia Barotseland, like Nyasaland, is striving to become an independent Bantu homeland, entirely separated from the Federation. These Black territories want what we want to give but what the United Party refuses to give. In that existing Federation one sees the consternation, the outflow of capital, all the evils that flow from that sort of federation idea. There the Bantu are fighting for a share in the government and direct proportional representation in these admittedly mixed partnership territories. In Northern Rhodesia, one of the two mixed partnership areas, they are already demanding rule on the strength of their superior numbers. They are not demanding it in Southern Rhodesia yet, because as a first step it does not suit them to do so, but they will demand it, just as they will demand it here if such a partnership federation comes into existence here. This example of what is happening in the Federation of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland, because of this partnership policy, is the clearest sign of what would happen here if this United Party federation idea were accepted. The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland has already gone one step further than the maximum concessions which the United Party is apparently prepared to make to-day, because the Federation of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland do allow Black representatives in their Parliaments and in their Cabinets. In other words, that Federation, which is under pressure because of the dissatisfaction it creates, has progressed a good deal further in satisfying the Bantu’s ambitions than the highest ideals cherished by the United Party with its federation idea, according to the hon. member for Yeoville. In this first analysis of the United Party’s racial federation plan it has been shown this morning that South Africa is going to be placed in great danger of experiencing the same economic and political setbacks as those experienced just north of us. We have always contended that. The United Party cannot go to the country and contend that with its policy it is going to create harmonious race relations. It cannot go to the country and say that it would have kept us within the Commonwealth after what we have now heard from the member of Yeoville. It cannot go to the country and say, “ We will have political peace and racial peace and harmonious relations here ” after what we have heard to-day about White representatives. It will not be able to say that there will be no withdrawal of capital here and that no financial problems will arise after what we have heard to-day about its policy of deliberate discrimination. After all, we have the clearest example just north of this country of the consequences of this type of policy. I say therefore that the United Party’s policy is an iniquitous policy. Apart from all the arguments I have mentioned, it is based on the acceptance of permanent discrimination and permanent domination by the Whites, because the hon. member himself said: “ Who says that we do not want to discriminate?” Their policy of racial federation, as it has been explained to us this morning, implies deliberate permanent discrimination and permanent domination.

The hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope) has said that discrimination and domination are the soul of this whole debate and the situation in which we find ourselves. It is the soul. And the Government is trying with its policy to escape from this dilemma. During the transition period we may still have to apply certain forms ôf discrimination, and during this period there may be White domination. But the basis of our policy is to try to get away from it. That is why we adopt the policy that the Bantu, wherever he may live in various areas of his own, must be given political control and domination or dominion over his own areas and people. Just as the Italians in France retain their vote in Italy, so the Bantu, who are living temporarily in our urban areas, must have a say in their homelands. They should be able to get it up to the highest level, and we want to help them to attain that position. After all, there cannot be domination by Whites over Blacks where there are two neighbouring states, the White state and the Black state. We are also trying to solve the problem of the Coloured and of the Indian by accepting the principle of a state within a state so that within the borders of one territory for these two groups, each will be given the fullest opportunity to control its own interests. I admit the difficulties in that connection, and I have always admitted them. But I have said that when one finds oneself in that dilemma, one has to choose between these three alternatives, namely either the United Party’s stand of perpetual discrimination and domination, or absolute equality and Black domination, or apartheid. To a large extent discrimination is also inherent really in the Progressive Party’s stand if they want permanent White leadership to be retained. If, however, they say “ No ”, we know that eventually it will lead to Black domination …

No.

Well, I shall come back to the Progressive Party. As far as the United Party is concerned, its policy theoretically therefore includes a form of perpetual domination and discrimination by the Whites, even though I do not believe that that will remain the position. They will lose against the powers that they are letting loose. The same applies to the Progressive Party unless they accept Black rule as a further aim. The inevitable result of such a democracy in a country that they want to govern with a mixed population, as in a country without a mixed population, must be majority rule. That is the only true democracy in a mixed father-land. Any form of mutual arrangement whereby, by means of a constitution, one seeks to deprive a majority group of its rights by limiting its rights to smaller representation (even though it is in connection with members of its own race) so that another group which is smaller, although more skilled or civilized, can retain an equal or a major say, is and still remains discrimination. In due course at least it must disappear as the other advances in civilization. The moment you say, “ I want to give equality; I do not want any domination ” (which is the same) then you cannot even say that by legislation you can give a group of 10,000,000 Bantu equal rights with the White group of 3,000,000 and equal rights to a group of 1,500,000 Coloureds and equal rights to a group of 750,000 Indians. It simply cannot be described as equal rights. The consequence of an attitude of “ no discrimination ” and “ no domination ” and “ absolute democracy ” in a “ mixed fatherland ” is “ one man one vote ”. That is the only consequence. If you do not accept that but a sort of so-called rigid constitution in which you place each group in separate compartments and lay down the limits within which group can acquire authority, however civilized these people may become, with the object of being able to say, “ I am protecting the equality or the supremacy of the Whites ”, then there is still discrimination and domination. That is why I say to the hon. member for Parktown that he and his party are in precisely the same difficulty as the United Party and that they are faced with the same dilemma. One should try, however, to get out of this dilemma. The only alternative is our way, and that is to see that every group is given complete control over its own interests. When members of one group come into the other man’s area, or on to the other man’s terrain in the case of the Coloureds and the Indians, they must be prepared to accept that they are guests there. If the White man goes into the Bantu areas he cannot expect to be given joint control there. And this is what I believe to be a mistake in Britain’s handling of Basutoland, and it may become her mistake also in the handling of Swaziland. The former cannot become a multi-racial state. As far as the latter is concerned an attempt is apparently being made instead of sharing it and giving the White man and the Black man each full authority over that portion which he occupies or which is his, to create a multi-racial authority and then to try, by means of all sorts of legal provisions and measures, to see that the Black man does not get sole control. I see only one road, however difficult it may be and whatever further consideration it may require as one progresses from step to step, and that is the policy of separate areas. Then the leaders of the various racial groups can meet, as is done at a Prime Ministers’ Conference or when different nations meet, on a basis of absolute equality in a consultative body to discuss matters of common interest. That is why I said that I foresee that the eventual outcome of this policy will be no discrimination and no domination. Each group will look after its own interests, and they will then meet in a consultative body where they can sit together to eliminate as far as possible all points of friction and difficulties by means of discussions and negotiations. That is the only way, and hon. members who have tried to ridicule this, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has also tried to do, are being superficial. What they themselves propose then has been proved to be completely ridiculous. Every argument of ridicule, every criticism that the hon. Leader of the Opposition and other members have tried to put forward in respect of our policy, can be applied to their policy, as has been done here to-day. For the umpteenth time therefore I say that no solution has been put forward by the Opposition. Along the road which we are following, we are squarely facing all the essential differences which confront us; there is no bluff; this road offers protection to the White man because along this road we recognize the fact that there must be differentiation. The minute you refuse to recognize and to accept the necessity for differentiation, and you make equality the basis of your policy, you find yourself in the difficulty and the trouble that I have outlined. Whether you want it or not, there will ultimately be Black domination. I do not want to pursue that any further.

I want to deal now with specific points raised by hon. members in regard to colour policy. Before doing so, however, I want to deal briefly with various other problems which the hon. members have raised. Reference has been made to our country’s defence and hon. members have said that I owe it to South Africa and to this House to tell them exactly what we are doing to ensure that we have proper weapons and equipment to ensure the safety of our children who may perhaps be called upon to carry them. I am expected to say exactly what alliances and agreements we have entered into, both with neighbouring states and other countries. I am also expected to say exactly what we intend doing if we have to defend ourselves against some attack or other, etc. Everyone will realize that these questions were only asked to embarrass the Government, because no Government can reveal the details of its state of preparedness and of its plans in the event of trouble. What hon. members are entitled to ask is whether our country’s defence enjoys high, or perhaps even first priority. Are we squarely facing any possible danger that may threaten the country, whether internally, near our borders, or from distant parts? I am prepared to say that we regard the present position as very serious, and that we should be properly equipped to meet it. We should plan in advance for any eventuality, so that we will be prepared when difficulties do arise, which we trust will not be the case. In other words, I can give hon. members the assurance that the Government is giving all its attention to this problem and that it has instructed the organization at its disposal to prepare the most detailed plans. We also want to enlist the assistance of the industries in this country for the manufacture of armaments so that we shall not be solely dependent on countries abroad, and so that we ourselves will be able to supply what we can and what we regard as necessary. We shall not hesitate to ask Parliament for the necessary financial assistance that we may require from time to time for the proper protection of our fatherland.

I want to add another thing. A great deal has been said about the protection which we allegedly enjoyed in the past, particularly also from the Commonwealth, and what continued membership would have meant. I can only say that we have not received such a great deal of protection in the past as hon. members allege. The position has rather been that we have given assistance and co-operated with other countries. In the second place, in the case of the biggest struggle that is engaging the attention of the world at the moment, namely a possible struggle between the West and the communists, there is no doubt as to which side we will support. Right from the beginning we have stated openly that we stand by our friends of the West and they have said they will stand by us. In such a struggle, therefore, we will be allies; there can be no doubt about that. However, the whole world trusts, as we do, that that danger will be warded off. Every new scientific development, such as the recent flight into space, makes one desire all the more ardently that the position will not develop into a state of actual war. As far as problems of a more local nature are concerned, for example, in regard to the Black states of Africa, or whatever they may be, hon. members know that whether we had remained a member of the Commonwealth or not, we could not expect much help from that quarter. Whether we are a member or not we will not get much help there for the very same reason that we got only a limited amount of assistance in respect of our continued membership of the Commonwealth (in which respect it was much easier for them to assist us). Our friends in the Commonwealth have interests there and they have to look after those interests, interests in the first place which make it necessary or desirable for them rather to support the Afro-Asian states on certain issues. I do not for a moment believe that they will support them in a war against us. Indeed they will not do, just as they have adopted a clear stand at UNO against sanctions. But one doubts, Sir, whether they will help us if we are attacked from beyond our borders.

It should also be realized that as far as the cold war is concerned, our main opponents are within the Commonwealth. Those who attacked us most strenuously at UNO were members of the Commonwealth. It is not only now that we are leaving that they are acting in that way; they have been doing so for a long time. The position as regards the help which South Africa can expect in the case of any trouble which may arise in future, therefore, has not changed because of our present position. We will stand with those with whom we would have stood; those who would not have helped us, will not help us to-day either. As in the past we will now have to stand on our own feet. We realize all that. We are wide awake in that regard and we are equipping ourselves properly.

I have been asked by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) whether it is our intention to exercise Press control. I may say that the Press is certainly not making it easy for us, for the simple reason that the Press is going far beyond what freedom of the Press means, and is approaching very closely to what “ licence of the Press ” is. Consequently, when one reads the newspapers, one only hopes, although it seems to be in vain, that the Press will organize some form of self-control itself. I am not referring particularly to Press comment. Anybody who has read the Cape Times’s leading articles during the past week, or some of the commentaries in that newspaper must however be amazed that South Africa can be called a police state when such comment is allowed. But we do allow it. We have allowed it all these years. I am not sure that we have been wise in allowing such malignant comment during all these years. I am not sure that our present situation with regard to the Commonwealth, with regard to the United Nations, is not the result of having allowed such licence of the Press during all these years.

May I ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question?

No, please don’t interrupt me now. I want to say that nobody can regret this more deeply than I do, because I believe in the freedom of the Press, and I believe in not imposing external control. I have always hoped and still hope that it will not be necessary to call the Press to order. I hope that the Press will take this to heart and that those in control will get together and will find means of avoiding further harm to South Africa by going further than they should.

Does this apply to the whole Press, the Nationalist Press as well?

Order! The hon. member asked whether he might be allowed to put a question and the hon. the Prime Minister refused to give way.

Mr. Chairman, I am not referring to political comment which is reasonable, I am not referring to criticism from any side. I don’t mind criticism, neither from my opponents, nor from my friends. Wisdom can often be gained from the criticism which comes from many sources. I don’t object to that. I do object to untruth; I do object to libellous comment, because a leader does not easily sue when libel is found in the newspapers; I also object to distortions in the Press of what the policies are, of the government or other parties. In fact I object to anything which can harm our country. Particularly do I object to false news and news being sent overseas through the channels of the South African Press, when this happens. I don’t think that South Africa is benefiting by much which is found in its Press to-day. This is a grievance in many countries. Nowhere unfortunately has wrong information been sent and distortion of policies taken place to the same extent to the detriment of a country as in the case of South Africa. Therefore I say that while no government wishes to intrude upon the freedom of criticism, while no government wishes to restrict the freedom to present news properly put, any government in this country must view with great concern, and may be forced to take steps, if South Africa is harmed by what goes beyond the exercise of freedom.

Who will be the judge?

The Judge may be the courts. There may, however, be circumstances in which the Judge has to be found elsewhere so that quicker action can be taken in the interest of the country. But I am still laying the burden only upon the Press itself, which I do not think has organized itself in the past at all to make sure that justice is done to our country.

*Reference has been made to the Broadcasting Corporation and to the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. That was nothing but a continuation of a feud and nothing but propaganda on the part of hon. members opposite. I do not intend saying much about the Minister personally, because I do not think the attack that was made on him was in good taste, I wish to state that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs undoubtedly administers his Department in a very efficient and capable manner. I want to go further and challenge hon. members to mention a single person in his Department who maintains that the Minister acts unjustly towards any member of any language group. On the contrary the information which I have in regard to both his Departments is to the effect that the Minister has the co-operation of his whole staff, and that there is the greatest impartiality.

Apart from his capabilities as a Minister, he has been accused of spoiling the relationship between the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking sections because of his speeches and because of the matters he refers to in his speeches. Let me say this to hon. members that unfortunately I have to regard this as another method on their part to thwart the strenuous efforts on the part of the Government as well as on my part to establish unity. To prove my point I wish to give a few examples. I have not got the relevant papers with me, but a short while ago an attack was made in the Press on a speech by the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, and arising from that the Cape Times asked the Minister a series of pertinent questions in order to draw him to give his opinion about certain happenings in the history of our country and to ascertain his exact attitude towards the English-speaking people. It is a well-known fact that the hon. the Minister is married to an English-speaking woman and that he has been happily married for many years. It is also a well-known fact that when a Secretary of Health had to be appointed, the hon. the Minister immediately recommended an English-speaking official. A correct deduction would have been that he harboured no hostility as alleged. The Cape Times then asked those pertinent questions. The Minister replied directly to those questions. It was very clear from those replies that hon. members have misinterpreted his references to history incidents. Secondly it was clear from those replies, that instead of feeling hostile towards the English-speaking people, he desired friendship and unity with them. It was a direct and clear statement under his own signature. It only appeared in the Cape Times. If he says anything that hurts hon. members, according to them, it gets taken up by the newspapers, but when he gives a direct reply which counters that sort of propaganda, and which creates goodwill, it appears in one newspaper only; it does not appear in the others.

I want to deal now with the second case, namely the Blood River speech. The hon. the Minister also made certain references in that speech, which were seized upon to launch a national attack upon him similar to the one we have had here. I was worried about that and I asked the hon. the Minister for his notes. The hon. the Minister keeps very copious notes of his speeches; practically verbatim records. I was therefore able to see for myself exactly what he had said and to compare it with the newspaper cuttings which were available to me. I did that because I am serious in my desire to put an end to this national feud. What did I find? I found that the hon. the Minister had quoted from the Cape Argus, I think, it may have been the Cape Times …

You said the Cape Argus on a previous occasion.

It appears then that he quoted what the Cape Argus had said after Mr. Macmillan’s speech here in Cape Town. For the purposes of his speech the Minister thought it fitting to quote something which the Cape Argus had written, and his notes showed it clearly as a separate quotation. The newspapers, however, printed the words which the Argus had written in inverted commas and ascribed them to the Minister. The nation-wide attack which followed was based on that very paragraph. Following upon that the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) wrote a letter to me in which he told me that he was holding me responsible for what the Minister had said and that he was publishing his open letter to me in the Press. He said that if I did not reply I would be held co-responsible. That was a further result of the quotation which was incorrectly ascribed to the Minister, but which was really an opinion which the Cape Argus had expressed about the Macmillan speech. It was a form of blackmail and I do not think it is proper to make such demands. In the circumstances I forwarded my reply to the same newspapers to which he had written—I think it was the Natal Tribune—setting out the specific facts as I have given them here and I also quoted from the Cape Times. I did not see the report in the newspaper but I assume it was published because the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) has referred to it although she did not refer to the crux of the matter, but to all sorts of irrelevancies. Did any member see any reference to this matter in any newspaper? No, it was not taken up. That was clear proof that the attacks on the Minister were unjust. I leave it at that, but I want to add that I am not prepared to allow a Minister who has suffered so many injustices to be victimized.

I now want to deal with the attacks on the Broadcasting Corporation. The complaint is apparently that the Broadcasting Corporation shows partiality in its news broadcasts. I will not refer to what was said about my arrival. If hon. members are jealous because so many people attended gatherings where I was present I am sorry but I cannot do anything about it. I cannot assist them in attracting people to their meetings.

Unfortunately I seldom have time to listen to the news over the radio but to judge from what I have heard, on the few occasions that I have listened in, and to judge from certain news items about which I have received written information because they had been criticized, I wish to say this. Hon. members opposite are so accustomed to getting their news in the form in which their prejudiced Press has been presenting it to them, that they do not recognize and cannot tolerate objective news. There have been radio reports, like reports on Parliament and other events, which I myself have objected to because I considered them partial in favour of the other side! I take it therefore that the Opposition also regards certain reports as partial in favour of this side. Every newspaper in the world that I know of, including those of the highest standing, are sometimes accused from various quarters that they have been partial in one or other respect. It all depends on the angle from which you read the news, Sir. However, if you get away from your personal opinions, you must realize, as I as a former newspaper man do, that this organization and its officials are trying to do the best they can—with due regard to human fallibility—to give news impartially. That is why I think that the attack on the Broadcasting Corporation is based on fear on the part of hon. members opposite. Where Afrikaners generally read both Afrikaans and English newspapers and consequently see the position from both points of view, and where the English-speaking section is not so well informed, hon. members opposite are afraid that the English-speaking section will now get what they have always wanted, namely, impartial news. I am convinced that the attack by hon. members on the Broadcasting Corporation is without substance.

There has also been an attack in respect of the appointment of members to the Transvaal school boards. Let me say at once that I am very sorry that there were no English-speaking people amongst those who were appointed to the Witwatersrand School Board. I am sorry that the Administrator did not appoint English-speaking persons when he made those appointments to the school board. But I want to say immediately that our critics opposite lose sight of the fact that even before one word was said in favour of it in this country, the very Administrator and Executive Committee that they are now attacking, seriously tried to treat the English-speaking sections in the whole of the Transvaal more justly. It is a fact that in the case of all the school boards throughout the Transvaal, apart from what has happened in the case of the Witwatersrand School Board the English-speaking minority has been completely ignored in appointing members to the school boards. The Administrator and the Executive Committee then deliberately changed the ordinance so that it will not only be possible, but essential, for the minority group to be represented on every school board. In other words they ensured that the English-speaking section would be represented everywhere, not over-represented on a single school board, as the position was in the past. By introducing the method of election which they did, they have ensured that the minority group is represented on every school board.

But the Nationalists are always in the majority.

Why not?

That is un avoidable where they are in the majority. But I say this that not even the United Party have done what this Administrator and his Executive Committee have done for the English-speaking section in the Transvaal, namely to ensure that in all areas where there is a school board, the English-speaking people are represented so that they may know what is happening and so that they may play their part in all matters affecting their children. There is definite proof, therefore, that there is no malice towards the English-speaking people, as the propagandists would make us believe. In saying, therefore, that I am sorry that they did not appoint English-speaking people to the Witwatersrand School Board, so that we would not have had this hullabaloo, and so as to demonstrate in a practical way that we are striving for unity, I deprecate the fact that what happened there is now held out to the country and to the people as a deliberate act to thwart this attempt to create goodwill between the Afrikaans-speaking and the English-speaking sections.

But you say they are political appointments, don’t you?

It is represented by hon. members as a deliberate act to undermine the desire for unity in the broad sense of the word, between Afrikaans- and English-speaking sections and it has nothing to do whatsoever with the question of whether or not they are political appointments. It is not necessary for me to go into that any further.

The hon. member asked me what the Government is doing in connection with our capital position. The hon. member for Pine-town (Mr. Hopewell), I think, referred to the fall on the stock exchange and the consequent probability that the banks would have to restrict credit for industrial development. Fluctuations in share prices have taken place, but they always occur. They have taken place very substantially recently. But they recovered again, very substantially, immediately afterwards.

To the previous levels?

No, but they have also recovered substantially in these same few days. And this sort of thing happens continuously. I am afraid that as long as we have antagonistic influence at large— the influence about which we know—including the kind of criticism which is uttered by hon. members on the other side, we must expect these fluctuations. I have before me a weekly market review by a firm of Johannesburg stockbrokers V. H. Simpson & Company, which is a most depressing market review and which is sent to all its clients. It is true that they try, in order to cover themselves if recovery takes place, to put in a few advantageous points. But by and large this is a most darkly coloured outlook on the stock exchange future.

Do you not agree with it?

No. I do not agree.

Is that not confidential from the broker to his clients?

That illustrates my point precisely, namely, that through private and confidential reviews sent to the clients—I am not one of its clients, and do not know who has sent this to me—through these private and confidential forms of information the belief of the clients, of the people buying and selling, is undermined. [Interjections.]

Order, order! The hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) knows how to put a question if he wants to do so.

This is not only done in this country. This is done elsewhere as well. You can find newspapers overseas suggesting that this Government is going to deduct from the dividends which should be sent overseas, a percentage for building up the Bantu homelands. That is a suggestion which has never even entered the mind of anybody in South Africa.

Nobody from this side suggested that.

No, I said that this appeared in a newspaper overseas. When that sort of thing happens, surely one must expect people to start to doubt the future of the country concerned. It has even been suggested that there will be attempts from our side to stop capital from overseas being repatriated to its country of origin. I am not suggesting that these hon. gentlemen have done that, but it has also been suggested in newspapers overseas in order to harm South Africa. That too has never entered our minds. As a matter of fact, the hon. the Minister of Finance has repeatedly stated that that is not the intention of the Government. Consequently, if there are fluctuations from time to time in our share market, that is the result to a very large extent of false criticism and unjust views which are disseminated by people who should know better. At the same time I want to add that our market is not influenced only by what happens in South Africa or by what happens at UNO. It is also most unjustly, influenced by what happens in the rest of Africa. When the Congo situation developed, that hit us as well. People overseas do not always distinguish clearly between South Africa and other portions of Africa. As a matter of fact, some people overseas thought, when the Congo disturbances took place, that that was either within South Africa or right up against our borders, silly though that may seem to us. All kinds of influences therefore, have their effect, but I have no doubt that in the course of time knowledge of the real position of stability in South Africa, of the true value of investment in South Africa, will predominate and that our troubles times, as far as our economy is concerned, will pass.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) also referred to the outflow of capital and the virtual cessation—as he called it—of private capital inflow, and the consequent danger of unemployment. He asked for an assurance that the Reserve Bank’s loan of R14,000,000 from a foreign banking institution was not a panic move and did not establish a new precedent. These were the three points made by that hon. member. The information at my disposal is this, that despite the fact that South Africa did suffer a considerable net outflow of capital in 1960, there was still a substantial amount of new capital investment from abroad. The full figures are not available, but it is known that foreigners bought South African shares from South Africans to an amount of R37,200,000 while overseas investors increased the value of their shares in South African subsidiaries by R6,000,000. The unemployment figures certainly do not bear out the hon. member’s fears. And the Reserve Bank loan was concluded last year. It is a transaction between the banks concerned and does not concern the Government. However, far from this creating a precedent, similar loans were arranged with the same institution two or three years ago, and the hon. member was informed of this before he spoke. That loan has subsequently been repaid. There is therefore nothing abnormal about this loan to which he referred.

But what was the net outflow of capital?

I do not have the figures for the net outflow.

The hon. member for Jeppe (Dr. Cronje) again raised the question of the large capital inflow during 1947 or 1948, and contrasted that with the capital outflow of 1959 and 1960. This point has been dealt with over and over again. Everybody realizes that the capital inflow of 1947-48 was funk capital.

Yes, but does it not fly to a safe place?

That was not the argument. Certainly not the whole amount was of this type, but it was largely funk capital and it was sent here when the Labour Party régime achieved office in the United Kingdom. Much of it was not invested in South Africa, it was only put on deposit here, to our embarrassment …

It was safe here.

… without contributing anything to the development of the country. And we had to deal with the re-trievement of that capital a little while later.

When you came into office.

Yes, when we came into office, but when the Labour Party lost office. That is when the capital again returned to Great Britain, and all that time it was of no value whatever to us. This capital sought refuge in South Africa against the socialist government.

They will not do it now.

That does not matter since this means absolutely nothing ta a country and hon. members know it.

I think I have now dealt with all the various matters, except for certain less important allegations made here …

What about the border industries?

Yes, I shall say something in that regard. There were certain general points of attack, such as that Mr. Macmillan and Mr. Menzies are said to have condemned us in regard to apartheid. That is true. But we have just as much right to condemn them for the policy they apply. If we were to say that the policy of partnership as applied in Kenya and the Federation unjustifiably causes great trouble to those countries, that is also true. Would hon. members then infer that we speak with greater authority than Mr. Macmillan just because we criticize? No, they would not do that. If Mr. Macmillan talks about South African conditions, about which he knows very little because he does not deal with them every day —as I told him at the time after his Cape Town speech—then it is, however, described as being authoritative. But when we talk about it or about territories under his control we are not speaking authoritatively. Mr. Menzies also has his problems. In fact, in Papua they also have apartheid. They have the advantage that it is an island, separated from their continent. Therefore the similarity is not so obvious, but the policy applied there is practically identical to ours. Then there is the White Australia policy. Just imagine that if a policy which in a sense runs parallel to ours, the White Australia policy, were not to have been implemented in the past and was not maintained in the future, what would have happened to Australia if the masses of Red China and India could go there to seek a home? If that were to happen, would Australia tolerate it? If the world is to become one, with one world policy and with no chance for a nation to protect its own separate existence, so that a nation can disappear as the result of other people coming into its own country, then all the White states will disappear. If a country like ours is not allowed to evolve a method by which its different population groups can be allowed to exist as separate nations next to each other, then surely Australia as a White nation cannot protect itself against non-Whites either. In other words, if plans cannot be made to counteract the consequences of an immigration policy of the past or of the future, surely that country will be in the same trouble as South Africa is. Therefore when Mr. Menzies criticizes South Africa because he still does not have this problem, but he still takes steps to obviate being faced with that problem because he knows what the consequences will be, the same as for South Africa, I feel that he cannot be quoted as an authority when he condemns South Africa.

Yes, but how do we get out of our difficulties?

I have already repeatedly stated our policy, but the hon. member is the type of person who just continues chewing the cud and never derives any food for thought from what he hears.

Now hon. members opposite have asked me to explain a few further points in connection with the Native reserves. I would like to do so. One point was raised by the hon. member for Jeppe (Dr. Cronje), who said that I referred to the curve of the Tomlinson Report in regard to the Bantu in the cities, in connection with the increase or decrease in their numbers, but that we had not complied with the conditions set for the development of the reserves inasmuch as we are not spending approximately £120,000,000 within ten years. That is just a repetition of the old trick of hon. members opposite of continually raising arguments here which have long since been disposed of. Over the years I have often shown how that expenditure of £120,000,000 was arrived at in terms of the old-fashioned method of paying for everything done by the Bantu in their own areas for themselves. I have proved that if betterment works are tackled in terms of the system which has been in operation since 1956, by which the Bantu authorities do work which is intended for their own benefit by means of their own labour and do the upkeep themselves, the same amount of work (according to the calculations of the Department in respect of the two systems) can and will be done for an amount of £30,000,000 over a period of ten years. Why must this argument, which is based on the ordinary direct estimates and can therefore be disposed of on a practical basis, be repeatedly rehashed?

Then he also made an allegation in regard to cities in the Bantu areas, viz. that they are only figments of the imagination. Very well, he can call them that. If an architect draws up a plan for a house, that plan is also a product of his imagination, but the house is built. In this case where the Department is busy developing no fewer than 60 townships which we can develop into urban areas, as e.g. in the vicinity of Newcastle—just as soon as the industrial development comes in that border area—we have to do with something similar to the planning of an architect. In other words, these are not merely figments of the imagination, but planned projects which are already partly being put into practice, which is something quite different.

I must say that the hon. member for Jeppe used an expression here which I must deprecate in passing. It is that he referred to our policy of one of “ enslavement ”. In other words, he tells the world, whatever the consequences might be, that we are creating conditions of slavery here. I do not quite know what he meant by that. Certainly it is not true. He was merely trying to debunk the Government, but I still think that even when a Member of Parliament tries to debunk his opponents he should cast his eye beyond the borders of South Africa and think of the effect his words might have when it is said that an intelligent Member of Parliament who is an economist himself states that South Africa enslaves its non-Whites.

The hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) also made certain allegations. I will deal only with those which seem to be the most important to him. He said that the way in which the Bantu homelands are demarcated means that they will not be able to develop fully, because there will be four or more such separate areas.

They will not have a single national identity.

The hon. member says that they will not be able to develop fully. I cannot understand that, because I cannot see why not. I have repeatedly made it clear that one should compare the development here with what happens in Europe where smaller national units become more dependent economically also, and even some which are bigger, but where they, while retaining their political independence, ensure their own full development in the cultural and other spheres by means of intimate mutual economic interrelations. That is how I see the position here also, viz. that one can satisfy the ambitions of the racial groups in the political sphere separately, even though they cannot all be economically independent but must accept continual mutual economic dependence. Our development of border industries is intended to create sources within the White area which we are able to create and at a fast tempo, and which the private initiative of the Whites can create in their own area, where the Bantu living in the Bantu areas can earn an income which he can spend in his own area and which therefore will assist him in the initial stages of the development of those areas. That results in benefits being derived from mutual development apart from what the industrial development which will be able to take place in the Bantu area can give to the Bantu areas. On the one hand industrial development by the trustee which is the Union will be established, and on the other hand it will be undertaken by the Bantu him self, assisted by special financial and investment facilities which the White guardian or neighbouring state will help to provide. In other words, I accept that one cannot give economic viability to each of these areas, economic independence, but I say that this is not necessary for their development because they can enjoy full political, educational and cultural development as well as mutual economic development in South Africa as a whole, in the same way that a broader economic unit than the separate nations is increasingly developing in Europe.

My point was with reference to political development. I am not concerned about the economic development at this stage. If you have a national unit like the South Sothos who will live in four or more different areas, each surrounded by White areas, how can you say that you are offering them political independence? These four areas will be inaccessible to one another.

That is really the hon. member’s next point which I wanted to deal with. The hon. member intimated that one could not consolidate these areas properly. In regard to the removal of the black spots, certain ridiculous statements were made, that it would take 300 years. The circumstances in which those statements were made are completely different from what the case will be when the development takes place with which we are busy now. Let me deal with that first. The clearing up of black spots is difficult as long as the Department has strenuous opposition from the Bantu living in those black spots and there is no support from the magnet which must draw them nearer, viz. their own central Bantu authority. The Bantu simply think, and certain members of the Opposition sometimes also say so, that the Government is stealing land and cheating the Bantu. Through their conservatism they have also become so accustomed to living in those areas that they refuse to go to other areas which are even better residential and agricultural areas. When we adopt forceful methods by removing them for their own good, we have the whole world against us. Therefore the process of gradual persuasion must be adopted. In that way we do in fact remove them and later they are mostly very grateful but that process is very slow. The moment there is a Bantu authority, say of the South Sotho group, and that authority itself is anxious to have all its people staying together in one area, so that it assists in clearing up the black spots because it wants its people to live together, this can be done much faster. I therefore believe that the consolidation will be much easier as soon as these large ethnic authorities come into existence. Nevertheless I believe that certain areas will always be separate from each other. I think, e.g., of the Zulus who have areas in northern Natal and southern Natal. That will cause a certain amount of difficulty, but it is the same problem Pakistan had but which it managed to solve. In the case of Pakistan I believe that the two parts of the state are separated by 1,000 miles. This will cause difficulty, but it is not insurmountable.

I think I must now come to the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker). With reference to the concept of a state within a state, he asked whether that meant that the Coloureds would have a separate area. I said quite clearly in the beginning, however, that that is the case and that it is in fact an unorthodox idea because it had nothing to do with separate areas. I would not have used the words “ a state within a state ” in the case of separate areas. Then my parallel would have been that of neighbouring nations, as my argument is in regard to the Bantu. The hon. member raised the further point that the Indians should have political rights in some form or other, and therefore it would have to be in the central Parliament. My reply is that that is evidently United Party policy. I dealt with that in the beginning of my speech. But as far as we are concerned, I say that those hon. members always make the mistake of thinking that the only type of political rights is to have rights in the same Parliament, whereas I consider that political rights can be given in the other ways which I explained.

The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hope-well) asked whether I would explain the programme in regard to industrial development in the border areas near the reserves, and he asked certain particular questions. I want to point out that I have an economic adviser who continually gives me advice. At the same time he acts as the liaison officer to the Economic Advisory Council, and that Council is also informed in regard to the planning of border areas. Together with that body certain further conditions for development have been evolved in this regard. The Economic Advisory Council will meet again and what has happened in the meantime will again be discussed with its members. Therefore the economic advice and machinery are in full operation. Apart from that, as the result of consultations and requests, a special body has been established under the chairmanship of Dr. Viljoen, which investigates and takes action in regard to all kinds of steps in connection with the decentralization of industrial development. It has broader implications, but it includes the border areas. This body asked for certain privileges from the Government for the border area development, and it has already been announced— I need not repeat it—what the Government had to say in this regard. I understand that the hon. member is also concerned to know whether Pinetown falls within the area which will be granted such privileges, because he said that Durban did not fall within it. The fact is that Durban is of course already a highly developed industrial area and it would be unfair to grant privileges to it which are not given to Cape Town or Johannesburg, because it is not necessary to provide a stimulus there to bring the Native workers nearer to their own areas so that they can live in the reserves whilst working in the industries. Of course the object of border development is to hasten the process of withdrawing the Bantu from the White areas. At the moment I cannot say whether Pinetown merely adjoins a city location, or whether it is near enough to a Bantu area or reserve and whether it complies with further requirements. This is the type of question which should be put to that Committee, of which Dr. Viljoen is the chairman, which is concerned with the details. He will be able to say whether this particular area falls within the privileged areas or not. I must therefore refer the hon. member to the body specially appointed to deal with local matters. It is true that in Natal most of the urban areas are within a reasonably short distance of such reserves, and under those circumstances it is true in my opinion that Natal will perhaps derive greater benefits from the border development than other provinces.

He asked a further question: Will Indians and Coloureds have the right to participate in the border development in so far as industry is concerned, or will each of these groups just be limited to industries in their own group areas? The group areas are mainly residential areas. Trading is still allowed in certain other areas, but in general we try to reserve the trading rights in the group areas for the group which lives there. However, as far as I can remember, it has not been decided that Coloureds and Indians may not establish undertakings in the industrial areas. That is the position up to now in all the various cities and I do not believe that this Committee has arrived at a different decision. It is not the case that these three groups which must live separately are prevented from establishing industrial undertakings in the industrial areas. I think that disposes of this point.

The hon. member also asked whether this would not lead to Natal becoming quite black now. My opinion is that Natal in this way, by better segregation, will make its White areas whiter and its Black areas blacker.

We have had the Prime Minister speaking for more than an hour, and what we expected has happened. The pertinent questions put to him by this side of the House, except for two exceptions, were left unanswered. From the point of view of the Committee and the country, it was a most unsatisfactory performance, and in view of that we on this side have no alternative but to express our disappointment in the Prime Minister by moving—

The Prime Minister left the major questions put to him unanswered, with two exceptions. He was very definite in the threat he uttered against the free Press of South Africa, and the most remarkable feature about this threat is that he, a politician, would take it upon himself to discipline the Press unless they conform to his idea of what Press freedom should be. But he could not substantiate the general charge he made against the Press by any specific example of the abuse of freedom. It was a general allegation unsupported by any arguments; and what is worse, this threat by the Prime Minister anticipated the most dilatory commission in the history of South Africa. For something like seven years now, or longer, a Press Commission has been sitting investigating this very question, but the Prime Minister pre-judges the report of that judicial commission and did not produce any concrete evidence in support of his claim that there is abuse of freedom by the Press. There the Prime Minister was definite. There again we see the value of the protestations we have had that the republic to come will be a democratic republic. On the very eve of its establishment, in one of the first utterances by the Prime Minister after the House passed the third reading of the Constitution Bill, we have the announcement that the freedom of the Press is at stake in the future republic.

The second item on which the Prime Minister showed that he was definite was in his defence of the S.A.B.C., and he made the most amazing statement, that for the first time in the history of South Africa now the people are getting objective news. Does he suggest that for the past 12 years under previous Nationalist Prime Ministers the S.A.B.C. was not broadcasting objectively? Will he deny that for many years before the new régime we have had men in the Press gallery reporting the proceedings of Parliament for the S.A.B.C., and never has this side of the House raised any objection or criticism to those reports, because they were fair. Surely it is significant that throughout South Africa voices are rising in protest against the news and the comments on the news given by the S.A.B.C. only since the new chairman was appointed.

But on the true issue before us, which is what is the future of South Africa in the present circumstances, in the complete isolation in which the Prime Minister has landed us, there was no reply from the Prime Minister to any of the many pertinent questions put to him by this side of the House. His whole scheme and his policy evaporated into vagueness. We still do not know from the Prime Minister what he envisages the ultimate relationship to be between South Africa and the independent Bantustans. He speaks vaguely of a relationship similar to that of the Commonwealth, but in the same breath he tells us that White South Africa cannot survive in the Commonwealth because the majority of the members are Black. But he wants to create a Commonwealth where seven or eight states will be Black and only one will be White. We ask the Prime Minister about the future position of the Coloureds and the Indians. In a previous speech, days ago, he told us about this idea of parallel parliaments. Our leader put it to him that you cannot have the writ of two sovereign parliaments running over the same territory and asked him what the relationship would be between these two parliaments, but there was no reply. But the Prime Minister told us to-day that his policy was intended to move away from the domination of one race by another. I want to know, and the people want to know: If there is, e.g., a Cape Coloured parliament and a White parliament, will they both be sovereign, and if so, what organization will exist to correlate their activities? Or if they are not both sovereign, if the Coloured parliament is not to have jurisdiction over matters like defence and communications and foreign policy, which parliament will have it? The White parliament? And if the White parliament has it, surely the Coloured parliament is subservient and there is still domination. All these questions are left unanswered.

I think the people should realize what the trouble is with the Prime Minister. He has a programme for the moment, but not a policy for the future. His programme for the moment is that in all aspects of life there must be White domination but there must be no contact which can be avoided between the various races. He has a programme which finds expression in such preposterous activities that the Eoan Group, which makes a remarkable contribution to the culture of South Africa, cannot get a subsidy from the Government because they will not agree to play only before unracial audiences. That is the programme for the moment, but there is no policy for the future. Sir, he speaks about detail, but he suffocates South Africa in detailed administration of our race relations and he thinks that all these little detailed acts of discrimination constitute a policy. The difference between the Prime Minister and us is that while he and his supporters suffocate South Africa in detail, we have a policy for the future.

What is it?

It is perfectly true that we do not offer the people of South Africa every minor detail of the concept we have for South Africa, because we know that a great many people will have to co-operate in working out these details and we do not want to take up the attitude of the Prime Minister, who believes that a parliament, unrepresentative of the people of the country like this one we have to-day, should take unto itself the function of determining the future course of South Africa without consultation and recognition of the other race groups who will be affected by that policy. The difference between him and the United Party is that we say this is the concept of a race federation, but we are willing, in consultation with all groups here in the sovereign Parliament of South Africa where the final decisions are to be taken, to work out the details.

With their own people?

In the case of the Coloureds, yes, with their own people, and in the case of the Natives, with their White representatives. Sir, I am surprised at this emphasis by my hon. friend opposite on this point. The difference between them and us is not who represents whom; the difference between them and us is whether anybody will represent the other race groups in South Africa. For people who, as my leader said, the themselves up in an ideological straitjacket and who believe that it will be the end of White civilization for people representing other race groups in South Africa to take their seats in this House, for them to quibble about whether the representatives of other race groups should be white, pink or blue, amazes me. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) has shown himself this morning to be more adept at asking questions than at replying to questions because he is an hon. member who asks a question not in order to elicit a reply, but as a pretext for a story. Although he has been given a full reply by the hon. the Prime Minister, he has once again shown this to be so. The hon. member must not think that we shall so lightly leave him in the rôle of questioner. They have raised these questions, and the hon. member has given a more urgent character to these questions by the last sentence he used on the last occasion he spoke, that is to say when, in discussing the United Party’s racial federation, he said: This is a federation in which each race will be given a share in the government of the country. This is the first time we have been given more detailed clarification of this plan. In other words this will be a racial federation not based on a geographic division alone but on a racial division. The Leader of the Opposition has made that clear. The separate Bantu areas as such will form geographic components of the racial federation. We have further been told that each race will be given a share in the government. What is this if it is not the concept of a state within a state? The Coloured race will constitute a federal unit within their racial federation; the Indian race will form a federal unit within their racial federation, and apparently the urban Bantu either alone or together with the Whites will form another federal unit within the racial federation. These are the gentlemen who put forward such unformulated vague ideas, and who ridicule the Prime Minister because he has put forward the concept of a state within a state. And if what I have now said is not correct, namely, that they are speaking of a racial federation on the basis of a state within a state, then I say that the whole concept is nothing but a colossal bluff, an untruth, which they want to foist onto South Africa. Then they are not speaking of a federation. Then they are advocating nothing but a mixed Union Parliament. Then the whole concept of racial federation is a misused concept; then there is nothing federal about this whole idea. But let us take the matter a little further. The hon. member for Yeoville and his leader have now begun defining what exactly the difference is between their proposals and those of the Progressives. The Progressives propose one common fatherland in which these various races will be intermingled in the government and in which the place of the White man must be safeguarded by a rigid constitution. When the idea was raised by the Leader of the Opposition, the intention was that this federal concept should protect the permanent rights of the White man in South Africa. If their concept of a racial federation envisages a grouping of the races in this country, what mechanism will they use to entrench the discrimination in favour of the Whites? Because the hon. member for Yeoville has admitted this morning that they want to discriminate in favour of the Whites. What is the difference in principle between the Progressives and those hon. members? No, the hon. member for Yeoville and his leader are not seriously propagating a racial federation. The hon. members are referring to a misleading concept in order, for a time, to serve their party political purposes and their criticism of the Prime Minister is not based on the fact that the Prime Minister is not giving clear guidance to South Africa. The member for Yeoville was one of the executioners of his party’s former leader, Mr. Strauss, and he and all his colleagues now want to be the executioners of our leader. This whole refusal to understand what the Prime Minister is saying is an attempt to discredit the Prime Minister. We do not say that our Prime Minister is infallible; he has taken up an unequivocal stand in respect of the principle of the right of self-determination for the White man and the right of the White man to live in this country, but he is the first to concede that he is a mortal like all of us and must consult his own counsellors and all those who have knowledge of these matters. He also admits his mistakes but this is the difference: he represents the will to survive in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister is the bearer of the vision that we should tackle our difficult problems and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his main supporters are the bearers of the concept that we should be oppressed by fear, that we should shrink within ourselves, that we should seek compromise, escape and security at any price. We can describe our leader as the voice of life in South Africa with all its tribulations and the Leader of the Opposition as the seductive voice of death in this country. Let us make this quite clear. The course of history is not determined merely by the mechanical plans and behaviour of a country’s leaders. Every great development in history has arisen and ended when the will to fight of mankind has given place to weakness. The will to fight is the strongest political and military weapon of all time, and what this Opposition are trying to do by their questions and by their omission and refusal and inability to understand, is trying to paralyze and to weaken the political will to fight of White South Africa and in the place of that spirit they put these vague generalizations which they themselves have not yet thought out properly. This brings me once again to the aspect of a state within a state. It is not so terribly strange. If hon. members would refer to the extensive studies of the minority problem which were undertaken by the relevant committee of the League of Nations during the period 1923 to 1932, they would find a great deal of material dealing with the concept of how the rights of a minority can be dealt with by the evolution of functional powers within a state instead of territorial powers. The old Ottoman empire existed for centuries with its whole State organization based on the millets which had separate religious communities and extensive rights not only in respect of all educational and family matters, but even the registration of deeds and other activities within that community. The present constitution of Soviet Russia, the friends of those gentlemen who previously blessed the weapons of that State, provides in its constitution for the establishment of what they call constituent republics, autonomous republics, autonomous areas and national areas. These national areas and to an extent these autonomous regions of the Soviet Union are nothing but a modern realization of the concept of a state within a state. Section 11 of the constitution of the Soviet Union and its application make this quite clear. Section 11 of the Constitution provides—

And the comments of the author O. Janowsky are—

[Time limit.]

I do not intend dealing with the remarks made by the last speaker. I want to come to the statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister in connection with the freedom of the Press, and I want to tell the Prime Minister that nothing will shock the country more than the statement made by him this morning about the freedom of the Press. I was shocked to hear the Prime Minister of South Africa say these things. We are used to members like the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) and (Wolmarans-stad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) indulging in these extravagances, but we never expected the Prime Minister, particularly at this juncture of our history, to indulge in the language that he used. It was a clear threat to the freedom of the Press of South Africa. It was a clear serving of notice on the Press of South Africa that if they do not change action will be taken against them. The crux of the matter is that we have to decide whether the Press in South Africa reports news and offers comment freely and fairly on incidents in South Africa. That is the crux of the matter, and I would like to know from the Prime Minister who is to be the judge—the National Party, the Government? Who is to be the judge in this connection?

The Broederbond.

I do not for one moment want to create the impression that mistakes are not being made by our Press in South Africa. Mistakes are made by the Press throughout the whole of the world. Exaggerations are indulged in and mistakes are made and sensationalism is indulged in. All that we know, but we also know that right throughout the free world, the judgment is left to the readers of the Press, and should the Press indulge in unfair comment and the slanting of news in an unfair manner, they lose their influence and their readers.

That is why the Transvaler has no circulation.

We in South Africa have become used to the practice that no limitation is put on the freedom of the Press. I say most categorically that the reputation that the Press in South Africa has built up is recognized throughout the world and it ill becomes the Prime Minister to throw this suspicion on the good name of our Press.

What good name?

The hon. the Prime Minister has told us more than once, particularly now that we are going to change to the republican form of government, that the people of South Africa need have no fear, we will still be a free country under the republic, democracy will still be practised in the country. What sort of democracy are we going to have? We are going to have a democracy in which every individual will have to obey the dictates of the Nationalist Party. If not, he or she will be banned. If the Press does not heed the dictates of the Nationalist Party, they will be controlled. For publishing comment in which they sincerely believe, they have been labelled as comrades in arms of the communists and they have been accused of undermining the State. I want to say once again that this is one of the most unfortunate happenings that we have had in this country, particularly at this juncture. Reference has been made by the hon. member for Yeoville to the fact that for ten years the Press in South Africa has been operating under the shadow of a Press Commission. For ten years the taxpayer in South Africa has had to pay thousands upon thousands of pounds to have this investigation made, and we still have no information to this day as to the findings of that commission. When are we going to have it? In addition to that, instead of waiting for the findings of that commission the Prime Minister pre-judges the whole position, and to-day he issues that threat to the Press of South Africa. I say once again that if that is the future for South Africa, then I doubt very much whether there is going to be a future.

In reply to what the Leader of the Progressive Party has just said, I want to thank the hon. the Prime Minister, on behalf of the right-minded Whites of South Africa, for the statement which he has made this morning regarding the Press in South Africa. I want to thank him for the fine and patient way in which he has appealed to the Press of this country to come together and to examine their own position and to examine their own consciences. Mr. Chairman, it is not a shocking statement which the hon. the Prime Minister has made. I shall tell the House what is shocking in this country. It is shocking that a Press like the English-language Press of South Africa is being allowed to say these things about the country in which they have their home and in which they are located and in which we and our children must live. This statement by the Prime Minister is not shocking. I shall tell the House what is shocking. What is shocking is the leading article of the Cape Times which appeared during this last week, because I cannot describe it as anything but treason against South Africa. I am not afraid of the word “ treason ”. The time has come for us to take action and stand the consequences.

Repeat that outside.

The hon. member must keep quiet. We knew him when he was a journalist. We also read his articles when he sat on the Press gallery of this House, and he must now cease making interjections whenever we discuss these matters which affect him. This has now become his practice, and I do not think that he can afford to do so. If I were to become personal and insult him in this House he would have asked for it. I say that it is the most shocking thing possible that the Press of this country can publish an article in which it is stated that South Africa is a police state. Would any newspaper in a police state be allowed to say such a thing of that country and that government? The question which must be answered is whether a newspaper in a police state would be allowed to say that that country is a police state, if it is a police state, and then to continue publishing its articles every day? No, we have had certain admissions here, and I am very glad about the admissions we have had from the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). I think the hon. member for Yeoville should now join us …

We do not want him.

…in seeing that something is done about the Press. Or is the hon. member satisfied with the article which appeared in the Rand Daily Mail reporting his speech?

Yes, I am satisfied.

We do not need you to help us.

Is the hon. member satisfied with the contents of his speech as reported in the Rand Daily Mail and as quoted by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Education?

Must I now discipline the Rand Daily Mail?

Is the hon. member satisfied that a newspaper which provides news to thousands of readers has reported him incorrectly on a political matter which is a very delicate matter and which could cost the United Party many votes. Because, if the hon. member had not had the opportunity this morning to say that he had not read that article, then the readers of that newspaper would have been entitled to interpret the contents of that article as published in that newspaper. No, we shall take this matter to its conclusion; we cannot go on like this. I should like to associate myself with the hope, as the hon. the Prime Minister has stated quite clearly, that it will not become necessary for higher authority to call the Press to order. I trust that our Press in South Africa will make a positive contribution towards the creation of greater national unity. [Laughter.] Here we have this hollow laughter. Those hon. members must not think that we are going to become soft in order to achieve greater national unity. If we did not regard this as such an absolutely serious matter, if we were not in such absolute earnest in our attempts to create real national unity, we could destroy the United Party and the Opposition if we were prepared also to scratch in its past and to reveal what it has done to the Afrikaans-speaking people of this country.

But I want to ask: Let us leave it at that, not because we are afraid of the past, but because we are striving to achieve a finer future for your children and mine. We are in earnest when we discuss these matters, but do not expect us to sacrifice our principles which are necessary to safeguard the position of the White man in South Africa.

I want to thank the hon. member for Yeoville briefly for having replied to one of our questions by saying that, in this proposed United Party federation, under this new policy, there will be discrimination. He has told us something else, and we now know that the representatives of the non-Whites in that federation will be Coloureds. I should now just like to have further clarity on this point: The hon. member has said that the Coloureds will be represented by Coloureds.

Yes, if Coloureds are elected.

Very well, I just want clarity in respect of the Whites first of all. Will these White representatives of the non-Whites in this federation be elected or will they be appointed? I am very stupid in this regard, but the hon. member has left us in the dark.

I have said “ representatives ”.

Yes, representatives elected by the Natives.

I said “representatives ”, not stooges.

Will those representatives be nominated or elected by the non-Whites?

Just answer the question if it is so easy.

If the hon. member still does not have clarity on this point, then he should tell us that this is a part of the policy which has not yet been worked out. Must I accept that they will be elected?

If they are representative they must be elected. What childishness is this?

If they are to be elected, will all the Bantu vote? Will they vote on an ethnic basis? Which Bantu will elect those representatives?

You are not addressing a school board now.

How many Bantu states will there be? Mr. Chairman, the hon. member must not make me discuss school boards. I was a member of the Transvaal Provincial Council and I know what humiliation the Afrikaner experienced when the United Party was in power, when there were United Party school boards. He must not talk about school boards. I am putting questions to the hon. member for Yeoville, and I shall not allow him to distract me. He is altogether too junior in politics to ask me questions in that regard.

How senior are you? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) must please stop making interjections all the time. He is talking continually.

I said “hear, hear”. I can say “ hear, hear ” to my members.

Order! Apologize.

Order! The hon. member must cease continually making interjections.

With all due respect, I only said “ hear, hear ” to a remark made on this side of the House; it has nothing to do with the hon. member.

I am referring to remarks which the hon. member has been making repeatedly during the last minute. The hon. member may proceed.

I am putting this question and I hope the hon. member for Yeoville is senior enough in the United Party to reply for himself. I do not want distracting replies from backbenchers on his side. I want to know how the electoral colleges are to be constituted which will elect the Whites who are to represent the non-Whites in his federation.

I shall send you a copy of our policy. It is made quite clear there.

Is it printed already?

Yes.

I should just like to know whether it will cost 5 cents or whether we will get it for nothing, or whether it now costs more.

You can have it for nothing; you need it.

Thank you. I now expect the hon. member to send me one free of charge. We had to pay 6d. for the other one.

As regards the Coloureds who are to be represented by Coloureds, have the United Party now abandoned their policy that they will strive to restore the Coloureds to a common electoral roll or will they keep them on a separate electoral roll?

That is also in writing.

On this issue the United Party have expelled a member from their party and from this Parliament, namely Dr. Bernard Friedman. I should like to know what the new amended policy of the United Party is as far as the Coloureds are concerned. Are the Coloureds to remain on a separate roll when they elect their representatives in the federal parliament, or does the United Party still stand by its 1946 policy and by the statement of the late Mr. Hofmeyr to the effect that the Indians should also sit in this House, that the Indians should also be represented here? As regards the Whites who are to represent the Bantu here, which Bantu will elect those Whites and what will their franchise qualifications be? Will only male Bantu have the franchise or will female Bantu also have the franchise? How far does the United Party’s discrimination go and how democratic can it be if it wants to safeguard the position of the White man in that federation?

I should like to refer to the remarks made by the hon. the Prime Minister in discussing the educational system in the Transvaal, especially the election of school boards. I do not suggest for a moment that the hon. the Prime Minister has misled the House and his followers but I think he has been misled by his representatives in the Transvaal. The position in the Transvaal is briefly this. The system that we had for almost 50 years, from before the time of Union, was that two-thirds of the members of the school boards were elected and one-third nominated. In the case of a school board of 12 members, eight were elected and four were nominated by the Administration. Where there were nine members, six were elected and three nominated. The voters’ roll was the voters’ roll of the taxpayers. Everybody voted whether they had children at school or not. After the result of the election was declared, very often not on political lines—in the country districts especially it was often not on political lines—the Administration used to nominate (I am speaking of personal experience now), on the advice of the magistrate and usually the local Provincial Councillor. They nominated one representative from each language group or two from each group. I remember on one occasion a local predikant was nominated and an English-speaking merchant, and in that way a certain balance was observed. Both sections of the population were nominated and both sections were represented. Now the Nationalist Government in the Transvaal have introduced a new system. They have introduced the ward system where members of the board—again two-thirds of the members—are elected on a ward system where the parents of the children vote. English-speaking schools and Afrikaans-speaking schools are put on two separate rolls. In other words, in the Transvaal we are perpetuating the system of dividing the children in the schools. The National Party are quite determined to do that, and now that we are speaking of national unity I think this system should be revised. However, that is the system. As a result of that system we find that the School Board that the Nationalist Government in the Transvaal were anxious to tackle was the Witwatersrand Central School Board in Johannesburg. In one of the elections some years ago seven anti-Nationalists were elected and one Nationalist, and the anti-Nationalists were not all members of the United Party. Some of them were not active politicians at all but it was seven and one, so that with four nominated Nationalists they still did not have a majority. But now they have this ward system of election they have five anti-Nationalists and three Nationalists. By nominating four, with their three, they have seven Nationalists and five anti-Nationalists. In other words, they have used the nomination system to upset the voting of the parents. The question is: what is the motive? There is no question about the motive. When I quoted the motive the hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. D. J. Potgieter) tried to add his explanation. It is a coincidence that we have representatives of the various provincial administrations in the city to-day. Yesterday one of them from the Transvaal was interviewed. A newspaper correspondent tried to have an interview with the Administrator of the Transvaal but he said that Mr. van Niekerk, a member of the Executive Committee was responsible directly to the Executive Committee for the administration of education. Mr. van Niekerk, two days ago, was perfectly frank, brutally frank, in saying that they are making political nominations. I am very pleased, and very grateful to the hon. the Prime Minister for saying, that he regrets that they have done it in that way in Johannesburg. I think that was the opinion of most people who have the interests of education at heart. This is what Mr. van Niekerk said—

That means, Sir, that these are political nominations we are having in education. The hon. the Prime Minister pointed out that in places such as Potchefstroom and Lydenburg (I know them both well) where they did not have English-speaking representatives, they could now have them. But they did have them before we had this Nationalist Administration. We did have them under the nomination system. As I explained, the Administration of the Transvaal nominated representatives of the minority group.

Where? Give us one example.

I think it is most regrettable that in our education they are now trying to capture the only school board the Nationalists could not capture, the Witwatersrand Central School Board, and that they used this device, that they stooped to this device, in order to control the Johannesburg School Board. The next point I should like to come to, Sir, is rather an unpleasant one. I regret very much indeed that the hon. the Prime Minister in order to bolster up his case, should have produced in this House a circular by a stockbroker to his clients. Sir, when a stockbroker sends out any document, he has to send that document to his clients and only to his clients. Here I have an annual Investors’ Financial Directory sent out by a firm of stockbrokers, and it says very clearly “ Issued for the information of clients by …”. A stockbroker under the rules of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange may not send circulars to any person except his clients.

Why do we get them?

You get them because a client has given it to you, or you have dealt with the stockbroker.

The Prime Minister was not a client of this stockbroker.

The hon. the Prime Minister did not say that he got it as a client. The hon. the Prime Minister is much too discreet for that. I presume the hon. the Prime Minister got it from some person who said “ This stockbroker has sent out a very pessimistic circular; his weekly circular is very pessimistic”. He mentioned the firm. I will not mention a firm. I am not a stockbroker, but I have had experience of the Stock Exchange. What has happened is that in the weekly circular, the stockbroker has reviewed the international and financial situation and he has advised his clients what they should do in the circumstances. The same firm, to my knowledge, has criticized the United Party at times. This time they criticized the Government for using the word “apartheid ”. It is a bad word in the world to-day; it is not mentioned in respectable company. He says “ Make it a little gentler for my people overseas ”. From week to week he sends out his review of the situation. Should he always send out an optimistic report? That is the question we have to ask.

Then he would be misleading his clients.

Had a stockbroker a year ago sent out a circular to his clients, after Sharpeville, saying: “ This Government has blundered again; it will go from bad to worse. This is only the beginning. They are also going to have a referendum, and should they win the referendum, there will be another slump on the market ”—had he said that, that would according to hon. members opposite not have been in the interest of South Africa. But it would have been in the service of his clients, and it would have been true. He would have been giving good information. Now his advice to-day may be “ Don’t go into the market yet, wait a little while, but don’t sell what you have ”. That he may say to his clients. He does not make a public statement. He may not make public statements under the rules of the Stock Exchange. He merely says “ Don’t rush in to buy to-day. I think the situation seems worse than ever, judging by UNO; it is 93 to one now; 3,000,000,000 people in the world are opposed to this Government ”. [Time limit.]

I was discussing the concept of a state within a state and the fact that we had historical as well as modern examples of the devolution of powers on a functional basis within the state and not necessarily on a geographic basis. I now want to discuss briefly the very clear picture which the hon. the Prime Minister has given us of what this party’s concept of the future is. I am now discussing the Coloureds, but in principle my remarks apply to the Indians, except that the Indians will not have a representative here in this Parliament. What has the hon. the Prime Minister indicated? In the first place he has indicated that there will be a devolution of powers as regards the own interests of the Coloureds in respect of matters such as education, social welfare and so on. In the second place, the hon. the Prime Minister has indicated that there may be a devolution of powers which are also linked to certain geographic matters, insofar as they relate to the control of towns and cities occupied exclusively under the provisions of the Group Areas Act by a particular population group. And these general indications can obviously be supplemented now or at any later stage and—more wisely from our own experience by saying: This or that interest of this community will fall under the control of their own legislative assembly. As a co-operative spirit is established, these powers can be made very extensive. But, Mr. Chairman, what is cardinal to and clear from the speech by the hon. the Prime Minister is that as far as the Coloureds are concerned, the Coloureds who form part of this Western community with a common fate which occupies South Africa, they will retain their Parliamentary representation on the present basis through Whites, while this devolution of powers of a state within a state is taking place. And as regards the Indians, the hon. the Prime Minister has quite rightly been silent on the point because it is not the intention that the Indians should be represented here because the Indian has a long way to go within his own group community.

I now want to compare this extremely clear concept with the racial federation of the United Party. What do the United Party say about their racial federation? They say: (a) the Coloureds will be represented by Coloureds in this Parliament: Question 1: In what numerical proportions will the Coloureds be so represented? Will they be given a number of representatives based on the number of qualified Coloured voters, or will the Coloureds be restored to the common voters’ roll which is still the policy of the United Party as has once again been indicated during this Session? And if we are to have a varying number of Coloured representatives, how is the federal conception to be expressed? Is the United Party going to give these Coloured representatives federal powers in respect of Coloured affairs? What is their attitude, and if this is not the position why then are they speaking of a federation if they do not want to mislead us? Then we come to the second aspect, namely the position of the Indian. Here exactly the same question applies. According to the present edition of the United Party’s policy, the Indians will not be given a large number of representatives, an unspecified number, but will the Indian representatives also have federal powers in respect of their racial group? What is their policy?

And now we come to the urban Natives, in the first place. And here the United Party must speak. Will the urban Natives, whom they say must also be represented, vote on the basis of a separate Union-wide voters roll for a fixed number of representatives? How will that electoral roll be drawn up? What qualifications do they have in mind? What numbers do they have in mind? Sometimes they speak of six, sometimes they speak of 12 Native Representatives. Why six and why 12? They must begin to clarify their federation, already asked in passing: Are these urban Bantu going to form one federated group together with the Whites, or are the Bantu going to form a separate federal group within the group, and what will be their federal functions? Hon. members are laughing and I do not blame them. Any reasonable person would laugh at such nonsense, because this is what the United Party are advocating. They have advocated the most absolute unformulated nonsense in an attempt merely to have something to contrast with the clear ideas of the Prime Minister.

The clear ideas?

Yes, the clear ideas. Mr. Chairman, the United Party contains three types of member.« The one type of member is like the hon. member for Yeoville who can understand but who does not want to understand because he wants to mislead the public. Then there is the category in which the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Horak) falls, namely those who cannot understand, but who do at least want to understand; and then we have the category in which the absent member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) for example falls, namely those who cannot or do not want to understand. He just wants to make a noise. Mr. Chairman, I say that the United Party’s concept is a most vague, confusing and misleading concept which they have merely put forward in order to have something with which to counter the clear policy of the Prime Minister.

I want to make one final point and it relates once again to the hon. member for Yeoville who is not in the House at the moment. I listened very carefully to his reply to the hon. Deputy Minister of Education relating to his reported statements which the hon. member for Yeoville did make not at a chance meeting, but at a meeting, as he himself has admitted, of the women’s council of the United Party in Pretoria. The hon. member for Yeoville did not specifically deny that he made the statement which has been reported, namely that he regarded it as essential that the representatives of the Natives in this Parliament should in the course of time be “ Africans ”. He has stated that he remembers that the general tenor of his remarks was that no population group could remain unrepresented and that future parliaments could always decide on a change. But the hon. member has not stated categorically and clearly: “ I deny that I said before the Women’s Council of the United Party in Pretoria that in the course of time the Native Representatives in this Parliament would be Natives.” The hon. member has had the opportunity to rise and to confirm or to deny specifically that he made that statement. Let the hon. member now take the opportunity to say whether he specifically denies that he said what the Rand Daily Mail has attributed to him, and if he does so, then the hon. member will be giving strong support to the complaints which have been made about the sense of the responsibility of the South African Press. Because if the hon. member for Yeoville did in fact not make this statement, namely that Natives should be represented in this House by Natives, and the Rand Daily Mail has falsely attributed these words to him, then that paper has done a great injustice to the hon. member for Yeoville which gives us reason to consider taking some type of action against such misrepresentations. It is now up to the hon. member for Yeoville to choose between the two alternatives.

I want to associate myself with all those hon. members who have objected to the attacks which have been made on the Press of South Africa. We in South Africa have good reason to be proud of our Press, the Press which ever since the days of Fairbairn and Pringle has been built up in South Africa over the years by honest and hard-working journalists, and which has been built on the great principles of journalism, which we have derived mainly from overseas countries and particularly from Britain, where the principle of Press freedom is regarded as being of the utmost importance. That is why I regard it as so deplorable when we have attacks on the Press such as that made by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg). The hon. member has risen and accused a great South African newspaper, the Cape Times, of treason. The word “ treason ” is one of the ugliest words which can be used as an accusation against a newspaper or a person. I now challenge the hon. member to repeat this accusation against the Cape Times on a public platform outside, and if he does not do so he is a political coward.

Order! The hon. member may not say that.

Coming from the hon. member for Orange Grove, I do not have any objection.

I do not think it befits the hon. member to make such an accusation.

I have never used the words which you are attributing to me.

I call the rest of the House as witnesses that the hon. member used the word “ treason ”.

Just check it up in the Hansard report.

If I were the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, I would not have been so ready to use that word in view of the actions of the newspapers which support that side of the House in the past when South Africa was in great danger. At that time I was a member of the Nationalist Party and I wrote things which I now realize were completely wrong, and which I regret to-day. I admit it. The difference is that what was written at that time is still the Nationalist Party’s policy to-day and it was the Nationalist Party’s policy at that time. It is no longer my policy.

We can safely examine the court judgment in the case in which the hon. the Prime Minister was involved. The House will remember that he instituted a libel case against the Star. The Star had apparently said that the hon. the Prime Minister and his newspaper were instruments of the Nazis. The Prime Minister instituted a libel case against the Star, and lost his case. The Judge said that the Star was right in its accusation against the Prime Minister. Mr. Chairman, what is going to happen as regards this threat against the Press of South Africa? Hon. members opposite have made far too many threats over the past few days for us to think that nothing will come of what the Prime Minister has said to-day.

A few weeks ago I placed a question on the Order Paper. I asked: Is it the Government’s intention to re-introduce the Publications Bill. The hon. the Minister of the Interior then gave a vague reply. I think it was a reasonable question and I now want to put it again directly and pertinently to the Prime Minister. Is he going to re-introduce the Publications Bill, and if so, is he going to do so during this Session, or will he do so under the republic? We want to know. The country was delighted when we heard that that Bill was no longer to be introduced, that it had been withdrawn. We now see that there is once again a threat and that pressure is being exercised on the Cabinet and the Prime Minister by certain organizations to have the Bill introduced. We want to know what is going to happen in this regard and what is going to happen in respect of the Internal Censorship Bill? It is important that we should know what further steps against the Press of South Africa are being envisaged.

Press freedom is not something which is a gift from the Government. Press freedom is something on which the whole democratic system depends. Press freedom is something which should be accepted as something which should not be exposed to the subjective decision of a government on this side or a government on that side, or of any government. Hon. members have referred to the irresponsibility of the Press. Who is to judge what is irresponsibility? The hon. the Prime Minister does not have the right to do so, nor does his Government, just as little as the United Party would have the right to judge and to say simply because the Press expresses opinions what is irresponsibility. There are laws relating to libel and there are existing laws which define high treason. These laws are more than adequate to ensure that the Press do not overstep the bounds of propriety. There are laws dealing with libel and pornography. Very well, let those laws be applied. Do not let us have further threats and attacks on the Press which do not agree with the opinions of hon. members opposite. When we on this side of the House say that Press freedom should not come under the control of the Minister or a board or anything else, then the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) says that is not an argument. The truth as regards Press freedom is very well put in the words of Mil-ton, namely: “Let truth and falsehood grapple; whoever knew truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter.” If the truth has any substance, then truth will triumph.

Mr. Chairman, why are we having these threats against the Press? Because the hon. the Prime Minister was unable to explain our case and the case of the Nationalist Party at all convincingly at the Commonwealth Conference. It has been said that we are encouraging the Press to tell untruths. We do not have the same ability to influence the Press as the other side of the House with its Information Service. The Prime Minister went overseas himself and explained personally to the other Commonwealth Prime Ministers what South Africa’s position was in his opinion. And at that Conference where he had personal contacts, where he had his Minister of External Affairs with him, where he spoke to Mr. Macmillan, and where he had Press interviews and appeared on television, he was a failure. And at UNO where he has his diplomats, where they have their contacts in the lobby, where they regularly have the opportunity to explain South Africa’s position, where pamphlets of the Information Service are distributed, where newspaper advertisements are placed, where television is used, they have failed.

Why? Can hon. members not see why they have failed? Has it not at some stage or another penetrated to their minds that perhaps the fault to some small degree lies with them, that there is perhaps a little error somewhere in their thinking, as well as in their ideas and in their policy? Are they so ossified by the granite curtain which the Prime Minister has drawn around them that they cannot see the other side of the case? That they cannot see that there may in fact be reason for criticism? And can they not see that one does not smother criticism by trying to extinguish it, and that one of the most dangerous things which they could do to South Africa would be to institute some type of Press censorship? If anything of that nature should ever happen here in South Africa, then it could herald the end of our country as we know it to-day. [Time limit.]

It surprises one that certain hon. members opposite rise and speak with great indignation because Government members are interpreting a feeling of indignation and dissatisfaction with certain parts of our Press which is prevalent in the country. I can come to no other conclusion but that certain people may apparently have guilty consciences. The Press is a mighty weapon which plays a great rôle, particularly in respect of the attitude of people overseas. It is an instrument which can also play a great rôle in determining the relations in our country between the various racial groups, White and non-White, and Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking. When one sees what has been done in the past, then there is every reason for the indignation which has been expressed on this side of the House and the contention that the Press should start disciplining itself. I want to quote today what has been written by someone who is in a position to present the Afrikaans-speaking section to the English-speaking section. In 1945 this person wrote about one of the greatest statesmen our country has produced, namely Dr. D. F. Malan. This person wrote as follows—

A few years later, in 1951, this same person wrote the following words, but he was then writing in a different publication. His subject was once against the character (not the policy) of Dr. D. F. Malan. On this occasion he wrote as follows—

The person who on these two occasions discussed the character—and not the policy—of Dr D. F. Malan and who interpreted him in this way to the people for whom he was writing, is the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) who has just sat down. I therefore think that I am correct in saying that the indignation which the hon. member has expressed does not befit him at all. The hon. member for Queenstown (Dr. Steytler) has also just referred with the utmost indignation to the fact that we dare object to the actions of the English Press. I do not want to disclose personal conversations between the hon. member and myself, but I do not think I am doing the hon. member an injustice when I say that in the course of private conversations with me he has said that much of the discord in South Africa has been caused by the English Press of our country. And now I should like to discuss the reasons for the indignation which exists, and in doing so I am not urging that steps should be taken against the Press, but I am doing so because I feel that the time has come for the Press to discipline itself. In 1952 we also had difficulties and disturbances in South Africa. The House will remember the disturbances at New Brighton. After these disturbances, and before the Government had taken any action as yet, the Cape Times wrote on the morning of 21 October 1952—and I regard the date as very important—

It then went on to discuss what the Government might do, and said—

It went on—

And then in conclusion it said—

But, Mr. Chairman, what I regard as being of importance is what appeared exactly 24 hours later in the same newspaper. This time it was not reporting on the disturbances at New Brighton, in respect of which no action had yet been taken and in respect of which suspicion had already been created against the Government. On this occasion it was reporting that the British Royal Air Force had bombed the Mau Mau in the Aberdere mountains of Kenya. On 22 October 1952 under the heading “ Swift action in Kenya ” the same newspaper wrote as follows—

This is the British Government of that territory—

And it stated repeatedly how commendable this strong action was in Kenya. Then this newspaper ended as follows—

That is comment.

When we object to comment, it is suddenly something quite different to when we object to distorted reporting. The objection which we have to the behaviour of newspapers such as this is the following. When an Afrikaner Government in South Africa wants to take action, suspicion is aroused against it in advance in the minds of the English-speaking people of this country and in the minds of the outside world which reads this Press. But when the British Government bombs the Mau Mau in Kenya it is applauded as vigorously as they can. That is the difference. The difference is simply that here we have an Afrikaner Government which must be broken; there in Kenya it is a British Government which must be supported in the actions it takes and in times of emergency. It is because of behaviour of this type that the people of South Africa feel aggrieved, and it is because of behaviour of this type that I want to express the hope that the Press itself will realize that, under the conditions with which we are faced, the time has come for it to discipline itself.

In this debate we have heard a great deal of discussion on me subject of our potential losses of the material benefits of membership of the Commonwealth, particularly in the economic and military spheres. But very little has been said of our loss as a nation of opportunity to play our part in the great team of nations in promoting and protecting those fundamental institutions and conceptions culminated to foster individual human liberties. In this respect I want to refer particularly to the world fight against Communism.

The hon. the Prime Minister has on many occasions claimed that South Africa is a very valuable ally of the Western world because we are strongly anti-communist. But we on this side of the House believe that by their unimaginative treatment of the unprivileged people of South Africa the Government have, in point of fact, created a most fertile possible field for Communism and are, possibly unwittingly, the strongest allies of the communists in Africa. I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister himself acknowledged that when, on his return from England, at the D. F. Malan Airport he made the following statement. Referring to the London conversations, he said—

In other words that was surely a very frank admission that in the fight against communist aggression South Africa was an embarrassment to Great Britain. I believe in the Prime Minister’s treatment of the Indian people in South Africa, with the inevitable repercussions on the nation of India, he has given an outstanding example of how he is failing the Western world in this fight against Communism. We have heard him introduce the new concept with his unique capacity for explaining the inexplicable and defending the indefensible, in speaking of the four parallelisms and the conception of a state within a state. He made it quite clear that it is his ultimate intention to place the Indian people of South Africa under a Department of Indian Affairs very similar to the Department of Coloured Affairs which controls the lives and the future of the Coloured people of South Africa. When boiled down this is merely a policy of population fragmentation on tribal lines, and I believe that it is a dream which bears no relation at all to the reality of an integrated society. It is totally unsuited for the highly cultured, highly intelligent and highly commercialized society such as the Indian people are to-day. It is, of course, simply another variation of colour discrimination. To me it is remarkable, after all that has been happening at UNO during the last few weeks, where we stand alone condemned by the whole world for our colour discrimination, and also following the developments in the Commonwealth Conference at which we were forced to leave the Commonwealth because of our colour discrimination, that the Government should press on in this manner to underline the fact that they are continuing with racial discrimination with regard to this important section of our people. I believe that to do so at this stage is not only a defiance of the whole world but also a provocation. Because, although precise details of the Prime Minister’s plan are not yet known, we must recognize that he holds out no hope whatsoever of any alleviation of the embarrassments and restrictions under which the Indian people in South Africa work and live. We must remember that they are not only the most voiceless but also the most defenceless section of our people and, possibly for that reason they are the most subject to racial discrimination.

Let me remind the hon. the Prime Minister of the appalling restrictions that are placed upon the Indian people in so far as domicile in the various provinces is concerned. Let me remind him of their restrictions in respect of ownership of property, of the manner in which the Group Areas Act has been used— to the extent of 90 per cent or more—against the Indians, to deprive them of their property, and to destroy their commercial preponderance in certain areas as to force them into other occupations. Quite apart from that, we know how they are subject, more than any other racial group, to the prejudices and conventions which limit their participation either in the Civil Service or employment in Government Service, or in provincial government or local authorities. They are also subjected to considerable difficulties in participating in various professions.

Consequently, to come along at this stage and introduce this new conception of a Department of Indian Affairs, envisages the possibility of still further restrictions upon the Indian people. Whatever way you look at it, it is inevitable that it will be regarded as another method of introducing an administrative ghetto for the Indian people. It will certainly perpetuate the racial inferiority which has always characterized the treatment of the Indians. With that goes the inevitable humiliation of an inferior social status. Added to that it seems almost inevitable that there will be further limitations of opportunity, both economic and industrial and, on top of that, a possible restriction of area. We have had vague hints of Indian homelands thrown out. I do not know where the hon. the Prime Minister is going to find these Indian homelands, but that is a possibility. So that even if they are allowed to develop to the fullest possible extent in those areas, it is quite obvious that their participation in the government of the country will simply be limited to local areas, to questions of roads and drains and, possibly, of schools, of hospitals and other minor matters, without any possibility of participating in the major administrative affairs of their own country, or of considering themselves as full citizens of South Africa. Whatever happens they will also inevitably be under the absolute arbitrary rule of the White man.

It is quite obvious that the Indians of South Africa will not accept it; nor will India accept it; nor will UNO, and still less will the Commonwealth or the Afro-Asian nations. I believe that to introduce a scheme of this sort at the present time is to introduce racial discrimination which will simply exacerbate our affairs and our relations, not only internally with the Indians but also with the Governments of India and Pakistan. This aspect is one which demands greater consideration, because, after all, India and Pakistan are our two most powerful neighbours, quite apart from being the dominant partners in the Afro-Asian bloc, and they exercise a tremendous influence in the world to-day. They occupy a midway position between the communist East and the civilized West. Surely it is important that we in South Africa should realize our responsibilities to see that nothing is done to exacerbate opinion in India which might possibly throw India or Pakistan, or both of those countries into the arms of the communist camp.

It is quite true that India some years ago withdrew her High Commissioner and has since exercised trade sanctions against South Africa. But surely that does not prevent this hon. Prime Minister from exercising statesmanship of the highest order and making some constructive gesture towards restoring relations with those two countries? Pakistan has shown her goodwill towards South Africa, and that is surely something on which we can work. But this treatment of the Indians in South Africa will do nothing to help that. [Time limit.]

I hope the hon. member who has just resumed his seat will not blame me for dealing with what he said. I want to confine myself immediately to this little Press war which has just broken out in the House. Taking into consideration how the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) posed here as the adopted father or uncle of the Press, one cannot blame him for doing so, because as has been pointed out from this side of the House on repeated occasions, it is the United Party which uses the Press against our country in the outside world in order to try to break the National Party.

Give one bit of proof.

There is so much proof that if I had to give all the proof I can give the afternoon would not be long enough. I would like to express my appreciation to the hon. the Prime Minister for the significant way in which he warned the Press in our country to-day. I also want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. Labuschagne) said yesterday when he expressed his disapproval of the behaviour of the Press. That was also done by the hon. member for Middelland (Mr. P. S. van der Merwe). The general consensus of opinion in every country of the world is that the Press bears a grave responsibility in regard to the education of the people. The trends of thought, ideals, etc., of the people are all influenced by the Press all over the world. I am not one of those who believe that the Press and public opinion should be stifled. But I am one of those who believe that where we do not want to control the Press, the Press should control itself, particularly since South Africa decided to leave the Commonwealth, because at that time a tremendous attack was made on us through the medium of the Press. We on this side of the House cannot be blamed for saying that many of the assertions of the United Party were devoid of all truth. The irony of the Press is this, that when someone gets up here with very good intentions to state a case, no publicity is given to it; but when somebody succeeds in playing off the one against the other and propounding the sort of thing in this House in which the people outside are not interested and do not care for, then there is publicity. I want this afternoon to be fair towards both sides of the House and I want to appoint myself as the barometer of how the Press treats hon. members. A little while ago I pleaded for a railway link between Lichtenburg and Mafeking, something which affects the interests of my constituency. I also pleaded for the building of a grain elevator in East London. The Minister of Transport agreed with me and said he was in favour of the building of such an elevator in order to reduce the production costs of the maize farmers.

Order! The hon. member cannot expand on that now.

I am now dealing with the Press in that connection. The Press could find no space to give publicity to this. This is something affecting the farmers and the whole country. But, Sir, when I had the opportunity to attack that political acrobat in this House, the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) I received publicity from one of the English newspapers in Cape Town, which said that it seemed that I had received an “ agterskot ” from Heaven to chastise him in that way. I ask myself, and the people outside ask themselves, what purpose this sort of publicity serves. In these days in which we live it is necessary for us—and this has been said from both sides—to be tolerant. Just before the adjournment the hon. the Prime Minister again wisely gave us guidance and a warning. Where we all attempt to achieve this out of our deep convictions and very sincerely, and where we have all at one time or another used slogans in regard to building a nation, the Press negatives and destroys everything. In my constituency United Party supporters came to me. They are people whose opinions are always worth considering and for whom I have the greatest respect, and also some of our own party supporters have said that as long as the Press in South Africa is allowed to continue with reports like this we will not have unity in South Africa. Now the Press should not blame me. What I say here I say with the best intentions. I think the time has arrived for the Press in South Africa to consider what it says. If the political parties are serious, as they all profess to be, and as I believe, in saying that we need each other, that we have our backs to the wall and that dark days are awaiting us—nobody with any intelligence is prepared to deny that—then it is necessary in the first place that there should be a mutual approach in a spirit of tolerance. But when we try to foster this spirit, everything is destroyed and negatived by the Press. On behalf of this side of the House and of the people outside, who believe every word uttered by the Prime Minister here and again this afternoon before lunch in regard to the Press, I want to thank him heartily for it. I am sure that he has rendered the country a great service by issuing this warning, in spite of the fact that there are members who do not appreciate it and declare that he has given the wrong advice.

There are other matters about which we heard much here under the Prime Minister’s Vote, one of them being the so-called injustice which was done in regard to the composition of the school boards in the Transvaal. The old adage has it that history repeats itself. I cannot understand for a moment what right the United Party has to charge us with injustice in regard to the composition of school boards. The Prime Minister gave a very clear explanation. I just want to remind hon. members opposite of their own sins of the past. They must put their hand into their own bosom. In 1943 I had the honour of becoming the provincial councillor for Lichtenburg. As you know, Sir, the provincial councillor recommends the three members of the school board who are appointed by the Administrator and the Executive Committee. [Time limit.]

I have sat here now since Monday and listened to three long speeches by the hon. the Prime Minister, anxiously hoping he would show some approach or solution the dangers which are facing South Africa, and particularly in regard to world opinion. But now I am more deeply worried than ever. It is no use appealing to him. The time for debating points has passed, and I only want to mention what the lessons of the past have shown us, and apply them to the present position of South Africa, as a warning of things to come.

On Monday I quoted a speech made four years ago It was then already clear to me that the hon. the Prime Minister had ideas of infallibility and that if they continued to develop and he came into power he would be a danger to our Western civilization. Recent events have proved only too clearly that the warnings that came from this side of the House were only too correct. His remarks about the Press to-day must have shocked every South African and will shock the world. It was not a question of advising them to follow a certain course, it was definitely a threat to the Press and will have adverse repercussions throughout the free world. And now it has been taken up by every hon. member on that side of the House and has become Nationalist policy. Since he became Prime Minister his dangerous ideas of infallibility have grown. The best way I can express them is by quoting from a letter written by a young Nationalist to the Burger of yesterday’s date. He said—

Then this young Afrikaner goes on to say …

Who wrote that?

It is written by a man named van Wyk. He is a student at the University of Stellenbosch and he has the courage to sign his name. Later on, speaking of the Afrikanervolk he says—

The time has come for the political power to be taken out of the hon. the Prime Minister’s hands. He has become a danger to our existence as a nation. If his party will not do so, then the voters of South Africa, regardless of their political affinities, must demand that he hands over power to some other Nationalist leader—and it must be a Nationalist because they will be in power for another two-and-a-half years-be he a Minister, be he a member or be he one of their great financiers or industrialists or some great church leader. We ask for no part in the government. All we ask for is a modification of the Prime Minister’s deadly policies. Then, at the next general election in two-and-a-half years’ time the people of South Africa can say whether they want a change of Government or not.

Probably the hon. the Prime Minister has seen a movie called the “ Birth of a Nation ”, Does he realize that he is to-day writing the script of a future movie which will be called the Death of a Nation? Mr. Menzies has pointed out, in words more serious than those used by any other Prime Minister, the doom and the terrible things that lie before us. Surely thinking members on the Government side of the House can see that these ideas of infallibility are becoming infectious? The President of the powerful German Press Club, Mr. Luth, whose earlier speech I quoted on Monday, has decided to leave the country three days earlier than he intended to because of the rudeness of a little potential dictator, the Director of Information. On the same day we see a staunch Nationalist of International fame, both on the sports field and in the scholastic world, Mr. Gideon Roos, has suddenly left the SA.B.C.; no doubt because another potential little dictator in that organization has had the impertinence and the lack of a sense of duty to use a non-political public utility corporation for the use of Nationalist propaganda. And the latter, in doing so, has made himself guilty of a misdemeanour. Because there is no difference between using a public utility corporation, like that, for political propaganda, and the public servant who uses a Government car to drive Nationalist voters to the polls. He had no right to do it and he is using his powers as Governor for the wrong purpose. It is the beginning of a dictatorship when non-party corporations are used for Government purposes. This is nothing more nor less than the creating of a Goebbels of South Africa.

Who are you talking about?

If you cannot follow what I am saying do not waste my time now: I refer to Mr. Meyer of the S.A.B.C.

Do hon. members opposite realize that though it is used against us to-day, to-morrow it will be used against them unless they toe the line? They must act at once if they want to safeguard their freedom and their rights. Do they not realize, after what happened to a man like Rohm that they who are friends of dictators to-day are their enemies to-morrow? Rohm helped to bring Hitler to power, then he was destroyed. All those thousands of industrialists who supplied the money to put Hitler into power; what happened to them the moment he got in?

Mr. Chairman, I said I was going to give the lessons of the past in order to show what is happening to-day. Napoleon imagined at the end (as he thought honestly), that he had a destiny which urged him on until he brought France down. But that was only because he united all his enemies against him. Finally they dragged him down. Mussolini thought that he was infallible, and he rolled Italy in the dust. Hitler was convinced that he, and he alone, held all the sources of knowledge and wisdom and he brought Germany to her knees. All those men—and they were great men or they would not have been in those positions—had one thing in common; they were psychopaths; or were paranoiacs. So in passing I venture to say that had those highly intelligent and powerful characters even been right, they would still have brought their country down because they had been able to create sufficient enemies; like the hon. Prime Minister is doing for South Africa now. That is the position. I instanced three great men who because of their belief in their infallibility created disaster for themselves and their countries and united against their countries too many enemies. Cannot hon. members opposite see that the hon. the Prime Minister is following step by step in the path of those men, and that he will ruin South Africa if he remains in power? As sure as night follows day, we will have disaster. Already most people in South Africa are sensing the twilight which heralds the dark night into which South Africa is moving: a dark night without the hope of a dawn which at least even in the two republics in 1902 people could hope for.

Sir, there is only one remedy. The hon. Prime Minister must go if we are to save this country. It embarrasses and distresses me very much to say this, because as a man I have the greatest regard and respect for him. All the letters I have had, or seen, from people in England, be they statesmen, be they leaders of the services such as air marshals and generals and Members of Parliament and members of the aristocracy, they all said the same thing, that whilst they disagreed with his policy he conducted himself with the greatest dignity, courtesy and politeness. In fact, he acted like a cultured gentleman and therefore it distresses me deeply to have to say this; but it is my duty to do so. Sir, I would be a coward, and I would be lacking in my duty to my country, if I did not warn them that the Prime Minister to-day is becoming a danger to our safety. Like those I have mentioned, he has ideas of grandeur and he is becoming nothing more nor less than a paranoiac. That is the danger. He is to-day a paranoiac and that is the trouble …

On a point of order, may the hon. member say that another hon. member is a paranoiac? It is an ugly (lieder-like) word.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman, I apologize to you and the House for having to use it, but I cannot withdraw it. It is my duty, and in the autumn of my life I want to warn my country, as I believe I am speaking the truth. I stand by it. I am sorry, but I cannot withdraw it. I would be a coward if I did.

The hon. member must withdraw and apologize to the Committee.

I am sorry, but my conscience will not allow me to do so.

Then the hon. member must withdraw from the House for the remainder of the day’s sittings.

Whereupon Major van der Byl withdrew.

The hon. member for Green Point said that there was one solution to our trouble, viz. to get rid of Dr. Verwoerd as Prime Minister. For the information of the Opposition, I want to say that it is not Dr. Verwoerd who adopts this course but the National Party. It is the declared policy of the party which is being carried out by Dr. Verwoerd and which is being implemented by him, and also the policy of past Prime Ministers. The hon. member upset himself to such an extent that he had to leave the House and therefore I will leave him there, but the hon. member for Queenstown (Dr. Steytler) got up here and made an attack on the Prime Minister and put words into his mouth which he never used, to the effect that the Prime Minister is alleged to have said that he would take action against the Press. But the Prime Minister never said that. He has left it to the decency of the Press itself to know the limits to which it can go.

We heard here about a police state. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) continually interjected to say that we were a police state. Just imagine, Sir, if we were living in a police state, how could that hon. member still sit there to defend the Press, as she is freely allowed to do? Then I must say it is a very gentle police state in which we live. But neverthless that unsavoury type of propaganda is sent out into the world and I should like to see in such cases that action should be taken to eject members like that from the House, where they ought not to sit, because they are no asset to South Africa but only a danger because of the type of language they use. [Interjection.] That hon. lady’s leader now wants to defend her, but he should leave it to her.

When one listens to the venom emanating from members opposite, one can come to only one conclusion, and that is that hon. members are frightened because the English-speaking people are now joining the Nationalist Party by the hundreds, and that is a fact; I am not just imagining it. I can show hon. members letters from English-speaking voters who say that Dr. Verwoerd is the only man who can save us, and that is a fact. If we were to lose Dr. Verwoerd to-day, as the hon. member for Green Point suggested, can anyone tell us which hon. member opposite can take his place to lead us out of danger? Then South Africa and the Whites and our civilization will really be in danger of disappearing. The Prime Minister has repeatedly explained our policy, but hon. members opposite still ask what it is. Is it not peculiar that they simply refuse to listen? The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) cannot understand it; the Prime Minister has now spoken for an hour but according to those hon. members he has told us nothing in regard to his policy. But I want to tell the hon. member for Durban (Point) that he should go to his constituency because there are hundreds of English-speaking people in Durban who are joining the National Party, and a new branch of our party is being established there.

There are only two branches in the whole of Durban.

And the same thing is happening throughout the Union. We are accustomed to the word of the Prime Minister being questioned, but one thing consoles me, viz. that the Prime Minister has now convinced the Opposition in regard to the language rights of the English-speaking people. Now we no longer hear that we are going to deprive them of their language rights. We heard that ad nauseam but it now seems to me that they are convinced that their language is not in any danger.

Another reassurance given them by the Prime Minister before the referendum was that the Union flag would remain as it was. Then hon. members opposite said “ That is a lie ”. But there we have it. The flag is still the same as it was and now they are quiet. I now want to make this appeal. Accept the Prime Minister’s word that he and he alone can lead us out of this trouble to better times, and that is what will happen, we want unity and co-operation, but how we are going to get that from an Opposition which deliberately just sets out to obstruct is beyond my comprehension.

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to spend any of my valuable few minutes on refuting the allegations of the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. P. J. Coetzee). This is the second time he has attacked me personally in this House and I do not intend to waste any time on him. What I did say by way of interjection is not that South Africa is a police state, but that as far as the non-Whites are concerned it is a police state.

You said “Africans”.

I am a native of Africa, but he knows perfectly well that in the accepted meaning of the word “ African ” means a Native.

I want to come back to the point I dealt with last night which was tied up with the interesting talk given us this morning by the Prime Minister on his analysis of the policies confronting South Africa and the relative possibility of those policies getting our readmission to the Commonwealth. He analysed his policy of apartheid, which each time has a different name. Two years ago the Prime Minister, in his “ new vision ” speech, called it the policy of non-discrimination. This year he has had a newer vision and he calls it the policy of the four parallelisms. But whatever he calls it, and it does not smell any sweeter by whatever name he calls it, it is still basically apartheid and contains all the essence of racial discrimination, and the Prime Minister was unable to persuade the people overseas that his apartheid policy and his Bantustan policy were non-discriminatory. He tried to explain that by virtue of giving people rights in their own areas it was non-discriminatory. Where this policy falls down so palpably, as well as his explanation, is not only in the ineffectual development of the Bantustans themselves, the lack of facilities, transport, fuel and the lack of the 50,000 jobs a year which were to be created and the lack of secondary and tertiary industry and the difficulties about consolidation mentioned by the hon. member for East London (North)—apart from all these and the fact that nothing really has been done to produce a viable state, not only viable economically but politically, in these areas, and in spite of the Bantu authority system, which is not being accepted wholeheartedly, as the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration knows was evidenced by the events in Pondoland, the other explanation offered by the Prime Minister about the Africans in our White areas is so obviously without substance that the policy cannot be accepted as non-discriminatory. I refer to the analogy of the Italian migrant workers which is used repeatedly by hon. members opposite to explain why it is that if you give rights to the Africans in the Bantustans you need not give rights to them in the White areas. There are several good reasons why this explanation does not hold water. The first I mentioned last night, but I want to repeat it, viz. that the Italians working in Switzerland and France are not Swiss or French citizens; they are Italian-born and therefore they get their rights in Italy. The Africans working in the White areas are South African-born citizens and therefore they are entitled to exercise their rights wherever they live in South Africa. The second important point is that the Italian migrant workers, having crossed the frontiers of these foreign countries to work and having been given permission to work there, are not subjected at every turn to all sorts of discriminatory practices and undignified practices. They do not have to produce passes to the police of those countries all the time and do not have to reside in segregated areas and are not confronted by notices in Switzerland saying “ For Swiss Only ”, and in France “ For French Only ”. They are treated as ordinary persons, with the exception that they cannot vote. They are certainly treated better than the “ guests ” the Prime Minister refers to when he talks about our Africans coming from the reserves and working and living in the White areas.

The third and perhaps most important reason why this analogy does not hold water is that the Africans living in the White areas have been here for two or three generations. They live in houses provided by the Government as permanent residences with their families. Their children are born there, unlike the Italian workers, whose children are born in Italy and not in Switzerland or France. Our Africans in the towns and on the farms have been living there for generations. Their children have never seen the reserves and they have no contact whatever with the reserves. There is no analogy at all between those permanently urbanized Africans living permanently in the White areas and the Italian migrant workers. The only Africans with whom you can make that comparison are the proper migrant workers like the mine workers who come here and live in compounds and then go back to the reserves. But the urbanized Africans and those living on the farms of hon. members, where they and their families have been for generations, are not migrant workers. The most important reason is that while the Italian migrant workers supply a valuable additional labour force in Switzerland or France or Germany, these African workers in our towns and farms are the very backbone of our labour force. They do not just supply an additional labour force. They are the basic backbone of the labour force in our industry and on the farms and they are here permanently and we cannot do without them. Italy, Switzerland, France and Germany can at a pinch do without those workers, because they are simply an additional source of labour, but in South Africa these African workers who have been here for two or three generations have come to stay with us permanently and they are the backbone of our economy and therefore it is patently absurd to compare them with the Italian workers and to say that therefore they can expect no rights in our area and that a quid pro quo has been given to them in that they can exercise their rights in the reserves, areas which they have never seen and have no connection with, and which in some cases their grandparents have never even seen. It is an absurd comparison, and that is one of the reasons why the Prime Minister in London was unable to persuade the Prime Ministers at the Conference that his policy of apartheid is non-discriminatory and he will never be able to convince us on those grounds. I am not even going to discuss now the question of a state within a state he mentioned for the Coloureds and the Indians. How he is going to work that one out, I have no idea. [Time limit.]

Rather than continuing to kick against the pricks, the Opposition should accept three things. The first is that South Africa’s past cannot be bought out. There is no going back. The second is that the Government is not prepared to make adjustments and adaptations along the road of integration; thirdly, that the Government is prepared, however, to consider and to make adjustments on the basis of separate development. If in the future the Opposition still want to make a worthwhile and constructive contribution to the building up of this country and the solution of our race problems, they should view their task in the light of the latter course.

The Leader of the Opposition stated in the course of one of his speeches that the Government’s homeland policy, although not wrong perhaps was nevertheless impracticable and unrealistic because the Government was unable to implement it. The tempo at which our developmental programme is being carried out may be criticized perhaps, but then it must be borne in mind at the same time that the scope of this task is immense and that it is a very complicated task. It is our desire that the tempo should be accelerated where it is at all possible to do so. It is our desire that the tide in respect of the influx of Bantu into White areas should be turned as quickly as possible. Moreover, it ought to be an obsession with every right-thinking White person, particularly in the Western Cape, to get rid of the Bantu in this area.

But what has the Opposition done to assist the Government in this colossal task except to obstruct every sincere effort on the part of the Government and to criticize it and to make it suspect? The United Party has not helped to check this influx. On the contrary, their policy is to encourage the Bantu to come and settle here in the White areas together with their families, to come and settle here permanently amongst us, and to give them permanent rights in the White areas. Let me quote what the Provincial Council member of that party, Mrs. Taylor, said as reported in the Argus of 15 September 1959—

The successful turning back of the Bantu to the Bantu homelands and the Bantu’s total evacuation from certain areas like the Western Province is one of the corner-stones on which the policy of Bantu homelands rests, and what have the Opposition ever done to support the Government in this undertaking? If they have done nothing in the past other than to thwart the Government, what right has the Leader of the Opposition to criticize us now and to make the charge against us that our policy has failed or that we are incapable of implementing it?

Another important step to ensure the success of our programme of separate development is the establishment of border industries. What have the United Party done in this connection to support the Government? The United Party have great influence with the people with capital, with industrialists and big investors. Just think what it could mean to South Africa if the Opposition would use that influence and encourage these people to accept the principle and desirability of border industries and persuade them to give their active support to that principle. On the contrary they are negative and they regard it as impracticable and it is in that light that they represent it to the investors. It is absolutely essential that these industries should be established as soon as possible. We are aware of the fact that in this connection a great deal of spade work is already being done, but perhaps it is necessary at this stage that we should be given the full picture as to what has already been done.

Although large-scale planning is being undertaken in this connection, I want to ask whether the Government, in the interests of the Coloured in the Western Cape, will consider the question of investigating this area and regarding it as a border area for the planned establishment of certain types of industries and also applying the benefits, which will be applicable to the border industries, to industrial expansion of a certain type in this area.

A third important point in the implementation of our Bantu homeland policy is that it is necessary to purchase land, as is provided for in the 1936 Act. What was the United Party’s contribution in this connection? As the Cape Argus put it on 11 September 1959 it was immoral and indefensible. I quote from a translation which appeared in the Burger in this connection (re-translation)—

If the United Party has done nothing in the past except to oppose and to thwart the National Party in the implementation of the policy of separate development, what right has the Leader of the Opposition to come along now and to criticize us and to say that although possibly there is nothing wrong with this policy, it is impracticable and incapable of implementation because we have done so little in that connection?

What has struck me in this debate, having listened to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg), is the fact that a certain pattern of law has developed in South Africa. I regard it practically as an inevitable pattern of development in carrying out the policy of the Prime Minister—and I have said already that I am prepared to support him as far as possible—that we shall have to sacrifice every bit of freedom of both non-White and White in order to have any hope of achieving the Prime Minister’s ideal of saving the Whites along the lines of separate development. As far back as five or six years ago in this House I made bold to say that amongst other things the freedom of the Press in this country would inevitably have to be destroyed. I went further at the time, because this is by no means the end of the story, because what has been happening in the S.A.B.C. in the past few weeks is only the beginning. If the Government follows this road it will have to go in for what I described at that time as thought control, and as long as people are still able to think—and it is going to be extremely difficult to put a stop to it—so long will people differ from the course on which the hon. the Prime Minister and the Nationalist Party have embarked. When we think of the apartheid policy, we think in terms of economic sacrifices. I have often said that before this problem is going to be solved in any way it is going to involve economic sacrifices, not to the tune of hundreds of millions, but, as an economist, I maintain that eventually it is going to run into thousands of millions of pounds or rand before any progress is made in this direction, and those economic sacrifices will be sufficient utterly to ruin the economy of what we call White South Africa. If that happens, it will be the ruination of the White man. But what is this struggle all about? Fundamentally this struggle, not only in our country but also in the world, is one against an ideology. It is an ideological struggle against Communism. It is a struggle between Christianity and Communism. But what is significant throughout the West to-day and particularly in South Africa is that step by step we are following the pattern of Russian Communism. It is as though that is our destiny. I have said here on a previous occasion that you cannot fight fire with fire, and you can never beat Communism by imitating the methods of Communism. Year after year, day by day the West is throwing overboard those values which are characteristic of the philosophy of the West. Day by day they are throwing overboard the idea of freedom in an attempt to find a counter-measure to Communism. We have lost faith in the values of our own civilization. We in South Africa are following the Western pattern, and it would be well worth the trouble for hon. members to read a book that I read a number of years ago already, a book which is in our library here. I refer to “Three Who Made a Revolution (Trotsky, Stalin and Lenin)” by Wolfe. I say that the pattern of legislation over the past ten years in this country is precisely in accordance with the pattern of legislation in the Czarist régime in Russia, which eventually resulted in the position that we have to-day. Why has Communism gained such an easy victory in the past 40 or 50 years? Not even 50 years have elapsed since the revolution took place in Russia and look what has happened. Year after year Communism spreads. Everywhere the West and the Western ideology are losing ground. Why is that so? Because Communism has allied itself with the new dynamic force, the emergent nationalism, with those nations which have been oppressed and kept in a state of subservience throughout the centuries. The West—and here I am also talking about South Africa—has been obliged time and again to ally itself with the reactionaries, with those who want to maintain the old order, and here we have the secret of the Russian success. We have not stood for the principles of our own Western civilization to extend freedom, and we have given the communist the opportunity to give the oppressed nations, the Colonial nations, the impression that the communists stand for true freedom. To these nations Communism has become a symbol of freedom, while the West with its Colonialism has become the symbol of oppression. We contend that Communism has given an ersatz freedom to the nations, while Communism accuses the West of oppression and domination. These nations believe it in the light of the past of the West; they believe that Russia is the deliverer, and the great problem confronting both the world and South Africa to-day is to convince these nations that the freedom which Communism offers them is an ersatz freedom which will lead to a new enslavement which is unparalleled in the history of the world even under Colonialism. By simply offering another form of ersatz freedom, domination, the West will certainly not succeed in its struggle against Communism. [Time limit.]

I want to take part in this debate at once because the Whips have agreed that we should terminate the debate. There are just a few speakers left, and I am pleased to see that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is here. Sir, what is the reason for the hostile spirit which the Opposition has revealed in this debate to-day? When I recall what has taken place during this week, how the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Nationalist Party have behaved towards each other on a high plane of mutual respect and have set an example to this House, then I want to express my strongest displeasure at the personal, reprehensible attacks made by the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) upon the Prime Minister of South Africa.

He is not here at the moment.

The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) is just as great a sinner. Let me say this quite clearly: Is it fair on the part of the United Party to come along now and, as it were, to attack the leader of this party in his personal capacity? After all the leader of this party represents the National Party. He is inseparably linked up with the implementation of the policy of the National Party, and I say that those tactics are wrong. How must one analyse their attitude? What is the reason for this hostile frame of mind; what is the reason for this unprecedented fury on the part of the hon. members for Hillbrow, Wynberg (Mr. Russell), South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) and on the part of the hon. member who had to march out of this House a moment ago? Mr. Chairman, I shall tell you what the reason is. It is because this Opposition is becoming a dangerous Opposition. And do you know why? Because they are suffering from a greater sense of frustration than any party in this country. That is the reason for this fury. That is why they have found it necessary in every debate in recent times to let loose a flood of hatred and venom against the person of the Prime Minister of South Africa. Why this fury? Why not the objectivity and magnanimity that we expect from the Opposition? I shall tell you why. In the first place they are suffering from a greater sense of frustration than any other party as the result of their own conduct and as a result of the leadership of that arch-propagandist, the Goebbels of the United Party, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). In the third place they no longer take into account the South African spirit in approaching our problems, but they look to the outside world to bring about South Africa’s ruination. If that is the way they carry on in a Budget debate they are still going to suffer from frustration for many years. They are going to suffer more and more from a sense of frustration and, unless they are careful, they are doomed to remain on the Opposition benches for ever, as a result of the way in which they are acting here. Why do they suffer from this sense of frustration? In the first place it is because the Opposition knows perfectly well now that the whole of the White population of this country has accepted the establishment of the republic as an accomplished irrevocable fact—and the Leader of the Opposition himself has said this. Moreover, in spite of the fact that they have done everything in their power to prevent it, all the Whites in South Africa, including the English-speaking section, however, unexpected and however, painful this may have been for them, have resigned themselves to the inevitable, and that is the fact that we are going to be outside of the Commonwealth, in my opinion irrevocably. They are aware of this reaction, and hence this further frustration and this fury and this type of conduct on their part.

Now I come to the hon. member for Yeoville. He is the propagandist of the United Party. He is the person who always said that it would never be possible to carry out our policy. He is an eloquent speaker, but he will never translate his words into deeds. I want to read out to him what a young member, an equally gifted, eloquent member said some time ago. I should like hon. members to listen to this. That hon. member, when we were discussing the republic, said this—

He was referring to the recipe of apartheid and of a republic—

There the hon. member sits—the member for Yeoville. He has made the charge against us that this constitutional development, that the desire to convert South Africa into a republic, is nothing but a slogan as far as we are concerned. Hence the fury of the hon. member over there. He said that this was an idle slogan, that it was purely lip service on the part of the National Party, and this week his leader has had to announce that the members of their party, as good citizens, resign themselves to the advent of the republic in South Africa. Can you see the reason for his frustration now? I want to predict that although he said that the establishment of the republic was nothing but a slogan to us and that our policy of apartheid was also a slogan, he will accept this republic, which he described as a slogan, and that he will come to regard it as a great deed that we have accomplished in the constitutional sphere to bring about an independent, self-determining republic. In just the same way the party over there will still accept the traditional policy of South Africa, namely apartheid, over which we have had this fight here in the past few days. The hon. member comes here and says that national unity is a farce as far as this side is concerned. But let us be reasonable. National unity was also a slogan of theirs. They say that to us it is just a slogan. That is not so. Show me any party which has caused more national disruption and which has done greater harm to this ideal trend of development, namely national unity, than the party on that side. That is the pattern, those are the tactics, of which they have made use in past years. I want to say to them to-day that nothing will be able to stop the fulfillment of this ideal, which they regarded as a slogan, namely national unity. It is simply a question of time before we will have unprecedented White unity in South Africa. And do you know on what basis? Firstly, on the constitutional basis of the republic and secondly on the traditional policy of apartheid. They know that that is so and that accounts for the frustration on their part. They must not lose sight of the outlook of the people in South Africa. Do they think that the Whites do not know what is going on in this country? They are well aware of the clash in Africa, of the awakening in Africa. They know what has given rise to that clash. Moreover, they are aware of the horrible murders in the Belgian Congo and the happenings in Kenya and Angola. They see how in Southern Rhodesia former sworn supporters of the retention of the Imperial connection in Southern Rhodesia are to-day up in arms against the recipe which is being dictated to them from abroad. Mr. Chairman, to-day we have the position that the English-speaking people too are developing a South African outlook. They know that they cannot solve their problems if they retain their link with the Commonwealth. They want to fit into a South African pattern, and it is this South African outlook which will bring about White unity. The conflict between Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking is something of the past. We can forget the words “ racialism ” and “ racial scaremongering ”. The Whites have got together already and hence the fury and frustration on that side. As I have said, they are doomed to remain for ever on the Opposition benches, and I rejoice in their political sorrows. [Laughter.] Hon. members may laugh, but they cannot laugh away a fact. The English-speaking and the Afrikaans-speaking in South Africa have an ardent desire and the greatest desire to resolve this intricate, vexatious problem on an honest, fair and Christian basis, because it is only along those lines that it will be possible to eliminate racial clashes and to obtain a degree of racial peace. I want to ask the hon. member for Hillbrow, since it is the ardent wish of the Whites in South Africa to obtain an honest moral basis for the solution of this problem, what basis he would suggest? [Time limit.]

I had decided to intervene in this debate solely on the report of the Whips as to the unfortunate incident which had taken place a few minutes ago in respect of remarks made by the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl). After the speech of the Chief Whip on the Government side I wonder whether I am right in intervening, because I have seldom heard such bitterness and vitriol and such stupid statements from what should be a responsible member, as I have heard from that hon. member. But I want to say that no matter how much bitterness, no matter how much strength of feeling has arisen in South Africa as a result of the incident over the past few weeks, I feel that the language used by the hon. member for Green Point, which was quite rightly disallowed by you Sir, is not language with which this side of the House is prepared to associate itself in any sense or form. I want to say that as far as we are concerned whatever my differences with the hon. the Prime Minister may be —and they are fundamental—they will certainly not be expressed in language of that kind. I wanted that to be known because I feel that if we are to have any future for South Africa, if we are to get out of the mess in which we are at the moment—and we are in a mess—we are only going to get out of it by trying to put our heads together and using the best brains and the best talent that are available in the country in a civilized and proper manner. It is for that reason that I regret so much the sort of remarks that we have heard from the Chief Whip, who quite frankly seems to me to be carrying the matter far too far. We will never get unity or a united approach if that is the attitude we are to have. While I had expressed my disapproval of certain remarks made on this side, I do want to say that it does seem to me also that there have been remarks made on that side which, although they may be parliamentary were much better left unsaid in a debate of this kind.

I should just like to refer to a few observations made by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Prof. Fourie) when he stated that the Western countries have now completely thrown overboard their idea of freedom and that we in South Africa are doing so as well. He then compared it with the attitude of Soviet Russia and stated that with their method they were achieving much more success than the Western countries. I just want to ask him where and how and when the Western countries have abandoned their democratic ideas in respect of the freedom of the individual and the freedom of nations. I think that they made themselves much more guilty of that in the past when they practised Colonialism, as the hon. member stated here quite correctly a few days earlier. To-day they are really allowing the scale to tip over too much in the other direction, so much so that they are now prepared with undue haste to grant freedom and self-determination to nations which are not yet ripe for it, which are still immature, which have not yet reached the necessary level of civilization, which are by no means capable of understanding and assimilating the Western democratic principles of government. As far as the Russians are concerned, I just want to say this to the hon. member—he knows it and we all know it— that whatever they have achieved, has been accomplished at the point of the bayonet and the sword. Those countries to which they gave so-called freedom were first trampled upon and oppressed, and then an iron curtain was drawn around the country and to-day they refuse to allow us to look behind that curtain. They hold out the prospect of perfect freedom, imaginary freedom, to other nations. I would remind hon. members of Austria and all the Eastern European countries which were included after the war within the Russian sphere of influence. I would remind hon. members of the action of the Chinese, who are really applying the pattern of the Russians in Tibet and other places.

But I also want to make a few observations with regard to what was said here by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) when she once again referred sneeringly to the discriminatory effects of our policy of apartheid. I should really also refer to the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) who in his attack here the day before yesterday upon the Prime Minister and this side of the House referred to all the discriminatory features which are characteristic of the application of the policy of apartheid. He referred to what allegedly makes apartheid abhorrent to the world and said that this Government had closed the open universities to non-White students, had introduced job reservation and that at every State institution, at railway stations and at the post offices, foreigners and non-Whites continually come up against irritating notices on boards saying that this place is reserved for Whites only and that place for non-Whites only. In other words, that these notices must be removed and that the closed universities should be made open universities again. I want to ask the hon. member for Jeppes now whether he meant that if his party ever comes into power again they will abolish all these measures? But I mention this really so as to draw the attention of the mothers and the daughters of our nation to what has been said here and what the removal of those notice boards imply. What is the position going to be if those notices, which were not put up by the National Party but which formed a feature of the segregation policy of General Hertzog, have to be removed? These notice boards are a feature of a social separation which was in force in the days of General Smuts and much even earlier. It is a characteristic of the whole social structure in our multi-racial country. You must forgive me, Mr. Chairman, if I am somewhat profane (“profaan ”). What is the position going to be if those notice boards have to be removed at the sanitary conveniences of our public places, those well-known “ Amadola ” and “ Abafazi ” notices which indicate that this place is reserved for non-Whites, while the other is for Whites? I want to warn the mothers and the daughters of our nation against the evil day that will dawn if those notice boards should be removed according to the liberalistic pattern. Then I want to refer too to the remarks of the hon. member for Houghton. She says that the urbanized Native no longer has any roots in his homelands or in the Bantu areas. That is not the position. They still have their roots there, and even those who have been living for generations on farms or in the urban locations are still proud of their origins as Zulus, Tswanas, or whatever the case may be. They are anxious to get back to their homelands. I could show hon. members a letter from a Native with high academic qualifications in one of Pretoria’s big locations. That Native is the assessor of the Dutch Reformed Mission Church of the Transvaal. He told me just recently how anxious he was to go back; how anxious the enlightened teachers and the older persons who have lived in the urban locations for generations are to go back; how they yearn to have a piece of land and a home in those areas from which they came originally, in the areas of their ethnic group. It is no use telling us here that those Natives cannot be placed in their ethnic groups and be given citizenship in their areas. We have a fine example in connection with Basutoland. A year or two ago when the Basutos were called up to vote for their governing board there, the vote was given to approximately 90,000 so-called detribalized Basutos in the Union … [Time limit.]

Initially this debate covered the whole of the international plane. In the early part of this debate most speakers reviewed South Africa’s position in relation to the world, UNO and the Commonwealth of Nations, and as the debate developed its scope became narrower and narrower, and in the last few days the debate has been confined mainly to the domestic affairs of South Africa. I am very glad that this is so. I do not think there is any person in South Africa to-day who still has any doubt that the main issue on which we in South Africa have to decide is whether or not we want to continue on a basis of racial discrimination. I do not think there are many people who do not realize to-day that the difficulties in which South Africa finds herself are due to discrimination on the basis of colour. This matter has now been clearly high-lighted and it must be clear to everybody in this country what the basic problem is that faces us. In this respect I want to say that I am disappointed that no lead has come from the Government side except the old story about parallel development or apartheid or Bantustan, or whatever one chooses to call this policy. The hon. the Prime Minister—and I do not want to query his faith in it—is of the opinion that the solution of South Africa’s problems lies in the policy for which he stands. The hon. the Prime Minister has been working on this policy, not only in this debate but during the last ten or 12 years. We have done our best to see whether there is some basis on which the policy of the Government can be implemented, whether it has some basis on which we can build, on which we can build up not only the position of the White man but also build up Western civilization and the standards that go with Western civilization. We reject that policy. We agree with the hon. the Prime Minister that everybody in South Africa who thinks that we can maintain ourselves in South Africa on a basis of racial discrimination is living in a world of dreams. We do not agree with the hon. the Prime Minister that racial discrimination can be eliminated on the basis of the Nationalist Party’s apartheid policy. I do not want to go into the details of that policy. The Prime Minister has explained the whole position as he sees it time and again, and when we come to other Votes later on we propose to make it clear in what respects we differ from this policy. At this stage I just want to say that this party will support any effort that is going to be made to develop the Native reserves of South Africa. We have already indicated in the past that we are determined that the areas which are generally known as the Native reserves should be developed to the utmost. We have stated clearly that we shall support every effort made by the Government to carry out the White man’s promise to the Natives of South Africa, and we will support every effort to make available to the Natives of South Africa the balance of the land promised to them, but I want to say clearly that in my opinion the development of the Native reserves does not offer a solution for the cardinal and fundamental problems of South Africa. We agree with the hon. the Prime Minister that racial discrimination must be eliminated. But in our opinion it cannot be done on the basis of his policy. In his last speech in this debate the hon. the Prime Minister created the impression that even on our basis there would be discrimination on the ground of colour. May I correct the hon. the Prime Minister with respect? This party and hon. members who sit on these benches reject discrimination on the basis of colour or race. We realize that unless we reject it, South Africa will be forced to reject it. We reject it firstly because we cannot justify it, and we do not believe that there are only two alternatives for South Africa, namely, White domination or non-White domination. We do not believe that the only alternative to White domination is a policy which will result in non-White domination. We believe that there is a basis on which all persons in South Africa, on a non-discriminatory basis, will be able to exercise the right of self-determination. Numbers of my hon. friends on the other side have said that the basis of their policy is that they believe that the White man in South Africa too has a right to self-determination. That I do not query. If the White man has that right of self-determination, then the non-White in South Africa similarly has that right and, Mr. Chairman, there is only hope for a peaceful future for South Africa if we can find some basis on which all persons in South Africa to whichever race they may belong will be able to exercise that indisputable right of self-determination. [Time limit.]

This has been a peculiar debate. Hon. members of the Opposition ensured that its length almost became a record, if it is not in fact a record for the length of a debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote. In my opinion, that could have been justified if in the course of the debate serious and thorough consideration had been given to a number of the greatest problems of the country. But I regard such a debate as worthless when, as in this case, a few problems are in fact dealt with, but when after they have been cleared up for the rest hon. members just kill time in order to create the impression that this lengthy debate proves that the Opposition recognizes the seriousness of the present position and have to blame the Prime Minister for it. They could really not keep it up as a thorough and relevant debate. During the last few days I sat listening with surprise to the inanities that can be uttered when people in serious times like these just want to give a demonstration by stretching out a debate instead of confining themselves to what is important. I sometimes wonder whether we should not follow the British system more closely, where for certain classes of debates selected speakers who are well prepared to speak in the debate and that is the end of it. Really, to sit listening for five days to a debate like this, where so often hon. members did not get to the crux of the matter, appears to me to be a waste of time.

Before continuing, I want to express my appreciation for the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition dissociated himself and his party from the expression used by the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl). I am a psychologist myself, and I am quite aware of the connotation of the term used, and that connotation is really very serious, as anyone will realize on consulting a dictionary. I am grateful for the good spirit and the understanding revealed by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and for the attitude he adopted, because I want to say that I also believe in fighting hard for one’s beliefs. I do not take it amiss when people say that I am obstinate because I adhere to my standpoint. In my opinion, the hon. members opposite have adhered to their standpoint just as obstinately all these years, and I do not blame them for it. Surely it must be inherent in one’s aims to do the best for one’s country, and one must adhere to that standpoint. Apart from that, it should be possible, particularly in future, for us as private individuals and as members of the same Parliament and of the same nation to get on with each other and wherever possible to co-operate. I thank the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

If I had to sum up the debate, I would say that after what happened this morning this afternoon’s debate was just a smokescreen. It seemed to me as if a smokescreen was being put over what happened this morning. Then something of real interest emerged, which I again want to analyse briefly. This smokescreen was put up by means of making various misrepresentations which I just briefly want to deal with before coming to the crux of the matter. The one unfair allegation, which seemed to me to be ail accusation against me, was that I made misuse of a certain circular issued by a certain firm. Let me state very clearly that I am not and was not and never will be a client of the particular firm which issued the circular, because I am not interested in shares. The fact that the letter was marked “ Confidential ”, because that is a requirement of the Stock Exchange, therefore has nothing at all to do with me. It is a document in which a certain firm adopted a certain standpoint. It was not handed to me personally but it was put into my hands in an envelope and I did not know where it came from. I therefore have no responsibility towards the firm which issued the circular. Apart from that, the argument I advanced this morning proves that I was not making dishonourable use of it, as the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) appears to have insinuated although he did not put it into so many words. I was answering the question as to why there was such a big fluctuation on the Stock Exchange. My one argument was that when even stockbrokers paint a dark picture to their clients, then one must expect, in view of all the recent incidents, plus this sort of information, that there will be fluctuations. That is what ordinarily happens. I referred to this particular letter because although one cannot complain if stockbrokers submit various opinions and facts to their clients, particularly of an economic nature or calculated to influence the economic position, it becomes a different matter in my opinion when they make direct political allegations and practically attack the Government. Now I want to read just one extract to show what kind of allegations are made in this document, which in my opinion goes beyond normal advice in regard to selling shares and which smacks of participation in the political struggle. That must cause additional depression on the part of members of the party which this person evidently wants to support in a practical way and to assist by blaming the Government for financial losses. The clients who receive these circulars are the holders of shares which they can sell, or they are potential buyers of shares. Therefore it must have an influence on them. The part of the circular to which I wish to refer appears under the heading, “No Compromise ”, and then these brokers write about it in their advisory capacity—

A little face-saving can be detected by the substitution of the word “ self-development ” for the word “ apartheid “ Apartheid ” was the noose used by the Nationalist Party to snare the electors in 1948; it has now become a noose around the party’s neck.

Hear, hear!

I have no objection if this co-party member of theirs says something which they also say. That proves even more clearly that this is obviously a party-political judgment which this stockbroker is distributing amongst his clients. It is an example of the type of allegation also made by hon. members opposite in order to cause panic among the public of South Africa. All I am doing is to accuse such political stockbrokers together with the political party whose standpoint they state in their business circulars of having a share in causing the panic which leads to a fluctuation in the price of shares. I do that again now, and I do so without making any misuse of an exhibit.

The second form of putting up a smokescreen we had was the way in which my words in regard to Press control were dealt with. I said very clearly that I am a natural protagonist of freedom of the Press, but that at the same time I also firmly oppose any abuse of the Press when that is done to harm one’s fatherland. I ask whether any hon. member in this House differs from me when I say that the Press of a country dare not harm that country? I further said that in my opinion this in fact happens and that the position in which we have landed, both in the Commonwealth and at UN, is to a large extent the result of inaccurate reports and a wrong interpretation of the policy of the Government and also of what is sent overseas by means of repeating what has appeared in the Press here, as well as by means of the type of reports sent overseas directly, partly by persons employed by this Press. I adopted the attitude that I condemn this type of action as being wrong. I also added that I would like to see the members of the Press coming together and doing what the Press does in other countries, viz. to ensure that they apply self-control and discipline themselves, and to ensure that their patriotism also serves as a background for them jealously to supervise their own profession, just like any other profession organizes itself to supervise the actions of the members of the profession. I said that I hoped this would happen, because our Press is not at the moment organized to do that.

It is the best disciplined Press in the world.

The Press in South Africa is not, like other professions, organized to apply self-discipline. There is not a single method by which exact reporting can be ensured. It has been said by the Press union from time to time that it was considering something on those lines, and suggestions have been submitted to them, but up to now no organization has been formed for that purpose. The furthest I went this morning in adopting that attitude was to express the hope that something would be done on those lines, because South Africa cannot be allowed to suffer continuously, particularly in view of the fact that it now finds itself in a crisis, as the result of inaccurate reports and distorted interpretations of policy and motives. What did hon. members opposite, however, make of that? They intimated that I had announced by implication that Press control would be established by the Government, or that I had at the least uttered a threat in that direction. Now I want to repeat that abuse of the Press can just as little be tolerated in a well-ordered state as the abuse of the rights and privileges of any other profession, and that I therefore insist that the Press, in the interests of South Africa, particularly in the times in which we live, should exercise care and that they should keep an eye on each other. So far I have said no more than that.

Discipline!

Yes, I repeated that they should discipline themselves, and I say it once again. If it should become necessary for me to say more on a later occasion, I will not hesitate to do so, but I hope and trust, as a protagonist of the freedom of the Press, that it will never become necessary for me to say more. Therefore I ask the Press, and I am merely doing what other Prime Ministers before me have also done, now to give heed to such appeals, although hitherto they have to a large extent neglected to do so, and to be careful in these serious times, which are perhaps more serious than they were at that time. Everybody realizes to-day, perhaps better than ever before, what such actions on their part can lead to. For that reason I made this appeal in this very serious time and with the greatest sense of responsibility, and I seriously deprecate it when hon. members opposite put more into my mouth than I actually said.

Hitherto I have been referring to the smokescreens put up to hide what happened this morning, because what in fact happened this morning? It is a pity that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was not present this morning, because then we would have known to what extent he associated himself with the views expressed here by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) on behalf of that party. I will therefore now in his presence just state briefly what the crux of the conclusion to which we arrived was.

Before doing so, I first want to deal with the Progressive Party. The position in regard to this party has also become clear now. We accept that our problems in the Commonwealth and at UN have been caused by the belief held by the outside world that we do not want to act humanely towards our non-Whites, that we want to be oppressive and that we do not realize that the human dignity of the non-Whites should also be recognized; that they want it to be recognized and that there is a general belief that we as White people want to apply unlimited discrimination and domination. These are the conceptions which cause the trouble. It is also misapprehension in this regard which in our own country apparently leads to the constant mutual recrimination. This morning we tried to get clarity as to how each of the three groups here stand in respect of this cardinal test: Is it our motive to oppress, to dominate and to discriminate? My reply to that was that it was the very circumstances under which this happens which creates the dilemma for which we are all seeking a solution. I first said on behalf of my party that we all realize that in our history, for which the forefathers and all of us were responsible, the position was that the White man ruled in South Africa, and just like Britain in respect of its Empire, governed all the nations over which it had obtained domination. In regard to that period one can say that there was discrimination and domination applied by everybody. However, no one in the world is innocent in that respect. Now a new period in history has dawned. In this new period those who were subordinate are trying increasingly to get rid of domination. This process of emancipation was relatively easy in the case of clearly separate nations, but it is very difficult when there are more than one racial group within the same geographical borders.

In many of these countries there is still discrimination, including those which say that they are the enemies of discrimination. Amongst those countries where the position is really bad, our accusers are in the forefront. In India, that is true in respect of various groups; some of them have already been mentioned in public. The Nagas are the youngest section, but there were also others like the Sikhs. In Ceylon there is discrimination against the Tamils. In Malaya there is discrimination in respect of the Indian section of the population, and even to some extent in respect of the Chinese there. Britain also is not guiltless of still practising domination, as e.g. in the Protectorates. Australia is not guiltless of ruling over others. It is the guardian over the population of Papua in New Guinea. Canada is not guiltless of discrimination in respect of its behaviour towards the Indians and the Eskimos. All these countries say: Yes, that is true, but it is not the policy of our Government; it is only characteristic of a transition period. Now my standpoint this morning was that as far as we were concerned the Government in fact tries to find a policy whereby, whatever might happen in the transition period (and therefore just as in the case of the other countries), it is the object and the motive to evolve a method as a result of which eventually there need not be discrimination or domination. That is just as much a motive of the Government here as it is a motive of any of the other countries in the world, inter alia, those I mentioned. However, those countries do not want to view our policy in that light. They want to view our policy in the way they interpret it, viz. that we want to dominate and oppress for ever. All of us are co-responsible for this wrong impression, all the parties here, and I do not exclude my own party, nor do I exclude myself personally. The fact is that previously we spoke a lot about domination. We used words like that. As we developed our policy and put our case more clearly, inter alia, having regard to the latest world developments, we arrived at this clear standpoint that discrimination must be eliminated by carrying separation far enough. That is an attitude that I put forward at a very early stage already (something for which I have often been reproached by the Opposition), namely, when I stated on the occasion of the dissolution of the Natives’ Representative Council, “ Our policy of parallel development is aimed at domination for you in your areas, just as we want domination for ourselves in our areas”. Therefore at a very early stage already I indicated that our moral basis was that we were trying to give everyone his full rights in respect of his own people. That is the goal that we are striving at—just as other countries which, like us, are still in a transition period, say they are doing. I tried to emphasize clearly again this morning, and I do not propose to go into it again, that our idea of four kinds of parallel groups of authority eventually, is that you then actually follow/a method whereby the one racial group will not permanently rule the other, but that every racial group will be given self-rule in respect of its own people, in an area of its own where possible.

Hon. members may differ from me with regard to the practicability of our policy, and they may differ from me with regard to the possibility of the application of some part of the policy. But they cannot continue to proclaim to the world that we are being dishonest in saying that that is our motive. They have no right to do so At this stage I cannot enlarge further upon our attittude. I just wanted to explain this point.

I went on this morning to talk about the Progressive Party’s policy. In that regard I adopt the following attitude. The members of this Party say that they are against discrimination and domination. I accept that they are being honest and that their motive is to get away from it. But just as they try to test my method either in the light of its practicability, or by some other yardstick, so I am entitled to test their stand by the same yardstick. In testing their stand I say again, as I did this morning, that although they say and mean that they do not want discrimination, they will not, as things will work out under their policy, be able to get away from discrimination or domination, viewed from the angle of the Black man, unless they visualize as their ultimate goal a democracy in which the principle of “ one man one vote ” applies. If they accept that form as the ultimate goal, which according to them they do not, then the Blacks will of course govern South Africa by virtue of their superiority of numbers. Then of course the Black man will achieve domination over the White man and over the Coloured and over the Indian. According to them they do not want that. That is why I contended that if they do not contemplate that, and if they say that their policy will not result in that, then I must accept that what they want to do implies discrimination (namely, to have a type of Constitution under which, say, 10,000,000 Bantu will have only limited control for ever). They say that they do not want to discriminate on the ground of colour. The Progressive Party wants to discriminate only on the basis of a civilization test. If, however, they want to discriminate on the ground of civilization tests only, then they must either accept that those 10,000,000 Bantu will never all become civilized or they must accept that at some time or other they will all become civilized. If therefore the Progressive Party is always going to apply a civilization test only, then they must accept that eventually the Bantu will all be able to have a full share in the government of the country, and then it must mean that they will have the decisive say in the government of the country by virtue of their superior numbers. I personally cannot see what else could happen. If the Progressive Party now says, “Yes, but we believe that he Whites to-day are the most highly civilized group and and that they must therefore remain in control for all time to come, and that is why we want to introduce a rigid Constitution under which the rights of everybody will be permanently entrenched”, then I say that if they stand by that, they are just as prepared to discriminate as any other Party. After all, it means that by means of that constitution they guarantee a measure of control and power to one group, whatever level of civilization the other group may reach. Surely by providing now for a rigid constitution, which is the Progressive Party’s intention, a constitution which cannot be changed easily, they guarantee certain rights and concentrate those rights in some way or other in each of the various groups. Because they admit that unless they do so they cannot guarantee White authority to the extent that they do. Although they do not use the word “ colour ” they give protection, behind this protective wall of civilization, to the colour groups according to the different degrees of civilization that they have to-day. They fix these rights for ever in that rigid constitution. Then surely the only object is to discriminate against the non-Whites. They cannot get away from it.

May I put a question to the hon. the Prime Minister? He has said that where a rigid constitution gives the preponderant power to minorities, it is a form of discrimination in favour of those minorities. Is it also the hon. the Prime Minister’s contention then that the constitution of the United States of America is a discriminatory instrument?

I do not know what the hon. member is getting at but comparisons with other countries need not affect this argument of mine. If in asking that question the hon. member is suggesting that it is right that a certain fixed right, out of proportion to their numbers, should be given to each of the minority groups—Coloureds, Indians and Whites—then it means that he must accept that those minority groups are protected at the expense of the majority group, which is the Black group. Otherwise it means that the Blacks will rule and that the minorities will only be given certain amount of limited protection. If that is not the case, if those minority groups are going to rule, then there is discrimination. At this moment, therefore, I cannot see at all how the Progressive Party, in spite of its intentions with regard to discrimination and domination, which are as good as ours, can get away from the accusation which causes us so much suffering and which also comes from them.

Yes, but we are being just.

I am afraid that that is a little self-righteousness, because it simply means that hon. members are saying, “ We may discriminate, but we do not call it that, and therefore you are not entitled either to say it about us. You discriminate although you say that that is not so, but because we believe that, we are entitled to say to you that you are doing it.” That will get us nowhere. That is perfectly clear to me unless the Progressive Party puts forward an unambiguous solution for the dilemma in which I have placed them. They protect the White minority for ever so that it can rule for all time to come, because they accept that the Whites will always be the most civilized group, to such an extent that they will automatically retain control, and then there is discrimination and there is White rule. Alternatively they say, “ No, we are against discrimination and White domination because the Blacks are going to acquire civilization and in the long run, when they have acquired civilization to such an extent that practically the whole of the population will be reasonably civilized, the country will be governed on the basis of one man one vote ”; in other words, the Black man is going to dominate. If in terms of a rigid constitution enacted years ago, protection continues to exist for minority groups in what is then an entirely civilized population to such an extent that they still retain control to the same degree as in the old days when the argument was based on the civilization test, then I maintain that it is discrimination. Otherwise the Progressive Party must say (what it still does not want to admit as its policy) that it knows that eventually the Blacks are going to rule South Africa. And to that end then its policy will have to make this change in its “ rigid constitution ” possible. Otherwise this accusation against it still stands.

Now I come to the United Party. The United Party has been vacillating a good deal lately with regard to this new allegedly “ revolutionary ” idea with which they have come forward, the idea of racial federation. I have yet to discover what is new in it. What is revolutionary in it, as it was put to us this morning, I still have to discover too. Neither can I understand how it can interest South Africa in the least, as their newspapers boast it does. The simple facts are simply these: Previously hon. members opposite stated that for the time being they wanted the Coloureds to retain separate representation. Now I believe they are in favour of placing them on the common roll again. I believe they are constantly saying too that the Coloureds should be represented by Coloureds. In so far as “ racial federation ” is used as a term therefore, it does not apply to the Coloureds at all then, because, after all, in that way the Coloured will become part of the White community as one political entity. If those two promises are carried out, there can be no alternative.

Then we come to the Indians. In this regard they were very far from clear. But the hon. member for Yeoville has told us this morning that according to their policy of racial federation, the Indians will be put on a separate roll —for ever, as far as their policy goes to-day. Their congresses may change it later on—they do not know—but as far as they themselves and their motives are concerned, their own United Party view, the Indians will for ever be represented in this Parliament by Whites for whom they will vote on a separate roll.

Thirdly it is clear that the urban Bantu will be represented in the same way in this Parliament. As far as present-day United Party policy goes the urban Bantu will for ever be represented here by Whites. The United Party leaders do not know what their congresses are going to do in the future, but as far as their basic policy is concerned, it is their deliberate policy, the policy with which they persist and for which they seek public support, to have the Indians represented for ever in this Parliament by a few Whites, and the same applies to the urban Bantu. In the light of these statements which were confirmed this morning by the hon. member for Yeoville, I then said that surely they could be accused of practising discrimination and domination. In that case there was more justification for accusing them than us, because no matter how hard the Government has to struggle to carry out its policy, it at least aims to do away with discrimination and domination, because according to its policy the four separate groups must eventually govern themselves. The attitude and aim of tile United Party, however, is to discriminate and dominate for all time, because they say that there will always be limited representation by Whites and the White minority will always dominate in a mixed fatherland. In that case the United Party members, and not we, are the people who should be in the dock at UNO. In that case there was more reason for putting them in the dock at the Prime Ministers’ Conference than there was to put us there.

I went on to say that this concept of a racial federation policy was open to criticism not on that ground alone. There are other grounds condemning the idea of racial federation. It still embraces the idea of Bantu homelands and there will be local Black parliaments in those Bantu homelands, just as this piebald parliament which I have just described will be established in what I call the White area, but which he calls the piebald area. There will have to be a federal parliament for the whole country—a central federal parliament—in which this discriminatory parliament of the piebald area or the mixed population will have to be represented and in which the parliaments of the Bantu areas or the Bantu people will have to be represented. A piebald super-parliament must lead to a piebald Cabinet and that will be the super Cabinet of the country. In other words, the contention of the United Party that the White man will remain in power is not correct either, because he will not remain in power in that federal parliament—only in the parliament of the smaller piebald area. Once that federal parliament has been constituted with a preponderance of non-Whites further pressure will be exerted to ensure that White domination also ceases in the piebald area and in its parliament (which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says will happen under our policy). This idea of a federation therefore collapses under the impact of the first accusation I have made, namely that there will be discrimination and domination. In the second place it collapses because of the fact that it will still give South Africa a mixed central parliament in the long run. (So they need not try so hard to win the by-election at Swellendam by telling the people that the colour groups, apart from the Coloured people will be represented in that parliament by Whites only.) The United Party has been caught in its own trap because they advocate a central federal parliament with Black and White members, a parliament which will be superior to this Parliament.

In the third instance I said that in order to ascertain its value to South Africa this idea of a federation could be tested in the light of what is happening in an existing multi-racial federation. And that, Sir, is a race federation, in which more concessions have been made to the non-Whites than will be made under this model race federation of the United Party, as the hon. member for Yeoville has outlined it. The federation that we know, namely the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, has already manifested certain characteristics. In the first place it appears that the separate Black states, such as Nyasaland, do not wish to remain members of the Federation. Their leaders as well as the people want to secede. Our policy foresees that the Blacks will want to rule quite separately. His does not. His policy wants to keep them in compulsorily, as they are doing at the moment in the case of the Federation to which I have referred, and where it is causing trouble. There too a Black territory is being forced to remain a member of the Federation. Barotseland has similarly indicated that she does not wish to become a member of a multi-racial federation. As far as the piebald areas are concerned, it has been proved in Northern Rhodesia that their Black nations do not want to remain a piebald area, with a rigid constitution, in which the Black man only plays a limited role. It is true that the Black man was told that the reason for that was that he had not reached the same standard of civilization as the White man. In spite of that he wants to govern the country. They are already making further demands in Southern Rhodesia in spite of the fact that the concession has already been made to have Black members of Parliament and Black Ministers. That is why I said that it has been tested in practice whether this type of federation will work or not. If the Black man does not even want that federation where he has so much power because of his numerical strength, how can you expect him to be agreeable to accept a federation less favourable to him here? I say therefore that it has become clear this morning what this struggle is about. I am more convinced than ever that the only road along which South Africa will find its salvation is the road which this Government is following. That is the only road, no matter how difficult it may be, to get away from discrimination and domination. That is the only road that will lead to a situation where the White man will not ultimately be subjected to Black domination. All the other methods will fail, as far as the moral and practical aspects are concerned, as I have pointed out in analysing them.

I therefore appeal to the people of South Africa—and in doing so I am not disregarding the Leader of the Opposition or the Leader of the Progressive Party; it is not really important whether or not they are disregarded—I appeal directly to South Africa, as their present leader in the political sphere, not to fall for battle cries such as race federations. From the outset the Nationalist Party have given a meaning to the idea of separate development. Hon. members of the Opposition have as yet omitted to give full content to their colour policy, but insofar as they have, this race federation idea of theirs is doomed just as much as the Senate plan. The Graaff Senate plan failed. The Graaff race federation plan is equally weak. That is why I appeal to the people of South Africa not to be misled by slogans such as that in the place of a positive policy, and not to be misled by emotional accusations accompanied by an unjustifiable moral claim that the Government policy is wrong. Let the electorate go down to the roots of this struggle in regard to policy, as we have done, particularly to-day, and if they do that they will stand by the Government, come what may, because the Government offers the only hope for the survival of the White man also.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

AYES—39: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Butcher, R. R.; Connan, J. M.; de Beer, Z. J.; Dodds, P. R.; Eglin, C. W.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Horak, J. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lawrence, H. G.; Lewis, H.; Lewis, J.; Malan, E. G.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Shearer, O. L.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Steytler, J. van A.; Streicher, D. M.; Swart, H. G.; Swart, R. A. F.; Tucker, H.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Williams, T. O.

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

NOES—71: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, P. J.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; du Plessis, P. W.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Greyling, J. C.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Rall, J. J.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Strydom, G. H. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Vosloo, A. H.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Vote No. 4—“ Prime Minister ”, as printed, put and agreed to.