Sir, I referred last night to the frank and fair admission of the Government side that the United Party Opposition had over all these years taken up a responsible and patriotic attitude to the South West Africa question. I think that is a very fair inference from the kindly remarks of the hon. member of Middelland (Mr. van der Merwe) who, incidentally, is a Whip on the Government side and a South-Wester. Sir, it is true that those remarks did not come from the hon. the Prime Minister himself; but since the hon. member for Middelland is a Whip and spoke so soon after the hon. the Prime Minister, I think we can be quite certain that they have his blessing.

I think we should be grateful for those remarks. I believe that those remarks represent the carrot in this matter. Sir, imagine our annoyance, therefore, at the very strong language directed to us by the hon. the Prime Minister at the end of his speech to the effect that people who attack the Government’s plans for South West Africa and their White Paper play into the hands of our enemies. Sir, this was the threat of the stick, if I may call it that. We are annoyed about it for two reasons. First, because notwithstanding the admission by the hon. member for Middelland about our responsible conduct, and before we had said one single word in this debate, the Prime Minister went out of his way to attack the plans which the United Party Opposition offers for South West Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister’s own plans were under discussion in this debate, not ours. But the hon. the Prime Minister saw fit to devote a large part of his speech to an attempt to make our alternative plans for South West Africa look ridiculous. And if I may say so he managed to get one of the few cheers from his own side when he was making that reference. Sir, I ask the hon. the Prime Minister: Is what is sauce for the goose not sauce for the gander?

The second reason why we were annoyed at these remarks by the hon. the Prime Minister is that it is most urgent that we should get these plans for South West Africa changed; it is most crucial in the interests of South Africa. I ask hon. members opposite: How else are we to get them changed but by pleading for better plans, and showing up the weaknesses and inadequacies of the present plan? Sir, we have been responsible in the past, on the recent admission of the other side, and we know how to be responsible now.

Sir, all of this, I suggest, throws a very interesting light on the approach of the hon. the Prime Minister and of the Government (in so far as they supported it) to the role of the Opposition. I suggest it throws an interesting light on the approach of all who take up that cry.

The second matter I would like to deal with is the reproach which the hon. member for Middelland directed to this side. He said that the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition was giving rise to the thought that the Government was giving way. I do not know whether in fact the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did that in his speech, but I should have thought it was as clear as daylight that the Prime Minister, the Government, has changed its mind and its plans in this regard. At one time they were showing every sign of rushing headlong forward to establish Bantustans immediately if not sooner.

Where do you get that from?

I will tell hon. members where I get it from. First of all, the report of the Odendaal Commission was pushed to completion in record time so that inevitably the Government would have to come forward with its recommendations and decisions before the International Court case was heard. Secondly, the Government indicated immediately that it would in fact indicate its decisions on the White Paper at a very early date. Thirdly, the Government announced that there would be a special session of the South West Africa Legislative Assembly called for this very purpose of dealing with the report. Fourthly, they appointed one Commissioner-General for the homelands in South West Africa.

Who is paying his wages?

Fifthly, the Cabinet and hon. gentlemen opposite did not even have the time to honour the solemn promise given to South West Africa by the Nationalist Party of South West Africa, that before control over financial matters, which vested in South West Africa, was changed, the voters of South West Africa would be given an opportunity at a general election or referendum to express their opinion. I quote from the Burger of 19 February 1964—

That was on 19 February of this year. Incidentally I would like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether, now that we will have to wait at least a year before the judgment of the court is given, his party in fact intends after all to honour the promise which was given to South West Africa to have a general election or a referendum.

Members of the Government, while admittedly frank and fair in referring to the responsibility of this side, were not prepared to give this side any credit, either as their friends or as their friendly opponents or indeed their other friends or friendly opponents elsewhere, for having helped them to wiser counsels in this matter. You will recall that they said they had not been influenced by the arguments of the Opposition in South West Africa, by the official Opposition in South Africa or indeed by the United States of America or the United Kingdom. One is therefore left wondering by whom they were moved to make this change of plan.

I suggest that all we have had here throws a most interesting light on the Government. I think it is most revealing that they should desire to create the impression that there has been no change of plan at all and, above all, that this change of plan implies no weakness on the part of the Government or the Prime Minister. The hon. the Prime Minister was at pains to make this point. I would like to emphasize, Sir, that the people of South Africa are extremely strong and that we have a thoroughly just case, both in regard to South Africa and South West Africa. But I say, and I think I have established it, that it is of course true that the Cabinet are weak and that the hon. the Prime Minister is weak. [Laughter.] I am interested in the laughter opposite. I want to ask hon. members opposite how you can be strong when your policies are weak? I say again, South Africa is a strong and a determined country. I believe in due course we shall get a strong and wise leader. But this Bantustan policy for South Africa undermines the whole strength of the Republic, it destroys our whole defensive position in respect of both armed intervention from outside, which the hon. the Minister of Defence spoke about in June last year, and our ability to deal with insidious communistic or other attempts to attack us from within the country. It also denies the continuing opportunity to help to bring Western standards of civilization, and the benefits of that civilization, to all the peoples in our country.

I took the liberty of saying the hon. the Prime Minister was weak, in my opinion. I shall tell you why I think that is obvious. I know there is a myth that he is a very strong man. But he is the father of this utterly weak policy South Africa has to-day. That is the first point. I suggest, with great respect, that the hon. the Prime Minister is also weak in the sense that he is impulsive. The hon. the Prime Minister rushes in without adequate consideration of a matter and without sound reflection. I suggest that he then changes his mind when the difficulties show themselves. I should like to illustrate that. First of all he did this when he took us out of the Commonwealth. He went to the conference assuring us that he could stay and that he wanted to stay within it. He bumped up against certain insulting language there, which we all regret—the sort of thing we get at the United Nations every day—and he was asked to make some tiny concession; not a fraction of the concession he made to obtain peace in the face of United Nations’ attacks, namely to create the Bantustans. Having done that he changed his plans to keep us in the Commonwealth and he pulled us out.

Order! The hon. member is very far from the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I was just illustrating my point. I suggest in fairness that I should be allowed to do so shortly.

Order! But the hon. member is going too far afield.

Can I just say that the Prime Minister did the same thing about the Xhosa language in the Constitution Bill. In the first Bill it was provided that Xhosa would be the official language of the Transkei and English and Afrikaans secondary. The United Party objected …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the motion.

A third illustration of what the hon. gentleman has done is what he did in this very case under discussion. The hon. the Prime Minister and the whole Cabinet were showing all the signs of rushing headlong forward to establishing Bantustans immediately if not sooner. Then, of course, suddenly and characteristically and typically they have now done another somersault and changed their minds. Let me say at once that we are extremely thankful that this has happened. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has expressed our profound relief. We are thankful that wisdom has at last prevailed even though it was at a late stage. Nobody must therefore suggest that we will be doing a service to the country if we conceal from it the weakness of our Cabinet and of our hon. Prime Minister. It is the biggest service we can do to the country to make this known to it. I suggest that on the facts I was allowed to give it is quite overwhelming.

We are profoundly hoping that the hon. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet will again change their mind and that they will abandon this whole Bantustan scheme for South Africa. It would be the most sensible thing they could do, and when I say “for South Africa” I now include South West Africa. It would indeed be a happy day; we shall get a measure of unity among our people in South Africa, a measure of unity that will certainly never occur while this Bantustan scheme is being propounded as the policy of the Government. I fear, Sir, that the hon. the Prime Minister will not have the wisdom to do this.

I say, therefore, that we refuse to participate in maintaining the myth that the hon. the Prime Minister is strong. In order to prop up the present Government we find that not only must our plans be attacked, which is fair enough, but we find that it must be said that under United Party policy the whole of South West Africa would become a communist state. That was stated by the hon. member for Middelland and echoed, slightly more faintly, by the hon. member for Namib (Mr. Cloete). That is what hon. members opposite say will happen to South Africa itself under our policy. They say that day in and day out. I say they have lost the faith they had right up to the death of the lamented Adv. Strijdom, namely, that it was in fact unthinkable that South Africa as a whole would become communist. At that time their faith still was that Western civilization should be brought to the whole of South Africa. I believe that members opposite will regain their faith. I do not believe their supporters have lost that faith.

We know now what the Opposition’s plan is in connection with this White Paper and what their attitude is towards it. I just want to put a few questions to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to confirm that I am not interpreting him incorrectly. Firstly, I understood him to say that they accepted the report of the Van Zyl Commission of 1936.

In certain respects.

I see. Is their attitude that South West Africa should retain its financial control? Is that correct? Thirdly, I understood him to say the South West Africa Administration should retain full control as at present and that its administration should be extended. He felt in particular that Bantu administration should be transferred to the Administration of South West Africa. Fourthly, they are opposed to the establishment of homelands in South West Africa, or at least the expansion of homelands. The Leader of the Opposition suggests large Bantu homelands in the north of South West Africa; for the south a common homeland, if I may put it that way, for the Whites and non-Whites. Fifthly, as far as the economic development of South West Africa is concerned, the United Party says yes that must take place but not at such a fast pace; the scheme is too colossal, we are too hasty with it, it will cost too much and there are too many airfields. As far as the future of South West Africa is concerned he foresees a federation with the Republic.

Mr. Speaker, let us analyse these few points. What did the Van Zyl Commission recommend in their report? Their terms of reference were in South West Africa to inquire into and to report on the effectiveness of the existing form of government in the territory, the reasons for the existing dissatisfaction there and the apparent failure thereof. Secondly, they had to investigate, both from a political and State financial point of view, in what way the management of the territory could be best organized in order to be a more effective administration and in order to give greater satisfaction to the people. Those were their terms of reference. There was great dissatisfaction amongst the people at the time because they felt their future was insecure; they did not know what awaited South West Africa. That was why the Commission had to inquire into and report on the matter.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition recently held a meeting at Windhoek. He said that South West Africa was in a difficult position to-day, that the people were concerned about their future, that dangers threatened South West Africa as result of the policy of the present Prime Minister. I want to return to what the Van Zyl Commission had to inquire into. That uncertainty existed at that time, that unrest was there and that was during a time of a United Party Government.

You are putting it quite incorrectly.

I am reading the terms of reference of the Commission as to what they had to inquire into.

It is quite incorrect to compare the two situations. Only somebody who tries to build up a case will try to do that.

Order! The hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot make a speech sitting.

He cannot even make one standing.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot deny that there was trouble at the time. I was in South West and I know what the feeling was. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot tell me anything about the position which obtained and still obtains in South West Africa. That position had to be inquired into. A report was submitted also in connection with the future form of government for South West. The following was one of the recommendations. I think it is necessary for me to read it because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says they accept that report in certain respects. They recommended—

They recommended that this Government should have greater control over the allocation of funds. Secondly—

They recommended a new form of government. Eventually they stated—

I do not know whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition accepts this recommendation of the Commission, namely, that the form of government should be changed. Because that is what the Odendaal Commission recommends to-day and that is what the Government has decided in the White Paper should be investigated. But the Opposition rejects the White Paper.

I now come to the finances. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said we should not, in terms of the Odendaal Commission report, take the financial control away from South West Africa. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition since when has it been United Party policy that South West Africa should retain its financial control? Since when has that been their policy? I do not suppose I shall get a reply, Mr. Speaker. I shall tell them what their policy was in the past. When the South West Africa Affairs Act was discussed in 1949 in this House the hon. the Leader of the Opposition sat here. It dealt with a new Constitution for South West Africa. It dealt with two issues in particular, namely, extended powers and financial control. May I tell you what the late General Smuts said in that connection, Sir? He said “We cannot renounce part of our sovereignty so far as taxation is concerned. It is a monstrous thing.” He did not want South West Africa to be given control over its finances at all. He went further and said (Hansard, 1949, Vol. 66, Col. 1298)—

That is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is once again advocating—South West Africa apartheid. He will not reply. Dr. Malan, it is true, did introduce that Bill at the time and did indeed advocate that financial control should be entrusted to South West Africa. But Dr. Malan explicitly stated—and this also appears in Hansard—that it was only for the present. He repeated that three times in one column, that it was only for the present, and that it was not a permanent arrangement. I should like to learn from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when they have changed their policy; when did they decide once again to introduce South West Africa apartheid? But I go further. I made a speech in this House in 1959 in which I asked the Leader of the Opposition the following. This also appears in Hansard of 11 May 1959—

Mr. Harry Lawrence, a frontbencher of the United Party, replied—

That is correct.

Is that correct? I am very grateful for that reaction. Mr. Lawrence went on to say—

That was what Mr. Harry Lawrence said. Up to 1959 it was the policy of the United Party that the taxation applicable in South West Africa should be adapted to that applicable in the Republic and that the two systems should be placed on an equal basis. That is recommended in the Odendaal Commission report, we want to have that investigated, and the Opposition objects to it.

The Leader of the Opposition also advocates the retention of the existing administrative arrangements and that they should be extended. Since when has that been their policy? Has the policy not always been that we must draw South West Africa into the Republic? Since when have they felt that South West Africa should be pushed away from the Republic? To-day we find that they want to push South West Africa away from the Republic. I want to say this to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: If his policy were to be implemented and it should happen that South West Africa were divided into two federal sections each one with his own government, the Leader of the Opposition would have paved the way for UNO to take South West Africa over. Because that is what they are waiting for. They are waiting for the bonds between South West Africa and the Republic to be broken in which case South West Africa will fall into their laps like a ripe apple. The Opposition is busy untying South West Africa from the Republic.

Where do you get that idea from?

I shall come to that in a moment. I shall tell you where I get that idea from. In order to establish a federation you must surely have self-governing states. If you do not have self-governing states it will not be a federation. You will have to have a self-governing state in the north and a self-governing state in the south of South West and a self-governing state here in order to constitute a federation.

What about the United States of America?

Were those not self-governing states which united? I shall return to this question later on.

The homelands are rejected except the homeland in the northern area. If ever we have had a revelation of a lack of knowledge about South West Africa we have it in this suggestion that the northern areas should be grouped into one homeland. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition suggests that the Kaokoveld, Ovamboland, Okavango and the Caprivi region should be joined together in one legislative assembly. May I please ask him whether he means the whole Caprivi? He does not answer, he is dumb, Mr. Speaker.

Ask Mr. Speaker’s permission for me to reply.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking that permission. Do you mean the whole Caprivi? You can say “yes” or “no”. You need not explain and say you mean only a portion or the whole. Is it impossible for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to tell us he is talking about east Caprivi or west Caprivi or the whole Caprivi? No, Mr. Speaker, he does not know what he is talking about. I take it he means the whole Caprivi? Can I assume that?

Do not assume anything; I am not allowed to reply.

I want to say this to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: The Caprivi consists of two portions. You have east Caprivi and west Caprivi. West Caprivi is inhabited by 700 Bushmen. They constitute the entire population. East Caprivi is inhabited by two other Bantu groups. Can you imagine, Sir, having in a legislative assembly—supposing it is seated in Ovamboland—Ovabimbas and Ovatjimbas, and Hereros from the Kaokoveld, the seven tribes from Ovamboland, the five tribes from Okavango-land, the Barakwenga Bushmen from west Caprivi—I suppose this is the first time the Leader of the Opposition hears about them—and the people from east Caprivi. East Caprivi is 300/400 miles away from the Ovamboland headquarters. They do not know the area; they cannot speak the language. They are a totally different race. They are completely incompatible, but the Leader of the Opposition wants to throw them together, and it has to be done soon. He said that in his speech at Windhoek. A legislative assembly has to be instituted for those areas as soon as possible! Mr. Chairman, do you for one moment think that will at all be practically possible? That is the Bantustan he will be creating! It will be a Bantustan that will stretch from the ocean right to the Rhodesian border. What else is it, Mr. Speaker, than a series of non-White areas, each one with his own local Government, joined together in one legislative assembly, with own allegiance because they constitute a federation. What else is it than a Bantu-self-governing area? I am surprised at the hon. the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that those people together should form a legislative assembly and that that should be done as soon as possible. East Caprivi is situated so far away that it is not even shown on the map of South West Africa; it is shown on a separate map.

I go further. The Opposition’s objection to the homelands is that they will not be economically viable. The Commission foresaw that. If hon. members opposite read the report properly they will see it states clearly that no stumbling blocks or hindrances should be placed in the way of those different areas trading freely amongst themselves and with the White area. They must have the same economy because they will always be economically dependent on one another, but politically they should be separated. Each one of those areas must be able to live according to his own political convictions. The Opposition objects to the non-White areas being co-ordinated. What is their objection to that? Why should we not make Namaland one Namaland? There is a small reserve not far away, Neuhof, with 300/400 inhabitants. You have the Warmbaths reserve which is also a small area. You have the Bondels reserve which is also a small area. What does the Leader of the Opposition intend doing with them? Does he want to give each one of them a local tribal council or Government? Is it not better to bring those people together in one area so that they will have more room than they have to-day? What does he want to do with those small areas when they become over-populated as they are to-day? Is it not in the interests of those people that you persuade them to move from those small areas which have been completely ruined to a bigger area which is already developed and where they can make a better living? What is their objection to that? But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in his speech at Windhoek that they were opposed to moving people by force. Is there one word in the report to suggest that those people should be forced to go to those homelands? It says the opposite; they must be persuaded to go there. I am convinced we shall be able to persuade those people to go. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition yesterday asked “What about Katatura? The people are still in the old location”. I shall tell him why they are there. They are still there because they have been incited by Whites not to move. They are being incited by the Opposition not to move. To-day they are sitting there just to make things difficult for us. They want us to force them. They want an incident. They want the outside world to have a reason to act and to force us. Let me give examples. Recently the organizer of the United Party in South West Africa held a meeting at Mariental and one of the farmers asked this question: “My farm falls in the area earmarked for a Bantu homelands What must I do? Must I move or not?” The organizer replied: “My advice to you is not to move, stay there. Stay there for five years, and another five years and another five years”. By saying that they are setting an example to the non-White because if the White man is told not to do it the non-White also says: “Why should I do it?” That is the game they are playing there. I can tell you that you are doing those people a disservice. Surely the least we can expect of you is to encourage those people, in their own interests, to move from the smaller homelands to the bigger ones where they will be together and where you can provide them with the proper services, such as educational services, health services, where we can give them guidance, and where they can trade, everything being in their own interests. How on earth can you do that when they are scattered in small homelands far away from one another? We have no choice. You cannot extend those small homelands but you can consolidate them in one bigger homeland where the people will have more room than they have ever had and where they can make a better living. Whether we establish a homeland and develop it or whether we buy farms that have already been developed and give those to them, what is the difference? You are providing them with a much better opportunity of making a living.

Let us just study the political set-up the Leader of the Opposition envisages. This question has already been dealt with by other speakers. When you think what he envisages for the south I want to point out that their leader in South West has stated frankly that they accept the idea of non-White reserves, as a matter of fact they accept the ethnic grouping, but not as homelands. He says those ethnic groups should be represented in the Central Parliament from within their own ranks. That is also what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in South Africa wants but he does not say it; he is afraid to say that White and non-White should sit together in that legislative assembly. He is afraid to say that but the implication of his policy is very clear. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the non-Whites in South West do not want it either, and the White man in South West will never accept it, and the National Government will accept it even less.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition as well as other speakers object to the economic development envisaged and then they refer to the Kunene scheme. I want to deal with that for a moment What is envisaged with the development of the Kunene scheme? In the first place a scheme is envisaged that will provide water to the inhabitants of Ovamboland. We are now told that we should have a smaller scheme. But it is simply impossible to tackle a smaller scheme. There is only one scheme and it is this big one. A few years ago we started to build the canal and 60 miles were built. I may tell you, Sir, that had we not had that canal the year before last when we had that drought we would have had to transport 100,000 Ovambos to the Kunene river to save them from dying of thirst. It has often happened in the past that some of the inhabitants of Ovamboland have died of thirst. It will happen again and that would have happened the year before last had we not taken the timeous step of developing the canal system. The nature of the ground in Ovamboland is such that you cannot sink boreholes. The water is salty and cannot be used. The only dams the Ovambos construct are shallow dams. Those dams are only of a certain depth, if they are deeper they cannot use the water. The rivers flowing from Angola come down in flood annually and fill those dams. The existing canal was constructed on the surface and the dams which are fed by this canal are on the surface and not below the surface. The water gets pumped from the canal into those dams. If you do not do that you cannot use the water. The year before last we were fortunate in that we got water from the Angola plains, but we shall not have that good fortune every year. To ensure that we have enough water every year for those 240,000 Ovambos, or that portion of Ovamboland which falls under the canal system, we have to tackle the Kunene scheme. I do not see anything wrong with that. We admit it is a big scheme, a very big scheme. I do not think there is anything wrong in developing that scheme, but hon. members opposite do not know the details. If they want to take the trouble they can get the details. The intention is to start with the scheme at Matala. An electricity scheme is already in existence and the Portuguese have more electricity than they require. They will enlarge their scheme and deliver electric power up to the border of South West Africa. We require that electric power in order to develop our scheme south of the Kunene. We need that electric power and must use it. It will be possible to generate so much electricity at the Ruacana scheme that we shall be able not only to extract water from the Kunene but also to provide a large section of the White population of South West Africa with electricity. If we do not have that electricity scheme we shall not be able to extract the water from the Kunene. The two go together. You have to build a dam there to store the water and if you do not do so the whole scheme will be a failure. Hon. gentlemen opposite say the whole scheme is too colossal, that it will cost too much. How on earth can you say it will cost too much if it is necessary and when you cannot develop a smaller scheme? We are told that we are in too great a hurry. Sir, do you know how long it takes to develop such a scheme? I can tell you in how great a hurry the United Party supporters in South West Africa are for this scheme to be undertaken. To-day they are continually writing in the Press that the waters of the Kunene have not yet reached Windhoek and that the electric wires from the Kunene have not yet been erected. That is the hurry they are in. It is a scheme which demands further proper planning and we cannot delay it. It will cost a great deal. You cannot develop such a scheme with little money, but it will be a payable proposition.

As far as the air service is concerned we are told too many airports are to be built. Let me say this for the edification of hon. members opposite that to-day the Windhoek aerodrome handles the second largest number of planes in South Africa every month. Only Jan Smuts Aerodrome handles more planes than the J. G. Strijdom aerodrome. They are not all big planes, nor are they the biggest planes but we have a local air service in South West Africa which has a large number of planes. There are many privately-owned planes, and many planes visit South West Africa. The days of the donkey cart are past; the days of the ox-wagon are past. We are always accused of being too slow with everything we want to do. To-day we are accused of being too hasty. [Time limit.]

It appears to me that the hon. the Deputy Minister for South West Africa Affairs has no conception of the change of climate that has taken place in the world since 1936, and I am afraid he has not helped in any way to bring us nearer a solution of the South West African problem. His arguments, I am afraid, were entirely out of touch with the importance of the occasion, and I do not think there is a single one that cannot be knocked down. For instance, the difficulties in South West Africa in 1936 did not spring from any pressure from the League of Nations at all, but from the pressure of Hitler, and that is the reason why the Van Zyl Commission was appointed. The hon. Deputy Minister was also quite wrong to say that the United Party, in its recent declaration, had proposed that South West Africa should be governed as a province. All that was said and pointed out was, that in terms of the mandate South Africa had the right to govern it in that way, not that it was desirable to do so at all. Other points I hope to be able to deal with in the course of the remarks that I want to make.

If there is one matter that, we feel, should be treated with a sense of national responsibility, it is the question of South West Africa. In saying that, I am looking with both eyes towards the Government, because, Mr. Speaker, the attitude has been developing here lately that the Government is free to govern as it likes, irrespective of how it affects the welfare of the country, and that the Opposition must not probe too deeply or criticize too loudly—lest the world outside see and hear what the Government is busy doing. This is an attitude that we in the Opposition cannot accept. The simple truth is that deeds speak louder than words. The image of a country is the image reflected by its Government and by the actions and policies of its leaders. That is why the main responsibility in politics rests with the Government of the day; and in no matter is the responsibility of the Government towards South Africa and the interests of our country greater than in this question of South West Africa. Of course, the Opposition has also got a duty. It must always be the watchdog of the country, it must keep the country informed about the full implications of any Government action, and I believe that we can never, as an Opposition, serve the true interests of South Africa if we close our eyes to what we sincerely believe to be wrong and to be damaging to the country and our people. That is the spirit in which we here to-day approach the Odendaal Report, the Government’s plans in connection with it and the South West Africa question in general. Our only yardstick in this matter is not the question of votes, not a question of elections, but a question of the welfare and the interests of our country, and the welfare of all the people of South Africa.

South West Africa is one of those awkward problems which, if we do not solve it ourselves, others will attempt to solve for us. That is why we in the Opposition have prevailed for years upon the Government to seek the benefit of the advice and the views of the Opposition, either by way of a regular discussion of the matter in Parliament, or by the creation of parliamentary machinery for a bi-partisan approach. Admittedly, Mr. Speaker, a bi-partisan approach can be very perplexing where the parties concerned differ fundamentally over the main tenets of national policy, but South West Africa is a question apart, it is a question sui generis, of its own kind, both in regard to its internal conditions and in regard to its external relations, and we believe that there was therefore never any reason why any political party in South Africa should consider it necessary to apply its domestic policies in South Africa to the entirely different circumstances in which the problem of South West Africa is set. In fact, we believe that any party which feels that it must approach the problems concerning South West Africa on the rigid basis of its own programme at home, is bound to fail. But, Mr. Speaker, the Government listened to none of our suggestions. Instead, it produced a plan, now known as the Odendaal plan, the political section of which turned out to be the most damaging and unrealistic piece of statesmanship ever to be tabled in this House.

We wish the hon. Prime Minister would explain to us: Was it necessary for the Government at all to come with this type of politics over South West Africa at this stage? Why was it necessary at this delicate stage of the South West Africa question? What good could the hon. Prime Minister possibly have expected to come from it? Why did he not confine the Odendaal Commission to social and economic development schemes? Why did he not leave the political side alone? If he had done that, he would have had the backing of the whole country and of the whole of Parliament. We want to know why the Prime Minister thought it necessary to throw this controversial piece of work into the international ring at this delicate stage of the dispute over South West Africa? The hon. the Prime Minister failed to explain himself, and for what has come about, the full onus must rest on the shoulders of the Government.

We have in front of us for consideration a White Paper containing the decisions of the Government on the recommendations of the Odendaal Commission. Up to yesterday we were relieved to know that the wild seeds sown by the Odendaal Commission would not be bearing fruit for this season. But yesterday we heard that we were actually embarrassing the Government by thinking that they were not going forward with the whole report; and we have now heard that there is no shelving of anything (to quote the words of the Prime Minister) but only a spacing of decisions; we have now heard that the White Paper is only part of a comprehensive scheme, viz. the Odendaal Plan, which (again in the words of the Prime Minister) forms one whole and must be implemented in due time, and that the status quo is maintained only for the time being. So, the Odendaal Report now stands as a blue-print of Government intentions, and therefore we have no choice but to consider its implications for the country and to make our warning to the Government.

At the opening of the present Session of Parliament, the Government promised legislation, according to the Minutes of the House, flowing from this report. We would like to know if it is still the intention to come with legislation during this Session.

To appreciate the South West Africa problem and the Odendaal Report, I think it is necessary that we have a quick look at the historical setting in which the country and its people have developed. At the time when the Germans took control of South West Africa, they annexed the whole of the territory, but they never colonized the whole. What they colonized was only the southern section. The northern section was left completely untouched. Right from the beginning they established a dividing line in the territory. Beyond that line no European was allowed to go without permission. The reason was that geographically the country was too big and the administrative machinery was not available for the colonization of the whole. The effect of this northern line was that it divided South West Africa right from the beginning into two political units. Even economically there are now two South West Africas. The one, the Southern, is known as the police zone. Here Europeans settled, here towns developed, here an administration was established according to European patterns. The other section was the Northern region. That remained purely tribal areas covering Ovamboland, the Okavango, the Caprivi and the Kaokoveld. This part became known, rather clumsily, as “the area outside the police zone”. In this area no Europeans were allowed to settle, and for all practical purposes the tribes continued to govern themselves according not to Western but traditional form of government.

Separate development.

It had nothing to do with race policies. That is where my friend there makes the mistake. After South Africa took over, early in 1919, one of its first acts of administration was to give formal recognition to this position, and to leave intact this constitutional arrangement between the North and the South, and a proclamation was issued called “the Prohibited Areas Proclamation of 1919”, which defined the position in legal terms. A clear line of demarcation was now drawn on the map. It was drawn in red, and so became known as the “Red Line”. Nobody was allowed to cross that line without permission, and in practice that permission was granted solely to missionaries, a few travellers and some officials. After 1919 the proclamation was amended a few times, and in 1953 the Line was pushed back in one section for about 75 miles to provide new farms for Europeans, but basically the division remained the same. The effect of this historical demarcation was that South West Africa, right from the beginning, became a country comprising two distinct political units, or political regions. The Northern Region remained homogeneous in the composition of its population. And I want to emphasize that it remained homogenous not as a matter of race policy, but simply as a matter of practical administration. The result was that the tribal organizations remained intact and that the form of government in that part of South West Africa remained traditional. To-day the position is that out of a total of 526,000 people in South West Africa, 292,000 live in this northern sector, roughly three-fifths of the total population of the territory, and over 90 per cent of them, 239,000, are Ovambos, living in Ovamboland—there is hardly anybody in the Eastern Caprivi. The point is that of the 292,000 people in the North more than 239,000 are Ovambos in Ovamboland, while most of the others are ethnically related to the Ovambo tribes. There are 358 Europeans there but most of them are officials and missionaries who do not live there permanently. The Northern Region has, therefore, and I say again, not as a result of any race policy, but purely as a matter of practical administration, become an ethnically homogeneous state. The Southern Region is completely different. In the Southern Region the population consists of a wide variety of peoples, the Bushmen, the Hottentots or Namas, the Berg Damaras, the Hereros, the Rhehoboth Basters, the Europeans and the Cape Coloureds. These groups entered the Territory at different stages, but they are all permanently settled there and they look upon themselves and call themselves South Westers. They number about 233,000 and are spread out all over the South; and it is an interesting aspect of the situation in the Southern Region that if you leave aside the nomadic Bushmen, you will find that the people of European stock and those of part-European stock, that is to say 73,000 Europeans, 11,000 Basters and 13,000 Coloured people together are almost equally numbered to the Namas, the Berg Damaras and the Hereros. And what must not be forgotten is that the Europeans are a fast growing community, and the more development there is, the faster the European community will grow; and I have not the slightest doubt that through normal development in the foreseeable future you will have in the Southern Region 50/50 position as to people of European stock and people of non-European stock, so that there can be no question, politically or otherwise, of the Europeans being swamped, or any section being dominated by another. In the Southern Region the set-up is thoroughly multi-racial and Western form of government became the established pattern of government in the south. I elaborated on this point because this regionalism runs like a clear thread through the whole political and administrative fabric of South West Africa. The two regions differ in nature, they differ in form of government, they differ in historical development, in governmental traditions, in the composition of their populations, and they are also separated naturally by a wide stretch of uninhabited country of more than 100 miles. This division, or partition, of territory is something that was not introduced by South Africa. It is something that was planted there by history and by geography, and I emphasize again that it is a geographical division and is not and never was a racial division.

What is interesting to note is that the old League of Nations accepted this position. In all reports that we sent to the League of Nations this characteristic regionalism became the formal basis of our reporting. I have here, for instance, the Report submitted by the previous government to the United Nations, the last “Report of the Government of the Union of South Africa on the Administration of South West Africa for the Year 1946”, and placed before the United Nations in 1947. Paragraph 62 reads—

Then the Report goes on to give information in two sections, styled “Inside the Police Zone” and “Outside the Police Zone”. This is some thing which was never criticized by the League of Nations, and even when placed before the United Nations it did not call for any criticism—the fact of this historical division of the territory.

I pointed out that there are virtually two South West Africas. Now, the Odendaal Commission offers no fundamental change in respect of the nature of the Northern Region. Neither do we. In fact, we believe that from every point of view it is desirable that this traditional, constitutional pattern be maintained, for the simple reason that the nature of the problems of the north are vastly different to the nature of the problems of the south; and as a matter of positive policy we of the Opposition want to see, in the first place, the modernization, as fast as possible, of the administration of the north. We want to see it developed to a point where a northern legislative body will have the same measure of autonomy in its sphere as that enjoyed by the legislative body of the south. And eventually I believe that after proper development, politically and otherwise, the north should be given the right of self-determination and the right to determine its own future, in relationship to the south and in the relationship to the Republic of South Africa and to the world at large. And mark my words, Mr. Speaker, if members opposite thought less about party and more about the nature of the problem which is facing us, they would realize that this practical approach will yet come to feature largely in future decisions over the territory. This type of approach actually found a surprising measure of favour with the United Nations Commission of Good Offices on South West Africa, consisting of Britain, the United States and Brazil, who visited South Africa in 1958; and I was interested to see a Press statement by Sir Charles Arden-Clarke, who was the chairman of this commission, some time after he had been to South Africa—a Press statement he made in London, reading as follows—

Sir Charles explained earlier—

That is the trouble that South West Africa has become a victim of the apartheid policies applied here. Had that not been the case, it would not have been difficult to solve the whole problem at all. Sir Charles goes on to say—

After an inspection of the position in South West Africa recently, a British member of Parliament, Mr. Aidan Crawley, also came to the conclusion that Ovamboland was an autonomous unit and that its wider future lay in the federal idea. Now I leave the Northern Region there with the clear-cut and practical plan that we suggest for its future, and I come to the views of the Government in regard to the Southern Region with its diversity of peoples.

We have a feeling of very deep concern over what is planned for this region. I am sorry to say that in its political section the commission does not paint a reliable picture in respect of the so-called “homelands” in the Southern Region, and it entirely evades the fantastic implications of its proposals. First, let me say that there are no homelands in the Southern Region at all. There are 17 Native reserves spread out over the country. With a few apparent exceptions, they are ethnically mixed and “areas reserved for non-Whites” which cannot be held to constitute anything in the nature of a homeland. Even in respect of the few exceptions, the table in paragraph 252 of the Odendaal Report refers to “home areas” occupied “mainly by”, and not exclusively, by any particular group. If you look at the population statistics, there are 166,000 non-Whites in the southern sector. Of these, 62,000 live in urban areas, and they have always done so. There are only 25,000 non-Whites in these 17 Native reserves. The idea that the “homelands” there are anything in the nature of the Transkei is completely false. In fact, the exact opposite is true. There it is not a case of Natives having recently moved out of the reserves into the industrial areas. There are no industrial cities or towns in South West Africa. When the White people moved into South West the Natives were already in the villages; they were already spread all over the country. There was never a movement there from homelands to urban areas. If you look at fairly recent maps, even the one published in Mr. Alexander Steward’s new book, “Sacred Trust”, dealing with South West, you will find it shows the whole of central South West Africa as Hereroland, and the whole of the area between Windhoek and the Red Line as Damaraland. I honestly feel that the Prime Minister should be very careful with his doctrine of “following the path of history”. I do not like his approach at all. In the long run it certainly will not help the Europeans in South West, because the South Africans only started trekking in in large numbers and settling in South West from 1927; and those who support the concept of homelands in South West do so at their peril, because if our people in South West start sending everybody to homelands they will soon be told with a vengeance where their historical homeland is. The Prime Minister was upset because we spoke of the “creation” of homelands. He maintained that it was a case of “preserving” existing homelands. But if that is so, why does the Odendaal Commission want six of these reserves to disappear entirely? No, the Prime Minister must read the report again and he will find that on page 429, paragraph 1438, the commission itself refers to the “conversion” of “the existing reserved non-White areas” into exclusive “homelands”. It clearly says the existing “reserved non-White areas” must be “converted into homelands”. From the mouth of the commission itself, there are no homelands; and how does this commission want to conjure up these homelands? In the political section the Odendaal Commission creates an impression—I quote from the commission. It says: “Damaraland: Population 1960, 44,353.” It creates the impression that there is a territory where 44,000 people live; but when you come to the health section you find that there are a mere 5,000 people living in the whole of the proposed new Damaraland, leaving more than 39,000 Damaras to be carried in, if you want to make Damaraland what it is made to appear to be in the political section of the report. Take Hereroland. The report, with maps and all, says: “Hereroland: Herero population 1960: 35,354”; but when you study the health section you find that the proposed Hereroland now provides living space for only approximately 11,000 people, and they are not even all Hereros, leaving more than 24,000 Hereros to be brought in, if the recommendations in the report are to make any sense at all. In regard to Tswanaland, the report says: “Tswanaland: Population 1960: 2,632.” The real position is that there are 425 Tswanas, not in Tswanaland at all but in the adjacent territory of Aminuir who will go to start the new state of Tswanaland. The report says—“Namaland: Nama population 1960: 34,806.” Once again you have to find out from the health section that the proposed Namaland presently carries a population of only 4,100, “which is sparsely distributed”, and on that another new state is to be based. If at best all these people are Namas, it leaves 30,706 Namas to be carried into this new Namaland in order to make common sense of the political section. In respect of only these four states-to-be, more than 97,000 people will have to be persuaded, in the terms of this commission, to settle in these artificially created homelands. Let the Minister tell us how we are going to persuade them. They failed with the removal scheme in Windhoek to Katutura; and fared as badly with the removal of Namas from Hoachanas to Itzawisis. Now he blames “agitators”. For years they have been struggling to move people from the old location in Windhoek to the new one, and there are still 7,000 people in the old location. It is not a question of agitators, but the problem is this, and I was one of the few who at the time warned the Prime Minister, and it is on record in this House, that when you do something in the name of apartheid, then whatever you do, whether it is good or bad, they resist it and it is turned down. But what is so disconcerting about this whole position is that this commission, which is supposed to help Parliament, is completely silent on the whole question of displacement and entirely evades the political and the economic implications of any change, big or small, in the historical living pattern in the Southern Region. I am sorry but I have to say that in this respect the commission is entirely unrealistic and unscientific and is of no value to Parliament at all. They evidently depend on the use of magic. And do not let hon. members opposite tell us that it is not the intention of the commission that there should be a large displacement, because in paragraph 294 they speak of the integration of scattered peoples “with the nearest homeland of their own population group”, and say that “the populations concerned should be persuaded, in their own interests and against compensation for their own areas, to move to the enlarged homeland of their own population group”. The moving has to take place, but I should like to hear from the Prime Minister how they are going to persuade these people to, as they see it, forego their wider birthright and go and sit in one particular corner of South West.

I must say that I was not surprised when I read in a newspaper about an interview which Mr. Odendaal had given to the Press. As we know, he alone was responsible for the political section of the report, and I was not surprised when he said, according to the newspaper report—

I say again, there are no homelands in the south in the Government’s sense of the term. They must be created, and I think the Government should realize by this time that if any such action is initiated in what is considered to be in the name of apartheid, it is bound to be resisted and will fail. And I believe that the Government knows that what I am saying is true.

I am afraid the whole political section of the Odendaal Report is ridiculous, and we must appeal to the Prime Minister that in the interests of South Africa and of all concerned he drop this idea of Teutonic precision in South West Africa. It will cause nothing but trouble, and in the end it will have the gravest consequences not only for South Africa but also for South West Africa. And now is the time when the Prime Minister should quash these ideas, because as long as they stand even the good things we do, even the economic development we initiate, will be seen against the unfortunate background of this plan. The worst feature of all is the breakup of all central authority. In the south alone there will be something like eight different governing bodies, including this Parliament and the Legislative Assembly in Windhoek. I am tempted to say an unkind thing, but let me rather say this. South West Africa cannot be governed without certain central organs of authority, and anyone who knows anything at all about South West will tell you that that is true. The commissioners themselves contradict one another on this point. In the economic section of this report one can clearly hear the voice of Dr. van Eck emphasizing the need for central control. I want to read paragraph 1397 on page 397, and I am quite sure this is Dr. van Eck’s voice—

The same spirit, the need for central organs of authority, can be found in the agricultural section and also in the health section. So that the rest of the report contradicts the political section in this important manner. Furthermore, it is not fair statesmanship to offer the little states-to-be citizenship of their own and eventual constitutional independence and then to come along and say to them: Well, it is up to you to develop yourselves to attain this political manhood. Like if I stood here and offered the Prime Minister the sun and the moon and then told him that it was all up to him to fetch this gift I am offering him. No, we live in serious times and I do not think there is time for joking or to pander to the prejudices of voters. We on this side have taken an opposite stand, in the interest of our country, on the following lines.

We believe that the Legislative Assembly in Windhoek must remain intact as the central organ of government for the south, and if anything, we believe that its powers should be extended; and obviously, if all races are represented, as we want to see, in that Legislative Assembly in Windhoek, it speaks for itself that there can no longer be any talk of the “control of Bantu Affairs” by the Minister of Bantu Administration in Pretoria. Secondly, we believe that, as they develop, all people of South West Africa in the Southern Region must be represented on a sensible basis in the Legislative Assembly. We believe that this can be achieved in a way which will neither swamp the European group or any other group politically, or allow any group to dominate another. In fact, the European group is numerically by far the strongest of all the groups in the south, and it is bound to grow even stronger in the near future. I believe that the Southern Region should eventually also be given the right to determine its own future as the only way in which to solve the international problem, but I have no hesitation in saying that if this matter is handled properly, if we as South Africans do our duty by South West Africa, they will choose as a final solution to secure their future for all time within the framework of a greater South Africa. The ultimate goal that we will strive for is a federal relationship between the two regions of South West Africa and the Republic, because federalism is one of the securest forms of political unity between diverse races to be found anywhere in the world. It is just another form, and often a better form, of binding people together. This expresses the United Party point of view, but I am particularly pleased because I recollect that as the member for Namib in 1951 in one of my first speeches in Cape Town I said that the future of South West Africa lay in a federal relationship with South Africa. And it is interesting to note that a man like Sir John Maud, the former British Ambassador in South Africa, advocated a form of federalism between South Africa and South West Africa and the three Protectorates. I could quote many, even in South West Africa to-day, who think the same way. We find that the Hereros and the Rehoboth Basters are planning a federal system of government, according to reports. This is in the minds of ever so many people. Above all, it is also the outlook of an important member of the Odendaal Commission itself. It is the outlook of the man who is now the Commissioner-General for the northern area, Professor Johannes Bruwer. Professor Bruwer was recently appointed and the Government must have had confidence in his views. He visited America not so long ago and wrote an article in the S.A.I.S. Review, i.e., the Review of the School for Advanced International Studies, on 3 October 1960. It is called, “South Africa: Road to a New Deal”, and this is what Professor Bruwer has to say—

And then he comes to the main point—

One of the principal members of the Odendaal Commission is completely in line with the policy of this side of the House. Time will show that this is the answer, and that the answer we have, whatever criticism may be levelled on minor points, is far nearer the solution than that of the Prime Minister.

Finally, I want to make some remarks about the White Paper itself. Firstly, I think it is most unfortunate that the Government, through the White Paper, came out so strongly against the idea of all South West African authorities, that is, all-race authorities in South West Africa. If we want to pull through with this difficult question of South West Africa, we will have to place less emphasis on the question of race and colour, and if we do not, then we will not pull through. On every continent in the world there are countries where different races and cultural groups work successfully together. There are failures, but so has the democratic idea had its failures. One cannot say that because, for instance, France once failed temporarily in its democratic regime, we all must abandon democracy. One cannot say that because a thing has failed in one particular place, therefore the whole idea must be thrown out. Therefore to say, as the White Paper does, that Black and White cannot work together, is wrong. People in Central America, South America and Asia and Europe will not understand that language, because all over the world you have countries where races and cultural groups which differ widely work successfully together within the same political boundaries. This statement in the White Paper is most damaging to South Africa, because the obvious reaction to this statement will be that if we create the impression that we as White South Africans cannot work together with the rest of the people of South West Africa, the reaction will be: Well, then get out. That, I believe was a most dangerous and harmful attitude to adopt.

Secondly, in respect of the White Paper, the general attitude that we adopt in regard to economic development has already been stated by the Leader of the Opposition. We believe that every financial and technical assistance should be given to South West Africa for a large-scale programme of general development for all the people of the territory, with particular emphasis on a crash programme of education, including adults; the opening up of every part of the country which has not yet been developed, and the full exploitation of the country’s natural resources. Personally, I should like to see a permanent planning council appointed, consisting of experts and established in South West Africa, to advise the authorities and to canalize assistance. If we want to help South West Africa, then we must not do it grudgingly, and I say straight out that I do not like the tone and the spirit of this White Paper. Too many things in this White Paper, like the abolition of the split tariff, are made conditional on the conclusion of new financial arrangements between that territory and South Africa; and by that is really meant that it is conditional on the take-over of the financial and taxational control of the territory. This is not the spirit in which to help South West Africa. After all, whatever we as South Africans do in South West Africa, whatever we invest there, comes back to us to the same value, if not more. South West Africa is economically a part of South Africa. They buy here; we are their main market; and our people earn heavily by way of investment in the diamond mines, the fishing industry and the meat business and in general business there. I say that South Africa has as much pleasure in its connection with South West Africa economically and financially as South West Africa has in its connection with the Republic. There is nothing one-sided about it. Prosperity in South West Africa brings extra prosperity also to South Africa. Therefore we urge upon the Government to leave the question of financial control as it is, and to cancel the appointment of this further commission of inquiry by the so-called committee of experts which must investigate new financial arrangements between South Africa and South West Africa. We have already had umpteen commissions inquiring into the question of financial relations, and they all come out by the same door. When I lived in the Union, before I went to South West Africa, I also thought in terms of uniformity, in terms of provincial status. But when once one lives in South West Africa and one understands the different circumstances operating there, one sees matters in the proper light. In 1948 the two political parties in South West Africa, the National Party and the United National South West Party, after long and careful consideration, published a declaration of agreement with the Prime Minister of South Africa, Dr. Malan, and the main point in that agreement was that—

There are four members in this House who subscribed to this policy and signed this agreement, and I think the Deputy Minister is one of them.

No, I was not.

I am sorry, he is but a pup in politics there.

Order! The hon. member cannot use the word “puppet”.

No, I said “pup”.

The hon. member must withdraw the word “pup” too.

I withdraw it with pleasure, although “pup” only means that he is young in politics. This was the basis of the 1949 Act which was passed in this House and which was hailed by that side as „verhoogde status” and the “mondigwording van Suidwes-Afrika”. I must tell the Prime Minister that it would be wrong to go backwards now, to go in precisely the opposite direction. In 1953 we had an expert commission under Dr. Holloway, and flowing from that the National Party itself appointed a commission of experts to study the Holloway Commission’s Report, and the Deputy Minister was a member of that, and so was the hon. member for Omaruru (Mr. Frank), and what did they find after studying the report of the Holloway Commission? This was placed before the Congress of the Nationalist Party and openly accepted unanimously—

They abandon their principles pretty quickly.

It was unanimously accepted by the conference and thereafter it was reiterated on platform after platform; it was reiterated at election after election. Sir, it was continually stated, even by the Deputy Minister for South West Africa Affairs—I could quote his words—that the financial autonomy of South West Africa was “safe in the hands of the National Party”. Is that so or not? Let us be fair. Sir, my advice to the Prime Minister is: Leave it alone. There is no good reason for changing the position. The solution to the South West Africa problem does not lie in that direction. Unity with diversity can often be much stronger than unity with uniformity.

Sir, in conclusion I want to say that we on this side firmly believe that the South West Africa problem can be solved if it is properly handled. We believe that it can be solved in a way which will benefit both the Republic and South West Africa. In fact we believe that through South West Africa we could provide Africa with the model and the answer it needs. South West Africa is actually our supreme test as an African power. Through it we could make Africa, or through it we could perhaps break ourselves, but then, if we want to solve it, we will have to get away from the political plans of the Odendaal Commission and move in the direction of the positive policies of the Opposition.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) in all sincerity on his wide knowledge of South West Africa Affairs. I think it is perfectly clear that he has a much wider knowledge of South West Africa Affairs than the Leader of the Opposition, for example.

Mr. Speaker, the Government recently appointed a commission of inquiry, a commission consisting of eminent people like the Administrator of the Transvaal, Dr. Van Eck, Professor Bruwer, Dr. Quinn and Professor Snyman. That commission had to go and investigate South West Africa Affairs. It now appears that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has a tremendous amount of information about South West Africa and I want to put this question to the hon. member: If he has all this information, why did he not make some attempt to go and give evidence before that commission? If his object was to help South West Africa, if his object was to help South Africa, if his object was not merely to make party political capital, why did he not submit these facts to the commission so that they could determine whether there was any substance in his allegations.

He wanted to keep some ammunition for the United Party.

The hon. member said here that we must think less about our party and think more about the problem. Why then did he not think less of his party? Why did he not try to bring to the notice of the commission the facts which he mentioned here and which he clearly regards as important facts? Because he is not interested in finding an acceptable solution to the South West Africa problem; he is only interested in party politics; he is only interested in placing the Republic of South Africa in a difficult position.

He is a fugitive.

The hon. member now comes along with all sorts of so-called facts which we are in no position to check. Here we had a commission consisting of eminent men in South Africa who were in a position to check whether his allegations were correct. He did not, however, have the patriotism, the sense of duty, to submit those things to the commission. He complains that we say that they must not criticize this Government; that if they criticize the Government we accuse them of committing treason against South Africa. Sir, they can criticize this Government as much as they like, but I am going to show you what sort of criticism these hon. members level at the Government: The hon. member tells us, “If we do not solve this problem of South West Africa ourselves, others will solve it for us”.

“Attempt to solve it.”

Yes, “others will attempt to solve it for us”. But the only solution which he puts forward is that the Government must accept their solution, and if this Government does not accept their solution then he does not care whether other powers enter the territory to resolve this matter; he is quite happy to allow other powers to come and resolve this matter. Sir, criticism is one thing but to cause racial trouble, to cause hostility against us in the outside world, is quite a different thing. In that connection I want to quote an authority here. That authority said this—

Who said that?

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

And now he sits there laughing.

Yes, this is the man who now represents himself as a responsible individual; this is the man who says that we should behave in a statesman-like way in these matters, and yet he is the man who on 4 May 1954 made the accusation against the United Party that if any racial trouble arose in South West Africa the blame would lie at their door. The hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) spoke just after the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in that debate, and I want to quote what he said—

Mr. Speaker, I think I shall do more or less the same thing now.

Sir, in this debate the United Party, in my opinion, allowed a historic opportunity to pass to strike a blow for South Africa. They could not resist the temptation to make political capital out of what we all regard as a delicate situation. It is perfectly clear that their desire to get into power, no matter how, is much greater than their desire to serve South Africa. There is not a single reason why the United Party could not have supported this White Paper. This White Paper does not bind anybody who supports it to the policy of this Government as far as apartheid is concerned. They could have stated very clearly—and that was the only sensible course to adopt—that they support this White Paper but that they want to make it clear to the world what their attitude is and that they want to warn the Government that if the Government decides to carry out the commission’s recommendations with regard to the political aspects, they are going to oppose the policy of Bantu homelands in South West Africa with all the power at their command. Sir, the bitterness (“veny-nigheid”) of that side of the House, the bitterness of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, is evident from the fact that 90 per cent of his speech was devoted not to the White Paper but to those recommendations in the report of the Odendaal Commission in regard to which no decisions have yet been taken. Ninety per cent of his speech was devoted to recommendations in regard to which the White Paper says that no decisions have yet been taken. That is why the hon. member tried to sow as much suspicion as he could; that is why he made a speech here which added grist to the mills of the Afro-Asiatic states, and I want to say here that if he had been in their employ they would most certainly have given him a bonus for the speech which he made here this afternoon.

I say that there was no reason why the United Party could not accept this report. They could have accepted it and they could have made it perfectly clear that they were opposed to the commission’s recommendations as far as the political aspects are concerned. If they had done that, then they would have said to the world in effect that they too believe that South Africa is governing South West Africa according to the spirit of the mandate; they would then have made it perfectly clear that they too believe that the Republic of South Africa is doing everything that is humanly possible and that it is doing more than any other State could do to promote the spiritual and the material well-being of the inhabitants of South West Africa. The charge has been brought against us—and I want to say nothing more about it—that we are not governing South West Africa according to the spirit of the mandate; that is the charge which has been brought against us before the World Tribunal, and so far not a single speaker on the other side has even taken the trouble to say that not only is this Government administering South West Africa in the spirit of the mandate but that all previous Governments have done their best to do so. Instead of adopting that attitude the hon. member for Bezuidenhout comes here and sows as much suspicion as he possibly can, not only against this Government but against the Republic of South Africa. Mr. Speaker, imagine what a triumph it would have been for South Africa if the United Party had made a statement of that kind, because in that connection their opinion carries much more weight than ours in the outside world; imagine what a triumph it would have been if they had said that they accept this White Paper because we do in fact govern South West according to the spirit of the mandate but that they have certain reservations as far as the political aspects of the recommendations are concerned, recommendations which are not dealt with at all in this White Paper which is under discussion at the moment. What do the Opposition tell the world in fact? They do not tell the world that this Government is governing South West according to the spirit of the mandate; no, they say to the world, “You must be careful of this Government; this story that they have not vet come to a decision about the recommendations with regard to the political aspects is just so much pretence.” The hon. member for Bezuidenhout spent a full hour trying to prove that this was just a ruse when in fact this matter was not under discussion at all. Sir, even those things which are going to be done for South West in the economic sphere are referred to disparagingly and represented as a bluff and as an attempt to bribe world opinion. Yes, that is what the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) said. He described it as “bluffing and an attempt to bribe world opinion”. Here the Government comes along with a proposal to uplift the people of South West Africa in the economic, social and education spheres, but even as far as that portion of the White Paper is concerned, the United Party sows suspicion against it. They tell the world that it amounts to nothing but an attempt to bribe world opinion. Mr. Speaker, what a miserable attitude! But I am grateful for the fact that this debate has taken place here to-day because never before has the soul of the Opposition been laid so bare as it has been laid bare in this debate. As far as the Opposition are concerned there are two things which have become clearer to me than ever before: The first is that they have entirely lost the ability to think big in times of crises. They are no longer prepared to tackle anything; they see problems in every attempt that we make to tackle something big. I think it was Solomon who said that the sluggard always says that there is a lion obstructing his path. That is the philosophy of the United Party. Whenever anything has to be tackled there is a lion blocking their way; there is the decision of the World Tribunal blocking their way; there is the United Nations blocking their way. They are not prepared to work out how they can get past the lion; how they can scare the lion off so that they can reach their goal; no, they do nothing at all because there is a lion obstructing their path. The next thing which has crystallized in this debate is that the United Party and every individual member of the United Party have decided to bow to world opinion. World opinion, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout stated clearly, has become their keyword; it has become their only criterion. The question is no longer what is in the interests of South Africa. When you do anything, you no longer ask yourself what is really in the interests of South Africa or in the interests of South West Africa; no, you ask yourself what the opinion of the world will be. The Leader of the Opposition has made world opinion his master; that is why he is completely powerless; that is why he can no longer make his own decision, because before he can take any decision he first has to ask himself what the opinion of the world is going to be. Sir, anybody who entirely ignores world opinion is certainly a fool, but one must at least reconcile world opinion with the interests of one’s country, but when one elevates world opinion to one’s sole criterion in everything one does, one emasculates oneself, one makes oneself completely powerless. That is obviously the policy which the Opposition have accepted and they have accepted that policy more and more under the influence of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Their policy is to sacrifice everything as long as one can satisfy world opinion.

Mr. Speaker, let us forget about South West Africa and the present troubles in connection with the World Tribunal for a moment; let us look at this White Paper entirely from the economic point of view. Sir, every impartial person who studies this White Paper must necessarily regard it as a grand piece of work, as the work of a man with vision, as a document which reveals ambition and courage. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout says that if we want to give assistance to South West Africa we must not do it “grudgingly”, but yesterday the hon. member for Constantia complained that we were spending too much money. The Opposition say that the hon. the Prime Minister is tackling something here which he will never be able to carry out. Sir, who is “grudging” in this matter? They are the people who have lost all faith; they are the people who have lost the will to do anything; they are the people who have lost the ability to do anything; they are the people who have lost the ability to tackle a problem because they have put themselves entirely at the mercy of world opinion. They want to allow world opinion to dictate to them.

Mr. Speaker, I say that this plan which is announced in the White Paper is almost as great as the Orange River plan. It is almost as great a vision as the Aswan dam; it is almost as ambitious as Escom and Iscor. Sir, the whole world and this Opposition ought to welcome this plan if there is a grain of goodwill towards the Republic of South Africa. But what do members of the Opposition do? They come along with petty criticism to break down this economic plan, a plan which, judged by any standards, provides for a vast, grand economic programme. What does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say? He discusses the Kunene scheme, and what is his objection? His objection is that it starts in the north and then comes down to the south; this electricity scheme, he says, should have started in the south and moved up to the north. Is that the sort of talk that one expects from the Leader of the Opposition in discussing a matter of this kind? This matter was investigated by men like Dr. van Eck, who has made a success of everything he has tackled in South Africa, and Dr. Quinn and Mr. Odendaal, etc., and they came forward with these proposals after a thorough investigation. But the Leader of the Opposition has no word of encouragement for this vast programme of economic development; no, he wants to break it down in this petty way.

The hon. member for Constantia played his usual role here as the great grandchild of the prophet Jeremiah. What does he complain about? He says to the hon. the Prime Minister, “You want to spend R110,000,000 in five years; then there is still an additional R50,000,000, making nearly R200,000,000 that you want to spend in five years. How are you going to manage to spend all this money? How are you going to succeed in carrying out this tremendous task?” Mr. Speaker, surely he knows Hendrik Verwoerd better than that! All those things which they regarded as impossible in the past were made possible; the things which they said could never happen did happen. Sasol is paying to-day and is showing a profit. The Republic has become an established fact; the economic stability, the economic progress, that we predicted has become an established fact. All those things which they said could never happen have happened. It goes without saying that if you cannot do these things within the space of five years, then you do them within six years, and if you cannot do them within six years you do them within seven years. But because these things, according to the hon. member for Constantia, cannot be done within the space of five years, this whole scheme has to be scrapped and we must do nothing at all. Mr. Speaker, I say that if one forgets entirely about the case before the World Tribunal, if one views this scheme purely as an economic project, it is the sort of scheme that must elicit the admiration of the world. This case has been brought against us before the World Tribunal; what is the attitude of the Opposition towards this case? I do not want to go into the merits, but it is perfectly clear that the Opposition have already decided that we have lost the case, and because they believe that we have lost the case already they want us to do absolutely nothing.

It is wishful thinking on their part.

[Inaudible.]

Order! Hon. members must not make so many interjections.

Mr. Speaker, you must forgive the hon. member over there; he has had to remain silent for such a long time now that he can no longer contain himself; he feels that he must speak again, but he still talks the same nonsense as before. The hon. member has stated that this scheme simply amounts to an attempt to buy time; he says that this thing is building up to a climax, and it is perfectly clear that he assumes that we are going to lose the court case. And because that is the opinion of the United Party we are expected to sit with folded arms and not to tackle the South West Africa scheme. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Constantia ought to walk down the street with a sandwich board with the words “Prepare thyself to meet thy doom” on it, because that is the whole philosophy of his party; the greatest disaster is going to overtake us, and we must sit with folded arms. I do not know what he wants us to do; to me he does not look like a man who can pray very enthusiastically otherwise I should have said that he ought to start praying. The fact of the matter is—and I say this with the greatest confidence—that we have by no means lost this court case. We are going to fight this case with the brilliant lawyers we have; we will fight until the end with the greatest ingenuity and with the fullest confidence that we are going to win this case. In the meantime we are going to do whatever we can do; in the meantime the Prime Minister and the Government are going to continue to build up South West Africa, to govern it in terms of the mandate and to make it a happy and economically prosperous territory. That is the attitude which the Government adopts, but what is the attitude of the United Pary? They are despondent; they have decided that they are no longer their own masters. The Hereros are their master, UNO is their master, U Thant is their master, Macmillan is their master, or President Johnson is their master. It seems to me that they refuse to tackle anything at all until they get those people’s permission. That is why they find themselves in this powerless position; that is why they believe that the whole world has already given its verdict on South Africa; that this is the end of South Africa and that all we have to do now is to prepare ourselves for the end. Mr, Speaker, what a miserable attitude! It would have been comical but for the fact that that attitude carries with it an element of great danger to South Africa. Their attitude, as the hon. member for Constantia stated very clearly here yesterday, is simply this: “You are spending millions to make a good impression upon the world; you are spending millions to buy the goodwill of the world; you will not succeed; you are going to lose the court case; your people are going to turn against you and this Government is going to fall.” Sir, the danger lies in the fact that they are practically saying to the world, “If you bring sufficient pressure to bear on South Africa, the Government must fall.” And I do not have the slightest doubt that they will support that by quoting examples; that they will say to the outside world, “General Hertzog had reached the peak of his power when he was broken by the gold standard. Look at General Smuts. He too was at the peak of his power when a scarcity of meat and bread arose, as well as unemployment, and that broke General Smuts; just see to it that you bring about those conditions and then this Government will fall; that will put us into power and we are willing to do what the world wants us to do.” I want to conclude by saying that this attitude adopted by the United Party reveals the most tragic error of judgment in the history of South Africa. We are not dealing here with a gold standard issue, we are not dealing here with post-war difficulties which are really minor difficulties but which may be irritating at certain times; we are engaged here in a struggle for the survival of the White man, and anybody who knows anything about psychology knows that when a nation is involved in a struggle for survival, the more pressure one brings to bear on that nation, the more one unites the masses, the more one drives them into one camp.

And that is not into the United Party camp!

We want the outside world to know therefore that any attempt to bring about a crisis here, any attempt to force us to do anything, whether by means of sanctions or otherwise, will inevitably result in the greatest chaos in this country that the world has ever witnessed. Sir, I have great admiration for the language which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition used the other day at Paarl, and I want to congratulate him on what he said there. What he said there confirmed my opinion of him as a good South African. He said—

That is the sort of language I like, and in this difficult, delicate situation I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to talk the language of Paarl and not the language of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

I hope the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) will not expect me to deal with his speech at any great length. He spent most of his time arguing against the speech of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson); part of his speech was spent in praising the Prime Minister and in the last part of his speech there was the usual series of wild statements accusing people of unpatriotic action if they happen to oppose Government policies. I shall therefore leave the hon. member for Vereeniging on one side and deal with the White Paper which is before the House and with the report of the Odendaal Commission. To me it seems clear that the appointment of the Odendaal Commission demonstrated one very important thing and that is that the Government realized that it was most unlikely that in the future the same rather leisurely pace will attend the discussions on South West Africa as has been the case in the past 15 years.

I believe it has realized that the temper of the world has changed; that polite persuasion has now gone by the board, that resolutions are no longer sufficient and indeed that since 1960 action is what has been demanded against South Africa. It demonstrates too, that all the manoeuvring of the past 20 years by South Africa to avoid the principle of international involvement, international accountability, has been to no avail. Time has now caught up with us and the Government has realized that. Because of that, it appointed the Odendaal Commission, and in so doing it attempted to buy some valuable time for South Africa. The Government, I believe, realizes that South West Africa is the soft under-belly of the Republic, far more vulnerable to foreign interference than the country itself, and I believe that the report of the Odendaal Commission and the Government’s acceptance of some of its proposals represent an attempt to fortify South West Africa by presenting a very much belated programme of economic development. Having said that, I want to say at once that I welcome the report as a serious effort to improve the territory economically, and I welcome too the fact that the Government saw fit to put on the Commission people who are not party politicians, but people of the calibre of Dr. van Eck and Dr. Bruwer. I welcome also the Government’s pronounced intention to implement some of the proposals which will, I believe, contribute to an improvement in the material welfare of the people of South West Africa. If indeed it is the Government’s intention not merely to vote but also to spend the money on South West Africa, I say “go ahead and develop the country economically.”

Thank you.

I have my doubts, of course, that it may not be physically possible. I believe there is good reason to doubt this because of the existing manpower shortage and the technical difficulties involved, and unfortunately past experience has been that where large sums of money have been voted for the development of Bantustans, those sums of money have not been spent. But if the Government is really serious in its professed intention to go ahead with the economic proposals contained in the first five-year plan, I say that I for one will not quarrel with those proposals. It is, I believe, high time that something was done about improving the material welfare of the inhabitants, more particularly the material welfare of the non-White inhabitants of South West Africa. Until very recently, educational and health services were mainly left to missionary efforts. Until the sixties, the Government’s assistance for education was merely the payment of a small subsidy to schools run by churches. In 1962 the highest amount ever was voted for African education, a mere R480,000 which represented only ⅛th of the territory’s total educational budget. The vast majority of children who are at school in South West Africa never go beyond Std. II. There are very few high schools in the whole territory, and as far as I could gather from the Odendaal Report, only 18 children are receiving technical education. Of course, I am talking about African children. As I say, I welcome the effort to improve matters, certainly as far as education and economic development are concerned. But there are great shortcomings in the Odendaal Commission Report, Sir, despite its great bulk. Despite its great bulk it fails to deal with, what I believe, is the real indictment against South Africa and that is that although wealth has accumulated in South West Africa, as the rising national income figures clearly show, the non-White people by and large have been largely excluded from this increase in wealth. One of the reports to UNO on South West Africa shows that all the industry contributing to the relative prosperity of South West Africa are essentially European-owned and operated, i.e. the mines, the fishing industry and agriculture for the market. The Africans are limited to subsistence farming and to providing unskilled labour for mines, agriculture and the fishing industry. According to Dr. Krogh, the per capita national annual income of South West Africa increased from £59 6s. in 1951 to £82 4s. in 1956 but while the average per capita income of the residents within the Police Zone was £176 1s. per annum, which was the average of the high White earnings and the low Black earnings, outside the Police Zone, in the entirely African areas, the per capita income was only £8 5s. per annum. Apart from their own tax contributions which are paid in to the Reserve Trust Fund, expenditure on Africans from General Funds does not exceed 7 per cent of total Government expenditure. It is true that more is now being spent. The figures I have quoted are a few years old. But the fact nevertheless remains that the amount of money spent on the Africans in South West Africa constitutes a tiny part of the total territorial expenditure. Although the over-all total amount has increased, the proportion spent on Whites and the proportion spent on Africans has in fact remained relatively the same. In 1962 the sum of all expenditure on Africans was about £1,500,000 out of a total estimate of £17,000,000. Those were the latest figures I was able to get.

So I repeat, Sir, that although I welcome the material improvements provided for in the Odendaal Commission’s report and accepted by the Government, I believe that no matter what improvements are made to the infra structure, changes have to be made within the territory itself before the African inhabitants of South West Africa can in fact gain any overall advantage. And by changes to the framework I mean an alteration in toto to the whole labour set-up in South West Africa, and of course, also to the political set-up in South West Africa, as the two are inextricably woven together as the hon. the Prime Minister himself has said. Although, of course, the alterations I envisage are not the alterations proposed and accepted in principle by the Prime Minister.

The hon. the Prime Minister has decided, wisely I believe, to postpone the implementation of the contentious sections of the report. But he did admit that he accepted in principle the idea of the homelands. He stated in his speech that the homelands principle was not an extension of apartheid to South West Africa. He said he was simply continuing the existing system there, taking into consideration all the historical facts of South West Africa, namely, the existence of ethnic groups in the past, that they had clashed with one another, and that his policy was not to force people apart but rather one of not forcing together people who had never been together. In other words, he said he was not going to create homelands but that he was going to preserve them. I must tell the hon. the Prime Minister that exactly the same argument could and, indeed, was used in relation to the setting up of the Transkei homelands, that that was the historic homeland of the Africans in South Africa. Whatever explanation was given, the world regarded that in one light and in one light only and that was as an extension of the apartheid system. Insofar as South West Africa willy-nilly is an involvement of international affairs it behoves the hon. the Prime Minister to remember that however he regards the setting up of homelands, in international eyes, it will be regarded as the Bantustan experiment was regarded, in relation to the Transkei, that is, as an extension of the system of apartheid. I believe this to be one of the reasons why the hon. the Prime Minister received the friendly warnings to which he took so much umbrage. Why he should take umbrage at friendly advice I do not know. The hon. the Prime Minister would not lose face if occasionally he showed the world that he welcomed advice, that he accepted advice and if sometimes the hon. the Prime Minister admitted that he just possibly could be wrong. That would not be a loss of face to the hon. the Prime Minister; on the contrary, that, I believe, would enhance his stature in the outside world.

What is true about what the hon. the Prime Minister has said, is that apartheid is nothing new in South West Africa. That is certainly true. Indeed, as one of the Senators elected to the Other Place for “his special knowledge” of affairs about the Coloured races in South West Africa said in one of his infrequent speeches, South Africa is the only country in the world where apartheid has been practised for 50 years. I must say its effects have been obvious. They have been obvious economically and they have been obvious politically. The line demarcating the Police Zone is of course in reality the dividing line between the modern and the subsistence economy in South West Africa. To put it in more simple words: The dividing line between progress and stagnation. And the bridge between the two is the pernicious, old system of migratory labour. This is the bridge between the stagnant section on the one side—the area beyond the Police Zone—and the prosperous modern economy of the Police Zone itself. The Africans who number more than 250,000, those living beyond the line, live in impoverished reserves. They are crowded into impoverished reserves despite the density figures given to the House by one of the hon. members opposite. Density of population is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is the quality of the land inhabited by the tribes on the other side of the Red Line. I do not think hon. members will deny that the land is impoverished …

You are altogether wrong.

Sir, I have read the report and it states quite clearly that the land beyond the line needs an enormous amount to be spent on it before it can be made into any form of a viable economy.

To which land are you referring?

The land north of the Red Line.

It has the finest forests in the world.

The land is impoverished as the income figures prove. It is proved by the very fact that Africans are unable not only to earn sufficient income to keep themselves and their families and pay taxes, but have to go out as migratory labourers before they can begin to earn sufficient to keep themselves and their families. As for the Africans within the Police Zone, the 175,000 odd people scattered throughout that area, they of course have also suffered the effects of apartheid for they are enclosed in what I can only call a paper barrier of pass laws, of restrictions on mobility, which to all intents and purposes could be steel bars for the way in which those people are actually restricted. All the restrictions known to our Africans, restrictions on mobility, have long been applied to South West Africa. In fact the new pass laws that were passed in this House this Session have been operating in South West for a long, long time—permits to enter an urban area, permits to seek work, permits to authorize residence, to travel, night curfew, wide definitions of vagrancy, being subject to removal as surplus, if not employed, being subject to expulsion. All these, which I call the stigmata of apartheid, have applied to the Africans inside the Police Zone in South West Africa. About all this, the Odendaal Commission report and the White Paper are both significantly silent. About all this, we hear nothing in this vast bulky report. As far as I am concerned, Sir, this is the pith of the indictment against South Africa. The Odendaal Report and the White Paper are also silent about the one real index of who gets what under the status quo. In other words, search as one might—I could not, perhaps I missed it, but I am sure hon. members would tell me if I had—one can find nothing relating to wage rates, for instance, in the Odendaal Commission report. Yet, as far as I know, from previous reports that have been published about the Territory, wages are very low indeed—far, far lower than the wage rates in South Africa; wages in mining, wages in agriculture, wages in the few industries there are, wages in domestic service, are all deplorably low.

So is the cost of living.

I do not believe they are that low that the wage rates which apply in South West Africa would be accepted by any impartial Judge as being minimum living wages on which people can keep themselves at least at a poverty datum line.

I see the Government has accepted the idea of a Committee of Experts. That committee is to examine, inter alia, mining taxation. I would suggest that a much more important investigation that committee of experts could do would be to investigate wages in South West Africa and to see what could be done about setting up minimum wage rates which would have some relation to decent living standards. Wages have improved slightly over recent years but I say they are still deplorably low. I would suggest, too, that the committee of experts does not confine itself only to mining taxation but examines the whole system of taxation as well. Taxes are very low indeed in South West Africa. Taxes start at a much higher level than they do in South Africa. As far as I could ascertain from figures available to me, anybody who earns less than £35 per month, i.e. R70 per month, pays no taxes at all. The hon. member nods his head. That is correct, of course, in the case of the White man.

The Blacks do not pay tax.

No, the Blacks do not pay taxes because their earnings are so low. They do not pay income tax but they pay all sorts of other taxes. This is what the hon. member forgets. While any White man who earns less than R70 per month in South West Africa pays no income tax or any tax at all, Black men, who would pay income tax if they earned taxable incomes—I believe only about 40 non-Whites throughout the whole territory pay taxes, which in itself is a terrible indictment of living standards in South West Africa—pay many other taxes. They pay “kraal” tax, they pay grazing tax. They pay all these taxes which are not applicable to the White man in South West Africa.

He would rather pay taxes than rent a farm.

Of course, the hon. member now professes—although I must say I have seldom heard him speak up on behalf of non-Whites, which is another factor one must bear in mind—to say what the African in South West Africa would prefer.

I now come to my other main criticism of the report and of the White Paper. I have already given my main criticism on the economic basis. My criticism of the report and the White Paper is that neither touches the very crux of the trouble in South West Africa, the exclusion of the non-White population from the real accumulation of riches in South West Africa. The other main criticism I have of this report has to do with the political implications which the Prime Minister has rightly said are quite inextricably tied up with all plans for economic development. I say the Odendaal Commission’s report offers too little. Not financially, I am not talking about the financial offer, but it offers far too little in terms of human rights. It offers schemes for irrigation and schemes for dams but those are no substitute for real political rights and a real say in the country in which they live. The Prime Minister has said that he accepted in principle the idea of homelands and in so doing he has accepted the idea of excluding Africans from any extended political rights in the territory as a whole. He talks again about giving certain legislative functions, which are very few in fact and far between, to these homelands. To my mind, Sir, this whole pronouncement nullifies the good effects which could have been had from the plans for the economic and material development of the territory announced by the Odendaal Commission in their report and accepted by the hon. the Prime Minister in the White Paper. To my mind not only is the idea of homelands, which has been shelved temporarily but the principle of which has been accepted, identified as I pointed out earlier in the eyes of the world with an extension of apartheid but it is also to some extent a version, a rejected version of a scheme which was turned down in 1958 by the world. It is a sort of partition scheme. I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) earlier this afternoon offer such a partition scheme as a possible solution of the South West African problem, and that was that the areas to the north of the Red Line should be made autonomous and placed under a different authority and that the area south of the Red Line should fall under South Africa. I was amazed to hear him offer that as a solution. I understand that he offered it on behalf of the Official Opposition. I am quite sure the hon. member must know that such a scheme was put before the United Nations in 1958 and that 56 delegates spoke on this particular scheme and 56 delegates spoke against it. It was rejected unanimously, as a form of annexation. If it was rejected unanimously in 1958, I am amazed that he should imagine it could be a solution in 1964. I was also amazed to hear him quote federation as the answer. I can understand a federation with a geographic content. That would make a lot of sense to me, but the federation as proposed by the official Opposition makes no sense to me. For him to say that nations abroad have accepted the idea of a federation in many different countries is perfectly true. But I know of no country which has accepted the idea of race federations as against geographical federations.

As I say, this whole idea of this modified partition is hardly likely to find favour in the eyes of the world, because it begs the whole question of real political rights in the territory as a whole; it begs the whole question of people living in South West Africa exercising some say in the bodies that make the laws that govern their lives. In other words, in Legco of South West Africa and the Parliament of this country, no voice of the non-Whites is heard in either of those bodies. Only Whites may vote, only Whites may execute policy and Whites hold all the senior posts in the civil service. Since 1955 Bantu Affairs of South West Africa have in fact been run from Pretoria. Policy is decided in Pretoria and is administered by an Administrator appointed by this Government. The six South West African members who sit in this House have never in my 11 years in this House ever spoken up on behalf of the non-Whites in that territory.

You are wrong.

I am not wrong. I have not heard the hon. member speak very often at all, Sir, but if he can quote to me any speech he has made on behalf of the non-Whites of South West Africa I would be the first to retract my words, but I would first like to see chapter and verse of where he has spoken up for them, not in terms of apartheid as a solution, but in terms of the very real welfare and development of the non-Whites in South West Africa. Nor have the Senators who have been elected for their knowledge of Coloured Affairs in the territory, made what I would call contributions as regards the welfare of the non-White community in South West Africa. I believe it is fatuous for us to believe that we can go on ignoring demands for a real political voice in the affairs of a country where the people live, in the ’sixties. I believe it is fatuous to believe that the world will ever consider the setting up of local legislatures for 11 ethnic groups with the promise of some vague control over local functions, as a satisfactory substitute for real political participation in the country as a whole.

I say to the Government if we want to buy time, we have to have a declaration by the Government that not only is it going to implement economic improvements in the territory of South West Africa, but that it also intends to give real political rights to the inhabitants of that country, not on a basis of race, but on a basis of merit and also that it is the Government’s intention to remove discriminatory legislation in South West Africa. Only these things can really buy us any goodwill. The hon. the Minister of External Affairs knows this is true. He would bear out what I say. He knows the racial issue is the issue of the ’sixties. And on this one issue the Afro-Asians, Latin Americans, the communists and the Western world are all at one. It is the only issue on which they are all at one. On the racial issue they stand as one. Legal and constitutional issues are not the important issues. It is the racial issue which is before the world in the ’sixties. I am sure the hon. the Minister of External Affairs will agree with me when I say that the pressure is going to go on and on and that our trading partners are being placed in an increasingly difficult position. They are finding it more and more difficult to withstand the demands that are being made that they match their repeated declarations against apartheid with some sort of action. The only way really to give South Africa breathing space, is to give meaningful undertakings to remove racial discrimination which is being condemned by the whole world. Sir, there is no escaping from this reality. There is no escaping from our involvement in international affairs. The Leader of the Opposition said yesterday that if the Government would make a statement rejecting the homelands principle we would remove the danger of world involvement. He is quite wrong, Sir, A statement by the Government rejecting the idea of homelands in South West Africa is not going to remove from us the danger of world involvement. The fact of the matter is we are involved. We have been involved with the world over South West Africa for over 20 years. Now the hand of history is on our shoulder. Whatever the World Court decides and whatever the Government decides in connection with the World Court is not going to help us to escape from the realities of the situation.

A pamphlet was written by Mr. Ballinger, the senior lecturer at the Witwatersrand University. He said—

I say the only way to escape the dangers is in fact to accept multi-racialism and all its consequences. That, I believe, is the real alternative, the alternative the Prime Minister asks us to suggest. Because the White Paper falls lamentably short of facing the realities of the situation in South West Africa and because it does not dispose of the real issues which face South Africa, I must reject the White Paper.

Although the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) owes me an apology for having said that I have never pleaded for the Natives in South West Africa in this House I do not expect her to make that apology in this House—she can do it privately. I shall give her chapter and verse. I must compliment the hon. member on the fact that she has at least confined herself to the contents of the White Paper. She has not tried to run away from it like hon. members of the Opposition. At the beginning of her speech she said that what was being demanded of South Africa was action. By saying that she insinuated that there has never been, or that there has not been enough, action in South West Africa on the part of South Africa which is the mandatory power over that territory. I think I can prove, to the satisfaction of the hon. member, with statistics, that South Africa has always been in action in South West Africa. The White Paper deals especially with the economic development of that territory and if that is not action I do not know what this word means. South Africa will sink—and I say this with emphasis—or swim with South West Africa. I think we would all prefer to swim together.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) said there were two regions of South West Africa. He mentioned the Native territories north of the red line and the region south of the red line. He said one had to have a permit to cross the red line. Has he forgotten the Rehoboth Gebiet? One has to have a permit to enter that Gebiet, except for the main road leading through the country. Has he forgotten all the reserves in my constituency, reserves which I have visited with the hon. the Prime Minister some years ago? He cannot enter any of those reserves without a permit. He has forgotten about that. He and his party have pleaded for a combination of all the northern Native territories situated on the most northerly boundary of South West Africa. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has apparently forgotten to remember his party’s argument in the debate on the Transkei Bill. They regarded an independent Bantustan in the Republic of South Africa as a potential danger because it could come under communistic influence. I wonder whether the hon. member can remember that. Inconsistent and whimsical and mercurial as they are, hon. members of the Opposition now pleaded for a vast Bantustan on the northern boundary of South West Africa, an area which will be subject to the same potentially communistic influence as the Transkei, but which will be infinitely more dangerous to the safety of South West Africa and the Republic of South Africa. With that I take my leave of the hon. members of the Opposition.

Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister said yesterday that the recommendations of the Odendaal Commission should be considered in the light of history and he motivated his argument by briefly referring to the history of South West Africa. Now I am fully aware of the fact that the Hansard of this debate will be read through a magnifying glass by our enemies in the United Nations Organization, especially the speech of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. For this reason I wish to place on record the history of South West Africa to which the hon. the Prime Minister has referred in his speech yesterday, and with this object in view may I draw your attention to the first sentence of the third paragraph of the White Paper, which reads—

Now, Mr. Speaker, we cannot fairly discuss this new phase unless we know what the old phase in South West Africa was when the so-called Native tribes in South West Africa were independent tribes. Without a knowledge of the history of South West Africa we cannot decide whether the advent of the White man in that country was a blessing or a curse. The whole history of South West Africa has culminated in the recommendations of the Odendaal Commission and inasmuch as I have done serious research work on the history of South West Africa and its people for the past 36 years, I would like to see that a few historical facts should be placed on record in this debate. This will be my only contribution, but I sincerely hope that hon. members will then be able to approach the recommendations of the Odendaal Commission objectively and without any bias.

I want to make five very unambiguous statements:

The first is that the White man has a better right to live in South West Africa than any of the other ethnical groups.

The second is that during the past century, the Ovaherero, the people who are so much against this Government, have thrice pleaded with the Governor of the Cape Colony for European intervention in their tribal wars and in their wars with the Nama.

The third is that South West Africa was never annexed by Germany and that it could therefore not have been a German colony. It was a Schutzgebiet, a protectorate, which was established between the German Government and the various tribes in South West Africa by mutual agreement. Neither was it annexed by the Union of South Africa.

The fourth is that before the advent of the Germans in South West Africa, in 1884, complete anarchy was the order of the day throughout the country. I draw the attention of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) to that because she wants “one man one vote”. But ever since the advent of the White man in South West Africa, up to this day, there has not been a single tribal or racial war in that country.

The White man has brought law and order, peace, stability, development and prosperity to that unfortunate country, and that is the reason why I have said at the beginning that he has a better right to live in South West Africa than any of the other ethnical groups.

The fifth averment I make is that South West Africa was inhabited by White and Coloured peoples for many milleniums, but that their history is unknown. We do not know who they were, where they came from, or how they were vanquished by more powerful aggressors and invaders. The fact remains that the country did not originally belong to its present inhabitants.

It is the law of our land that the one who avers must prove, and I cordially agree with this principle. But I am prepared to cross swords with any hon. member in this House who may say that what I have said cannot be proved by documentary evidence.

I shall begin with my fifth statement. I have climbed the Lime Hills of Gochas and Mariental in my constituency, at a temperature of 98° and I have collected a large assortment of stone implements out of the stone age. These I have forwarded to our state museum in Windhoek for identification and classification. The report was that they were made by man 10,000 to 30,000 years B.C. Now I pose this question: What has happened in South West Africa 30,000 years B.C.? Who were the victors and who were the vanquished? Who were the invaders and who were the victims of aggression? We can only be sure of one fact, and that is that the inhabitants of South West Africa, even 30,000 years B.C., were subjected to the right of conquest. More than this no man can say.

I come to my second statement, namely, the known history of South West Africa. It begins with the discoveries of the famous Portuguese navigators Diego Cão, Bartholomeu Diaz and Gasper Vegas, between 1484 and 1486, on the South West Coast of Africa. Unfortunately, the formidable Namib Desert separated them from the hinterland and they did not see a single human being.

The most important developments in the known history of South West Africa, north of the Orange River, came in the beginning of the nineteenth century. And what do we find? And now I want the hon. member for Houghton to listen to me and then she must again say “one man one vote”.

I never said that.

For more than three-quarters of that bloody century in the history of South West Africa, its history was one of continual strife, tribal wars, wars between nations, appalling massacres and cattle rustling. Nama fought against Nama, Herero against Herero, Ovambanderu against Ovambanderu, and for 40 years certain Herero chiefs, including the so-called paramount chief of Damaraland, Kamaharero, even allied themselves with the Nama to rob their own co-racialists. They did that for the sake of cattle rustling, but I say there was chaos and anarchy in that country before the advent of the White man in the known history of that country, and I can prove it from documents resting in our Archives.

Now we come to the Hottentots or Nama. In that bloody century they made serfs of the poor Berg Damaras or Ghoudama. Now “Ghou-dama” means “dirt kaffir”, but if I should say what sort of dirt is meant, Mr. Speaker, you would call me to order. So I will say that the Ovaherero called them Ovazorotua, which means “black slaves”. That was the position before the advent of the White man.

According to Dr. H. Vedder, on page 68 of his book “Voorgeskiedenis van Suidwes-Afrika”, these poor people hardly owned any livestock. Like the wild Bushmen they lived from the veld. The men hunted game with bow-and-arrow and the women had to dig for roots and gather berries. If there are any doubting Thomases in the Opposition who do not believe that what I have just said about the subjugation and the ruthless extermination of the wild Berg Damara and the Bushmen by the Nama, the Ovaherero, the Ovambanderu and the Ovambo, then I would ask them to be fair enough to study the following documents: Palgrave’s Report, 1876; Sir Francis Galton’s Travels, 1851; Hendrik Witbooi’s Diary; and Government House Papers, 19/10.

What about the White Paper?

All these valuable documents are to be found in the Cape Archives and in our Parliamentary Library. With the time at my disposal, I shall unfortunately not be able to quote extensively from them. Now the hon. member for Houghton asks “What about the White Paper?” May I remind her again of paragraph (3) of the White Paper which speaks of a new phase in the history of South West Africa. I said at the beginning of my speech that we cannot form a judgment on the new phase unless we know what the old phase was. But the hon. member is afraid that I may give a true picture of what Native independence meant in South West Africa in the past century.

To prove my second statement, namely that the Ovaherero asked for European intervention in the affairs of South West Africa, I need only quote two excerpts from Palgrave’s Report of 1876. The first one is to be found on page 20. In 1872, Kamaharero, the most powerful chief of the Ovaherero, an old cattle rustler, and Aponda, chief of the Ovambanderu, or Eastern Hereros, wrote to Sir Henry Barkly, the Governor of the Cape Colony as follows—

So you see, these Hereros, who are so opposed to the present Government—and they form a very small minority in the country—were the very people who thrice asked for European intervention in their country.

In 1874, these two chiefs wrote another letter to the Governor of the Cape Colony, in which they said that they were alarmed at the arrival of some Boers who were coming with the intention of seizing upon a portion of their country and settling in it. On page 30 of Palgrave’s Report you will find Palgrave’s own version of what he told them at a meeting. This is very important, and I quote—

Sir, even in that bloody century in the known history of South West Africa, there were no slaves. I again refer to Government House Papers 19/10, and here especially to the memorandum of that famous explorer, James Chapman, which he sent to the Governor of the Cape Colony.

If we can believe the history as it was written by the missionaries—and I can prove with documentary evidence that they were wrong to say that the Ovaherero were subjugated by the Nama—then, according to their own story, the Ovaherero were a free people in the ’seventies of the past century.

Sir Francis Galton travelled through that country in 1851 and he wrote his famous book “Travels into the Interior of South Africa”. Unfortunately I shall not have the time to quote extensively from this book, but for record purposes I wish to refer hon. members to pages 66, 67, 70, 71, 72, 75, 82, 85, 94, 123 to 124, 190 to 192. The last two pages should be compared with what Galton had to say about the Ovambo nation. On pages 221 to 223 he ends up by saying—

I have given the House a picture of the old phase, and we have had a picture of the new phase in the history of South West Africa, as it is now under consideration.

I say that the Odendaal Commission has envisaged a 15-year plan. It cannot fairly be expected from the Government to carry out the whole plan in the first five years. In my constituency there are 165 farmers affected by the recommendations of the Odendaal Commission. I have been there with the Deputy Minister for South West Africa Affairs, and we have not found a single farmer in that area who is not prepared to make a sacrifice for the welfare of his country.

A sacrifice?

We did not find a single businessman in the village of Gibeon who is not prepared to make that sacrifice. The hon. member asks whether it is a sacrifice? I am referring to the sentimental value that a farmer attaches to his farm. You cannot pay him for that, and that is a sacrifice even if he is recompensed by the Government for the full value of his land. All those 165 farmers are prepared to fall in with the recommendations of the Odendaal Commission, I have moreover a lot of correspondence in my possession to prove that. The President of the Chamber of Commerce in South West Africa, Mr. Barney Gamsu, has advocated the acceptance of the recommendations of the Odendaal Commission, publicly, at a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce in Swakopmund last month. Mr. Sam Cohen, the well-known South West African millionaire has written to me to say that he is giving his full support to these recommendations. Mr. Ernst Lüchtenstein, who was the karakul king of the world before he became invalided some years ago, told the Deputy Minister for South West Africa Affairs at a public meeting at Keetmanshoop that the Government should implement the recommendations of the Odendaal Commission as soon as possible.

I say that these recommendations are morally right. I would not have supported them if they were morally wrong. If they are implemented by legislation, these recommendations will bring prosperity and peace to South West Africa. But I must qualify the word “peace”. There is no country in the world where there is greater peace and prosperity than in South West Africa.

The recommendations of the Odendaal Commission are morally right, as I have said, and what is morally right should be done; but what is morally wrong should not be done. It would be morally wrong if the White man, who brought peace, prosperity, law and order in the country should be ruled by a majority of uneducated Ovambos.

I hope the hon. member who has just resumed his seat will forgive me if I do not follow him in covering the historical development of the Native tribes of South West Africa. But like other members of this House, I am sure, I am still waiting to hear him bringing proof that the White man was in South West Africa before any of the Native tribes and that the White man in fact has a greater right to the territory. That evidence the hon. member has not given in his speech. I hope that at some other occasion he will take the opportunity of bringing that proof.

I think it is appropriate to describe this debate, now reaching its closing hour, as Act I in a drama in which our country and South West Africa, as an integral part, are the chief actors on the international scene. I think one can say that the players in this drama are the members of this House who have taken part in the debate. I think also that it can be taken for granted that the most interested spectators in the audience are our country’s enemies and those who wish to deprive South Africa of what by conquest, by the sacrifice of South African blood, and above all, by international agreement was placed in our hands as a sacred trust. I think one can say that Act II, we all know in this House, will take place when the International Court judgment is delivered, and how the drama will then develop in those scenes, I think, cannot be predicted at this state. But one thing I am sure of and that is that our conduct and the manner in which we handled this issue in this House can influence a happy or an unhappy ending of this matter. Therefore let me say right at the outset that I find it tragic in the extreme that members on the Government benches, aware of these great issues at stake, have shown so little responsibility in this debate, and that for the sake of party political gain they have created an impression that on the fundamentals of South Africa’s interest in respect of the territory of South West Africa and the moral and material well being and social progress of its inhabitants, we in this House stand divided.

You say so.

Let us take the speech of the hon. member for Middelland (Mr. van der Merwe). He accused this side of the House of having aligned itself on the side of South Africa’s enemies, and in fact that we have sabotaged South Africa’s interests because we dare to be at variance with the Government. And look at the speech of the hon. member for Namib (Mr. Cloete). Here, for the benefit of South Africa’s enemies, he made a speech which I think was a most reprehensible speech, in which he said that we have aligned ourselves with South Africa’s enemies. He named them, the African states, the communists and others. And so did the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee). He went further and he told the world that there is a large section of the population of this country and responsible leaders of this country concerned about the future of South Africa’s vital interest who wish to create unsettled conditions in the territory of South West Africa. And then again we had the old cry that we on this side of the House are more concerned about world opinion than the interests of South Africa.

Quite right.

I wonder if these hon. gentleman realize that they are creating the very atmosphere and impression to encourage South Africa’s enemies by such remarks. Surely they must realize that to create an atmosphere in this debate and in this House an atmosphere of division between us in respect of the fundamental interests of South Africa in respect of the territory of South West Africa, is playing into the very hands of our enemies. It is most pertinent at this stage to ask: What are the fundamentals of South Africa’s interests and those of South West Africa?—and it is perhaps also pertinent to ask: Is there common ground between the Government and the Opposition? I think there is common ground. It has been stated by the Leader of the Opposition. He stated it at the commencement of his speech in reply to the hon. Prime Minister. What is the common ground? Firstly that the future of South West Africa and South Africa are inextricably bound together. Secondly, that no other country can do more for South West Africa and its peoples, not even the United Nations, than South Africa can do. There is a third point and that is that in our unilateral control granted under the mandate, South Africa alone has full power of administration and legislation over the territory of South West Africa. There is a fourth point: That we have never failed, no matter what Government has been in power in South Africa, to exercise the powers and the trust for the purpose of promoting to the utmost the material and moral well being and social progress of the inhabitants of South West Africa.

Now I cannot understand how you can be against the White Paper.

Thee is a fifth point and that is that we have always recognized, no matter what Government has been in power, that we have an obligation to the international community, not the United Nations Organization, to administer the territory of South West Africa as a sacred trust. Not as the hon. member for Omaruru (Mr. Frank) and the hon. Deputy Minister for South West Africa Affairs have attempted to suggest in this debate, that this party in the face of world pressure will run away from its duties to South West Africa. I think that it is regrettable that we should have had to listen to the speech of the hon. Deputy Minister, a party political speech when an international issue is at stake, affecting South Africa’s vital interests. There has never been any change on the part of this side of the House or of the Government to these fundamentals. They are based on certain basic concepts. I can give no greater emphasis to these basic fundamentals than by quoting the words of the late General Smuts, who was the greatest living authority on South Africa’s rights in respect of South West. On one occasion in speaking about incorporation he said this—

But in the Legislative Assembly of South West, which he was invited to address in July 1947, he went further and said this—

Just as the Government considers that the policy it applies in the Republic is in the best interests of ourselves and of South West, in this free society of ours in South Africa surely we are entitled to hold the view that our policy, as outlined by the Leader of the Opposition, is in the best interests of South Africa and South West Africa. Surely we can do this without the reprehensible accusation from hon. members opposite that we are betraying and sabotaging South Africa on the South West question. Because of this I think it should be said now, in order to counter the impression that may have been gained abroad by our enemies as the result of statements made by hon. members opposite during this debate, that no foreign power, particularly our enemies at UN, should for a moment think that they can exploit these differences of policy between us to serve their own ends, to the detriment of the interests of South Africa. If there is any thought of interfering with South Africa’s rights, they should realize that we will protect our interests. But there is no doubt in my mind that to give way to the propaganda pressures that are brought to bear on our country by our enemies in regard to South West would be tantamount to opening the doors of the Republic to the end of White civilization and White leadership, as we who are White Africans understand our obligations to the non-White inhabitants of South Africa and South West Africa.

Having said that, I wish to turn my attention to the Prime Minister’s remark about the alleged leakages of friendly advice he received from the United States and the United Kingdom Governments, that because he is not applying the proposals of the commission according to the sub judice rule outlined in the White Paper, he capitulated to international pressure. The Prime Minister said that he was given friendly advice, but the friendly advice he received was based on two wrong assumptions, firstly that the Government had not taken into consideration that it was involved in an International Court case, and secondly that as the result of a possible interdict the matter may be referred to the Security Council. The Prime Minister went further and said that the Government was fully aware that it had to take these factors into consideration. If this was so, I should like to ask the Prime Minister, if he was aware of the possibility of an interdict, why was there this delay in announcing that he was not taking any decision in respect of the constitutional aspects of the Odendaal Report? The report was signed on 12 December last year and it was tabled in this House on 27 January 1964. In the Prime Minister’s Windhoek speech, delivered on 17 February, he admitted full responsibility for the report, and that the responsibility for its implementation lay with him and with the Government. The Prime Minister went further and said that the acceptance of the report would give rise to international dangers. What I cannot understand is this. If the Prime Minister delivered this homily to Britain and the U.S.A. yesterday on diplomatic conduct, he could have stopped it all from the day he was aware of the report if he had said that the Government was fully aware of its implications and in respect of interdict action. Why did he not immediately at the first opportunity state clearly and unequivocally that he was not accepting the constitutional aspects of the report? Because it is quite clear that if there had been an earlier announcement he could have prevented the unpleasant diplomatic issues in which we were involved. Whilst I am on the subject, I regret it very much personally that the Prime Minister saw fit to make a personal attack in this House on a leading American citizen, a certain Mr. Randall, who is a good friend of South Africa and who has the right to air his views. If the Prime Minister wants to know what a good friend he is, I would refer him to an article written by Mr. Randall in the Reader’s Digest, which has a circulation of 90,000,000, in which he says—

And he ends the article by saying this—

But in spite of that the Prime Minister has possibly made a potential enemy of a very good friend.

I have asked myself, on a close study of the White Paper, what in fact are the decisions that have been taken in the White Paper. Except for certain minor issues, stated clearly in a positive manner, and requiring immediate action, such as for example the question of Coloured housing and certain industries to be established in Ovamboland and to make large sums of capital available, all the proposals in this White Paper are left either pending decision or pending the decision of other authorities. For example, education, health, railways and roads must be worked out by experts. Great emphasis has, however, been laid in the report on what decisions have not been taken. Now, let us study what decisions have not been taken. I have made a very careful analysis of this. There are stand-over decisions totalling three. There are held-over decisions totalling one. There are no decisions totalling five. There are further investigations before decisions totalling three. There are two cases in which it is not practical to take final decisions. There is one decision which is to come later. There is one case in which a general decision cannot be taken. There are three decisions which have to be taken by three administering authorities, and then there is one matter still awaiting a general decision. In other words, there is a total of 20 negative decisions. No less than 20 times in this White Paper is it stated that the Government is taking no decision. Closer examination brings this to light. What it amounts to is that no decisions have been taken, except to make money available and the appointment of a committee to investigate how the money should be spent. We on this side have no objection to the principle of subsidizing South West Africa generously, not even if it places a considerable burden on the taxpayers of South Africa or of South West Africa. It is the price we have to pay for carrying out our moral responsibility and building closer ties between ourselves and South West Africa. We are agreed on these fundamentals. This is common cause between us. But what does the acceptance by the Government of these proposals mean? I will tell you what appears, Sir, It is that the Prime Minister has accepted the suggestion and the hint given to him by the Leader of the Opposition in his speech at Windhoek that before he embarks on this expenditure he must appoint a committee to investigate ways and means and that a full inquiry be instituted into the exact relationship of South West and our financial ability to develop each to his resources to achieve the ends we both desire. May I remind the House of these words: “If we want to carry South West Africa with us into our future, if that is its destiny, if its destiny is with us, we should treat them generously and fairly, with sympathy and goodwill, so that we can go into the future as a united people.” Those words were uttered in this House by the late General Smuts.

Finally, the hon. member for Namib (Mr. Cloete) quoted at great length from the speeches of the leader of the South West Opposition party. I wonder why he did not refer to a speech made at the congress of that party in Windhoek in September last year? What did that gentleman actually ask for? I think I should quote it—

The essence of Mr. Niehaus’s remarks was an appeal to put politics on one side and to approach the issues of South West Africa in the light of the interests of South Africa. And the hon. gentleman ought to know that the newspaper which supports his party in Windhoek said this: “Ons verwelkom dit. Dit is ’n stap in die regte rigting.” I mention this because I know that if I make a similar appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister, he will not accept it, because he would consider it as a defeat for his own policy, or he will say that it will be said again that he has capitulated from his political standpoint, so I am not making this appeal to the Prime Minister, but what I am going to ask him to do is not to proceed with his motion which is before the House and that he does not take it to a vote. I have good grounds for making that appeal. On a former occasion there was a motion before this House introduced by the Prime Minister’s own party, asking for the incorporation of South West Africa. It was a debate of a very similar nature to this one. There were differences of policy and viewpoints, but there was full agreement on the fundamentals and in respect of South Africa’s interests and those of South West Africa, and it was the Prime Minister’s predecessor, the late Dr. Malan, who got up in this House when the mover of the motion said that with the consent of his leader he was withdrawing the motion from the Order Paper because he said: “We do not want the world to know of our differences; we want the world to know that we stand together when it comes to South Africa’s interests.” On that basis I appeal to the Prime Minister. We have our policy differences. There are wide differences, but there is one thing that we are all agreed on, and that is South Africa’s interests in regard to South West Africa and the international situation in which we find ourselves to-day. I therefore say to the Prime Minister that we should not show the world any divergence on this, but let us show a united face. Therefore I plead with the Prime Minister that he should not press his motion to a vote but rather take the statesmanlike view and withdraw it, so that at least on the fundamentals we will show a united front to the world.

I want to start by congratulating the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) on his umpteenth readmission speech. I want to say that if he goes on in this way he will still have many opportunities to make re-admission speeches.

The hon. member for Turffontein appealed to the Prime Minister to withdraw this motion and not to have it put to the vote. I can well understand why he makes such an appeal; he does so for the simple reason that he realizes only too well that the attitude which he and his party have adopted towards this motion is one which is going to do them infinite harm as a party. I can understand that there may be certain proposals in this memorandum with which hon. members opposite cannot agree, but what I cannot understand is the attitude which they adopt in condemning this whole memorandum from beginning to end. Hon. members opposite know full well that if the question should ever arise of giving effect to any further proposal contained in the Odendaal Report, they will be given an opportunity to discuss the matter and to vote against any such proposal, if they wish to do so. But knowing full well that they will have that opportunity, they nevertheless propose to vote against the whole of this report and against the decisions taken by the Government in connection with this matter. Sir, if ever a group of people landed themselves in a mess it is certainly the Opposition. And then the hon. member for Turffontein still has audacity to accuse this side of the House of making this a political issue. The Prime Minister was decent enough to give the Opposition a special opportunity to debate the Government’s decisions in connection with this report. Instead of making use of this opportunity in the spirit in which the offer was made, that is to say, to give the Opposition an opportunity in this democratic country of ours to discuss this memorandum, they accuse the Government of making a political issue out of this and they ask the Government to withdraw this motion. What do hon. members opposite expect? If the Government submits a memorandum of this kind to the House, it follows that the Government wants the House to approve of it or to disapprove of it, otherwise what point would there be in submitting it to the House?

But I want to go further. The people who can be accused of having dragged politics into this debate are really the Opposition, because in this memorandum which the Government has submitted to the House it is stated very specifically that although the Odendaal Report is accepted in broad outline by the Government—and naturally it is accepted in, broad outline because its recommendations are in line with the general policy of the Government—that fact is not relevant in this debate, for the simple reason that what is really under discussion here is the correctness or otherwise of the decisions which the Government has taken and which it feels must be implemented. Instead of discussing these decisions which have to be implemented the Opposition dragged the Government’s whole policy into the debate, and yet they have the audacity to say that it is this side which dragged politics into the debate. For my part I want to say that I am extremely sorry that this matter has been made a political issue because that was absolutely unnecessary. It was unnecessary because this memorandum, if the two parties are as united as hon. members on the other side would have us believe in respect of the best interests of our country and the challenge of the outside world, afforded the Opposition the best possible opportunity to show a united front in connection with this matter. I think all of us here owe the greatest debt of gratitude to the Odendaal Commission for the thoroughness with which they carried out this huge task which rested on their shoulders. But I also want to express my pleasure at the Government’s reaction to the report, as reflected in this memorandum which is under discussion here at the moment. In my opinion the Government was perfectly correct in deciding that it could not make up its mind at this stage about all the recommendations contained in the report. Everybody will agree that from whatever angle one approached this matter, it would not only have been unpractical but entirely wrong to come to a decision at this stage, for the simple reason that apart from the grounds which are mentioned in paragraphs 18 to 21 of the memorandum, some of the recommendations contained in the report are of such a nature that it will necessarily take a long time before they can be implemented, and when the time comes to implement them it may very well appear, in the light of the circumstances which then prevail, that the decision should have been entirely different. To illustrate the position I want to mention just one point; I refer to sub-paragraph (7) of paragraph 1477 of the report at page 453, where it is stated—

And in sub-paragraph (8) of paragraph 1511 at page 483 the commission talks about—

When the stage is reached where it becomes possible to carry out these schemes, when the Orange River scheme is in operation, we may in fact find that the full potential of the Orange River scheme is required by the Republic and that there is not enough power left to make provision for those areas. But on the other hand we may find at that stage that there is so much redundant power from the Orange River scheme that it will in fact be possible to give effect to this proposal on a much larger scale. In other words, at this stage it would be entirely out of place to take decisions in connection with schemes which can only be implemented in the distant future. In any event, as far as these 12 matters are concerned with regard to which the Government has already taken a decision, surely it must be clear that the implementation of the first five-year plan will request so much manpower and time that it must be regarded as practically a full-scale project. I think we should congratulate the Government on the attitude which they adopted in connection with this report. Without going into the question as to whether the provisions of the mandate over South West Africa are still valid, I should like to point out that in any case the decisions which have been announced by the Government in this memorandum are strictly in accordance with the spirit of the mandate. I think it will be just as well to refresh the memories of hon. members as to the contents of Article 2 of the mandate, which reads as follows—

May I proceed to show, on the basis of this memorandum, that the Government is in fact carrying out the spirit of Article 2 of the mandate. I am not going to go into the question as to whether the provisions of the mandate are still valid but I say that what the Government proposes to do is entirely in accordance with the spirit of Article 2 of the mandate, because the Government is in fact promoting the material and moral well-being of the inhabitants of South West to the utmost.

I want to prove, on the basis of this memorandum and the Government’s decisions, that the Government has always administered South West Africa in the spirit of the mandate. Let us first give our attention to the material well-being of the population of South West. The life artery of development in any territory is the supply of water and electricity. In that regard it has already been decided to ensure that justice is done to the population of South West, White and non-White alike. I refer to the Kunene scheme. If hon. members look at paragraph 7 of the memorandum they will see that it has already been decided to carry out projects which will cost R72,300,000 in order to provide water and electricity in the interests—note well—of both Whites and non-Whites. If this first leg of the developmental programme is tackled on such a vast scale, this project will increase the production potential of the territory so enormously that it will also become necessary to give attention to the provision of transport facilities. On roads alone it is proposed to spend at least R41,000,000 in the first five years. For the provision of the necessary facilities for air services the Republic proposes to contribute R3,000,000 per annum to implement the first five-year plan. As far as transport services are concerned, large amounts have already been spent in the past in modernizing and improving the existing facilities. In the past ten and a half years the huge amount of R72,000,000 has been spent on improvements and modernization. That has already been done. The expenditure by the Union of South Africa and thereafter the Republic of South Africa on transport services in South West Africa, including the value of vehicles but excluding locomotives, amounts to R105,000,000, of which the territory of South West Africa has not had to find a single cent. When one further bears in mind the small population of South West Africa, this huge amount represents a per capita expenditure in South West Africa, in the interests of the entire population, which is equalled nowhere else in the world.

What did the United Party Government spend in connection with this same matter?

Precisely, what did the United Party Government spend in connection with this matter! In addition to that it must be remembered that the accumulated loss on the running of railway and transport services since 1922 is in the neighbourhood of R51,400,000. Every cent of that is also borne by the Republic. I do not think any country in the world can expect a young and small country like the Republic of South Africa to do more than that. The minimum expenditure on just these items which I have mentioned here, which will benefit the entire population of South West Africa, is almost R134,000,000. In order further to promote the material well-being of the population of South West Africa it has also been decided to do everything that can possibly be done to develop the mining industry in the territory, and this will also help the non-White population of the territory. I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to paragraph 9 on page 7 of the memorandum—

In the sphere of mining too, therefore, the Government of the Republic of South Africa is doing more than its duty. This decision by the Government is one which ought to be appreciated not only by the inhabitants of South West Africa and of the Republic but by every well-disposed country in the world. As far as industrial and agricultural development is concerned, for Whites as well as non-Whites, active steps are going to be taken as outlined in this memorandum. In the material sphere therefore a tremendous amount has already been done and further efforts are going to be made to promote their material wellbeing still further. It is clear therefore that proper attention is being given to this aspect of the matter by the Government.

The second matter to which reference is made in Article 2 of the mandate is the promotion of the moral well-being of the population of South West. In this connection I want to mention one example and that is the school attendance figures. So much has already been done by the Government of the Republic and by the Administration of South West Africa as far as educational facilities are concerned that we find to-day that in the case of Whites there is 100 per cent school attendance; that the school attendance figure in the case of the Basters and the Coloureds is 90 per cent; in the case of the Natives in the northern sector of the territory 74 per cent and in the case of the inhabitants of the southern portion of the territory 54 per cent. But under this scheme it is envisaged that by 1970 the school attendance figure in the case of the Natives will be pushed up to 60 per cent. Sir, show me any state in Africa where anything like this figure has been achieved, let alone exceeded.

As far as health services are concerned gigantic efforts are being made. I think it would be just as well also to quote this for the sake of the record. In paragraph 13 of the memorandum we find the following—

In the spiritual and health spheres therefore this Government and the Administration of South West Africa are doing more than their duty. But in their helplessness the Opposition intend to vote, amongst other things, against the provision of these health services when this motion is put to the vote in this House.

Mr. Speaker, the social advancement of the population of South West Africa is also being promoted. According to paragraph 16 of the memorandum, for example, the Government accepts the recommendation of the Odendaal Commission that attention should be given to Coloured housing and community centres and offers to make available the funds, where necessary, to give effect to this recommendation. In every sphere therefore which is referred to in Article 2 of the mandate this Government is doing more than its duty, and apart from the validity of the mandate, this Government, in every respect, is carrying out the spirit of Article 2 down to the last detail.

I want to conclude by saying that in this memorandum we have the clearest proof of the Government’s good intentions towards the population of South West Africa. It is only natural that in this memorandum the Government should give an indication that in broad outline it agrees with the Odendaal Report. If a Government has a certain policy and recommendations are put forward in a report such as this, recommendations which correspond in broad outline with the things in which it believes, it is only natural that the Government should say that it agrees with the report But that is not what is before this House this evening; what is before the House this evening is the Commission’s recommendations to which the Government has decided to give attention and to help to implement; what is before the House this evening is the Government’s decision in connection with the development of South West Africa in the economic sphere and in connection with the provision of health services amongst other things, for the population of South West Africa, White and non-White, and that is what the Opposition intend to vote against when this motion is put to the vote.

The hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. J. J. Fouché, Jnr.) has spoken about the decisions in this White Paper which we should debate. Sir, the first decision is this—

The next words are “this decision”. Sir, either the White Paper is right or the hon. member is right, but this is the first decision in the White Paper, and we are not only entitled to discuss it but we were invited by the hon. the Prime Minister to discuss it. There is one respect in which I will not follow the hon. member for Smithfield and that is in a discourse as to whether or not this report in any way affects the mandate; whether there is in fact a proper carrying out of the mandate or not, and I am surprised that the hon. member, knowing that whatever he says, especially as a Government member, might be taken further, can even think of mentioning the report in relation to the mandate which is at present the subject of an international dispute.

I said that the mandate was being carried out in spirit.

My point is that the hon. member should not talk about it at all, in relation to the matter which is pending before the International Court. Sir, when the hon. member accuses us of taking the opportunity to make a political debate out of this, I think he must look to the beginning of this debate. Who introduced politics in this debate? When did this become a political debate? It became a political debate the moment the hon. the Prime Minister introduced his motion. At that moment it became a political debate. He was dealing with a matter of political policy but he went further than that. The hon. the Prime Minister not only made it a political matter but he made it a party political matter, and he did it in a manner which surprised me, coming as it did from the hon. the Prime Minister. I would have expected it rather from someone on the backbenches or the crossbenches. I must say that I was rather surprised that the hon. the Prime Minister started the debate in the way he did and on the note he did. Sir, the matter that we are dealing with is not a matter of party politics. The matter we are dealing with here is the most delicate matter that we in this House will have to deal with while this Parliament is alive.

You do not always realize that.

The hon. member says that I do not always realize it. I wonder if he realizes that we are dealing with the mandated territory of South West Africa. We are not dealing with a part of South Africa; we are not dealing with a part of the Transvaal to which the Prime Minister’s policy is going to be applied. We are dealing with the mandated territory of South West Africa, which is not just a part of South Africa. It is a territory with an international character. When hon. members opposite worry about the fact that we worry about international opinion in relation to South West Africa, in relation to the policy which we pursue there, then they must remember that it is very relevant; they must remember that whatever policy is applied to South West Africa is a matter of international importance because the territory is a territory with an international character. Sir, it seems to me that many hon. members opposite who have spoken on this, especially the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) have forgotten this basic fact. That is why it is so delicate and that is why it calls for greater feats of diplomacy than we have seen exhibited in this debate by hon. members on that side.

What about Japie Basson?

The hon. member asks, “What about the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson)?” Sir, that was the most brilliant and remarkable speech that this Chamber had the pleasure of hearing in this debate. It was a speech relating to the facts of South West Africa, relating to the law as it applies to South West Africa …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the motion.

Sir, I refer to the speech of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout because I think he set a tone for this debate; he raised the debate to a tone which befits the particular problem that we are dealing with, the particularly dangerous problem that we are dealing with.

I was most surprised and shocked to hear the hon. the Prime Minister say in a debate like this that we on this side of the House were disappointed that he had decided not to take certain steps which might have landed South Africa in trouble. That is unworthy of the hon. the Prime Minister. That accusation is nothing more or less than cheap party politics. The hon. the Prime Minister knows better than anyone else that when this matter became sub judice nobody on this side of the House said one word about it; nobody mentioned South West Africa in any context on any public platform at any time at all, and whenever the opportunity came up in this House we assiduously avoided raising it because it was in fact sub judice.

But you asked for its debate.

Of course we asked for the debate. Of course we wanted a debate on this. We asked for a debate on the Odendaal Report. The hon. the Prime Minister says that our whole attitude towards this is a political manoeuvre and he associates us with the English-language Press, about which he is very annoyed. I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that the English-language newspapers are not our lackeys, in the same way as the newspapers which support the hon. the Prime Minister are his lackeys. They are not our lackeys. What they said seems to have disturbed the hon. the Prime Minister very much. He spent much of his time in introducing this motion in dealing with what had happened, because somewhere between the time that report was published and the time of this debate, the hon. the Prime Minister had a set-back in the image that he had been producing to the world but especially to the voters of South Africa, and the hon. the Prime Minister was very conscious of that. He spoke about threats and he said that no threats had been made by any foreign, friendly country. No one ever said that there were any threats. Rather was it suggested that we got some kind and friendly advice in relation to a matter about which the hon. the Prime Minister apparently was not advised at that time. Sir, if these were enemies, if these were people who were not trying to help us …

How can you say that I had no advice at that time? You are quite wrong.

Well, I shall show the hon. the Prime Minister. Let us have a look at the White Paper and let us have a look at the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech in Windhoek. But before I do that, let me ask the hon. the Prime Minister, if I had no right to say this, why it was that in the State President’s speech in the Other Place at the beginning of this Session the State President announced that there would be legislation in relation to South West Africa?

But there already has been legislation dealing with Escom, under the Kunene scheme.

As I read the speech of the State President in this matter, that legislation was related to the investigation which was being carried out by the Odendaal Commission. But if the Prime Minister now denies that there has been any change of attitude at all, then let us look at what he said in Windhoek and let us look at this White Paper and let us see whether what he said at Windhoek is consistent with his present attitude. My first quotation comes from the Argus of the day on which he made his speech in Windhoek. He said—

Sir, that is not consistent with what is stated in this White Paper. Let me give the hon. the Prime Minister another quotation. This is what the Prime Minister said in Windhoek—

Sir, the White Paper does not say the same. The White Paper does not say, “Must we for appeasement sake withdraw from doing what we regard as best for our people?”

The White Paper says that we are going ahead—at the right time.

At the right time! Sir, those are the words that are missing. Those are the words that were missing in his speech at Windhoek. In Windhoek the hon. the Prime Minister committed himself up to his neck. He did not go all the way but he left the impression that he was going to accept this report. He left no impression at all, when he made that speech, that there was any reason whatever why the Government, with the concurrence of the people—because that was the object of his visit to Windhoek, to get the consent of the people—would not carry on with it.

I am still accepting the commission recommendations in principle.

No, the hon. the Prime Minister is not going on with those recommendations now, The hon. the Prime Minister has never denied that he was in fact influenced in this matter. Sir, why is the hon. the Prime Minister in such a hurry? Why is this White Paper here at all?

You asked for it.

We did not ask for the White Paper. We reject it. We asked him to scrap the whole of the Odendaal Report.

Sir what is the hurry? The hon. the Prime Minister introduces this White Paper. The whole of the Odendaal report is based on three pillars, firstly, the homelands, secondly, the stripping of the South West Africa Administration of all its powers and giving them to the Republican Government, and thirdly, certain economic ventures. Number one, the homelands proposal, is being put into cold storage by this White Paper. Number two, the stripping of South West Africa of its powers and giving them to the Republic, is also going to be put in cold storage by giving it to a committee of experts.

If you really believe that, then why not vote for this motion?

Well, I am coming to that now. The third one relates to the economic aspect. But that can be done without the White Paper. If the hon. the Prime Minister accepts that this is so, why must he have a White Paper; why must he have an Odendaal Report? Why cannot he scrap the whole thing? The fact of the matter is that he embarked upon a course of conduct and something intervened in-between that caught him napping, and he is now obliged to keep up the face of the man who never bends, who is never wrong, so he has to produce this White Paper and go ahead with the third part as if he were going ahead with all the recommendations contained in the Odendaal Commission.

The hon. the Prime Minister has decided that we shall discuss the question of homelands, and we reject the policy of homelands, not because of party political considerations. The hon. the Prime Minister knows very well that we reject this policy for South Africa anyway. But in South West Africa it is open to him and it is open to any Government to pursue a racial policy which is different from the policy pursued by that Government in South Africa. It is quite possible to do so, so it is not illogical for the Prime Minister in South West Africa to adopt the policy which is quite different from the one that he adopts here. But the hon. the Prime Minister went further. He said that the plan which the United Party had for South West Africa was a make-believe plan.

I said it was mortally dangerous.

Yes, he said it was mortally dangerous and a make-believe. But, Sir, who is playing a game of make-believe? The hon. the Prime Minister is going to go ahead in South Africa with a policy with fanatical certainty, with just a pencil sketch of reality. Sir, who is being unrealistic? Who is having dreams about this? Here we have the hon. the Prime Minister producing a policy in this country—and we will not deal with that for the moment—and he says that he is going to apply that policy in South West Africa because in South West Africa it is based on historical association and historical area definition. How is it then that half of the non-White population in the southern part of South West Africa will have to be moved, as has been pointed out, in order to implement this homelands policy? What has happened? There must have been something that caused them to be where they are to-day. Was that something not history, and should the hon. the Prime Minister not take notice of that history? Since the hon. the Prime Minister talks about history and since he relates it to his policy here, what aspect of history is it which makes all the Bantu of South Africa, for example, the inhabitants of some homeland? Surely the industrial revolution which has been taking place in the last 20 years is also part of our history, and that is what brought these people into the urban areas. Is that not historical also? Is it not historical development that has scattered these people in South West Africa, and must that historical development not be taken into account?

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) has indicated that South West Africa poses a problem, not just for this country but it has posed a problem since the last war for every Government of South Africa. It will continue to pose a problem for every Government of the Republic of South Africa. It is a problem which faces the Government of today. It is a problem which faces South Africa, which faces the people of South Africa and which affects the people of South Africa, more so than any other internal political problem, because any internal political problem can be righted by another Government; it can be righted by the electorate, but if you are going to embark on a programme in South West Africa you are going to come into contact with and perhaps into conflict with international forces over which this Parliament and the people of South Africa will have no control whatever. Sir, that is a factor that must be borne in mind when one talks about South West Africa.

We sink or swim together.

If this policy of the hon. the Prime Minister is to be put into operation, it is going to involve, as has been pointed out, the movement of thousands of people. Is this not fraught with danger in relation to our administration of this territory so far as other countries are concerned? I am not referring here to the Afro-Asian group. I am referring more particularly to the allied powers who when the treaty was made handed this territory over to South Africa to administer. Those people especially are basically affected and are basically interested and they have shown their interest. The interest they have shown has been a friendly interest. The hon. the Prime Minister has conceded that.

Sir, we have seen the homelands policy applied in South Africa. Is the hon. the Prime Minister going to apply that same policy in South West Africa? Because if he is going to do so then let him be warned now before he does. If he is going to apply the same policy, and if homelands involve also the complementary legislation of, for example, the Bantu Laws Amendment Act, let the hon. the Prime Minister take note now …

Order! The hon. member is very far from the motion now. He must come back to the motion now.

Sir, we have been accused by many hon. members opposite of calling in the help of the outside world, of sabotaging South Africa, of considering what other countries think more than what South Africa thinks and so on. The hon. the Prime Minister himself concedes that this is a matter which will affect us externally as well as internally. He told the people at Windhoek that they should look at the contents of the report and take into consideration the effect it would have on South Africa’s internal and external relationship. When we consider the report, the effect which it might have externally is a most relevant factor. It is more than relevant, Sir, it is almost germane to the future of South Africa, that the policy we pursue has the approval of the Western world.

How can you prove it.

Does the hon. the Deputy Minister then say that South West Africa is a part of South Africa?

Yes, I say it.

Well, Sir, I do not want to press the Deputy Minister on that, I shudder to think what repercussions such an irresponsible statement could have upon us, coming from the level from which it did come—deputy ministerial level—and the hon. the Prime Minister remains silent when it is made. Sir, I do not want to take that matter any further. I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will tell the hon. Deputy Minister later why I do not want to take it any further, and why he is wrong.

You said the world approved of your policy and I said it was not true: you must prove it.

Be that as it may, I do not want to get South Africa into trouble because of the remark by the hon. the Deputy Minister.

I want to tell the hon. gentleman that when the United Nations’ Security Council passed a resolution relating to sanctions on South Africa, the first person in South Africa to say anything about it and to deprecate interference with our affairs, was the Leader of the Opposition in a speech at Port Elizabeth. He said it before the Minister of Foreign Affairs or anybody else said anything about it. Let me tell hon. members opposite they are darned lucky …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that word.

I withdraw it Sir. They are very lucky that they have an Opposition with a responsible Leader such as they have in this country. I think the debate has indicated that. As I have said the hon. the Prime Minister started this debate by reducing it to the level of a rather backbench political propaganda debate.

I want to conclude by just saying a word or two about the proposals we have in this regard. The hon. the Deputy Minister says we have no hope of applying our policy; he says you cannot have a federation of areas until you make them independent. One of the examples he quoted was that of the United States of America. So far as the first 13 states were concerned that might have been true, but as far as I am aware, Arizona, for example, was not an independent State. I am not sure; it might have been. But I know that Alaska was not. But Alaska was federated and became part of the union. Let me ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he has ever heard of the Commonwealth of Australia? The Commonwealth of Australia consists of separate areas but none of them were independent states. Canada is another example. They were not independent states, as they were in America, but they formed themselves into a federal unit.

In certain respects they were sovereign.

The hon. member should know that that is one of the elements of federalism, namely, that you give sovereignty in respect of certain matters to the constituent elements of your federation be it racial, or geographic. That is the genius of federalism.

The hon. the Prime Minister knew when he brought this motion before this House that the world has rejected the policy of homelands but he is nevertheless going to go on with it. At the worst, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has pointed out, our policy has some chance of success. Because it does at least take account of the facts of South West Africa; it at least takes account of the history of South Africa. It does give us a basis on which we can, regardless of what happens, be flexible, upon which we can deal with the outside world in relation to South West Africa.

Sir, South Africa is not going to make a final decision on South West Africa without negotiating with someone else as to the future status of South West Africa. Our policy at least gives us the opportunity, it gives us enough flexibility with which to deal with the outside world. The hon. the Prime Minister gives us no flexibility whatsoever, as the hon. the Prime Minister himself has conceded.

I make bold to participate in this debate. The more I listened to this debate the more I came to the conclusion that this was a debate for diplomats and that it was very difficult for one to keep one’s feet on the ground; that the debate was rather unrealistic. From the nature of things it appears to me as though the debate should to some extent have been unrealistic. Listening to the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) just now it also appeared to me as though the debate was not very down to earth. I just want to address one or two remarks to the hon. member. He said that the economic recommendations in the report, which are now being adopted in the White Paper, could have been implemented by the hon. the Prime Minister without the necessity for having a report. If the hon. the Minister had done this I wonder whether the hon. member would have supported it? But the hon. member went further and in this connection he said that the hon. the Prime Minister gave a certain undertaking at Windhoek; he said that the hon. the Prime Minister had committed himself there up to his neck, and even further, to accept the report. I hope that the hon. member will permit me to quote to him what his leader, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, had to say at Windhoek. He made a speech at Windhoek after the hon. the Prime Minister had been there and this is what he said—

Is this not very clear? Does the hon. member not accept the opinion of his own leader who said at Windhoek that he did not know what the attitude of the Government was going to be? Nevertheless, the hon. member has told us here that the hon. the Prime Minister is trying to avoid the consequences of the report. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition went even further when he spoke at Windhoek. He had this to say—

Surely that is clear enough?

I did not say that.

The hon. member tried to say it.

I did not say “up to his eyes” but “up to his neck”.

The hon. member said “up to his neck; he barely kept his mouth above water”. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went on to say—

I think that the hon. member will admit that his whole argument on this point, which lasted for 15 minutes, meant absolutely nothing. But this was characteristic of his whole speech and of the whole debate. The hon. member stood up here and said: “We asked for a debate on the Odendaal Commission’s Report.” Quite correct, and they had the debate, but surely we should discuss the report; surely one must adopt some or other attitude in this regard? Now the Opposition can discuss the report and the White Paper from the point of view of the programme of principles of their party. That is also correct. And we on this side can discuss the report from the point of view of the policy of the National Party. But that is, after all, not the full story. The fact is that the subject matter of the report—South West Africa—does not form part of the Republic. If it did form part of the Republic, this then would be the only yardstick to be used by the United Party and the National Party in discussing and considering the report. But the report does not deal with a part of the Republic. The report deals with a territory with South West Africa, and that is why, in my opinion, there is another yardstick which we must use when we want to discuss the report and the White Paper. It is in this regard that I am somewhat hesitant to participate in this debate because the hon. member accused the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. J. J. Fouché)in my opinion quite unjustly, of dealing with a matter which was sub judice. I want to say that if the hon. member for Smithfield was guilty of doing so, then most hon. members who participated in this debate were guilty of the same thing. I want to state emphatically here that I do not have the slightest intention of doing so. I do not want to offend in regard to a matter which is at present before the World Court. I want to apologize to the court in advance in the event of my doing anything of this nature by mistake. With the limited knowledge I have of the matter, I do not think that I shall offend when I say that because this is a territory outside South Africa, the only yardstick which we and those hon. members can use to determine the form which our discussion of these matters will take and to appreciate their value, is the yardstick which we were given at the time when we obtained the mandate over the territory. The yardstick consists of those provisions which were laid down in that mandate agreement. After all, we were given the territory in terms of that mandate and certain conditions and hard and fast rules were laid down. When we want to consider what South Africa is doing in the territory, and what she wants to do there, then we must ask ourselves whether she is carrying out her obligations in terms of the mandate, obligations which were imposed upon her. That is the point of view from which I want to discuss this matter and it is my contention that the contents of the report and the White Paper are in complete conformity with the instruction which we received at that time to manage this territory. They are in complete conformity with our commitments and that is why in my opinion they are irreproachable.

South West Africa is not something that is hanging in the air. South West Africa is not an independent territory on its own. South West Africa is not a colony of any State in the world. South West Africa is not under the control of any international organization. There is only one state in the world with which South West Africa is connected and that is the Republic of South Africa.

It is a fact—and I do not think that in saying this I am encroaching upon the case which is at present before the court—that there is a legal bond between the Republic and South West. Indeed, these are the only two parties that are concerned in that legal bond. There are no others. That legal bond gives us a legal right to South West. We were given this right at Versailles, and since that time we have always tried to manage this mandated territory according to the spirit of the mandate. That is the relationship that exists between us. The other parties have disappeared from the scene and they have left no heirs. There are still only two parties to this relationship and they are South West and South Africa. We must weigh our responsibilities against the provisions of those clauses; moreover, there is only one thing to which we are responsible and that is to our own conscience as a civilized State in the Commonwealth of Nations. When we do this, we must bear a few matters in mind. The one is that we can manage that Territory as an integral part of our country. That is not in dispute; it is beyond all doubt. We can make laws for it and we can apply our laws to it and we must promote the material and physical welfare of its inhabitants and their social progress. That is the yardstick that we must apply here as well. We have here before us this report and the White Paper. I am sure that these practical economic matters mentioned in the White Paper form common ground between us to-day; there is no difference of opinion between us as far as the economic progress which we have in mind for the territory, the social and health services and the improved educational facilities and the development of the Territory are concerned, and we ought to tell this to the world. That is why I shall be sorry if on Friday the Opposition vote against this White Paper. They could at least have moved an amendment to indicate their wholehearted support of these matters, because there can be no objection in this regard. These things are in terms of their policy, as they are in terms of our policy, and they are in conformity with our guardianship under the mandate. I say again that if they vote against this White Paper on Friday, I shall be very disappointed in them. South West will also be disappointed in them and by their actions the United Party will be giving us a stick with which to beat them as long as this question is discussed on political platforms.

I want to discuss a second matter. The hon. the Prime Minister has told them emphatically that we are not going to decide finally in this regard. These are matters which entail the rearranging of the financial and administrative relationships between us. I do not want to express myself in this regard and I have nothing to say about the merits of the matter except to say that the mandate laid down that we should manage South West as an integral part of South Africa. Even if these things are done later, they will still be in conformity with the mandate. This is closer liaison. We cannot drive the territory further away from us. We cannot make it more independent because then we shall not be acting in the spirit of the mandate.

In regard to this last section to which hon. members have objected so vociferously, the homeland policy, hon. members must well understand that the White Paper states, and the hon. the Prime Minister has said, that that policy has been accepted. If hon. members want to read it for themselves in paragraphs 184 and 190 they will see that the commission says that it does not accept the fact that one central, mixed authority should be set up for the Territory but it accepts the fact that separate residential and political rights must be given to the people in every homeland. That is the policy that has been adopted by the Government, but the United Party rejects that policy. In other words, they accept the alternative of one mixed central government for the whole territory or, at least, for the area south of the red line.

In conclusion, therefore, when we discuss the question of South West and we ask what our duty is, v/e must ask what the terms of the mandate are. The mandate lays down that we must develop South West in the interests of the territory and of all its inhabitants, and particularly in the interests of those people who are still so underdeveloped that they are not as yet able to stand on their own feet. Everything that the Government has in mind for South West complies, in my considered opinion, with this trust which the commonwealth of nations placed in us. The matter is in our hands; it is for us alone to make decisions in regard to the Territory and to implement those decisions on our own.

As agreed, I shall reply to the debate on Friday morning, and in view of that I move—

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned.

On this occasion quite naturally there occurs to one a number of very important questions of policy one would like to discuss with the Minister of Transport. But one’s difficulty is that one cannot separate one’s mind from the knowledge that one is also discussing these matters of major policy with the Minister of Railways. Although we as a House have adjudicated upon the railway budget we are aware of the fact that we are still facing the Minister of Railways in this debate. I wonder whether it is fair of the Opposition to ask the hon. the Minister sitting opposite us to adjudicate upon the problems that arise between the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Railways and Harbours. We have great respect for the hon. the Minister but at the same time we are also aware that he is human. It is quite possible for people to have a split personality, a dual personality, and be the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Transport at the same time. But it is surely asking too much of any human being that he should have a triple personality, and also sit as judge upon himself in his capacities as Minister of Railways and Minister of Transport. I say that in all seriousness, Sir, because I do believe that it is a mistake that the hon. the Minister should be cast in this dual role. We are coming to the conclusion that the Ministry of Transport should be separated from the Ministry of Railways. It is too much to ask any individual to perform these two functions and to retain his objectivity in the conflicts that arise between the two capacities.

Many years ago the essential conflict between the interests of the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Railways was probably not very important; but it is becoming of growing importance. As I have said on a previous occasion we are in a period of remarkable expansion in South Africa. We have developed a self-generating economy. Obviously the time is past that in the transport organization of South Africa the Railways should play the dominant role it has played in the past. In an expanding economy, especially in a fast expanding economy—and we on this side hope that the pace of our economy will be ever increasing—it is ridiculous that that should be the position. A railway system is of necessity slow in its adaptability. We saw it after the war, Sir, when it was impossible for the South African Railways to adapt itself in time to the tremendous economic upsurge South Africa experienced as a result of the wise policy followed by the war-time Government. We found that one Minister of Transport had to be sacrificed by the Nationalist Party Government. It was not his fault; it was because of the inertia of a system like the Railways. We believe that in this time of increasing economic activity which lies ahead for South Africa, the emphasis from time to time, at least, will have to be placed on other forms of transport than railway transport. It may be that the Railways will catch up in time to come and that adjustments will be needed from time to time; but we are convinced the emphasis will have to be on forms of transport other than Railways in order to cope with the needs of South Africa. We feel that in order to maintain the balance between the demands made on the South African Railways, which are legitimate demands, and the demands made by the increasing economy on other forms of transport, it is not fair towards the hon. the Minister that he should be cast in this dual role. It is inevitable that there will be conflict. Let me give you one or two examples, Sir, that cannot be escaped. There is the Motor Transportation Act. During the railway debate we asked the Minister to give us a statement of policy on his attitude to developing motor transport in the expanding economy of South Africa. After we had battled for some time, he did so; but it was obviously the Minister of Railways speaking. He emphasized that any future expansion of transport would have to be subject, in the first instance, to the interests of the Railways. As Minister of Railways he emphasized that quite rightly. But what in heaven’s name can he say to-night as Minister of Transport? He cannot contradict what he said before. I think in the interests of South Africa emphasis should also be placed upon the role that road motor and other forms of transport can play in the development of South Africa. To be more specific: There is the simple fact that South Africa needs an improved road service. We as the United Party are of course very proud of our national roads. That was one of the great contributions the United Party Government made to the development of our country. But we doubt whether the standards laid down in 1933 are still adequate in 1964. Should we not consider greatly improved standards of national roads to cope with the increased heavy motor transport we can expect in the future? It is amazing that one of the greatest users of our national roads and all our other roads, are the road motor services of the South African Railways. Yet the road motor service of the S.A. Railways makes no contribution to the road fund that can be compared with the contribution made by the private users of our national and public roads. It is true that the S.A. Railways make a contribution to each of the four provinces but it bears no relation to what they would have had to pay if they had had to pay the excise tax on petrol which the ordinary motorist has to pay, that excise tax that is paid into the road fund. It is very difficult for me to see how the Minister of Railways can persuade the South African Railways to pay what they should pay towards the development of South African roads because he is in essential conflict with himself in his two capacities.

Another issue, which is becoming clearer every year that passes, is that the South African Airways should be a separate entity and that it should not be a part of the South African Railways and Harbours. How can the Minister of Railways divest himself of some of his authority because he is also the Minister of Transport? The hon. gentleman is in a constant state of conflict. That is why we feel that while we raise these and other questions, while he is in a state of personal conflict, we do it out of courtesy to him as a person. We want him to know how we feel about it. But we shall use another opportunity to appeal to a higher authority, to the Prime Minister and to the Cabinet, to seek a solution for this problem. It is not fair to ask the Minister of Transport to sit in judgment on the Minister of Railways or to ask the Minister of Railways to sit in judgment on the Minister of Transport. Because, in spite of the liking we have for the hon. the Minister, we do not want to overestimate his ability to split himself into various personalities.

There are a few specific questions I should like to raise very quickly. We are very pleased to see that the Road Fund stands at over R30,000,000 at the moment and that it has increased by R3,000,000 over the previous year. In previous debates we always invited the Minister to give us a progress report on our national road programme. He has done so in the past. I do not want to mention the various portions of the national road system on which we should like to have a report but we shall be very grateful if the hon. the Minister will tell us how the various roads are progressing and what the future plans are for the development of our road system. [Time limit.]

As the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) himself said, he discussed the question of policy. I want to discuss something else, and therefore I will not discuss the matter he touched on.

I should like to refer to a matter which was raised here on 20 February by the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg). The hon. member was unfortunately not here to-night, but I think it is desirable that this matter which he raised should be discussed further in this House. On that occasion there was only half an hour available. There was a large measure of uncertainty in regard to the facts, and in the discussion the hon. the Minister actually extended an invitation to hon. members to discuss the matter further under his Vote. The matter which was then raised by the hon. member for Peninsula appeared on the Order Paper as follows. I read it in English because the hon. member spoke in English—

I feel it is necessary for the House to discuss that matter further, for various reasons. In the first place, I regarded it as an unjustified attack or complaint or criticism of the local Transportation Board in Cape Town. Secondly, I think that we in this House should have an opportunity thoroughly to discuss urban passenger traffic with reference to the criticism voiced by the hon. member here. Thirdly, I think it is desirable for us actually to ascertain, in so far as local and urban road transportation is concerned, whether the matter the hon. member raised here in connection with transportation is really in the interest of the Coloured community he represents.

The hon. member for Peninsula represents the Coloured community in this House. On that occasion, with reference to the Coloured bus services he pleaded for and the criticism he voiced, he referred particularly to the Coloured community. I want to read a paragraph from the speech made by the hon. member here. He said—

The hon. member also referred to this decision of the Road Transportation Board as an unfortunate decision. I think the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett), who is not here to-night either, used even stronger language in regard to that decision. I would say that the hon. member for Peninsula devoted about 90 per cent of his speech to one person concerned, a person whose name he never mentioned. In connection with that person, he, inter alia, said the following—

“One of these Coloured bus operators.” I should like you, Sir, to note that he spoke of “one of these Coloured operators”. He said further, referring to the advocate who acted for him—

His whole argument was based on the fact that these were Coloureds, that he wanted Coloureds to have the privilege of operating their own bus services. He particularly argued that it was Government policy for the various racial groups to serve their own people. That was the standpoint and the great argument of the hon. member. As I have said, the hon. member referred to one particular bus-owner. He never mentioned his name, but it was mentioned by other hon. members, inter alia, also by the hon. member for Boland and the hon. the Minister. The person to whom he referred is a Mr. Chilwan. His full name is Abdul Kader Chilwan. Notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member for Peninsula based his whole argument on the principle that the same race group must operate the services in its own area, he pleaded for Mr. Abdul Kader Chilwan, who is an Indian, who is a registered Indian and who must now operate in a Coloured area as a bus-owner.

In the Cape Province they are regarded as Coloureds.

What is wrong with that? The fact of the matter is that the hon. member based his argument on Coloured people being able to serve their own people in their own area. That was his whole argument. I do not blame him; he is a Coloureds’ Representative. He referred to that man as a Coloured bus operator, and now it appears that this person is an Indian, and not a Coloured at all. If hon. members opposite know the Coloured people, they will know that if there is one section of the population with whom the Coloured people have trouble, and whom they do not like to be in their areas to make misuse of them (the Coloureds), it is the Indians. The Coloured man still refers to the Indian as the “Moor”. That is the person whom he does not want to have in his vicinity, particularly as a businessman.

I want to go further. On 17 January last year Mr. Chilwan applied to the Population Registrar to be described in future as a Malay and not as an Indian, because as a Malay he would be allowed to do the business in those areas which he would like to do. [Interjections.] I do not want to be unfair to the hon. member for Peninsula. I quite accept that the hon. member did not know that Mr. Chilwan was an Indian. But I put these facts before the House. I have the documentary proof, if any hon. member wants to see it. I just want to show what the facts are and that, in so far as Mr. Chilwan is concerned, there is in any case no case to be made out in respect of the matter raised by the hon. member on 20 February.

As I said a moment ago, there are other matters which we should discuss on this occasion in order to be fair to the Road Transportation Board, with reference to the speeches made here on 20 February. On that occasion the hon. member for Peninsula said that this was an unfortunate decision and that the Coloured bus operators had been deprived of certain rights. The fact is that this was not the position. We have now had an opportunity to investigate what actually happened. The hon. member for Peninsula evidently adopted the standpoint that the existing and settled operators should be protected. That principle is laid down in the Act, and he accepted it. On the basis of that principle he argued that Mr. Chilwan had been deprived of certain rights. The fact of the matter is that Mr. Chilwan was not deprived of a vested right. There are two kinds of certificates. The one is a temporary certificate and the other is a yearly certificate. The temporary certificate is issued in respect of specific matters, and it was a temporary certificate which was taken away from him. Therefore I say it is essential for us to argue this matter on broad lines, if we do not want to do so in detail, in order to get clarity and to do justice to the Road Transportation Board in regard to what actually happened at the time … [Time limit.]

I should like to follow the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) in this discussion, but I cannot because it seems to me that this whole argument is based upon such fine distinctions between race and race that it is impossible for a party with a more catholic view—not in the religious sense—such as the United Party, to follow it. If we were to follow the argument the hon. member advanced to prove his case, we would have to separate the Afrikaans-speaking people into Germans, French and Dutchmen. I hope we will never come to that. I am afraid we cannot follow the tortuous argument of the hon. member. But as a matter of interest I want to ask him, seeing that this is a matter which was raised by the Coloured Representatives, whether he advised those hon. members that he was going to raise the matter this evening.

I did.

I am pleased to hear that.

I was dealing with other matters such as the Road Fund. I expressed interest in the fact that the Road Fund had increased by R3,000,000 over the previous year. I would be interested to learn from the hon. the Minister how that has come about. I know he has told us in the past that he was always very keen to make representations to his colleague the Minister of Finance …

It is due to the increase in the consumption of petrol.

That raises the question whether this Road Fund can continue to meet the heavy demands that are made upon it and whether the Minister should not explain to us, in view of the tremendous requirements in South Africa for an improved road system, what other means there are of funding this fund. It is not enough to rely almost exclusively on the excise duty on petrol. I believe that while it is essential that we should continue to expand and to expand our national road system, the requirements are changing to a large extent. It is now not only necessary to establish road communications between city and city, for example, but especially to assist in relieving the bottlenecks that are developing inside our big cities. I am very glad to know that the hon. the Minister is sympathetic towards this end. We know he is heavily subsidizing various big cities in South Africa in order to establish freeways through their congested areas. We know, for example, of the R10,000,000 that has been promised to Durban and the R10,000,000, I think, promised to Pretoria. We also know that the Minister’s Department has been quite generous in assisting Cape Town. Everyone of us who come to Cape Town from time to time has to express admiration for the tremendous job of work that is being done in Cape Town to improve the freeway system in the city. I think full credit should be given to the municipality of Cape Town for their initiative in this matter. They are setting an example to every city in South Africa. It is also true that other cities want to follow this example. Durban wants to, Pretoria wants to and I know Johannesburg wants to. But I also know that the estimated cost of certain freeways they are planning at the moment in Johannesburg is no less than R42,000,000. Of that R42,000,000 the City of Johannesburg has been promised a subsidy of R15,000,000 by the Ministry of Transport. I speak subject to correction but that is my understanding. They have been promised another R6,000,000 by the Transvaal Administration. That means that they will get R21,000,000 in the form of subsidies for a freeway system that will cost R42,000,000. I am just wondering whether the Minister is satisfied that that is a burden which a City, even a fine, noble and wealthy City like Johannesburg, can be expected to carry when the service they are rendering is not only rendered to their own citizens but to the whole of South Africa generally, to the commerce of South Africa, and, I may even add, to the prestige of South Africa. What worries me is that we cannot find put on what basis this subsidy is paid. It seems to vary from city to city. It has been whispered to me that in the case of Cape Town—I am not quibbling about this; I am glad about it—the subsidy is much higher than 50 per cent. But in the case of Johannesburg it is only 50 per cent. I seem to recall that the Minister said on previous occasions that it depended upon the circumstances which obtained in each city. But surely there must be some basis, some formula, on which these subsidies are given. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should consider whether it is fair to expect any city to carry the tremendous burden Johannesburg, for example, has to carry in order to solve its traffic problem. And I am sure Durban has to carry a similar burden. I do think that this matter requires reconsideration as a matter of policy.

While the Minister is dealing with the subject perhaps he could tell us why—the province has also refused—he as Minister of Transport has refused any subsidy to the City of Johannesburg for the elevated motorway links through Doornfontein. These links are an essential part of the motorway scheme for Johannesburg. The City of Johannesburg can get subsidies for the general scheme but for these essential ancilliary services no subsidy is forthcoming from the Ministry of Transport whatsoever. He should please explain this differentiation If it is a matter which deserves a subsidy why should an exception be made in respect of essential parts of the scheme as against the scheme generally?

Finally I should like to point out to the Minister that another urgent problem which faces the Ministry of Transport is the problem of access from our large national aerodromes to the cities they serve. I was very glad to learn that very soon Boeing planes will be put into service on our major internal routes. They will be spectacularly fast; they will put South Africa right in the forefront. But we are developing a situation where it will probably take longer to travel from Johannesburg to Jan Smuts Aerodrome than it will be to travel by plane from Jan Smuts aerodrome to the Durban aerodrome. Surely something should be done urgently to build roads, and it is the responsibility of the Minister of Transport because aerodromes are his responsibility. It is his responsibility to see that that service is fast and that the roads are the best South Africa can possibly produce. I shall be very glad if the hon. the Minister will tell us what is being done. The situation in Johannesburg, although it had been greatly improved over the last years, is not yet satisfactory. It is not yet a freeway in the true sense of the word, a freeway on which motorists can travel fast to commute between the Jan Smuts aerodrome and the city of Johannesburg. The hon. the Minister knows, of course, that the service in the other cities is inadequate. I think there, too, the Minister owes this House a statement of policy, a statement of planning for the future.

As I said at the outset other matters will be raised on this side of the House. Some of them will concern his policy as Minister of Transport. We want to give notice to him that in these matters we feel an appeal is necessary to a higher authority, to the Cabinet as a whole. We do not want the Minister to be in the invidious position where he has to judge between himself as Minister of Railways and himself as Minister of Transport.

There is one advantage in dealing with the hon. the Minister of Transport and that is if you persevere and hammer hard, year after year, in respect of a new idea the Minister eventually adopts that idea and says: This is my idea; I thought of it first and this is a wonderful idea. I make no apology for again raising with the Minister this question of road motor transportation and the necessity for a new look. I say this in support of the plea made by my colleague, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). I want to tell the Minister right at the outset that I know all the answers he is going to give in reply to the debate. I know he is going to say that the private haulier only wants the cream of the traffic, the highrated traffic, and that he is not interested in carrying low-rated traffic. I am going to make another attempt to explode that story once and for all with the hon. the Minister. I am going to take a new line of approach. The Minister will not deny that we are at the moment experiencing a terrific economic boom in regard to industrial and commercial enterprises in this country. The Minister of Railways, as he knows, has had to exert himself to the utmost in order to meet the demands made upon the railway system. During the discussion on the Budget, the Minister of Railways admitted that low-rated traffic was becoming a payable proposition as far as the S.A. Railways were concerned. If the present policy is continued, the policy that everything must be channeled into the railway system, we will again face the position, as we have been facing over the last five or six years, where there will be vast capital expenditure on further equipment, on the doubling of lines and so forth, for which the taxpayer of South Africa will have to find the money.

I want to approach this matter from this angle. Is that not a short-sighted policy to adopt when that same bulk traffic can be carried by the private sector of the economy and when the demands of industry and commerce can be met by private enterprise? The reason why private enterprise finds it difficult to carry any of the low-rated traffic is because there is no security of tenure to any road haulier. For a private haulier to operate as far as low-rated traffic is concerned he has to acquire the necessary transportation equipment. That entails large capital expenditure on the part of the private haulier. How can any private haulier undertake such capital risks when his licence may be suspended in any 12 months by any local road transportation board at the request of the Minister of Railways through his officials? There is no security of tenure; there is no security of capital investment as far as the private haulier in South Africa is concerned. He is not in a position to equip himself with the necessary means of transportation to carry low-rated traffic and as a result he turns entirely to high-rated traffic. The Minister says there will be a shortfall in the Railways if he were to throw road motor haulage completely open to private enterprise.

Let me make it clear to the hon. the Minister that I am not pleading for unrestricted road motor haulage in South Africa. What we are pleading for is at least a new policy, a new look, in regard to the part the private haulier can play in the transportation system of our country. I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether the time has not arrived that he should not be the only judge in this matter, as a matter of policy. In the past, whenever a stage of development was reached, where it appeared that the system operating had become out-dated and that the part played by the private haulier had become out-dated, a commission was inevitably appointed by past Governments to review the part private hauliers could play in the whole transportation system of the country. It is clear that our road transportation Acts have become out-dated as they have been amended from time to time. The Road Transportation Act has become completely out-dated in terms of the development which has taken place in South Africa, both in its approach and in the restrictions placed upon the private haulier. If the Minister finds it difficult to split his personality in viewing these matters objectively, because he is Minister of Railways and Minister of Transport, and cannot take a balanced view of matters, he should at least do what was done in the past in respect of the Athlone Commission and appoint a commission with wide terms of reference to investigate the whole position as to what part private haulage can play in South Africa in the light of our present industrial and economic expansion. If there is no policy in regard to the private haulier and if it is intended to channel all traffic, both bulk and high-rated traffic, to the railway system, we are inevitably operating the Railways for the sake of the Railways alone. In that case vast capital expenditure will inevitably have to be incurred so that the Railways can cope with this expansion, the interest on which capital expenditure will have to be borne by the taxpayer and the railway user of South Africa and that interest already will be enormous.

I put it to the Minister as objectively as I can: Has the time not arrived that all these aspects should be investigated by an impartial commission in which industry and commerce can play their part with the Government? The hon. Minister is well aware that this problem has been discussed at different association meetings, both of the Associated Chambers of Commerce and the Associated Chamber of Industries, at their annual congresses, at their annual meetings, everywhere throughout the country, by the businessmen and industrialists—the problem of the cost of haulage to-day. I put it to the hon. the Minister that he has had representations in the past and I ask him, can he not take a more objective approach? If he finds it difficult himself to make a statement of policy in this regard, then at least let us investigate the position in South Africa, let us find through an impartial inquiry what part the private haulier, private enterprise can play in the transportation system of our country as a whole. Such an inquiry should then not be limited only to the part the private haulier can play, but it should also be an inquiry where a direction can be given to the question of the development of our national roads and the type of roads that we should build, and an inquiry into the part air transport can play. It can cover the whole wide field where private enterprise can play its part in our transportation system. The hon. Minister knows that I have raised this matter year after year, and I ask him again: Do not let us hear the old arguments in favour of the Railways. We know them very well indeed. We know all the risks about railway financing and competition. We have had that year after year. I ask the Minister to take an objective approach and see if he cannot see his way clear in the interest of the economy of South Africa to review the part that the private haulier can play.

There are two other matters in respect of which I want to ask the hon. Minister whether he can make a statement when he replies to this debate, and the first is to what extent the Marine Division is functioning now. As the hon. Minister knows the Merchant Shipping Act has been in operation for a very short period of time, and it is clear when one looks at the report of the Department of Transport that they have not yet been in a position to fulfil all the functions laid down in that Act. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is in a position now to state the manner in which the Marine Division is operating, both as far as other overseas shipping lines are concerned and in regard to the investigation of the seaworthiness of small craft and large steam craft operating under the South African flag at our own local harbours. It would appear to me, judging by the report of the department that the safety margin of regular inspections of small craft has not been kept up to the standard that they should be maintained at of at least a yearly inspection, which of course automatically increases the risk attached to the lives of the men who go out on these ships.

The other point I wish to raise very briefly: Can he make a statement as well on the operations of the Weather Bureau. There seems to be some misunderstanding in regard to the part that is now being played by weather stations that we have located beyond the borders of the Republic. [Time limit.]

I just want to put a question to the hon. the Minister in connection with the road connecting the KlerksdorpStilfontein complex with the national road through Potchefstroom via Carltonville to the Rand. The hon. the Minister will remember that a deputation recently came to see him in connection with this matter. There is a certain amount of uncertainty in connection with the route which this road will follow, and I have been asked to put this question to the hon. the Minister so that the matter will be given publicity in the Press, and so that the public will know what the position will be. There is another matter that I want to raise. Every day we read in our newspapers about the increase in the number of accidents and the number of deaths on our roads. One fact is obvious, and that is that our national roads are becoming too narrow for our increasing traffic, particularly during the week-ends, when most people use the roads in search of relaxation, for the purpose of visiting friends, and so forth. The traffic along our roads is very heavy during the week-ends. It is becoming almost impossible to drive along the roads, because they are too narrow. During weekends it is almost impossible to use the roads in safety. I think that there are overseas countries which have made an arrangement in this connection, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to place an embargo upon the use of roads by heavy traffic, such as lorries and large pantechnicons, let us say, from 1 o’clock on Saturday afternoon until 12 o’clock midnight on Sunday night. In making a suggestion of this nature, one realizes that there will be certain exceptions that will have to be made. I think, for example, of lorries transporting fresh milk or perishable products, goods which have to reach their destination as soon as possible. I should like to know the opinion of the hon. the Minister in regard to this matter, so that we may be able to relieve this heavy traffic, particularly during week-ends, until such time as our roads have been widened and dual carriageways have been constructed in the areas where the traffic is particularly heavy.

I don’t intend to follow the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling), who has changed his gramophone-like interjections for an attempt at a speech this evening. I wish to come back to the subject which was raised by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) and followed up by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), and that is the schizophrenic position of a Minister with split personalities and split responsibilities. The hon. members for Yeoville and Turffontein have dealt with the situation which arises from the Minister of Railways vis-a-vis the problems of ground transport on the roads. I want to take the problem off the ground into the field of the air, because here, too, we have a Minister of Railways who is also the Minister of Airways. I do not intend to deal with that. The Minister knows that I have raised the matter on numerous occasions, and that I have pleaded for the separation of Railways and Airways. But I want now to consider the aspect of control of the air and control of the vehicles which fly in the air space of South Africa. Before coming to it, I want to ask this question of the hon. the Minister: Whether it is correct that South Africa is withdrawing from the Africa-Indian Ocean region. …

That is not correct.

I thank the hon. the Minister because that is what was generally expected as a result of the threats there have been. I am very pleased to hear that South Africa is not withdrawing from that organization. It is an organization which deals with technical matters relating to flying. Similarly, within South Africa, we have controls in respect of our own air space and our own flying. I believe that we are not meeting the challenge of the demands of the supersonic age which is on our doorstep. I believe that that situation will continue unless we are able to divorce the supersonic concept of travel from that of travel on the ground. I believe that the starting point is that the civil aviation aspects of movement from point to point should be an aspect controlled on its own. Let me give a few examples. We have heard this week, officially, and earlier through the Press, of the purchase of Boeing 727 aircraft for the South African Airways. The hon. Minister will appreciate that the closing speed of a Boeing and a Mirage approaching each other is in the region of 1,500 miles per hour, a completely new concept in movement in South. Africa. The hon. Minister will also appreciate that in the regions in which our civil aircraft fly you also have Mirages flying under the control of the S.A. Air Force. So next year, we will face the position where aircraft will be approaching each other at something like double the speed of sound—just under and just over the speed of sound. I maintain that we are not planning for the challenge which that era in our travel offers to South Africa. We are thinking still in terms of visual contact and visual control. Those days are past in the control of modern flying. To-day we need positive control, the positive control of an aircraft from the moment it leaves the ground until it enters the control channels into which it is moving. What have we done about this other than the terminal area controls covering some 20 nautical miles round the major airports of South Africa?

You don’t know what is going on.

I’ll tell the hon. member what is going on in South Africa. In Durban, in Port Elizabeth and in East London there is no I.L.S. You have got V.O.R., and you have got D.M.E. at most airports, but they have had to take away the D.M.E. (the distance measuring equipment) from Victoria West and transfer it to East London, leaving Victoria West without that equipment. They had ordered equipment for Windhoek Airport which they are now transferring to Kimberley, because Kimberley has not got it. These are the controls which make flying safe for the people who use the skyways of South Africa, and we should not be in the position that at three of our major airports—Durban, Port Elizabeth and East London—we have got no instrument landing system. At an airport like Kimberley we have not got distant measuring equipment. At Windhoek we only have directional beacons and nothing else. At Kimberley a new runway has been constructed, that is now already marginal for Viscounts. Already our instrument control, our control of air traffic in South Africa is not even meeting the demands of a Viscount. We have placed orders for 727 Boeings and, if you talk to any person who flies in South Africa, he will tell you that he is not satisfied with the navigational aids which are required for a craft of the Viscount type. I am not a flyer, but I talk to people who fly day after day, and who carry day after day the lives of the people of South Africa in their hands. You can talk to any responsible pilot in South Africa and he will tell you that it is largely visual identification—the ability of a pilot to see what is ahead of him—which stands between accidents and the safety of people who are flying in South Africa. There is no separation of traffic outside the control areas. There is no radar separation in separate flying channels, and we are moving into an age where these things will be essential for the safety of every person who leaves the ground in an aeroplane in this country. I could go on giving half-a-dozen other examples of things which could be done, and the things which should be thought about and planned for at this moment. We can’t wait until after we have got the 727’s flying and after a pilot strikes bad weather—not after the danger is there—but now, in advance. The thinking ahead and planning for this sort of control is something that will not take place unless we have separate thinking and separate control in regard to movement of people once they leave the ground divorced from the accepted concepts of ground movement. Movement to-day in the air is so fast, and is changing so fast that most modern states have difficulty in keeping up with those changes. [Time limit.]

It is always very tragic to have to listen to a person who wants to discuss a subject and who very obviously has to receive his knowledge from other persons who know far more about the subject than he does. I have every sympathy with the hon. member for Durban-Point (Mr. Raw).

You know nothing about it yourself.

I accept the fact that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) probably knows far more about flying than I do, particularly in the political sense of the word! I know that in this regard he knows far more than I do. He can do things which no one can emulate. I well understand this. I think that the hon. member for Durban (Point) has done aviation in South Africa a disservice by over-emphasising certain aspects of air safety in South Africa and by not giving a correct interpretation of the matter.

Are the facts true or false?

Some of the facts are correct and it is my intention to discuss this matter thoroughly. Let us at the outset discuss some of the arguments advanced by the hon. member and some of the statements he made. He started by referring to the airport at Kimberley and he said that it was “marginal for Viscounts”.

The new runway.

The hon. member said: “Kimberley is marginal for Viscounts”. He did not refer to the new runway. He referred separately to the new runway, when he referred to Kimberley he said: “It is marginal for Viscounts”, and he did not explain what he meant. Mr. Chairman, conditions may be such, from the pilot’s point of view and we accept this fact—that it may be unsafe for a Viscount to land at Kimberley. I accept the fact that when it is exceptionally hot in the afternoon and when there is a crosswind blowing, conditions will not be suitable for the landing or for the taking off of Viscounts with a full cargo and petrol load. But the hon. member simply stated that Kimberley was marginal for Viscounts. He did not give us any further clarification of what he meant. It very seldom happens that one has the combination of these three factors at Kimberley—a fully loaded aircraft with a full load of fuel landing or taking off on a hot day in a crosswind. Then it will be marginal for Viscounts. But it is so typical of the hon. member to make use of half-truths. This is the tragedy in regard to a person who does not know his subject thoroughly enough to enable him to advance lucid arguments. The hon. member also advanced another argument here. He said: “There is no separation”. We have no separation in the air during flights.

I did not say that.

I wrote the hon. member’s words down just as he said them. He said: “There is no separation”. The hon. member is now trying to improve his speech. (Interjections).

Order!

On a point of order, may the hon. member give a false interpretation of what I said? (Interjections).

Order!

I ask whether the hon. member has the right to give a false interpretation of what I said?

I wrote the hon. member’s words down while he was speaking. He said: “There is no separation”. Did he or did he not say that? I contend that he did say it. We can read the Hansard report of his speech at a later stage. What the hon. member said was clear enough. He tried to contend that Viscounts, if I may discuss this matter for a moment, approached one another at the same altitude and along the same flight levels; in other words, at a speed double that of a Viscount. Then he said that the pilot had only his sight to rely on as far as the safety of his aircraft and passengers were concerned. That is not correct. Perhaps the hon. member has not yet heard of the system of “flight levels” which we have in South Africa. I see that he is not interested in what I am saying; he is carrying on a conversation with the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk). Between them they are sending up one kite after the other. Indeed, I think that the only flying object which I would allow the hon. member for Durban (Point) to control would be a kite! In South Africa we have the system of “flight levels”. This means that when an aircraft flies on a certain course it also flies on a certain level. Furthermore, the air navigation regulations were amended recently to enable an incorrect reading of the altimeter, which, as the hon. member apparently does not know, is affected by pressure, resulting in the altimeter’s giving a wrong reading, to be rectified. Every aircraft now has a standard reading on its altimeter and these aircraft only fly at certain specific altitudes which are divided up into 90°. In practice, therefore, when two aircraft approach one another or are flying directly towards one another, that is to say, at an angle of 180°, there is at least 1,000 feet between the two. The hon. member therefore has made a statement which is without substance as far as South Africa is concerned. His statement therefore that aircraft approach one another at the same level simply holds no water. Moreover, every aircraft approaching, say, Jan Smuts is in radio contact with the Jan Smuts Airport, at a later stage with Bloemfontein and Kimberley, at a later stage still, or at a certain time of the day, with Victoria West and Beaufort West, and later on still, with Cape Town. Moreover, one of the most modern radar installations in the world has been set up at Cape Town, an installation covering a distance of more than 130 miles. This is of very great value as far as the Boeings particularly are concerned—and the 727 falls into the same class—because they fly very high. The higher the aircraft flies, the further this radar reaches. Aircraft 130 to 150 miles away are actively controlled with the assistance of this radar until they can land at Cape Town. And so the arguments of the hon. member are not based on fact but the tragedy of the whole matter is that aviation in South Africa has the safest record in the world. When we mention certain shortcomings—I myself have done so from this side of the House and if time permits me to do so, I shall do so again here this afternoon. …

When did you do so?

I have done so, but our criticism must be fair and we must not create the suspicion on the part of the public of South Africa that aviation in South Africa is unsafe; that the control over aviation is unsafe and that the lives of air passengers are in danger, because nothing could be further from the truth. There are certain shortcomings. I am one of the first to admit that this is true, but everything cannot be done simultaneously. Certain new navigational equipment is being tested at Durban at present. Improvements are effected from time to time.

The hon. member also said that D.M.E. has been taken away from Victoria West and has been transferred somewhere else. What is the practical use of D.M.E. for safety at Victoria West? The hon. member knows nothing about these things and so I do not blame him.

Why was it put there in the first place.

The hon. member ought to know that D.M.E. was tested in South Africa to find out the distances over which it could be used. He knows the influence the Hex River Mountains or for that matter any mountains over which aircraft have to fly, has on D. M.E. That is why those tests have been made. Because these tests have been made and because certain installations have been transferred, the hon. member considers this to be an acknowledgment that a mistake has been made. But that is not the position at all. I readily admit that improvements can be made, for example, at East London. If the Boeing 727 is to land at East London on scheduled flights, certain changes and certain improvements will have to be effected. I am convinced of the fact that the hon. the Minister will give immediate attention to the matter if that route is to be included on the Boeing flight plan. I readily admit that our present installations are not quite adequate for these aircraft. This holds good to a smaller extent for Port Elizabeth as well and to a much smaller extent for Durban. The problem does not exist at all at Cape Town and Johannesburg which are going to form the two main points of this new air service. No, when we pass criticism, justifiable criticism, it has its value, but we must not give possible air passengers in South Africa the impression that they take their lives in their hands when they board an aircraft of S.A. Airways. Indeed, the opposite is the truth. [Time limit.]

I am very sorry that the hon. member who has just spoken put certain words into the mouth of the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw), although I am sure that the hon. member for Durban (Point) will be able to defend himself in this regard. One statement made by the hon. member for Durban (Point) was that the facilities at our airports were such that they were not adapted to modern air transport needs in South Africa. Only to-day the aircraft from Durban to Cape Town was delayed for more than an hour and a half at East London because it could not land at Port Elizabeth. The landing facilities at Port Elizabeth are such that the aircraft could not land there safely in view of the weather.

Now you are talking the most arrant nonsense!

The aircraft was delayed and, with the aircraft, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, with two karosses!

I want to associate myself with what has been said here in connection with Airways. I am sorry that, with a view to the particular position he occupies, the hon. member did not step into the breach for the Airways and the Airways staff. As usual, when it comes to a discussion of Airways’ matters, the constructive suggestions are put forward by the United Party. I want to bring a certain matter in connection with the South African Airways, and seen against the broad background of the development of our transport services, to the notice of the hon. the Minister. I am convinced of the fact that we will all agree that our Airways to-day, which have grown under the wing of the old South African Railways, have reached maturity, and that the time has now come for more autonomy to be given to Airways in our transport system in South Africa. Airways is a particularly important branch of our transport system. Its revenue and expenditure amounts to about R30,000,000 per annum; it shows a profit of hundreds of thousands of rand; its aircraft fly 10,000,000 miles per annum.

Order! Airways falls under Railways, and the hon. member must discuss this matter under “Railways”.

May I have your guidance, Mr. Chairman? May I or may I not advocate greater autonomy for Airways in our whole transport system? If you rule that I may not, I shall leave the point.

No.

Then I shall leave that point. There is another very important matter which I want to bring urgently to the attention of the hon. the Minister, and that is the question of level-crossings in South Africa. I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that level-crossings fall partly under the National Transport Commission, which is under the control of the hon. the Minister. The position, as far as accidents at level-crossings is concerned, is disturbing. Last year no fewer than 86 persons were killed at level-crossings. As far as I have been able to ascertain, this is the second highest figure per annum over the past 15 years. During the past year there were 321 accidents at level-crossings and 131 persons were injured. The position is disturbing. The accidents that take place at level-crossings are horrible accidents. The percentage of persons who die in these accidents is far higher than in the case of ordinary road accidents. Fifty out of every 1,000 persons who die in road accidents die in accidents at level-crossings. At the moment there are more than 3,500 level-crossings that have to be eliminated. Let us assume that two-thirds of this number are minor crossings or farm crossings. I want to say in passing that level-crossings also fall under the National Transport Commission, and I hope that, for this reason, you will permit me to raise this matter here. Even though two-thirds of these level-crossings are of minor importance, there are still more than 1,000 which will have to be eliminated. These level-crossings are being eliminated at the rate of between 20 and 25 per annum. On this basis it will take more than 40 years to eliminate all the dangerous level-crossings in South Africa. That is far too long. Think of the thousands of deaths; think of the millions of rand in damage to property; think of the misery that will be caused during this period I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the hon. the Minister has more than enough money to eliminate all those level-crossings. He has a special fund for this purpose which is called the Level Crossing Elimination Fund. That fund was established in 1960 and, since 1960, it has received R4.6 million in revenue. Since 1960, however, its expenditure has only been R1.9 million. This leaves a balance of R2.7 million. Why can that money not be used to eliminate level-crossings? Only 23 level-crossings were eliminated in 1963. What is the solution? I should say that the solution is, firstly, that the money which is available in this particular fund should be used to eliminate those level-crossings.

Order! Actually the hon. member is out of order in discussing this matter. Level-crossings fall under “Railways”.

I should like to point out with due respect, Mr. Chairman, that the National Transport Commission contributes an amount of R500,000 per annum to this fund. I am raising this matter in view of the amount of R500,000 that is being contributed annually for the elimination of level-crossings. Am I not permitted to urge the hon. the Minister to ensure that this amount is correctly utilized?

The hon. member may only discuss the amount; he may not discuss the question of level-crossings in general.

Yes, Sir. I say that the amount must be utilized properly. I say that this amount can be used more effectively by making increased use of private undertakings and private engineers in the elimination of these level-crossings, because we are experiencing a shortage of manpower to-day. I know that their services are being used to some extent, but I feel that this practice can be resorted to on a far larger scale in order to eliminate these accidents and the misery that they cause. The National Transport Commission is faced with a particularly difficult financial problem. The Commission is hampered because of the duty on petrol and the special conditions in connection with petrol manufactured in South Africa. Because of this fact, the Commission is not in a position to contribute more to the fund than it is contributing already. But I say that that money must definitely be obtained from some other service to strengthen the fund and to double the amount of money available in it for the elimination of these level-crossings. In the meantime I think that attention could be given to the question of erecting better signs at these crossings in order to avoid this unnecessary bloodshed and the accidents which are the cause of so much misery.

I want to start with the last speaker. As you said, Mr. Chairman, he was completely out of order. I do not know whether the hon. member knows it, but a few years ago the Level Crossings Act was passed by this House. That Act is administered by the Department of Railways, and not by the Department of Transport. The elimination of level-crossings was a matter which the hon. member could have dealt with under the Railway Votes. A contribution to the fund is made by the National Transport Commission. But I have no objection to discussing the matter. On a previous occasion I said that there was already a considerable amount of money in that fund. It is not merely a question of the elimination of level-crossings by the building of bridges and subways. Negotiations have to be entered into with the local authorities concerned because, in terms of the aforementioned Act, the local authorities must also contribute towards the elimination of level-crossings, and those negotiations take time. The bridges and subways that are built are not built by the Railways; this work is given out on contract. The specific committee that is entrusted with the task is working as fast as it can, and the pace is now being increased, but we are experiencing a shortage of manpower in this country and, besides this, the negotiations with local authorities take up a considerable amount of time. This is the reason why we are unable to eliminate more level-crossings than we are eliminating at the moment. If the hon. member had been here during the discussion of the various Railway Votes, he would know that I have already said that I am considering amending the Act in order to make provision for the erection of flashing lights and gates. If he had been listening, and if he knew what was going on in Parliament, it would not have been necessary for the hon. member to have made that speech.

My objection is that at this rate it will take 40 years to eliminate all those crossings.

But it is not our intention at all to eliminate all the crossings within the next five years. A priority list has been drawn up. The level crossings that are most dangerous will be eliminated first, but we are not going to eliminate every farm crossing.

The trouble with the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) is that he hears stories about matters about which he has no knowledge and then he allows his imagination to run away with him. He makes allegations, but he cannot substantiate them in any way. We have sufficient navigational aids at all our main airports, and we are improving them continually. We are keeping abreast with the most modern developments. It is not only since the Mirages have been introduced that we have had supersonic aircraft in the air. We have had Sabres and Vampires flying in South Africa for many years at almost the speed of sound. It is nothing new. And what the hon. member must remember is that South African Airways falls under me, and if my pilots find flying unsafe in South Africa, they will not hesitate for a moment to let me know about it.

Have they made any representations?

No, none at all. But what happened was that there is a certain publication called The Pilot which made some allegations in regard to air safety. I asked the Department of Transport to write to the editor for particulars, but we received no reply. The Department asked for the facts, but he did not reply. I can give a list of all the navigational aids at all our airports. Some of them require improvement, like at East London, but we have adequate aids for safe flying in South Africa, and we have a safety record second to none. I fully agree with the hon. member for Bethal (Middelburg) that one should take exception to the fact that the hon. member is trying to instil fear in the minds of the public.

That is nonsense.

It just shows how much knowledge the hon. member has of the subject. He spoke about the new runway at Kimberley and said it would be unsafe for Viscounts. He was apparently under the impression that the runway was only 6,000 feet long. He does not even know that it is 9,000 feet, and that it is not only adequate for the Viscounts, but it is safe for the Boeing 727. [Interjections.] The hon. member said we must make plans for supersonic aircraft. It is not necessary to make plans now. We have been dealing with that matter for some time. Adequate precautions are also taken to avoid collisions and to provide for air corridors for military aircraft.

Give us some details.

I can give the hon. member all the details if I want to hold up the House. I have a list of all the navigational aids provided at all the main airports in South Africa, but I do not want to burden the House with that. If the hon. member refers to Hansard, he will find that I stipulated all these navigational aids provided at the different airports during last year’s debate.

When listening to the hon. members for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) and Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) one gains the impression that hardly any private road transport is permitted in S.A., but that is not true. One gains the impression that the Railways have such a monopoly that private road transport is being pushed completely off the roads. Is the hon. member aware that at the present time there are in operation about 318,000 road transport certificates and exemptions, both temporary and permanent. Does the hon. member know that at the present time a larger tonnage of goods is carried by road than by the Railways? And does the hon. member appreciate further that the S.A. Railways has no say in the matter of the award of road certificates? Does the hon. member realize further that the majority of the appeals lodged by the S.A. Railways with the National Transport Commission against the award of road certificates are rejected? If the hon. member desires figures, I shall furnish him with them. At the present time there are 318,000 motor transport certificates, temporary exemptions and annual exemptions. As regards appeals upheld, rejected and referred back: 68 were upheld in respect of Railways; 122 in respect of private road carriers; 52 appeals by the Railways were rejected and 204 by private carriers. But during a period of three years only 543 appeals were noted against decisions of the Road Transportation Boards. That ought to be an indication that there is not such tremendous dissatisfaction. But what the hon. member ought to realize, furthermore, is that the Minister of Transport has no say in the matter of the issue of certificates and exemptions. The National Transport Commission and the local transportation boards are autonomous bodies, and there is no appeal to the Minister, and the Minister never gives them any instructions in connection with the issue or non-issue of certificates. There are representatives of all interests on the National Transport Commission, and not only representatives of the Department. Commerce and industry are represented on that Commission. The object of the National Transport Commission is not so much to protect the Railways, but to co-ordinate transport properly, and to provide a measure of protection not only for the Railways, but also for private road carriers, for under Section 13 the private road carrier enjoys the same protection as the S.A. Railways. If the hon. member will read the Act, he will find that is the position.

What about Namaqualand?

They are protected under Section 13 and if the Railways apply for road certificates for the introduction of services there, their application will probably be turned down. But one gains the impression that the Railways enjoy an absolute monopoly. I repeat that the Railways are entitled to some measure of protection. The allocation of certificates and the quantity of goods that may be carried by road are increasing from day to day, and they will increase in future too. There has never been such a policy “that the Railways wants to channel all the traffic system”. That is complete nonsense. On principle the Railways object to the award of certificates, and they have the right to do so, but it is in the hands of the National Transport Commission exclusively whether they uphold their objections or not.

I should like to add just this. I do not believe there is a single hon. member of this House, unless he is completely deprived of his senses, who will advocate unrestricted competition between private road carriers and the Railways.

I said that.

Yes, and that was the only sensible thing the hon. member said. Everybody appreciates that there must be some protection. Personally I do not wish the Railways to have a monopoly. I think it is wrong; it is not in the interests of the country. Personally I should like concessions to be made to private road transport, and particularly where the Railways cannot carry those specific goods properly or efficiently. Private hauliers should then be allowed to carry those goods. That is the general policy, and it is being pursued I should like to say that for a long time I have not received any objections or representations from commerce or industry in connection with the operation of the Road Transportation Act, certainly not during the past two years. I am under the impression that both commerce and industry are satisfied with the manner in which the Road Transportation Act is being applied.

I realize also that we have an expanding economy at the present time and that there are tremendous developments, and that increasingly greater demands will be made of the Railways. I realize also that it is many years since last there was a proper inquiry in regard to the proper co-ordination of our various means of transport, rail, road and air. I realize that the time has arrived perhaps that there should be such a thorough investigation once again, particularly with a view to the future, to see what role the Railways must play and what role private road transport should play. In the report of the Schumann Commission, received by me last week, one of the recommendations is that a commission of inquiry should be appointed once again to investigate the whole matter in connection with the future pattern and the future requirements of the country in regard to transport, and what co-ordination there should be. I accept that recommendation. I should like to say in parenthesis that I hope to Table the report of the Schumann Commission shortly. It is being translated now. This is one of the recommendations I accept, and I propose to appoint such a commission to go into the whole matter.

The Commission bears us out, that something of this nature is necessary.

No, the Commission does not bear you out. It mentions many other reasons why it is being done.

Will the other interests also be represented on that Commission?

Of course. It goes without saying. It cannot be a departmental commission, but the Department will probably be represented on it.

The hon. member for Yeoville also referred to an improved road system, and he asked whether the present standards are adequate. In this connection I should like to say it is a matter which has been under consideration for a long time already. I appreciate that the national roads constructed 25 years ago are completely outmoded now. In general they are only 18 foot roads. In addition the foundations are of such a nature that the roads simply cannot carry heavy traffic. The majority of our national roads will have to be reconstructed. These are matters already under consideration by the National Transport Commission, and planning is in hand, and this is included in the programme for the future. The roads will not only have to be reconstructed, but they will also have to be widened, as is already being done between Cape Town and Paarl, where a road with four lanes is being constructed. This is appreciated, and the reconstruction of the national roads is now being considered and planned. In addition there are numerous other roads that must be constructed. I should like to tell the hon. member that the National Transport Commission is to a large extent merely a financial institution. The actual work is done by the provinces. The money received from the petrol fund is used for the construction of national roads and special roads. As regards special roads, the National Road Fund subsidizes these to the extent of 70%. As regards plans for the future, I have to say that the funds received at present is quite inadequate. If the programme for the construction of roads drawn up for both the provinces and national roads for the next few years is to be carried out, the fund will require an additional R15,500,000 per annum. There is a serious shortage in the fund and the plans have to be pruned tremendously. In this connection I should like to say that I intend approaching the Cabinet as soon as possible to see whether I cannot obtain more funds by way of an increased petrol levy. One of the reasons for the shortage of course is that during the past three years the costs of construction of roads have increased by 20%, and in addition the new roads required as the result of the industrial development we are now experiencing and the reconstruction of existing national roads, which were constructed quite inadequately under the previous Government—they did not have sufficient vision—and which we now have to reconstruct, result in the fact that there is not sufficient money in the fund and I shall have to obtain it. [Interjections.]

The hon. member also referred to the contribution made by the Railways to the provinces for the use of roads. The hon. member said it is not sufficient. In this connection I merely wish to say that as regards road motor services, they mainly use secondary roads, but these services were instituted for the benefit of the community as a whole. Road motor services were instituted to provide transport for farmers, e.g., who otherwise would have no transport available, for private enterprise has no interest on most of those routes because it is not remunerative. Road motor services at the present time are run at a loss of about R250,000 per annum. I do not believe there is any justification for increasing the contribution made by the Railways to the provinces. The contribution made by the Railways to the provinces is based upon the sum of money they would have had to pay for licence fees if they had taken out licences for the vehicles like the ordinary public.

Then the hon. member raised another matter. He says there is a conflict of personality between the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Railways.

Do not omit to deal with the urban roads.

That again is a question of finance. The available money is not sufficient to give bigger subsidies. The Commission considers every case on its merits, and after everything has been considered, the amount that can be paid as a subsidy is determined. It is done in consultation with the local authorities, and my information is that in general the local authorities are quite satisfied with the subsidies they receive. In the past they never received it. They have received subsidies for the last few years only. But if more money becomes available, there always is a possibility that the subsidies will be increased.

Was there not a surplus of R122,000,000 in the Estimates?

These are recurring expenses. I do not merely want a contribution of R3,000,000 or R5,000,000 from the Treasury which I can use for one year only. I want to have a fixed income for the construction of roads, because one does not plan for a year only, but for five to seven years in advance. Therefore, the Estimates have to be drawn up, not only for next year, but for five years, and then you have to be certain of your income, and the only way in which there can be certainty is if there is a fixed contribution every year.

Is that why you let Durban wait for three years?

No, that was not the reason at all. The money was available for Durban for a long time, but there were many other reasons why the subsidy was not accepted by Durban.

The hon. member referred to the split personality. I should like to tell him that one of the very few good things the U.P. Minister of Transport did was to place both Railways and Transport under the same Minister, because it is absolutely essential that it must be the same Minister. That is the only possible manner in which proper co-ordination can be achieved.

Is there not a Cabinet?

The Cabinet does not co-ordinate; the Minister is responsible for that.

It is rather hard on the Minister, is it not?

No, not at all. I do not look so bad. [Laughter.] But I should like to give an example. The Department of Transport is responsible for entering into air agreements between South Africa and another country, e.g. agreements between South Africa and France. Those agreements provide that that country will be entitled to institute a service to South Africa. If there had been no co-ordination, if there were a separate Minister, he could very easily enter into arrangements with countries which will permit so many foreign flights to enter South Africa that it will be greatly to the detriment of our own Airways. But, because there is only one Minister, he is able to co-ordinate it. He may permit such a country to undertake flights to South Africa, but see to it that it is not prejudicial to our own Airways. That is only one example. In regard to the control of airports, e.g. it is essential that there should be the closest co-ordination between Transport and Railways through the Minister, because transport is responsible for the handling of baggage and for all the facilities on that airport—for the extension of the airport and for the handling of passengers, freight, etc. There has to be that co-ordination, and it can only be done through the Minister. I could mention other examples also. In other words, there is no split personality. It is absolutely essential that these two Departments should be under the charge of one Minister, so that there may constantly be proper co-ordination.

As regards the roads of the airports, the hon. member knows that a road is being constructed from Jan Smuts to Johannesburg, and here one is being constructed to the D. F. Malan airport. Durban will, of course, be well provided for when the new roads there have been constructed.

The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) asked whether a decision has been taken already as to the route of the road from Potchefstroom to Johannesburg. No final decision has been taken yet; it is still under consideration by the National Transport Commission, but I hope finality will be reached shortly. A decision has already been taken in connection with the route through Potchefstroom, but finality has not been reached yet in regard to the route from Potchefstroom to Johannesburg.

The hon. member for Turffontein wanted to know to what extent the Marine Division is operating. The Act enables South Africa to promulgate regulations governing all aspects relating to the safety of ships at sea as well as the control and welfare of seamen. Under our obligations, in terms of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea and the International Convention in respect of load lines, hundreds of safety certificates and safety radio certificates have been issued to foreign ships, and inspection in regard to tonnage, life-saving equipment, overloading, dangerous goods and machinery have been carried out on foreign ships. The Department has surveyors stationed at Walvis Bay, Saldanha Bay, Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and Durban, where we have embarked on a programme of inspection of all small vessels to which the Merchant Shipping Act and the regulations apply, to ensure their safety and to prevent overloading. While, owing to the distances involved, a complete check cannot be guaranteed, the surveyors are doing very good work. The service personnel are adequate for present needs, but the rapid expansion of the South African Merchant Fleet may result in more qualified engineering and nautical surveyors shortly being needed, and it may be necessary to open an office in other ports. The hon. member may be assured that that division is functioning quite efficiently.

As regards road accidents, hon. members know I appointed a commission under the chairmanship of the Administrator of the Orange Free State, Mr. Du Plessis, to go into the whole question.

I asked questions on the weather bureau.

I could give a lengthy exposition, but hon. members should remember that only 100 hours are allowed for the Committee of Supply, but that the time occupied by Ministers is not included in the 100 hours; and we do not propose to sit here until July, and therefore I wish to be as brief as possible.

In regard to the last remark made by the Minister, I do not know of any limitation placed on the time of Ministers, so that they must curtail their speeches.

No, they have to place a limitation on themselves now.

The point is that the Opposition has not objected to the length of the Session. Under the new rules we are quite convinced that the Ministers should have as ample an opportunity as they wish fully to answer the questions put to them by hon. members. I am only mentioning this because this is the first Minister who has indicated that he feels he is under some obligation to curtail his replies because of the new arrangements, and we want to say to him quite clearly

In other words, you like to hear me speak?

We like you to give the sort of information that you have given to-night, and I am thinking particularly of the information in regard to the Schumann Report, where the Minister has said that he is going to appoint a Commission to do what we have been asking him to do year after year, in respect of a new deal for road transportation. [Interjections.] The point I want to make is this: that the Minister has indicated to-night that, as the result of the report of the Schumann Commission, he is going to appoint a Commission to go into the whole question of the relationship between the Railways and road transport. It seems a pity to us that the Minister is not prepared to accept this sort of advice from the Opposition. Had he done so, we could have had this report before us four years ago and much time would have been saved. But now our opinions have to be considered by a Commission before the Minister will accept the worthiness of our suggestions and the advisability of following good advice given by the Opposition.

Another point is this: We have had information again to-night about a further Commission which will be appointed in regard to road safety.

It was appointed a long time ago.

That is another illustration. We have been worried about the road safety problem for many years. I think we have to thank the Press for the publicity that has been given to the accidents, which has brought about this attitude on the part of the Government, this changed attitude in regard to an investigation as to what can be done.

There was no change of attitude.

Then why was this Commission not appointed long ago?

There was no necessity for it.

You see, Sir, that is why we get cross with this Minister. If he has a look at the Monthly Bulletin of Statistics for February, he will find details of the accidents that have taken place on the roads over the last three years, and they all indicate a very serious position. If the Minister says the Government’s attitude has not changed, what has persuaded him to appoint a Commission now? The facts were available to him for the last three years. There are three pages of detailed information relating to accidents in this Bulletin.

Have you not read the terms of reference of this Commission? I gave it to the House.

I did, but my point is that the evidence has been in front of the Minister for the last three years. I am only dealing with this latest Bulletin of Statistics now.

That has nothing to do with it. May I explain? The hon. member knows that I wanted to introduce legislation to get a uniform Traffic Act, and he knows that I had discussions with the different Administrators. I tried to get the support of the provinces for a National Traffic Act, but I could not get that support. Therefore I could not proceed with it, and on the suggestion of the Administrators I appointed this Commission to inquire into the necessity for uniformity, how the different ordinances can be amended to make them uniform, among other things, and whether the working of the Road Safety Organization, which was only created two years ago, can be improved in any way. Those are some of the reasons why this Commission was appointed.

Can you tell the House for what reason your suggestion was rejected?

I told the House that the Administrators feel that I am intruding on their preserves. The provinces are very jealous of their powers, and they think that by introducing an Act it would derogate from their powers.

I criticize the Minister because he was so brief in his reply to the speeches from this side of the House in respect of road safety, but one gathers from his reply that this Commission was appointed to deal with that also. That is the only reason why I criticized the Minister, but now that he has explained the position, we will wait and see what success the Commission has in bringing about uniform traffic laws, which I think we all want.

But I want to deal with a specific problem that is tied up with the Road Transportation Act, in respect of the issue of the necessary certificates. The Minister has been asked what he is going to do about the time it takes. The Minister has been asked what he is going to do about the time it takes for passengers to get from the cities to the airports. As far as Durban is concerned, it is not only a question of how long it is going to take to get to the airport, but it is a question of whether it will be possible at all to get to the airport concerned within another year or so, because of the density of traffic on the south coast road. Now, the Minister will know that earlier this Session we dealt with the provision of two new railway lines to the south of Durban for the purpose of conveying passengers to and from Umlazi and Chatsworth. According to the information given in the Railway Board’s report for this project, the additional number of Bantu and Indians that will be coming into Durban and who will be conveyed, not by rail but by road, within the next two years will be in the region of 20,000—20,000 workers coming in the mornings and 20,000 going out in the afternoons. The transport of these workers will have to be mainly by bus. This brings me to the point which I should like to put to the Minister. Is it part of the functions of local transportation boards to take into account the capacity of a road before they issue licences for new bus services? I do not know whether this particular problem of Durban has arisen anywhere else in South Africa. If the information given to us is correct, it would appear that it would be necessary to issue at least another 200 licences, if all this traffic is to be conveyed, before the railway lines I have referred to will be in operation. The information is that it will be another 2½ years before we would be able to use railway transport for this purpose. There is also another factor involved and that is the question of delays. Here I am not concerned with the reason for delay in the provision of money for free-ways to the south of Durban, but am only concerned about the results of this delay. These results will be evident in the congestion which shall have to be faced on this south coast road. That is why I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is in a position at this stage to indicate whether or not there is going to be placed any limitation on the issue of certificates because of the inability of the south coast road to convey the traffic offering as a result of the development in that region. If there is to be a limitation then the Minister should make it quite clear to the Durban Municipality that alternative arrangements would have to be made in respect of the tremendous increase in traffic which is going to be conveyed over that road—alternative arrangements until such time as the rail facilities are available.

The road transportation board does not take that into account. There is no provision for that in the Act.

You see the difficulty. Mr. Chairman. As far as the local road transportation board is concerned, it will issue the certificates if it is considered that there is a demand for them, but whether or not the buses will be able to use the road is not their concern. Consequently it is of no use to issue certificate after certificate if the road concerned is not going to be capable of taking the density of traffic. Therefore, the point I should like to put to the Minister is that this factor should be considered by the road transportation board.

What is the alternative? How will people get to work otherwise?

That is a responsibility of the Municipality. If the road transportation board informs the Municipality that it cannot issue any more certificates in respect of that road, the Municipality will be compelled to consider alternative plans. They may even consider appealing to the Minister to curtail the issue of certificates or only to have them issued to the nearest rail head, which will be Isipingo in this case.

They can in any event make such representations to the road transportation board.

I am asking for pressure to be brought to bear on the authority responsible for meeting this problem. If the Minister is in a position to say to the road transportation board that they should be careful about the number of certificates they issue and that they should take into consideration the capacity of the road to take the additional traffic. …

Do you want me to put pressure on the Durban Municipality?

No. I should like the Minister to make it quite clear to the Durban Municipality that there is a limit to the number of certificates that can be issued in respect of that particular road.

I am quite prepared to do that if it will be of any help to you.

If the Minister can do that I am convinced that the Municipality shall have to take measures immediately to relieve congestion on this road. And the Minister is, in fact, vitally concerned with this because this is the road that serves the airport.

The Minister has no authority over road transportation boards.

… and it will not be of any use to have the 727’s operating between Durban and Johannesburg if it is going to be impossible to get the passengers to the airport. And that is what is going to happen if in the foreseeable future something is not done about this south coast road. It is unfortunate that this position should have developed but we cannot go back and remedy the causes which created the delay in respect of the subsidy for the construction of that road. We cannot go back, as I say. What we can do now is to deal with the problem which that delay has created and with which we are faced to-day. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I wonder when hon. members opposite will learn to be consistent in their utterances. Here we have the position to-day that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, who has just resumed his seat, asked the Minister to give the road transportation board powers to have regard to the capacity of the road in question before it issues a permit for the operation of additional means of transport. In other words, here the road transportation board has to exert pressure upon the municipality or the provincial administration to provide better roads before a permit is issued. That is the one side of the attitude of hon. members opposite. In this same debate the hon. member for Yeoville, on the other hand, came along and complained to the Minister that an insufficient number of transport permits are being issued. So the one says that roads are overloaded as a result of the unrestricted issue of permits, while the other says that insufficient permits are issued. Is that not the same spectacle we always see on that side, namely, that they are always equivocal? I do not even want to react to the charge of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that the Minister hides behind the new rules and therefore will not reply fully to the debate. I think we can be convinced that the Minister has in all respects given a full reply to the debate and dealt with all the representations made to him.

I cannot refrain, in spite of the fact that the hon. the Minister has already replied to it, from reverting to certain statements of the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw). This hon. member intimated to this Committee that S.A. Airways does not keep pace with developments in the world, and that because it does not do so, it is no longer safe.

That is untrue. I referred to our civil aviation. Your statement is absolutely untrue.

The hon. member told this Committee that the S.A. Airways do not keep pace with developments in air services in general, and that therefore it is no longer safe. If, as the hon. member says now, he was referring to our civil aviation, why then did his colleague, the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) immediately thereafter tell us about an aircraft which was unable to depart from Port Elizabeth because climatic conditions at Port Elizabeth were such that it was unable to land? I link the speeches of these two hon. members together. The hon. member for Durban Point suggests that air traffic in S.A. is no longer safe because we do not keep pace with modern developments. Immediately after that the hon. member for Orange Grove came along and in the same spirit of persecution in which he deals with the South African Broadcasting Corporation he wanted to hold the hon. the Minister of Transport responsible for the climatic conditions at Port Elizabeth. I do not hesitate to say that this kind of performance is nothing more than sabotage against our air traffic in S.A. It is nothing else. It is aimed at putting S.A.’s air traffic in a wrong perspective and light. [Interjections]. Let me say this, that no country in the world is indebted to its airways so much because of its safety as we in S.A. are indebted to our S.A. Air Services. The air services of S.A. probably are the safest in the world. Here I include our civilian air services. When compared with other civil air services, we shall find that ours is the safest in all the world.

We agree. In fact, we said so ourselves.

If that is so, I shall leave it at that that the hon. member for Durban (Point), splendidly aided in his ignorance by the hon. member for Orange Grove, came along and placed our air services in this wrong light. As far as I am concerned, I should like to pay tribute to our air services and to the personnel responsible for it. I do not believe there is another air services personnel in the world which serves its public with so much courtesy and readiness to serve as the airways personnel of S.A.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member entitled to discuss the air services under this Vote?

Order! I should like to draw the attention of the hon. member for Wakkerstroom to the fact that under this Vote he may discuss airports and the facilities at airports, but not the air services themselves. I have allowed him to reply to some extent on previous points, but from now onwards he should confine himself to airports and runways at airports.

Our airports and the runways at airports are the test according to which we should judge the safety of our air services on landing and departing. In this connection I should like to refer to an aspect of the services rendered at airports. In view of the need for us to train ourselves to do our own work, I wonder whether it cannot be said that we have a superfluous staff of porters at our airports. Is it really necessary that at every airport there should be a whole number of porters so that every passenger’s little bag can be carried? At overseas airports one sometimes finds that light push-carts are available on which passengers may load their baggage and then push these along themselves. Otherwise they have to carry their baggage themselves. Is it not desirable that we should train our people in South Africa to do their own work in this respect also? If we do this, we could claim that we can stand on our own feet and do our own work.

As regards our runways, I think I can say that the Department has succeeded in planning these runways on a long-term basis. Hon. members have mentioned Kimberley. If they go and see what is going on at the airport at Kimberley and see the building programme in progress there, they will see that it is a unique programme aimed at dealing with all forms of traffic.

However, there is another matter I should like to mention, and that is that the Minister and the National Transport Commission should investigate new possibilities in that area in consequence of the developments on the north coast of Natal, and particularly the construction of the Pongolapoort Dam. One possibility is that, in the same way that we have a garden route along the east coast to Durban—one of the most beautiful routes in the world for tourists—a similar route could possibly be developed along the north coast of Natal. It could turn off at Mkuzi and go via the embankment of the Pongolapoort Dam to link up with a traffic route built along the coast from Lourenço Marques to Oro Point. From there it could link up with a route right through Swaziland to the Kruger National Park, as well as with a route through the Makatini Flats to the developing harbour at Sordwana Bay. It will be a beautiful route, as attractive and with similar scenic beauty as in the case of the route along the east coast from the Cape Province as far as Durban. Then there could also be a game reserve at Hluhluwe on the one side and at Mkuzi on the other side, which could go together with the greatest dam to be built in South Africa. [Time limit.]

The unfortunate member for Wakkerstroom, who just sat down, has developed a complex, and that is that whenever he hears any criticism in the House his mind immediately connects it with sabotage. Lurking through his mind all the time is this horrible nightmare of sabotage. Only when he comes to the Pongola Dam does daylight seem to come to him, because he then displays a most serene state of mind.

But I want to go over to the subject to which I intended to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister. That is the question of the subsidies to flying clubs and flying schools. Strange as it may seem, this subsidy has now been reduced to R40,000 from the R.42,800 it was last year. Now, we have already in the past made appeals to the Minister to increase these subsidies to flying clubs. He well knows what the record of these flying schools and glider clubs in this country is. They made such an important contribution during World War II in so far as the provision of pilots are concerned and also of other units for the South African Air Force. I think the South African Air Force will always remember with gratitude the sound work which these flying clubs have done. In other countries, countries similar to our own, very much larger sums of money are allocated. We have here, as is the case also in other countries, an aero club which tries to co-ordinate the activities of these flying clubs and to play its part in their development. Consequently, I wonder whether, particularly at this stage of affairs, where it may be necessary to expand our air force still further, the Minister should not take account of the importance of the flying education given by these private clubs and encourage private people to take up flying as one of their sporting activities. In other countries bursaries and scholarships are provided so as to make sure that the necessary funds are available to young people who want to obtain instruction in flying. Funds are necessary because instructors have to be appointed, equipment has to be acquired, accommodation has to be provided, etc. Some countries also provide large maintenance grants for these aero-clubs and training schools on the basis of a subsidy of so much per hour. In addition, money is also provided to enable them to buy the necessary aircraft for the purpose of training. Some countries even go so far as to provide the funds to enable the secretariat of the aero-clubs to be maintained. Let me refer in this connection to what is being done in a country which is very similar to ours, namely Australia. There I believe a sum of R500,000 is provided annually by the State for these clubs.

Therefore my plea to the hon. the Minister is that the time has definitely arrived when we must take into account the very modest representations which have been made to him by the Aero-club of South Africa and to increase the subsidy. This can obviously not be done at present under this Vote but an opportunity to do so might occur to the Minister from other sources. Flying clubs form an important factor in the development of our air force and of flying in South Africa. Already a considerable number of private aircraft is being made use of by private citizens. There is also another obligation on the State, i.e. other than the obligation to pass regulations to regulate the proper administration of private flying in South Africa, and that is the obligation to encourage the educational side of flying so that we can get as many of our young men in their civilian capacity into these flying clubs. Ours is a country which is by nature earmarked as a flying country on account of its climatic conditions and its wide open spaces. These factors also contribute to the safety record of our flyers. We should therefore not miss any opportunities in this field. Consequently I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to see whether it is not possible to make a greater contribution than this very modest sum of R40,000.

Another matter is in connection with the committee the Minister has set up to investigate the high rate of accidents in this country. The Minister may have replied on this point already, but I think more information is necessary. The investigation should, I think, be accelerated. While I would welcome the introduction of a uniform traffic Act for the entire country, I do think that with the Road Safety Council constituted as it is and financed by the State, it should set up and tackle a more urgent programme in the interim, i.e. while the Minister is endeavouring to settle the other important issue. I do not, in any event, think we should leave the matter with this investigation. I do not think the fears of the public have been allayed by what is taking place. The toll of death on our roads is not diminishing and the Minister knows that probably as well as anybody else. We have, in fact, probably the highest death rate from accidents in the world. While nobody can be held responsible for this, we all should I feel do something about the matter and I think we are entitled to some explanation as to why no interim steps are being taken to help to find a solution to this great problem.

The hon. member who just sat down is surely aware of the fact that the National Road Safety Organization is still functioning. The hon. member wants to know what interim steps are being taken. I do not know what he means by “interim steps”. The Road Safety Organization is functioning very well although it was created only three years ago. It has not yet come into stride. But it is doing excellent work. I have already said that it is the most difficult thing in the world to establish the causes of accidents. There are so many contributory causes. Human fallibility plays a major part. There is the question of education which is an extremely important one. There is the question of mechanical defects, of sanctions for the contravention of road ordinances and traffic laws, of safe roads, of signs and of precautionary measures which must be taken where traffic crosses roads, the question of speed limits and numerous other contributory factors. No country in the world has as yet established the cause of road accidents although every country is doing its utmost to combat accidents and to make its people safety conscious. The organization is a representative body, representing as it does about all walks of life from all over the Republic. There exists a considerable amount of enthusiasm for the organization. A conference which was held in Johannesburg last year was well-attended and well-represented. The commission I have referred to has a slightly different purpose but one of its terms of reference is to see whether this organization cannot be made even more efficient and effective. The commission must also inquire into numerous other matters, such as the uniformity of traffic laws. This commission was only appointed a month ago and has had one meeting so far. I have been promised that the investigation will not be protracted but that it will be speeded up so that a report can be available as soon as possible.

The hon. member can rest assured that I am as concerned about this terrible slaughter on our roads as is any other person. In this connection one is sometimes in despair—you do not know what to do. Compensation is paid, but I have so frequently said that human suffering can never be compensated for by rands and cents, and that all our attempts must be concentrated on an attempt to reduce this slaughter on our roads and to make our people more safety conscious. This is continually receiving our attention.

I agree with the hon. member in regard to the good work that is being done by flying clubs. R40,000 is the maximum amount I can get at the moment. I should of course like to increase it but am not in a position at the present time to do so. However, from experience I can say that this amount now being provided is fairly adequate. As a matter of fact, some R4,000 was carried over from the previous year. But if the need therefore arises the hon. member can rest assured that I shall do my best to get this subsidy increased.

*The hon. member for Wakkerstroom complained about porters at airports. Well, I do not know whether he likes to carry his own baggage. I certainly do not like to carry mine. The facilities are there. It must be remembered that we have to attract and encourage passengers to avail themselves of our air services. For that reason we have to provide every possible facility so that people may use our air services to an increasing extent. I consider that if I were to have the porters removed, I will receive many objections—even from my own friends around me here.

As regards the route on which the hon. member became lyrical, I should like to say that of course this cannot be a national road. However, it is always possible that the provinces may decide to construct such a road and then apply for a subsidy. When that stage is reached, it will of course be considered very seriously.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote L “Transport,” R455,000, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.