May I ask for the privilege of the half-hour? Sir, it is usual when you are discussing a Minister’s Vote to raise the question of the policy pursued by the Minister and his Department and, of course, the Government. In this case one has a certain difficulty because I think we have got to the stage where we are not so much discussing foreign policy as asking whether there is any foreign policy to discuss. The hon. gentleman has now been Minister of Foreign Affairs for more than six months, and so far he has not spoken in this House. Outside this House he has only made one speech. It is true that he has made it on a number of occasions in different parts of the country with slight variations, but that speech which is the only evidence we have had so far upon which we can base an opinion as to what foreign policy is being pursued, can be boiled down very shortly to this: As I understand it, the hon. the Minister says that the Republic is in a difficult position chiefly due to the world’s failure to recognize the high degree of virtue in his Government’s race policies, and secondly that he is firmly convinced that those policies are both morally and practically right and, thirdly, that his Government has no intention of altering them or deviating from them in any way and, lastly, that he is quite sure that in time to come the world will realize how wrong it is and has been in its estimate of those policies, and that thereafter all will be well. That is how I sum up the views of the hon. the Minister in regard to foreign policy. If I am wrong I shall be happy to be corrected by him when he takes part in this debate later on. But as I understand it, until that happy day arrives when the world realizes how wrong they are, the foreign policy of the Republic is in a condition of stalemate and it is simply a question of sitting tight and hoping for the best. Sir, since the hon. the Minister has been in office he has not yet thrown any fresh light on the problems of our foreign policy. His attitude has been purely negative. If one felt unkind one might say really that it is a pale echo of His Master’s Voice, and it has not thrown much light really on the subject. Of course, one understands and appreciates that the Minister has a very difficult task. In the first place his Prime Minister has placed the rest of the world in quarantine. He says the world is sick, and under those circumstances it is a good thing for South Africa to be isolated. I think he has indicated that when he says that he means political isolation. Otherwise, on every other aspect he sees no reason for anything but the best relations. But, Sir, I do not see—perhaps the hon. the Minister will be able to enlighten us—how you can isolate isolation. It seems to me that isolation is just as infectious as anything can be, and if you talk about political isolation and then look at how it has spread, whilst admitting that the main spring, the fons et origo, of isolation may have a political basis, you see to-day that this question of isolation extends to non-political things like the Olympic Games to the Geneva trade talks and from things like the International Labour Organization to the Postal Union, which is a non-political matter, and from trade boycotts to the question of the entertainment of South African sporting teams when they go on trips abroad. If you say that political isolation is a good thing under the circumstances you have to face the fact that it spreads and spreads and spreads and nobody knows where it is going to end, and of course, if the rest of the world is in quarantine it makes it very difficult for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to mix freely with all these diseased people because there is always the danger that he might become infected with their ideas, and there is nothing so infectious as fresh ideas. At the very best, if he did mingle freely with them he is always liable to be suspected by his own people of becoming infected with those ideas, so his position is very difficult. Moreover, of course, the hon. the Minister hasthe question of his predecessor to contend with. Mr. Louw …

Dr. Louw.

Dr. Louw was a colourful gentleman and he never seemed happy unless he was having a row with somebody, not just a private disagreement but a real scrap in the market place—on the platform, in the Press, with the Press, and on the radio and in this House. It takes all sorts to make a world, of course, and I think a good many of us have a soft spot in our hearts for Mr. Louw, as I prefer to think of him.

It is rather late in the day.

No, we have always had a soft spot for him, in spite of our political differences. Nevertheless I think it is a fact that he was undoubtedly fundamentally and temperamentally unfitted for a task which of necessity calls for a high degree of diplomacy and the good personal relations which must play a large part in his work. As far as the present hon. Minister is concerned I have no doubt that he can do that if he is given the chance to do so. But nevertheless he has, in the first place, to change the image of our Foreign Minister in the eyes of the Chancellories of the great Western Powers and, of course, thirdly, the hon. the Minister does not always get much help from some of his colleagues. The stupid things that they have done and are doing and saying do not make it any easier for him to sell South Africa to other people. As far as this House is concerned the hon. the Minister has not yet spoken to us and he has had much more than 90 days, as far as we are concerned, in practically solitary confinement in order to do some serious thinking over his problems, and I think the time has come when we are entitled to share some of the fruits of his meditations. The position now really is that people are asking whether apart from purely administrative work and long-drawn-out negotiations with our neighbours and an occasional note to the United Nations, the Foreign Office is doing anything at all, and I think this is the opportunity for us to obtain from the Minister information which will answer that question and contradict the impression that his Department is not doing all that might be done in these difficult days, and let us know what we can expect and what the country can expect from the new régime which has taken over in the Foreign Affairs Department. For that reason we are going to put to the hon. the Minister a number of specific questions and we hope that he will be able to reply to us and clear up the whole atmosphere, the mystery, which exists at the present time. In the first place, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister how he feels he can most constructively help the country in his present position. Has he any fresh ideas as to how to improve our relations with other countries, relations which admittedly are bad in many respects in many parts of the world and, thirdly, how does he propose to occupy his time during the recess? Does he, for instance, propose to go to UNO in August or September or whenever they are going to meet. We asked at the beginning of the Session whether we were going to have a White Paper on last year’s proceedings at the United Nations and we got from the Minister what I thought was rather a curt reply; the reply was “No, but information regarding the proceedings of the United Nations appears in the United Nations documentation which is usually obtained by the parliamentary Library.” I think that was a rather unsatisfactory reply in respect of very important information which we have become accustomed to receive from his Department and which I think members on both sides of the House have found extremely useful in enabling them to form a picture and to assess what has gone on at these United Nations meetings and also to get a good idea of just what our delegations have to put up with at these meetings. I hope very much that the hon. the Minister will bear in mind that that White Paper does serve a useful purpose and that in future he will seriously consider whether he should not continue the practice of the past few years.

The hon. the Minister was in New York himself last year in another capacity for a good deal of the proceedings of the United Nations and I would like to ask him what his experience was there. Did he find that the atmosphere in the lobbies was any better than it was in the Assembly itself or in the large committees? If you read the previous White Papers—and I imagine that if we had one this year it would tell the same story—judged simply by the speeches that were made you would think that the condemnation of South Africa was absolute and complete. Very often at these congresses, as those of us who have attended them know very well, when you get out of the Assembly Chamber and get into the lobbies and start talking with the delegates privately you find a considerably changed attitude on their part and that whilst the speeches which are made for public consumption are terrifying or intended to be terrifying, in actual fact, when we talk privately to some of these people, you realize that they are not as serious as they sound, and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can give us some idea as to what he found in that regard last year when he was there. I take it he will agree that this year UNO is likely to be even more critical than last year. It is a very long time since anybody publicly had a good word to say for us at UNO. Even those who have declined to go the whole way in the condemnations that have been made to an increasing degree seem to do so with a certain reluctance. They are inclined to say that in principle they agree but they think the time is not right to do what is proposed. Therefore, Sir, it would look—I think the hon. the Minister would probably agree—as if the pressure at this international body is gradually building UD. We would like to know what is the attitude of the Government in respect of it. Is the hon. the Minister himself going to UNO to deal with the situation? If not, how does he propose we should be represented. Indeed, does he propose that we should be represented at all? This question is possibly the most important and urgent his Department has to deal with. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to give us a clear idea of the way in which his mind is working as to how he is going to deal with the situation which is going to arise in the coming months in New York.

Secondly, is the hon. the Minister proposing to visit other friendly countries abroad as much as he can and as soon as he can? The hon. the Prime Minister says he cannot do it. He says he feels he may not be welcome. He said he would not like to embarrass friendly countries by going there if he were not welcome. Well, he may be right but other Ministers have not felt as sensitive on the subject. A great number of the members of the Cabinet have travelled widely abroad and visited a good many countries. I have not heard that they have been told they were not welcome or that they have met with any discourtesy or lack of co-operation during their visits. I can see no reason why the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs should not be received as well as they. Sir, things are moving so quickly to-day and personal contact is so essential. It is so important to know personally the people who are doing things and how their minds are working. I think that is clear from the newspapers because according to the newspapers many foreign ministers seem to spend more of their time abroad than they do at home in order to maintain that personal contact and in order to be fully informed on the spot with the problems they are called upon to deal with. They also do so in the hope—and this is important—of being able to make some contribution, however small, to maintaining peace in the world. The same thing applies in respect of this hon. Minister in Africa itself. We maintain—and I think perfectly rightly—that we could be of great help economically, scientifically, etc., to the rest of Africa. Undoubtedly if we could not only would that be a benefit to those states which we are in a position to help but it would also be of an enormous advantage to ourselves. It would be a two-way benefit. If we are going to do that and not just talk about it it is quite essential for a start to be made. We have to get on speaking terms with some of these African states if we are ever going to get anywhere. We should like to know whether the hon. the Minister has any intention of trying to do so. Take, for instance, Northern Rhodesia. Mr. Kaunda—or must I say Dr. Kaunda; I know it is almost general to say “doctor” these days—made a gesture some time ago. It may have been a clumsy gesture; it may have been ill timed and badly worded but he made it. Since then he has stated publicly that he is opposed to applying boycotts to South Africa. He said that South Africans were welcome in Northern Rhodesia. I think he has given an indication that he is willing to meet and discuss the problems. That being so I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should make a start and that he should go up and see Northern Rhodesia for himself as soon as possible. He should have a talk to Mr. Kaunda and see how the land lies. He could possibly invite him to come back here. The hon. the Prime Minister made some suggestion that, because of aeroplanes and the quick travelling facilities they offered, it might be possible to organize what sounded to me something like one-day excursions to Pretoria by these heads of state from different African territories. I think the principle of the suggestion is quite good but I do not think oneday excursions would be any good. I think it would be much better if we could make contact with them and if we invited them one at a time. They need not bring a whole army of attendants. We could invite them one at a time, give them a full opportunity of meeting everybody, seeing everything and forming an opinion for themselves of how things are going in this country. I can assure the hon. the Minister that such an action on the part of the Government would be wholly supported by all sections in this country. He will find there is ready co-operation on the part of all sections in this country in making such a visitor welcome and showing him everything there is to be seen. I think that is one of the things to which the hon. the Minister should be giving his serious attention.

I believe, Sir, difficult as the times are and as difficult as the task of the hon. the Minister is, if he shows dynamic imagination and forceful activity, there is much useful work for him to do. I have suggested one or two of the lines along which I think that work can be done. We have other points to raise during the course of this debate and we shall now await to hear what the Minister has to say before proceeding much further.

I am very sorry that the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) found it necessary to make unfriendly remarks about my predecessor. I was hoping that he would not do so.

Since this is the first opportunity that I have to do so, I should like this morning to pay tribute to my predecessor. I pay tribute to him as a patriot with a great love for his country and his nation; as someone who always had the interests of his country at heart. I want to pay tribute to him for the fine services which he rendered to South Africa in various capacities here in South Africa and abroad. Dr. Eric Louw is respected by his political friends and also by his political enemies as a ruthless fighter. We also pay tribute to the fact that he never spared himself. Then I want to refer to the fact that he was one of the pioneers of the Department of Foreign Affairs as well as of our foreign service. I regard it as an honour to be his successor, but at the same time I carry a very heavy responsibility in trying to follow in the footsteps of somebody who had so much experience and so much talent.

The hon. member for Constantia complains because I have not yet spoken in this House. You will agree with me, however, Mr. Chairman, that the fault lies with him and his colleagues; they have never given me an opportunity to speak in this House. The hon. member will recall that in the Budget debate, in which I could have participated, there was no reference at all to foreign affairs. Apparently the hon. member is also disappointed because he and his Press have not succeeded in driving a wedge between my predecessor and myself and between the Government and myself; they are disappointed because they have not succeeded in playing us off against each other and because I wholeheartedly support the Prime Minister and the Government’s policy.

Sir, I hope in the course of my speech to reply to most of the questions which the hon. member put to me and to deal with the remainder at a later stage.

The basic points of the foreign policy of the Republic of South Africa were dealt with in this House when the Prime Minister’s Vote was under discussion. In that debate the Opposition referred in particular to the alleged alienation and the alleged isolation of South Africa in the international sphere. The entire criticism of the Opposition, as far as our foreign policy is concerned, was based on our racial policy and the rejection of our racial policy by the outside world. Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Prime Minister, as you will recall, fully refuted these charges. The general trend of the Opposition’s criticism of our foreign policy, however, remains the same. We had further proof of that this morning and I am sure that the same pattern will also be followed in this debate.

In these circumstances I propose to deal briefly with the basic points of criticism. I realize that this may involve a certain amount of repetition, but on the other hand it may also be in the interests of the debate itself. Mr. Chairman, before I proceed I want to emphasize that as far as the Government’s foreign policy is concerned there ought to be no uncertainty either in South Africa or in the outside world. Our policy has been set out repeatedly by my predecessor as well as by the hon. the Prime Minister and other members on this side. The principles underlying our policy are known to everybody. These principles, as has often been emphasized in this House, are based, as in the case of all other States, on the fundamental interests of the State. They flow from the Government’s determination to ensure the safety and the sovereignty of the State and to promote the welfare of all population groups in South Africa. I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that there should be no uncertainty at all with regard to the Government’s foreign policy. Indeed there is no uncertainty in this regard in the minds of the people of South Africa. The South African electorate has indicated its approval of this policy time and again. That fact is proved by the ever-increasing support given to the Government.

I admit that we do experience difficulties in our international relations. These difficulties, as you know, Sir, are due to ill will in the outside world, ill will which springs from selfinterest; they are due to the ambitions of other States and in many cases they are attributable also to envy because of the fact that South Africa is such a prosperous country. In the second place they are also attributable to ignorance and misunderstanding in connection with our colour policy. It is unnecessary for me to emphasize that under no circumstances will the Government ever abandon this policy. The Government will continue, even if the pressure from outside should increase, to place the interests of this country first. That will always be the decisive factor. As far as the international sphere is concerned, or indeed any other sphere, we cannot abandon these principles simply to satisfy others.

The Government’s aim, as in the past, is to seek friendly and peaceful co-operation with friendly States. The Government’s aim is to strengthen existing ties and, where possible, to forge new ties of friendship. That can only be done, however, where it is possible to do so with honour; where it is possible to do so without sacrificing our right to govern our country according to the will of the people and not in accordance with the desires of any outside authority. We refuse to share our sovereignty with any outside authority. After all, this principle is the basis of co-operation between all States in the world. This principle is admitted in the Charter of the United Nations Organization; it is contained in the Bandung declaration of 1955 and it is also incorporated in the Charter of the Organization for Unity in Africa.

Sir, the most striking aspect of the criticism of the Opposition concerns our colour policy —the fact that our colour policy is not acceptable to the outside world. In other words, their criticism is that we are not succeeding in satisfying the outside world as to the way in which we are governing our country. The question is whether the United Party realize that in adopting that attitude they are admitting by implication that an outside authority has the right to dictate to us what we ought to do, how we must solve our problems and how we must preserve our heritage. Their attitude amounts to an abandonment of the basic principle of international relations, namely the right of every State to maintain its sovereignty. Sir, this attitude which is adopted by the Opposition is a dangerous one. No autonomous State dare adopt such an attitude, and when that attitude is adopted by the official Opposition it can only play into the hands of our enemies and complicate South Africa’s relations in the international sphere

What proof have you that that is the attitude of the Opposition?

Mr. Chairman, I do read the speeches made by members of the Opposition. This Government is convinced that the results produced by our racial policy will be accepted as proof of our realism and of our morality. The world will come to realize—and there are many people who realize this already—that our policy is one of emancipation of nations; it is a policy under which we concede to each of the population groups what is traditionally its own. There are signs already that that truth is beginning to penetrate the minds of people. There are many responsible people who are already beginning to wonder whether South Africa should not be given a chance to carry out this policy and to prove to the world that we really do have a solution. The question is also being posed whether our policy ought to be rejected summarily in view of the fact that our aim is to bring an end to domination and to give the right of self-determination to the various population groups in South Africa. This question has already been posed at UNO. I want to refer you, Mr. Chairman, to the influential conservative newspaper, the Daily Telegraph, which had this to say towards the end of last year—

The same newspaper recently gave South Africa a fine testimonial under the heading, “Another side to South Africa.” The writer of this article is described by the paper as a Britisher who resided in South Africa for 15 years and who was an active member of the United Party—-Keith Pulvermacher. It is also encouraging to note that the world is impressed by the determination of the Whites in South Africa to maintain themselves and by their ability to do so. In this connection, Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to an article which recently appeared in the New Statesman by John Hatch, one of the British Labour Party’s advisers on Africa affairs. John Hatch refers, for example, to the well armed, disciplined and loyal Defence Forces of South Africa. In connection with the Whites—not the members of the National Party—he says—

He admits—

The conclusion to which John Hatch comes is that any solution of our racial problems in South Africa will have to meet with the approval not only of the non-Whites but also with the approval of the White population of South Africa. Mr. Chairman, I could mention dozens of examples but I do not want to take up the time of the House by quoting further examples. I just want to say that my own experience abroad confirms these impressions. I do not want to suggest that our policy as such is supported abroad, but I do contend that a more reasonable approach is beginning to develop towards our policy. There are signs too that there are many responsible people in the world who are beginning to realize that South Africa with her colour problem is in many respects a microcosm, a miniature representation of the world as a whole, in which a White minority is also confronted by a non-White majority. The world is beginning to realize that if we in this country are not allowed to find a solution to our problems, a solution which promotes peaceful coexistence between White and non-White, it will certainly not make it easier to find a solution for the colour problem of the world. There are many, of course, who are not anxious that we should succeed in finding a solution to our colour problem, people who are afraid and who are beginning to believe that we are in fact succeeding. That is why they are intensifying the campaign which they are conducting against us in an effort to prevent us from succeeding. On the other hand there are also those who condemn our policy for the sake of the support and friendship of the new non-White states, but who, as the result of recent events, particularly elsewhere in Africa, are also being disillusioned.

The so-called isolation of South Africa in the international sphere is also a matter with which the hon. the Prime Minister has already dealt and in connection with which he has exposed our critics. In spite of that, Mr. Chairman, that charge is still being repeated. What is this charge really based on? It is based mainly on the fact that South Africa has withdrawn from a number of international organizations. It is true that we withdrew from certain organizations but we did so because those organizations were of no further use to us. The reason for that is that the Africa states, supported by certain Asiatic states and by the communists, use these organizations in their political feud against South Africa and thus make co-operation in those organizations altogether impossible. That is why membership of some of these organizations has become entirely useless to us. In certain cases, in the case of the World Health Organization, for example, the friendly countries were unable to cope with the situation in the face of the preponderance of non-White and communist votes. The incredible also happened in the case of the Universal Postal Union. There our delegation was thrown out in the most unconstitutional and discourteous way. As the result of a ruling from the Chair we were obliged to leave the congress. At this stage I want to say no more with regard to this matter because it is still receiving the attention of the Government. As I have said, in the case of the World Health Organization the moderate and more responsible States were helpless in the face of the preponderance of votes against us. But in other cases the selfinterest of friendly countries influenced them to allow our enemies to have their own way. People are beginning to realize that this whole process is one which is going to lead to the downfall of many of these international organizations and UN agencies. They are beginning to realize that these same steps may be taken in the future against other member States, which would make international cooperation and international relations in these technical and scientific organizations entirely impossible. Moreover, the Rule of Law would disappear entirely from international life and the maintenance of order would no longer be possible.

Mr. Chairman, the Republic of South Africa is actually not as isolated internationally as some people allege. We are still a member of a large number of organizations, some of which are very important. I have in mind, for example, the International Atomic Power Agency. South Africa has always been one of the governors of this agency, and not so long ago a South African was the Chairman of the Board of Governors. We have been playing an important role in this organization. Then I have in mind the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank, GATT and other organizations. Attempts have already been made, of course, to use some of these organizations as well for the purpose of agitating against us but so far those attempts have failed. One cannot prophesy what is going to happen in the future. In spite of criticism and the condemnation of our colour policy by those countries, it nevertheless remains a fact that there are harmonious relations and co-operation between South Africa and a large number of countries.

There is, for example, daily contact between South Africa and many countries of the world in practically every sphere. Just take the example of our international trade. In 1963 our exports increased by R35,000,000, an increase of more than 4 per cent. Foreign capital investments in South Africa last year reached a new peak. The investments of the U.S.A, increased by 20 per cent since 1961 and British investments in South Africa increased by R200,000,000 in 1963 alone. Then there are continuously missions and groups of businessmen from overseas visiting South Africa, and South Africans who do the same. There is also fruitful co-operation between South Africa and the outside world in many other spheres, in the sphere of science, technology, culture, art, etc. We think, e.g. of South Africa’s share in regard to the research in the Antarctic. We think of our share in the projectile tracking stations, and the cultural agreements South Africa has with countries abroad. Then there are also intimate bonds between South Africa citizens and citizens of other countries of the world, which must also influence the relations between those governments and ourselves. There is the influence of tourism, and we think of how the eyes of practically all the tourists who visit South Africa are opened. I can remind hon. members of the tremendous achievements which have been attained in the sphere of immigration, for example, the fact that thousands of immigrants are prepared to leave their homelands and to come to South Africa and to adopt it as their new home and as a new fatherland for themselves and for their children.

The critics of the Government’s foreign policy forget that membership of international organizations is not the only form of fruitful international association. The extent to which measure a country is isolated or not is largely determined by factors such as those I have mentioned; it proves the desire of others to co-operate with us, and the confidence others have in our country and its future. If one considers all these facts, one sees a picture which is quite different from the one which hon. members opposite like to hold up. If matters are seen in their correct perspective, it changes the sombre picture, and then one finds that the measure of isolation which we in fact experience is overshadowed by the favourable factors. Sir, one gains the impression that hon. members opposite forget that we are living in a dangerous world and that they do not realize that we in South Africa have a great deal to be thankful for in comparison with what is happening in other parts of the world. If one thinks of all the riots, the coup d’etats, the clash of arms and threatened clashes, even of the mass murders and the poverty in the outside world, as compared with South Africa where law and order are maintained, where we have political stability and general prosperity and increasing economic independence, one realizes that we really have reason to be thankful.

It is true that we are comparatively isolated from Africa north of the Zambesi, but I ask myself whether this is not a temporary phenomenon. I ask myself whether the facts of international intercourse and the facts of Africa will not, much sooner than many of us think, change that isolation into the co-operation which has already existed in the past and which we are always striving for. It is in fact the declared policy of the Government to cooperate and to assist. But apart from the rest of the free world, special attempts are being made to strengthen the relations with the Western Powers in the realization that in future, just as in the past, our fate will be closely linked with the fate of the West. It is known to hon. members that the rest of Africa follows a policy of neutralism, the so-called non-alignment policy. As contrasted with that, we have thrown in our lot with the free world, with the anti-communist bloc, and the free world knows that it can rely on us. Apart from our loyalty, our economic and political stability weighs heavily, particularly with the West, and contrasts sharply with the rest of Africa. We also remember South Africa’s strategic importance and the fact that we have important strategic raw materials. There is also the increasing importance of the sea route to the East, and the importance of Simonstown was again recently emphasized by the British Premier in the House of Commons.

Mr. Chairman, our greatest danger in South Africa lies in the actions of the communists in Africa, and that is a danger not only to South Africa and the White people here, but to the whole of Africa. It is unfortunately a fact that the communists are gaining ground in Africa. Here we are reminded of the recent visits of Khrushchev and Chou En-lai. We think of what happened in states like Zanzibar and Somalia. The communists are intervening there and are busy changing Zanzibar into a second Cuba.

What are you doing in that regard?

What are you doing about it? I shall tell you what we are doing. The competition between the Chinese and the Russians also has an important influence on the spreading of Communism in Africa, because the two are competing with each other there as well. At the moment the communists are not propagating their ideology in Africa so much; they deliberately act under the flag of nationalism and anti-colonialism. They try to make the people dissatisfied. They want to bring about chaos and anarchy, because that is the fruitful breeding-ground for their ideology, and only thereafter do they come along with the propagation of their philosophy. In this process the White man constitutes the greatest stumbling-block to the communist, and therefore the White man in Africa, and particularly in South Africa, must be destroyed. It is not apartheid that is at stake, or even the interests of the non-Whites in Africa. If hon. members opposite think that their policy will put a stop to this process they are making a very big mistake. In this regard I want to refer them to the report of the committee of so-called experts of UN. This Hugh Foot-Myrdal Report expressly rejects racial federation as a possible solution to South Africa’s racial problems. It is very clear that the fight is against the White man, because everywhere in Africa where the White man has settled himself there is the guarantee for peace and prosperity, whereas the communist achieves precisely the opposite. For that purpose they exploit the Black man’s nationalism and his hatred of colonialism, and we are also dragged into this anti-colonial campaign, of course without any justification whatever. For this reason we are faced with dangers, and they want to destroy us. The Government is thoroughly aware of these dangers and it is fully determined to combat these dangers, just as we have always done up to now.

The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) asked why a White Paper in connection with UN has not been tabled this year. As I have already said, the happenings at UN have been fully reported in the South African Press, and then there are also the official records of the proceedings of UN which are available in the Parliamentary library.

Months late!

In addition, increasingly more of the important discussions at UN take place behind the scenes. It is only there that one can get a reliable picture of the content and meaning of UN and the trends of thought there are at the moment. The Eighteenth Session of UN last year was preceded by the so-called Moscow Treaty and the direct link between President Kennedy and Mr. Khrushchev. This development was emphasized by UN as an important step in preventing an atomic conflict, which the whole world fears. But it is significant that those two steps were both taken outside UN. One wonders whether the great nations are not perhaps beginning to believe that UN is not able to avert really serious international crises as the result of the divergent opinions at UN and also the great increase in abuses at UN, particularly the application of the double standard. In fact, it is not only my predecessor who exposed this double standard. The present British Prime Minister did so, too, and the New York Times also expressed interesting ideas in that regard which I should like to quote briefly. In December last year the New York Times wrote as follows—

There is a real danger that UN is losing its ability to perform the great and important task which was entrusted to it at San Francisco. In this regard it is interesting to note that even the conflicts between the African states never get as far as UN.

As is well known, the membership of the United Nations in 1963 increased from 110 to 113, and later there will probably be even more members. The composition of UN causes concern in many circles. Mr. Dean Rusk, the American Minister of Foreign Affairs, last year pointed out that it was theoretically possible that member states, which represent 10 per cent of the total world population at UN and pay 5 per cent of the contributions to UN command 66 per cent of the votes. The result of this development in the world is that in world politics, in the so-called world organization, a shifting of power is taking place which is gradually breaking down the position of the West in international life. In the meantime the position of the Afro-Asian states is becoming stronger. It is well known that at the moment the African States have 34 votes, whilst the Asian states have 24 votes. That gives a total of 58, which is a majority in the General Assembly. Apart from that, the Afro-Asians can always rely on the support of the communists when they take action against South Africa.

Mr. Khruschchev correctly pointed out in Cairo recently that the cold war is moving to Asia and Africa. But although the cold war has to some extent cooled down at UN, the communists are now using that lull to exploit the position at the cost of the West, and unfortunately the West is not always as united as the communist bloc.

Nor should we set our hopes too much on a so-called conflict between Moscow and Peking. We shall not rely on that too much. We should remember that both those states are still communist and both strive for world Communism, and both envisage the downfall of Western civilization and of the free world. At UN, just like in Africa, the communists are at the moment not concentrating on propagating their ideology. There they particularly associate themselves with the aspirations of the new states, and also with their prejudices. Thereby they are trying to drive in a wedge between the West and the uncommitted states of Asia and Africa. The West of course also tries to gain the friendship of the new states, which are mainly non-White states. In this regard we should ask ourselves what the aspirations of the Blacks in Africa are. Viewed closely, it amounts to nothing less than Africa for the Africans, with the emphasis on the Black man in Africa, even as contrasted with the Arab, not even to mention the Indian. The present frame of mind of the Black man, supported by his allies, the Arabs and the communists, makes no provision at all for a White state in Africa in which a White nation has full control. That is the source of our problem at UN. The recent session of UN was characterized by the increasing bitterness of the attacks on South Africa’s colour policy. Our policy is represented there as one of perpetual suppression of the non-Whites in South Africa, and it is alleged there that it is our policy only to look after the interests of the White man in South Africa. From the foregoing it may be inferred what great pressure is being exerted on the traditional friends of South Africa, and particularly our trading partners, to take action against us. At the last session of UN the leaders of certain African delegations were continually making plans in regard to how they could take action against South Africa. The influential Wall Street Journal last month referred as follows to this phenomenon—

The object of this plot, as this newspaper called it, was to drive South Africa out of UN, or to endanger our participation in the proceedings at UN and our membership, and in this regard particular use was made of the argument that the South African Government is in fact a minority Government. They also tried to impose sanctions against South Africa, and right throughout they openly tried to interfere in our domestic affairs, although even at Addis Ababa they accepted the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of other states. The General Assembly of UN. for example, appointed a Special Committee to study and to codify certain principles, including non-interference in the domestic jurisdiction and the sovereign equality of states. Nevertheless, one resolution after another was passed there, which was a blatant interference in South Africa’s domestic affairs. We are reminded, for example, of the resolution which was passed by a majority of 106 to one in regard to the setting free of the so-called political prisoners in South Africa, prisoners among whom there were criminals who had been convicted by the Supreme Court of the murder of members of their own race. That case is of course is sub judice at the moment because the accused persons were granted leave to appeal. I just want to say that the South African delegation strenuously protested against that resolution and pointed out the dangerous precedent created by it. This resolution elicited the strongest indignation right throughout South Africa, and not only among supporters of the Government. The interference and the violation of the charter in the case of this particular resolution were so far-reaching that the Western delegates obviously felt a little uncomfortable, and they rationalized their support of that resolution by describing it as a humanitarian appeal.

There was also a new approach to our affairs in so far that it was alleged that our racial policy was sui generis, and that therefore under the circumstances action could be taken in regard to South Africa’s domestic affairs. That is, of course, also mere rationalization and proves how the double standard is applied.

A further development was the acceptance of a so-called United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. In this regard I want to read Section 5—

Our policy was therefore mentioned specifically, of course, in quite the wrong context, and our proposed separation of races in South Africa is stigmatized as an evil. This declaration completely ignores the right of self-determination of nations. Our South African delegation of course declared that South Africa would not be a party to this declaration and hon. members may not believe it but we were the only delegation which adopted that standpoint.

In regard to South West Africa, there were various attempts to attack South Africa. Our administration was, for example, dragged into the anti-colonial campaign. Conditions in South West Africa were completely distorted and a distorted picture was given there on the basis of evidence which no court in the world would accept. As we all know, it was repeatedly alleged that conditions in South West Africa were such that they threatened world peace, in spite of the denial of that statement by the Carpio Mission and its denial at UN by leading Western delegates. As the result of the sub judice rule, it was very difficult for the South African delegation to reply to all these accusations. In fact, that also applies in respect of other attacks. Here also the South African delegation was hampered as the result of our traditional and correct attitude in connection with domestic jurisdiction.

In spite of what I have said so far, and that was in reply to the question of the hon. member for Constantia, there were in fact fruitful consultations between the South African delegation and other leading delegations. As you know, we included in our delegation four ambassadors and two ex-ambassadors, one of whom is the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who also has the rank of ambassador. I believe that as the result of these consultations between our delegation and other leading delegations, a degree of doubt arose in the minds of many of them in regard to the far-fetched and distorted allegations made at UN in regard to our affairs. The question arose in the minds of some of them whether separate development did not comply with the principle of the right of self-determination of all nations. The question was posed as to whether we should not be given an opportunity to apply our policy and to implement it to the full. Some of these leading delegations often assisted our delegation in various ways. In fact, therefore, South Africa is not so isolated as the result of the voting indicates.

There are people who believe that UN will come to an end as the result of its present composition and as the result of the uncontrolled actions of some of the member states. But I think it would be unrealistic and unwise simply to accept this. The influential and well-informed New York Times, for example, recently referred to UN as “very much alive and kicking, a growing youth whose clothes are bursting at the seams”. One wonders whether this organization will ever reach maturity. But I think that we should bear in mind that there is a strong possibility that UN will in fact continue to exist and to constitute an important aspect of international intercourse, in spite of the large number of new members without the same degree of experience and maturity in international intercourse as the founder members of UN. South Africa’s position in UN is decidedly difficult, but so also is the position of other member states and, as I have already said, there is concern in many circles in regard to UN itself.

In so far as our future relations with UN are concerned, the hon. the Prime Minister has already dealt with that matter at length, and I do not think it is necessary for me to expatiate on it at this stage. What I can say is that, as matters appear now, I shall go to UN at the end of the year.

The hon. member for Constantia referred to visits overseas by me. There is a possibility that such visits will be paid, but the details have not been worked out yet.

I regret that I spoke at such length. I do not usually speak at such length and it will not happen again soon! But in view of the fact that this is the first opportunity I have and, I wanted to give hon. members my views in regard to South Africa’s international position at present.

I wish to conclude by saying that I believe that there need not be the least doubt about our future. There is no justification for fear in regard to our fate, provided we stand shoulder to shoulder and show the world a united front, and provided we protect our heritage against all attacks.

I should like to say that I regret very much that the hon. the Minister has not taken an occasion earlier in the Session to give us the report he has just given on the last session of UN. It is quite clear that the opportunity was there and it may have led to a fruitful debate. For the rest, I think I express the feelings of this side of the House when I say that we are rather disappointed with the speech of the hon. the Minister this morning. It is a rehash. We have heard it before. It is a documentation of statements made by the Minister’s predecessor. There was no new thinking and no new approach or new ideas, and we had a lot of contradictions, and I will give the Minister one. He says we must not measure our isolation by the votes against us in the world body of the United Nations and that we have practically been kicked, out of every world body; that must not be the measure of our isolation, but it should be assessed on individual contacts we have on other planes in the international field. I do not know how the Minister can advance such an argument. Then he says we are not so isolated at UN because he has talks and friendly associations with other delegations. But the fact of the matter is that when delegations speak for their Governments they do so in the open forum, and while I accept that the Minister has contact with such individual delegations, they reject our racial policies when they speak and vote in UN. I want to say also that we on these benches take the strongest exception to the allegation the Minister made to-day that we on these benches recognize the right of another country to indicate to us the policies we must follow in the best interest of South Africa. I do not know with what justification the Minister can make such a statement. There is not a shred of evidence for it, and it is a disgraceful statement in regard to the loyalty and patriotism of this side of the House.

But you are always saying that we must change our policies because other countries want us to do so.

It ill becomes the Minister to adopt that attitude in this debate. I must say on behalf of this side of the House that if the Minister continues along that line he is but following in the regrettable footsteps of his predecessor in playing politics with regard to South Africa’s fundamental issues in foreign policy.

Another contradiction is this. The Minister started off by saying that the world is now beginning to recognize the work of the Bantu-stan policy as such, and that in his contacts he sees various signs of it, and that there is definitely an improvement. But the Minister ended his speech, in dealing with the last session of UN, by saying that there were increasing bitter feelings and attacks on the racial policies of South Africa. What are we to believe now? Is it improving, or is it getting worse? The plain fact is that no matter how nicely the Minister may try to talk in this House, the world as such rejects our racial policies, and nothing the Minister can say can alter it.

Is that the only string you have to your bow? You have been harping on that for years.

Yes, but we have been warning the Government for years of the results of its racial policy, and what disturbs me is that in spite of the attitude adopted by the Minister this morning, we have statements made by his colleagues and warnings issued by the Prime Minister that the crisis is still to come. The Minister of Justice spoke at a Republic Day celebration and warned the people in the Northern Transvaal, and the Minister of Defence said that the crisis was still to come. The Minister of Justice said we must expect it towards the end of 1965 or 1966. If the position is improving, what is the crisis we will have to face? Then surely the crisis should be disappearing and not increasing, but we have been continually warned by other Ministers of the crisis that is coming. If a crisis is coming, it can only come through the failure of our foreign policy and South Africa’s increasing isolation. The crisis cannot be an internal crisis; it can only be a crisis in our external relations with the other countries of the world.

What I had hoped for this morning, and what I believe many South Africans had hoped for, was that the Minister would present another picture and reveal some positive thinking and some indications of a positive approach as to how he intended improving our relations with other countries to get a better understanding. But the Minister has uttered not one word in that regard in this whole long speech as to how he sees that he can improve our relations with other countries. It has been a harping speech and an excusing speech. I even thought that in the report the Minister would make about UN he would at least refer to the change of attitude and policy adopted by the South African delegation at the last session. There was a refreshing change in their approach. It was no longer the old attempt of the Minister’s predecessor to justify apartheid as such. The leader of the delegation, Mr. Jooste, speaking in the General Assembly, said that we as a country in Africa are prepared to contribute towards the development of Africa through our association with other African states. In taking this line, he said that the African states should recognize that Africa is not the exclusive property of only one race, and that they should recognize that we are a White nation which has its roots deeply embedded in Africa. There is evidence to indicate, as the Minister mentioned, that certain of the more moderate African leaders are recognizing this fact, that the White Africans of South Africa are not just settlers, as the Whites of Kenya may possibly have been described. This approach taken by our delegation at UN was a refreshing departure from the old arguments used by the Minister’s predecessor, merely trying to justify apartheid.

Nonsense. Mr. Louw said that over and over again. It is not a new approach.

You want to read the reports of UN. There was a completely new approach. [Time limit.]

First of all it is my pleasant duty, as first speaker on this side of the House after the hon. the Minister, to cordially congratulate him on the comprehensive, calm and sober statement made by him here this morning. We also would like to congratulate him on his appointment as Minnster of Foreign Affairs, knowing that in his capacity as our ambassador he gained thorough experience of these matters in London, and knowing that he as a conscientious citizen of this State will always acquit himself of his task to the best of his ability in this important office, and we wish to tell him that we on this side will always give him our full support. I believe, and I have already listened to many speeches during the debates on foreign affairs, that this thorough statement of this morning, in the calm and dispassionate but firm tone in which the Minister made it, was one of the best statements on foreign affairs that we have ever heard here.

For someone it certainly is a “Blue Monday” —not for me, nor for us on this side—but it was a bitter disappointment to me this morning when I had to listen to the introductory speech of the Opposition from the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson). Before the House met this morning, I read a review of the report in connection with the visit of Chou En-lai to Africa, where rivalry has arisen between the so-called ideological Communism and militant Communism, and I became profoundly conscious of the numerous dangers threatening our small fatherland at the southern tip of Africa on various fronts. I said to myself that there, in the circumstances facing us, for which this Government as such is not responsible, it surely would be the ideal opportunity to come forward and show, in dealing with this extremely important Vote, as is done in other countries of the Western world, how united we are against the outside world. How great was my disappointment when this morning I had to listen to the attack of the hon. member for Constantia, which in my view firstly amounts to this, that he has no knowledge at all of the dangerous world we are living in at present, that he is not aware of the dangers threatening us; and secondly, that he blames the Government for everything. What a grossly superficial view! That is why it was a moment of deep disappointment to me when, instead of our coming here and creating a common platform to show the outside world that we present a united front on the great cardinal points, we had a petty political gesture which was aimed solely at trying to ensure political gain. Let me dwell upon a few of these points. I believe it was correct of the hon. the Minister to have disregarded those petty points when he replied to the hon. member for Constantia. In the first place, the hon. member expressed the view that the hon. the Minister “must be kept isolated because he can become infected by new ideas”. That is how I understood it, and if I misunderstood the hon. member I shall apologize to him in advance. How childish it is to say such a thing! I shall give him an opportunity to explain, but that is what I understood.

I said that in consequence of the Prime Minister’s statement, it follows that he must be isolated.

Even that is naïve. It is naive to say that in consequence of the Prime Minister’s statement, the hon. the Minister is kept in isolation because he may be affected by foreign views—we, who have always done everything in our power to maintain contact with the Western world, even when we had to crawl for it. Does he still hold the view, after listening to the full and comprehensive statement of the Minister this morning, that he made any suggestion “that he will become infected by new ideas”.

Secondly, there was this charge against the extremely important Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic: “Is the Foreign Office doing anything at all? The impression is that this Department is not doing everything it should do.” Far be it from me to try to draw any comparison between the activities of the various Departments, but let me give the assurance that as the pressure on us has mounted, and will mount still more in future, there is one Department whose functions have expanded tremendously, and that is the Department of Foreign Affairs. How can the hon. member say that this Department is not doing its duty? Digesting the reports continually pouring in from overseas, exercising control over the various embassies, as well as digesting the reports of UN and checking on events in Africa to enable the Government to formulate its policy from day to day and to keep it up to date with the fluid international situation, results in the greatest responsibilities resting on that Department. How can the hon. member utter such nonsense? I for my part wish most cordially to thank that Department, which is under the guidance of its extremely competent Secretary, Mr. Jooste, and to congratulate them on the terrific amount of work they are doing in such a brilliant manner.

Then the hon. member for Constantia proceeds and warns us, with almost a vestige of pleasure in his voice, that the future session of UN will spell much greater danger for us. Of course we know that. We are fully aware of that. We have never regarded lightly the discussions in UN. Even when the greatest nonsense was spoken there, we as a good membercountry regarded it seriously. Why should the pressure be greater? Because UN, dominated by the Afro-Asian bloc, aims at only one policy, and that is one man, one vote, for South Africa. What did the Leader of the Opposition say at Krugersdorp at the week-end? “One man, one vote—over my dead body.”

Who said that?

I am surprised that that hon. member does not even know what his own leader says. We are glad the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that. [Interjections.] I became angry because the hon. member for Constantia did not say this morning that they also stand by that. The reason for the greater pressure emanating from UNO will be attributable to the attempt to force this policy of one man, one vote upon us. [Time limit.]

I do not know why the hon. member for Mayfair (Dr. Luttig) is getting so heated over the fact that we are adopting a solid South African approach in these matters. I thought he would welcome the statements made by our Leader, but I hope the hon. member will forgive me if I continue where I left off a moment ago.

I had made the point that there was a refreshing new approach made by our delegation at UN, that we were prepared to cooperate with the African states, based on their acceptance of the fact that we were also part of the African continent and had a right to be here. As the Minister also said this morning, there is evidence that the more moderate African leaders are beginning to recognize this fact. But there is also the other factor which cannot be lost sight of, and that is that our being kicked out of the existing organizations which exist for co-operation in Africa is primarily based on our race policy. I will say this, too, that it would appear that the organizations which did exist for co-operation, such as the C.C.T.A., were perhaps doomed to failure from the beginning because they were really started by the old colonial powers, and as such may be considered by the African states as a remnant of colonialism. It is being contended by the Prime Minister that the failure of the Government’s foreign policy is only the result of world politics in the struggle for Africa between the East and the West, and the Minister supported that viewpoint this morning. But I want to submit that for us as a country in Africa to re-establish contact with the more developed and enlightened states in Africa and to obtain their confidence would do more for our prestige among the Western nations than mere statements like those we have had from the Government from time to time that we are an ally of the West in the event of a possible East-West struggle and our protestations of continuing friendship. We should gain the confidence of the more moderate African leaders.

Who are they?

The hon. member should study the position. If he took an intelligent interest in these matters, he would know of the statements made by African leaders which show that they are beginning to recognize the truth of the line taken by our delegation, that we are not settlers but have a right to be here. The Minister made the statement this morning that the exploitation by the communists of Nationalism has been the biggest danger, but has the Nationalist Party been exploited by Communism? Has it come into power through communist ideology? Surely there will be an appreciation on the part of other nationalists in Africa of our Nationalism. Surely, if the Minister takes a long-term view, we can stretch out our hands to them across our borders and offer friendship to Black Africa where it is still acceptable. It must be obvious to any observer of the African scene that there are Black African statesmen with moderate views who have become as concerned about events such as those in Zanzibar as we are ourselves, and who are as anti-communist as we are. We have that in common and we should make positive gestures instead of just mouthing statements of friendship. Therefore I consider that the time has now come for the Minister to take a positive line. We cannot for ever as a country sit in isolation he e at the bottom of the African continent. The independence of the African states, just like that of the Transkei, is an historical fact. They are there. It is now history and they will remain there and they will develop, and we must recognize this. The time for pious protestations of friendship is past. The African states need assistance of a practical nature. Both the communists and the West have seen this, and the communists have asked themselves how they can exploit this need for assistance. With the economic revolution of the African states, which they have had just as we have, they are in need of every kind of technical assistance, and also financial assistance. With our knowhow of African conditions, there is no better country in the world to render assistance to them than South Africa, apart from the fact that Africa is the natural field for investment for South Africa. Our major problem at the moment is how to follow a policy of good neighbourliness in the present circumstances. Firstly, I think the problem is that we lack contacts. What contacts does the Minister in fact have with any political leader in Africa? For the past ten years we have heard nothing from the Minister’s predecessor but the points of disagreement between ourselves and the African states. [Interjections.] We have not looked for points of agreement, points on which we can find common ground with the other African states. There is only one way of making contact. I think the time has arrived for the Government to ask these moderate leaders in Africa to visit South Africa and see for themselves what we are doing and what can be done in Africa. The second stage would be visits by the Minister and other representatives of the Government to those states. The third stage will then follow as a matter of course, and that is that we will inevitably be exchanging delegations of one sort or another with these countries. Sir, it is idiotic, it is ridiculous, as hon. members opposite do, to go onto public platforms and to play up the Afro-Asians against the Whites, to play up Black Nationalism against White Nationalism. Sir, it suits their politcal book but it does untold damage to South Africa and South Africa’s future. The hon. member for Mayfair (Dr. Luttig) talks about talking with one voice in matters concerning foreign policy. Why not let us talk with one voice in this House as White Africans to the Black Africans of the African states; why not say to them with one voice, “We as White Africans have a right to stay here and we only ask one thing of you and that is to recognize that right, and if you are prepared to recognize our right then we are prepared to talk to you.” [Time limit.]

I should like to add my congratulations to the hon. the Minister to those of the hon. member for Mayfair (Dr. Luttig) on his appointment as Minister of Foreign Affairs, and I also wish to congratulate him on the masterly speech he made here this morning. I can hardly imagine a more disastrous thing, in a delicate debate such as this, than that the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) should participate in it.

What about you?

I wish to emphasize that a debate on foreign affairs in this House should be elevated above our party-political differences. At this juncture in the life of South Africa, in the light of the hostility to South Africa prevailing overseas, we on both sides of this House ought to close our ranks and present a united front to the outside world.

I listened attentively to the debate thus far, and came to the conclusion that there can be nothing more sterile and fruitless for our people and our fatherland than for us to make recriminations against one another. What is the use of the Opposition blaming the Government in this debate and saying that the foreign hostility to South Africa is due to the Government’s policy of separate development? Similarly, what will it avail us on the Government side to accuse the Opposition that our bad name overseas is due to the suspicion sown by and the distorted presentation of the policy of separate development given by the Opposition and its Press? In my view this does not take us any further at all, and I think it is necessary that we on the Government side as well as those on the Opposition side should be realistic and face the position as it really is, namely that in the outside world South Africa—I am choosing my words very carefully—as far as the communists are concerned, is the most hated country, and as regards the Afro-Asians, is the most misunderstood country, while the Western nations, for their own considerations, are virtually powerless bystanders because they themselves do not deem it advisable to take our side for fear that the recently liberated Afro-Asian countries will be driven into the arms of the communists. It is unrealistic to argue about whose fault it is that South Africa finds itself in this position, but I think it will be realistic if we were to make joint efforts to meet that position. Surely it is not realistic to do what the Opposition is doing, namely, to emphasize at almost every meeting they hold, in season and out of season, that it is the Government’s policy of separate development which is unacceptable to the outside world but that their party has a policy which is acceptable to the outside world, in other words, that the outside world must now dictate to us how we should solve our problems. The hon. the Minister has indicated already that this attitude is really undermining South Africa’s position overseas.

But let us briefly analyse the hostility towards South Africa. It is clear why the communist states are hostile, and why they wish to destroy and liquidate South Africa; because South Africa has not only unequivocally, firmly and with determination resolved to destroy communism in South Africa root and branch, but also because South Africa with its strategic position on the southern tip of the continent of Africa is and will always be openly and firmly pro-Western and as the most powerful state in Africa militarily, and the most developed country in Africa industrially, is thwarting communist domination of Africa.

During the week-end the Leader of the Opposition emphasized his disapproval of communism at Krugersdorp, and there need be no disagreement between us on that score. Our resistance to communism is therefore shared on both sides of this House.

As regards the Afro-Asian antipathy, it is a fact that those nations regard the Whites in South Africa as colonialists in the first place, and hold the view that the Whites here, like all colonialists, should be liquidated to liberate the non-Whites from colonial domination. Secondly, the antipathy of the Afro-Asian newly emerged States is due to the view that the Whites in South Africa are pursuing a policy of suppression and discrimination against all non-Whites, not only within South Africa, but also outside South Africa. So the antipathy of the newly liberated Afro-Asian States is based on these two misunderstandings and there rests upon us the mighty task of removing these misunderstandings as far as we are able to. Firstly, we are no colonialists, but a nation which has itself for three centuries suffered and fought for our freedom from foreign domination. We have the distinction that we, although we are a White nation, are the first nation on the continent of Africa which has, during the twentieth century, liberated ourselves from colonial domination. Although we are a White nation, we are really the predecessors and musket-bearers of those who have struggled to free themselves from foreign colonial domination. For that we have waged two armed wars and several armed rebellions. Although we are a White nation, we were the first anti-colonialists on the continent of Africa, and as such we have in our own right a right of existence and right to continued existence on the continent of Africa. In this respect therefore we are on an equal footing with the liberated states of Africa and Asia and whosoever else in the world. Secondly, the newly liberated states and nations of Africa and Asia are under the impression that South Africa begrudges them their liberation, and therefore also begrudge its own non-Whites emancipation, and for that reason is pursuing a policy of discrimination and oppression against them. We therefore have a second mighty task, namely, to convince those nations that nothing is further from the truth but that we, on the contrary, wish to promote that emancipation but on the basis that emancipation should be durable and permanent. If the liberation occurs over-hastily, without proper preparation and training end without planning, that liberation could be only the prelude to being taken over by the hated communism, as in Ghana, Algeria, Zanzibar and many other States where communism is now getting the upperhand. That kind of liberation simply means a new master in the place of the old colonial tyrant.

We can only convince the Afro-Asians in a two-fold manner that we also desire the liberation of the nations of Asia and Africa, but on a sound, firm and durable basis.

First, by developing our policy of separate development more assiduously than ever within the borders of South Africa as we are doing it in the Transkei already, and not by casting suspicion upon that development for purposes of puerile political party gain and by disparaging it and sneeringly referring to it as the Leader of the Opposition did over the week-end, when he labelled that policy as the creation of eight small Cubas in South Africa. Why does he think that our Bantu in their own Bantu areas will necessarily become communistically disposed? It is our policy to train and prepare them thoroughly, and to plan for living in good neighbourliness with us. Why should he doubt the good faith, the common sense and the friendship of our Bantu? I think his utterances were scandalous to say the least of it.

By our policy we are fostering good neighbourliness and good co-operation, where communism will indeed not have much viability. By leading our Bantu nations within our borders to orderly liberation, we shall and must convince the Afro-Asian states of the genuineness and the fruitfulness and the justice of our policy.

But we can also convince them by showing them that we do not wish to incorporate the Protectorates, but show the greatest goodwill to their liberation, especially because that liberation is, as the hon. the Prime Minister said in the Other Place the other day, in accordance with our policy. [Time limit.]

I should like to ask hon. members please to observe Standing Order 114.

A few years ago, when the hon. the Minister was appointed as South Africa’s Ambassador in London, he enjoyed the goodwill of both sides of the House and of all sections of the White Press. An Ambassador of course is not his own master; he is not a member of the Government and therefore he is not jointly responsible for internal policy. He is more particularly a bearer of a message from the Government, and does not readily come under personal fire. Now of course the position of the hon. the Minister is different. In certain respects he is still an ambassador, but he is also a member of the Government now; in other words, he is a member of the body which lays down the policy and creates the political image of South Africa. I should like to say I am sorry that the hon. the Minister this morning, in his first appearance here, had to give us a lecture on things most of us know. There was not a single word on policy, on a fresh approach to matters, or on a plan for the future. But what I particularly regret is that the Minister in his presentation made himself guilty of a measure of cheap politicking against the Opposition. At a later stage, I shall try to deal with a few of the statements he made but for the present I should like to confine myself to a couple of things which I regard as being of a positive nature.

While we are in the position now that a new Minister of Foreign Affairs has been appointed, I should like to say something in regard to the position of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. What I say does not concern the person of the hon. the Minister. Sir, I have always held the view that we keep our Ministers of Foreign Affairs in harness much too long; I mean too long, not for his own good, but for the good of South Africa. We are one of the few countries in the Western group which do so, and the result has been and always is that we show too little manoeuvrability on the diplomatic front for the times we are living in, and for the problems we are faced with. It is an indisputable fact in world politics that a Government sometimes finds itself in the position that it has to take an unpopular step through the agency of its Minister of Foreign Affairs; or that it has to make an enemy of people whom it would like to have as its friends later on again; or that it has to wipe out a mistake; or that it has to embark upon a new course of action. There are other similar considerations which would take too long to deal with here, but the point is that it is mostly not desirable to send the same man and the same team overseas year after year, e.g. to represent the country at UN. In the case of the previous Minister of Foreign Affairs we had the position that he became involved in so many emotional fights that his mere presence later on engendered an anti-attitude, and in effect he himself admitted that. Such a thing does a country no good, and therefore we find that older countries like Britain with centuries of diplomatic experience behind them, generally have developed a tradition not to retain their Minister of Colonies and their Minister of Foreign Affairs for such a long time as has been the practice in our case. The fact that they are replaced from time to time has nothing to do with their merits as Ministers of Foreign Affairs and that is why I have said here that the point I wish to make has nothing to do with the person or the merits of the hon. the Minister. Of course there cannot be a fixed rule on such matters, but as there has now been a change in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I think it ought to be brought home to the public at an early date that, the merits of a person aside, it may be a matter of general approach in the interests of the country that the Minister of Foreign Affairs should not be retained in that office for too long a time. Of course we realize it is a matter which does not rest wholly with the Minister in question; that it is a matter for the Prime Minister mainly; but there is a sphere nevertheless wherein the hon. the Minister himself could exert his influence himself. He can see to it that the same team under the same leadership is not sent to international proceedings such as meetings of UN year after year. If I may make a practical suggestion, I should like to recommend to the hon. the Minister that he should timeously build up a corps of talent around him which could then in turn represent South Africa at the spearpoint of the diplomatic front. I do not mean only politicians and career diplomats. South African life is full at the present time of men of world format who could be entrusted with special tasks of an international nature, such as tasks on South West Africa, tasks in connection with Africa, tasks in connection with our membership of organizations. There is a wealth of people outside the party-political field to whom specific tasks in the international field could be assigned. Frequently there are people who are not active participants in politics, but who are much better situated to undertake a specific task than the permanent officers of the Government. Recently we had a case here in South Africa of a prominent American businessman, Mr. Clarence B. Randall, who came here to perform a task which officials and Government politicians from his country just were not in a position to perform with the same degree of freedom as he was able to do. My advice to the hon. the Minister is that if he wishes to acquire the reputation of a good Minister of Foreign Affairs, he must try to get out of the grooves, one way or another, in which his predecessor allowed our external politics to fall during the past years. So I am pleading in the first place for a new tradition as regards the office of Minister of Foreign Affairs, and for a new mobility of personnel in the presentation of affairs and the handling of problems on the foreign front.

In the second place I should like to ask that the hon. the Minister should use his influence to bring about a little more maturity in the general handling of affairs of a foreigh nature. It has been proved time and again that relatively minor things paralyse the hands of our representatives overseas—the injudicious refusal of a passport to a South African, or the indiscreet refusal of a visa to a visitor—these kinds of things have in recent years sown destruction in our relations with foreign countries. Under the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister, e.g. I raised the question of another triviality which is doing great harm to our foreign relations, and that is the question of the national days of countries such as Britain and America, in respect of which the Government is really behaving like a naughty child. From whatever angle one views the matter, the attitude adopted by the Government at present is untenable. There will have to be contact on a high level between the leaders of our population groups, do what you may. It is already being done publicly by the Afrikaans churches; it is even being done in private by leaders of the Government. There are Ministers in the Cabinet who have had non-Whites at the dinner table in their homes. I do hope that one after another will not jump to his feet and make a statement, because I am really flattering them, not condemning them. Our overseas representatives at the present time are entertaining South African non-Whites overseas on what is actually South African territory there. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister pointedly—and I hope he will not evade my question—what his attitude is, or is going to be, in respect of the national days of countries such as Britain and America. In effect we are concerned here with a political occasion, an international political occasion, which takes place on what actually is the territory of the countries in question, but even if it were a social occasion on our own territory, then it is high time in any event that friendly contact on the highest level should be developed between the leaders of our various population groups. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will give us a reply to this question, a reply which will indicate that there will be an end to the annual childishness which at the moment passes for high Government policy. Here is one instance, for example, where he will have the unanimous support of the Opposition, and I am sure that there will not be scoffing by the Press in general if he were to decide to show greater maturity in respect of this matter than has been the case thus far. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. P. du P. Basson) has blamed the Government for sending the same team of representatives to the UN every year. He also took it amiss of us that one Minister represented us as Minister of Foreign Affairs for so long. I should like to tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout at once that he is completely mistaken. If there is one reason why other countries of the world have never succeeded in retaining certain persons as Minister of Foreign Affairs for a long period, then it simply is that no Government overseas has ever been in power for such a long time as this Government.

What about Canada?

Let the hon. member mention to me any Government in the world which has been in power for 16 years and which is still growing from strength to strength like the present Government.

Or a member who has belonged to so many parties as he has.

I think if there is one aspect of your State Government which really requires experience, then it is Foreign Affairs. Because in Foreign Affairs one is dealing with States which have to cope with other problems each year, and a person who has represented us there for such a long period is with his experience better able to handle those problems. The hon. member apparently tried to refer sneeringly to our previous Minister of Foreign Affairs. I should like to tell the hon. member that if there is one person who is no longer in the Government’s service, and who really performed a great task for South Africa, then it is the hon. Dr. Eric Louw. Over a very long period he set a very high standard for and an example to our diplomatic service and all Ministers of Foreign Affairs that may succeed him in future.

Just think of his splendid performance at the Leage of Nations at the Permanent Mandate Commission and at UN. If there is one former Minister of Foreign Affairs who deserves a monument in South Africa, then it is Dr. Louw.

But I really wish to discuss another aspect of foreign affairs. When one listens to the Opposition, one would imagine that the position of South Africa in respect of the outside world, has deteriorated from year to year. A person not really familiar with the true state of affairs, might be inclined to gain that impression. What is the actual position though? It is not South Africa’s position which has been deteriorating from year to year at UN or in respect of foreign countries; general world politics are deteriorating. We no longer at the present time find the high foreign standards we had 20, 30 and 50 years ago. Why do we have this deplorable position? In the first place in consequence of the new countries that have entered world politics. Who are they? We have in the first place a series of communist countries, like Russia and other countries, who relegate world diplomacy to the background for the sake of personal interest. But who in particular do we have in modern world diplomacy at the present time? We have the large number of Afro-Asian States who are actually still immature, wholly immature. Whereas in 1946 we had as many as four of them at UN, we have 58 to-day; people who have been moving in world diplomatic circles for only a few years as yet; who are not ripe in this respect, and who are not aware of the manner in which diplomacy should be conducted. One sees this immaturity, this unripeness, daily around one at UN and in other fields of world politics.

At UN the Afro-Asian States are beginning to play such an important role that they virtually dominate world politics. Permit me to read you some quotations to show how Western countries admit that the standard and the status of UN is detriorating from day to day. In the first place I want to quote Paul Henry Spaak, one of the most prominent persons in the time of the League of Nations. He was referring to the false hope attached to UN and he said this—

I want to quote another person, also a representative of a Western country, Mr. Robert Menzies, who said what follows, after dealing with the shortcomings of UN—

But there are many others. I quote a person like Mr. MacMillan, who said—that peace, and uneasy peace is being preserved at the present time between the two great blocs with appalling and horrible power, the balance of Nuclear power. A two-thirds majority may be obtained in the General Assembly with members who contribute only 5½ per cent of the Budget of UN. Only one out of five nations contribute to the great Congo effort.

A man such as the present British Prime Minister, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, said this—

A man like Herber Hoover, former President of America, said—

A man like the Portuguese Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Alberto Nogueira, said—

Mr. Adlai Stevenson, the American representative at the United Nations, said this—

Then he proceeds to flail them. I could quote many more. Let me quote, e.g., what Israel says. It will probably make a greater impression on the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel). I quote from the Jewish Herald—

In this world where States have virtually lost their sense of values, the Western countires are playing a colossal role. As a result of the deterioration of world diplomacy, the role of the Western countries has become increasingly greater. Just think of UN. It is a fact that the General Assembly of UN at the present time consists of 113 countries of which the majority are immature Afro-Asian countries. In addition you may add to that a lot who are communistic, so that the Western world is at a great disadvantage in respect of the Eastern countries. However, it is fortunate that the General Assembly has no important say in matters affecting Chapter VII of the Charter. Under Section 10 to 14 the General Assembly may consider, and discuss a matter and make a recommendation to the Security Council. The body that actually has the authority at UN is the Security Council. [Time limit.]

I do not intend to deal with what was in effect a diatribe by the hon. member who has just sat down against politicians of other countries and against the spokesmen of other countries on international affairs or at discussions at UNO. Nor am I going to enter into a debate on themerits or demerits of UNO.

I was asked the other day what the foreign policy of the Government added up to at present. I must say that I found the hon. the Minister’s address most disappointing this morning for the reasons which have already been advanced from this side namely that it certainly contains no new outlook or any new approach.

You remain a stupid public servant.

Sir, the noises that ooze from the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker), from whichever direction they come, are equally obnoxious. Having listened to the hon. the Minister I must say quite frankly that the Government’s foreign policy does not seem to add up any more; it is no longer that sort of exercise. It is now much more an exercise in subtraction.

I come back therefore to the point which the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) stressed when he said that the utterances of the Minister’s leader both in this House and outside must have led many people to conclude—just as they have led me to conclude—that the Government’s foreign policy to-day consisted of the Prime Minister shaking his head and sometimes shaking his finger at a sick Western world. If that is so, then I envy the hon. the Minister for having slipped into such a sinecure. But I do not believe the position the hon. the Minister occupies is such a sinecure. I think therefore he should be quite clear and emphatic as to whether or not he agrees with this diagnoses about the state of ill-health in international relations. In that regard I should like to draw his attention to a recent Press comment which I believe describes the position quite graphically and may be a little more correctly—

If that is an incorrect reading of the chart of international ills at the present moment I hope the Minister will tell us what the correct reading really is. Because, as I see it, these words are descriptive of the very grave position in which this country now finds itself under the regime of this Government.

The hon. the Minister has quoted the Daily Telegraph; he also quoted Mr. John Hatch. But the Minister must be aware that other oversea observers, who believe they can see the dangers of the position better than we can here, have warned that the Government’s racial ideologies are heading for what is really a trial of strength at UNO on the issue of race discrimination. That is a consequence which is serious in the extreme and certainly very unpleasant to contemplate. We cannot ignore it merely because it is unpleasant and because none of us want it to happen. I think the hon. the Minister should deal with it. Nothing he said to-day is going to help to dispel the situation in which this invitation of trial of strength on this issue will be made at UNO. What he said to-day was a reiteration of what has been said before namely that there would be no concessions on the Government racial policy. But how I ask does the Government intend to ensure that this issue shall not become a trial of strength at UNO? Because it if does, then as these people have warned us, it will have disastrous consequences.

Be that as it may, Sir, one truth cannot be ignored and it is this: For a long time now there have been signals of distress coming to South Africa from friends and well-wishers abroad. Those signals have come from countries which are well situated to read the signs. They are countries who have been trying desperately, in my opinion, both at UNO and at other international conventions, to delay the danger of collision and to put off the day of enforcement of economic sanctions against South Africa. Let me quote one such signal of distress. It is certainly the most disturbing of its kind. It was made by Sir Alec Home, the Prime Minister of Great Britain. He is reported to have said the following—

Sir, I cannot accept that signals of distress of that kind are being actuated solely by selfinterest on the part of the countries concerned as has been suggested more than once in this House. They are warnings and they are directed at the Government to urge it to remedy its policy in two directions. Firstly, to relieve racial tension and make co-existence as practical as it was before this Government came into power. (Laughter.) The hon. member laughs. He might be laughing on a different side of his face ere long unless this Government does give heed to warnings like that. The second plea is that the endeavour should be to restore world confidence in South Africa’s ability to resolve its racial problems by democratic process and with the maintenance of the rule of law, instead of by coercion and with Whites constantly under arms.

The hon. the Minister has told us that in the lobbies of UNO he has managed to find friendship from delegates from countries that are critical towards South Africa. But he certainly has not told us that he has convinced anybody in such discussions that criticisms should be withdrawn and no longer be made. Those are the important aspects of the matter. Those are the matters which are going to put off this disastrous trial of strength at UNO on the issue of racial discrimination. I know the statements I have quoted may be embarrassing but that is not the main consideration at all. The main consideration is that there should be an answer to those statements. In present circumstances, of course, it devolves upon this hon. Minister to answer them and I hope he will do so.

I should just like to tell the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) that if he thinks the quarrel about the colour policy of South Africa only arose after the National Party came into power, then he is a modern Rip van Winkel. The only difference is that Rip van Winkel did at least wake up one day while the hon. member is still fast asleep. Here I have the resolution adopted on the motion of India at UN on 20 November 1946—long before the National Party came into power— and then General Smuts himself was there in person. Here they refer to—

However, I wish to complete the point I started with. When I started to speak just now, I referred to the fact that the responsibility of the Western countries have become increasingly greater at UN in view of the decline in the standard of world diplomacy which made its appearance during the last 15-20 years. I said that the Western countries have no means in the General Assembly of rectifying this kind of immature diplomacy, but that in any event they can do so in the Security Council. The Security Council consist of 11 countries of whom five are permanent members and among them we have Britain, France and America, countries which are the leading Western powers at the present time. I say it is pre-eminently this body in which the Western countries must wield their influence at the present time. It is pre-eminently in that body where the Western countries must try to remove that deficiency in the standard of world diplomacy because they have the right of veto there. The Western world must see to it, as the Russian bloc are doing to-day, that resolutions are not passed by the Security Council which may harm the continued existence of the Western ideology. They can do so in this body, because they have a veto right in the Security Council. In other words, if they do not specifically concur in an immature resolution, it simply cannot be adopted.

I should like to compare this position with our present position in Africa. In other words the task of the Western world in respect of South Africa with specific reference to Africa. At the present time there are about 50 countries in Africa, most of which have become independent during the last ten to 15 years only. If one reviews the position of Africa in modern world politics, one finds that both the communist countries and the Western countries rely on the balance of Africa in their attempts to trump and to overtrump the other side. In other words, Africa with its more than 200,000,000 inhabitants, with its more than 11,250,000 square miles of surface, will in the near future, perhaps in the next 50 years, become the predominant factor in world politics.

When the business of the Committee was suspended for the lunch hour, I was indicating that according as more immature states appeared on the scene, the responsibility of the Western world has in fact increased. I indicated that although the Western world cannot enforce its authority in the General Assembly of UN because of the restrictive contents of Sections 10 to 14, they can do so in the Security Council. I also indicated that the Western world, in respect of Africa, has a more responsible task than ever before. If one reviews the politics of Africa, one notes that the continent of Africa to-day virtually holds the balance between the Eastern and Western worlds, as a result of its undeveloped state and its tremendous natural resources. Of course it goes without saying that both the West and the communist countries are bidding for Africa. One can for that reason perhaps to some degree understand the attitude of America and other countries, who are trying daily to win the favours of the Black states.

It is true that in present world politics there is a race between the Western and the communist countries, a race which at the present time is being run virtually neck and neck. In this race to trump and to overtrump each other we see for instance that all kinds of research is being done; they are making rockets; they are trying to reach the moon; they are spending millions of dollars and roubles to gain some advantage. What is the position of South Africa in this tremendous race now? In Africa we have 50 states and the Western world does not know to-day, in respect of the Black states of Africa, where they will stand with those people to-night or to-morrow, because all the Black states are on the road to communism all in a row. In South Africa, however, they have a country which during the Korean War and every day still by way of legislation and actions and words, is proving that it is ranged on the side of the Western world, whatever may happen. There is no question of doubt. The important role South Africa plays on this continent is so great that one cannot help suspecting that the Western world cannot appreciate it.

It is true that as a result of the strategic position of South Africa in Africa, in respect of the South Pole area particularly which one regards as the continent which one cannot today use for any other purpose than for meteorological research or for military purposes, that it also has become so much more significant. So much so that the Suez Canal and other important strategic points on the world map have to-day lost their value completely. But, because of this particularly strategic point in Africa, South Africa has really become one of the focal points, not only in the military sphere but also politically. It is so important to the Western world, if they wish to win this race, to see to it that this particular strategic point in South Africa remains on the side of the Western world. It must remain with the Western world not only because a highly developed South Africa occupies that particular strategic point, but because we as a result of that actually hold the key to the whole of Africa.

As the most developed country on the continent of Africa, as the country which has shown that through thick and thin it stands on the side of the Western world, it is of so much value to the Western world that the Western world cannot afford to lose South Africa at the present time. If one analyses the conflict in the world political arena at the present time, one sees that the communist world, because they are afraid they will lose the race with the Western world, are to-day in all kinds of ways, however trivial, protecting their satellite countries and other strategic points and are occupying other strategic points. But we find that the Western world, countries like America, Britain, France, Australia and Canada and others are ostensibly —I am not saying this is so in fact—carrying on in a completely reckless way abusing and doing harm to South Africa, the country which occupies that important strategic point.

Now I say this, Mr. Chairman, that the time has arrived for the Western world to wake up in this important conflict. I say it is time that South Africa and other countries, which are aware of this particular political issue, should bring it to the attention of the Western nations seriously, that if they lose South Africa they lose the whole of Africa, and that if they lose Africa, they will lose the conflict against the communist world for the reasons I have just mentioned. That is why it is so important for South Africa to remain standing. It must remain standing because it is the one decisive factor which can establish and maintain the Western civilization in Africa. That is why I say that when we are consulting with the Western countries, we should emphasize this particular point time and again.

We must point out to them that when they support South Africa in important political councils of the world, it is not so much for the sake of South Africa, as in their own interests. They must not be so blind as to want to eliminate that only ally they have in Africa. The world in its modern politics really needs an overhaul; it needs a new approach especially in so far as it concerns the political understanding of the Western world.

I listened to the hon. member for Middelland (Mr. van der Merwe) with great attention. The hon. member suggested that the Western world must wake up and that we should emphasize more and more what an important factor South Africa was in East-West relations. I do not think one could disagree with the hon. member on that particular point but that is not going to assist South Africa very much at this stage where we are facing a hostile Africa and also to a large extent facing other countries outside the continent of Africa who are hostile towards us.

Our big task to-day is to try to influence as many people as possible to support us. The Government’s difficulty is that they cannot find outside support for their internal policies. Our strategic importance is something quite different.

I want to come back to an important point that has been raised in this debate and it is this that only the indifferent and the uninformed South African could remain aloof of the gradual deterioration of our position in international affairs. Hardly any international body of consequence remains where our country is even made remotely welcome. On an international level we all know that out country to-day is scorned at and if at all possible we are avoided. Sir, we are tolerated, but we are not liked. We give cause for more embarrassment than for applause and appreciation. Our friends are more attacked for their friendship towards us than what they are praised and commended for.

Mr. Chairman, every time that an international decision is taken on this country, whether it be our membership of some or other body or a motion calling for economic sanctions, or a resolution deprecating our racial policies, there is a welcome sigh of relief when nothing serious has happened. We are naturally grateful for a number of reluctant friends, who by their actions and foresight have saved some of our already scarred international face. That, Sir, is more or less the routine we follow from one international decision to the next one. We only come up for air from time to time. We sort of live dangerously between the international sheriff and our international creditors. Sir, I think this is a nerve-racking tight-rope performance where there is no appropriate net for emergencies. We are kept walking on this tight rope by the assistance of a very skimpy umbrella. This umbrella is made of our erstwhile reputation as a defender of the free world when we are in trouble. But it is becoming worn out and dilapidated. It cannot impress any more, apart from the fact that the present acrobat performing the act is not as skilful as the great artist we had some 18 or 20 years ago. Sir, one must then naturally raise the next question: For how long must this unsatisfactory and also worrying state of affairs, prevail? One is then entitled to ask: Are we still following the best method of how to win friends and influence people outside? And should we not have a new approach? I think that is the line that has come forward since we have started this debate. Naturally when one reaches a stage where critical examination of our methods becomes necessary, one must not be too obsessed with a guilt complex with regard to this country’s handling of our race questions over centuries. Often one must bear in mind that the critical remarks about us are inspired by other motives than by purely moral or political-sociological indignation. The hearts of our prosecutors are often more filled with racial prejudice and hostility, not comparable with any contemporary acts of prejudice committed by the White man on this continent. Neverthless, the tide of support for Afro-Asian hostility towards us has not receded yet.

We find to-day that amongst many of the Afro-Asian countries, that they are breaching from time to time the democratic processes and to-day they are as closely scrutinized as never before, and perhaps one can find some consolation in the fact that the piercing international spotlight is not so constantly focused on us. But the international schemers—the hon. Minister made mention of them this morning—with their intrigue and unscrupulous methods will not tolerate this for long. They will come back with greater vehemence and with aggressive manoeuvring. But how about us, Sir, retaliating with greater skill and wisdom than before? We seem to think that our orthodox manner of going to the United Nations with the same old arguments and the same people to put them forward as the best and only weapon open to us. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) spoke this morning of changing our attitude, of having another approach, of getting people to go to the United Nations who have succeeded in other walks of life, and who will bring about a change of attitude at UNO. Sir, I want to admit that our last team at the United Nations handled our case with dignity and with great restraint, though they had to face most unfair criticism and the greatest amount of provocation. Some of our very best diplomats were included in that team. But South Africa still remains the polecat, and therefore one is entitled to ask: Popularity at home is very necessary, but we should also have popularity abroad. That brings me to my suggestion. I believe that there are some non-Whites of outstanding ability who are itching to demonstrate their patriotism in some of the high councils of the world.

Why does the Government not do something of this nature. Apart from the good effects that a step like this would have locally, for example in fostering a common spirit of South Africanism, I believe that many a vociferous Afro-Asian will be taken aback by the arguments advanced by non-Whites of ability. If we do that, South Africa would be able to prove in a tangible manner that our nonEuropeans in this country are better cared for, that they have progressed more and are better equipped than most of those tub-thumping and illmannered representatives of some of the newly independent states who nowadays adorn the conference tables of the world. I have no doubt that there are many of the required type that we need in South Africa. On numerous occasions I have heard it expressed to me personally, the desire of some of these men to come to grips with those exponents of the most outrageous acts against South Africa, especially when one bears in mind, the speech made by Mr. Ben Bella, some time ago, that they must be prepared to die a little and to think a little later. I believe that a significant and politically wise step could change the image of South Africa overnight. I have no doubt that race relations in our country, if we should do something of this nature, would get a shot in the arm. It would give the non-White in this country a welcome sense of belonging to this nation, and I believe that they are eager to demonstrate their South Africanism and I think all of us have seen that, have seen the manifestations of that so often, and our history can fill volumes of the love that these people have always had for South African and the appreciation they have always had for the work done by the Whites of this country. I believe that a change in the image of South Africa is absolutely vital. To change that, a change of approach by this Government has not only become vital, but I think has also become unavoidable.

Order! I want to draw the attention of hon. members again to Standing Order No. 114.

Nothing could reflect the attitude of the official Opposition in regard to foreign affairs more than the speech of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher), namely the approach that one should really look outside in order to see how to gain popularity. He said, inter alia, that popularity is necessary in the country also, but we should particularly enjoy popularity overseas. I want to conclude with that, and I wish to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the speech he made this morning, which testifies to his thorough knowledge of the subject with which he has to deal all over the world, and I also want to congratulate him and his departmental head, Mr. Jooste, on the brilliant performance they gave last year at the meeting of UN, and on the manner in which the departmental head put South Africa’s case. Sir, the basic characteristics of a person who has to state a case for his country are patriotism and national pride, and those are the qualities that are evident from the speech of the hon. the Minister, as well as from the actions of his departmental head last year. This quality also forms the basis of the domestic and foreign policies of the National Party. Internally it amounts to the right of self-determination which we have demanded for ourselves over a long period of years, but also the right of self-determination and freedom for the non-White races in our country. Overseas it amounts to the same thing, plus the standpoint that we will tolerate no interference in our domestic affairs and the manner in which we regulate those affairs, and that we do not intend interfering in the affairs of other countries either. I make bold to say that we gain our strength from this approach and also the fact that we still stand firm in the midst of an inimical world opinion. Because I am of opinion that if a state does anything which contains the elements of aggression, even though it is the manner in which Israel, for example, is training people from the African states in sabotage, that is looking for trouble. If one approaches one’s country’s affairs in a spirit of national pride, one sets out from the standpoint of having to decide for oneself, and not in the first place from any consideration of what world opinion is at any given moment and how it can be satisfied, and then one does not use the argument of isolation as it is reflected in the artificially stimulated world opinion revealed in UN and its affiliated bodies. Have you ever considered that Red China, which to-day is one of the greatest powers in the world, is not even a member of UN, and it is not even concerned about it? One looks rather for proof of goodwill in the world, apart from the voting at UN. As the Minister said here this morning, the way in which one has trade relations and economic and scientific and cultural relations is important. Along that road a state gains recognition for itself. The hon. member for Middelland (Mr. van der Merwe) this morning pointed out the deterioration in world diplomacy. This deterioration is in my opinion closely linked with the admission of numerous states to membership of UN whose voting power is in inverse ratio to their educational and administrative standards and their numerical strength. In addition, we have the inability of the leading Western Powers to put a stop to this process. UN was established after the last war as a body to maintain world peace. Who to-day is still able to say that it succeeds in doing that? UN has in the meantime become an instrument of the cold war.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) this morning quoted from a speech by the Prime Minister of Britain, viz. that he fears an inimical racial division in the world more than anything else. Now I want to tell that hon. member that unfortunately that division in the world is unfortunately already a fact. It is a fact that in the first place the nation which is numerically strongest in the world, viz. Red China, deliberately concentrates on this point, and in the second place because Western diplomacy has missed the point that by granting recognition to nations and races one makes it difficult to have a worldwide inimical division on the racial basis.

Russian Communism preaches the idea of equality, the elimination of national borders and of racial differences, and they do so for the sake of a world-wide communist empire. The Western world, as represented by the large Western powers, has no reply to this, and it practically ignores racial differences. In this process the Western world has lost the initiative on the international front, but it is particularly Red China, with a population of 650,000,000, which is not even a member of UN, which practises a bold diplomatic strategy. Its object is more subjective than that of Russian Communism. It seeks a hinterland for its over-populated country, for its people, and it sees the ideal position in Africa, the great continent of Africa with its comparatively sparse population of approximately 240,000,000. Knowing that numbers are in its favour, Red China has chosen as its slogan the enmity between Whites and non-Whites, and its plan stems from two things it has noticed. The first is the numerical position in the world to-day, in which the population of the Western world is about 770,000,000, that of the communist world approximately 1,000,000,000, and that of the uncommitted states, which also happen to be the under-developed states, is also approximately, 1,000,000,000; and further, that at the present rate of increase in the populations, towards the end of this century there will be only about 1,100,000,000 to 1,200,000,000 people in the Western world, as against 2,400,000,000 to 2,600,000,000 in the communist bloc, and the same number in the unaligned bloc. That rate of growth will towards the end of this century give the communists and the unaligned part of the world, which more or less comprises the non-White states of the world, an advantage of five to one over the Western world. The Chinese communists realize that. And they have learnt a further lesson from the rise of the working classes in the capital countries of the world, during the time of the industrial revolution, and saw how these people used their numerical strength to get political power into their hands; knowing that the under-developed countries of the world, the former colonial areas of the Western world, also want to share in the riches of the West, they use this point as well in their plan to incite the non-Whites against the Whites in the world. They see what is happening at UN and how within a few years the Afro-Asian states have come to be in the majority there; they also note the process in the Commonwealth, so much so that the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia does not even receive an invitation to attend the next conference of Prime Ministers. In fact, it strikes one that in this debate the Opposition has not again used their old slogan of, “Back to the Commonwealth”. We can also note the communist strategy in the visit of Chou En-lai to Africa even before Khrushchev. He deliberately appealed to the Black states in Africa also to get rid of the Russian communists because they were White people. In this situation South Africa is also the target to-day, and that is the point the Opposition misses. The policy followed by the Government is not what causes the trouble. If the Opposition had sat on this side the attacks would have been the same because there is a process going on in the world of inciting the non-White states against the Black states. But South Africa is particularly the target because it forms the strongest anti-communist front in Africa, and secondly because to the Red Chinese, the new imperialists who are entering Africa, it constitutes a Naboth’s vineyard because of its great mineral riches and all its other natural resources.

Now you will ask what our reply is in these circumstances of world diplomacy. Are we slavishly to follow the West in their powerlessness and their lack of initiative in the face of this communist challenge? My standpoint is that we in South Africa, standing at the foremost point of Western civilization, should sound a new note in world politics, viz. our internal policy of separate freedoms and the recognition of every race and nation in its own right, and not deviate from it. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Stellenbosh (Mr. Smit) as well as the hon. Minister referred to the many platforms of co-operation that exist outside the United Nations between the countries of the West and South Africa, and it is in that context that I want to raise an entirely different matter and that is the question of the American Field Service scholarships. Last year, the predecessor of the hon. Minister thought it fit to say that these young boys and girls who are being sent to the United States under these scholarships, were being indoctrinated with liberalistic ideas and going across to the United States where they were doing South Africa no good at all. I believe that this is quite contrary to the truth, and I believe that in the interest of South Africa this matter should be ventilated here and these contentions utterly rejected. These field scholarships have been in existence in this country since 1957. Last year some 400 young men and women applied for these scholarships and 75 were accepted and sent to the United States. In return 15 young people from the United States visited our country. These 75 successful applicants were drawn from all the provinces of the Republic, both boys and girls, and from all language groups. These young people, after having matriculated, spend a year in the United States. They are sent to all parts of the United States. You find them in the cities, you find them in the towns, and you find them in the countryside. You find them in such cities as New York, Boston, Cleveland and Detroit and you find them in the Deep South and you find them in the West. They are carefully selected and they enter very carefully selected American homes “foster homes” as they are called, and they become foster children, and the way they are treated in the United States makes it very clear that they are accepted as members of the American family. Mr. Chairman, here you have an ideal situation, one to which I am sure the hon. Minister of Information will subscribe, where at no cost to the State whatsoever we are able to send abroad some 75 young ambassadors each year, and many of them, as I have said, go to the smaller places where South Africa is nothing more than a name on a map. When these youngsters arrive it is news, and if you will look at some of the smaller American papers, you will see that the advent of a young South African field scholar is front-page news, and you will find pictures of the youngster arriving and being met with his foster parents and being interviewed, the story of South Africa percolating into the area, probably for the first time.

When Gorshel was there, his picture was on the sports page.

Yours would be on the comic strip.

These youngsters go to the High Schools whilst they are in the United States, they mix with thousands of other young people, they talk to parent associations, to adult organizations, to clubs and to societies. I think most of them find their way onto American television before they leave the country, and here is an ideal situation for contact between young ambassadors of South Africa and the American people. I think the hon. Minister will be the first to agree that these contacts are very, very necessary.

As we are sending over considerable numbers of these youngsters, I suppose it would be too much to expect that each one of them has the same political ideas of members on the other side or members on this side, and no doubt you would get one or two who have liberal ideas, but in the main—and I have seen them in action—these youngsters are staunch South Africans who are battling out the case of South Africa like venerable veterans. I know many of these young people, I have met them in their foster homes in the United States, and I have met them when they returned to this country, and have spoken to groups, and it is an interesting thing that they have an opportunity for putting over South Africa’s case in a way which is given to very, very few other South Africans. I want to quote two typical cases. I had the privilege of visiting one of the young scholars who was staying with a foster family some 38 miles outside New York. He was a very fortunate young man indeed, because the people with whom he was staying mixed in the highest circles in the United States, politically, financially and culturally. This young man has been there for about four months and had already met and talked to and was corresponding with such people as Averil Harriman, Adlai Stevenson, Peter Lawford and Deane Rusk. Now I do not say that this is the usual run of what happens to a scholarship student. He was lucky. He found himself in a home where these people visited and where his foster father and mother were in regular contact with these persons. He talked to them and they were interested in his ideas, they asked him to write to them, and when I was there this young man was writing to people in the United States. Our Consul in New York will no doubt know of this particular case, this young man was getting material from our office in New York and was sending it to the highest political figures in the United States. When we, the ordinary humble South Africans, go to the United States, we have very little opportunity of meeting people of this calibre, and these youngsters are doing a wonderful job for us.

I met another young man who was in the West, and I assure you that when he went to this little farm where he was living there was hardly a person in the area who had ever heard of South Africa. To them South Africa meant absolutely nothing. He was almost a strange creature for these people in the Middle West. But by the time he left, Mr. Chairman, these people knew a lot about South Africa because he had had the opportunity of talking to them, living with them, and they had the opportunity of getting firsthand information of our country. I have heard some of these young people arguing with the Americans, and if I had to make any criticism, I would say that with the impetuosity of youth they were arguing perhaps a little too vehemently, but there is no doubt that they were doing a job for South Africa. I have also probably listened to many of these young people when they have returned from the United States. They have returned more mature, broadened in their own outlook, and with a feeling that they have done a job for South Africa. And what is, more important, they have established with the United States, a constant chain of communication between ourselves and the people in the United States, because the contact that is made by these young people with the people with whom they have lived and among whom they have moved, does not stop when they come home. They continue to write and continue to tell them about our country, and they are constant propagandists for us. I raise this matter because we have enough uninformed enemies of South Africa in the world, and nothing can do us more irreparable and unnecessary harm than unfounded criticism of a voluntary organization, based on the warm hospitality of the American people, and I hope that the hon. Minister will not only give his blessing to the American Fields Scholarships, but also give it his wholehearted support.

It so happens that the matter to which the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin) referred is a matter with which I was quite closely concerned last year when I was invited to address one of the “orientation courses” of the American Field Services in Johannesburg as a representative of the National Party together with the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) of the United Party and Dr. Zac de Beer of the Progressive Party. Initially I accepted the invitation after I had found out who the other speakers would be, and I accepted on certain conditions. That was in June. On the day before I was to speak, it suddenly dawned upon me that one of the speakers who had been invited to address those young people was Arthur Goldreich.

Yes, we have already heard that story.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) can listen to the story again. On the grounds of the fact that out of the whole of South Africa a man like Goldreich had been asked to address those young people, I refused to participate in the discussion, I want to make this very clear to the hon. member for Parktown. He has told us to-day of the advantages to be derived from the fact that this organization exists, of the assistance that it gives to young people and of all the good results that are achieved by this organization. But that is not the point to which objection is taken. If the hon. member for Hospital knows so much about these things why has he not informed his benchmate? The things mentioned by the hon. member for Parktown are not the things to which objection is taken. My objection was that there were 14 speakers to “inform” these young, and of those 14 speakers who were invited, Mr. A. M. van Schoor and myself were the only people who could give any explanation at all of the policy of the Government. If the other people had simply been people who did not hold such strong political views, I might still have been prepared to speak, but do you know who those speakers were? Besides Arthur Goldreich who at that moment was in gaol because, as Dr. Percy Yutar had said, he was planning a hellish revolution in South Africa, there was Julius Lewin —we again read his views in the newspaper the other day—and there was also Gordon Pitje who was involved in the trial of the Rev. Blaxall who served as a liaison officer for the funds which came into this country from overseas to help the A.N.C.; and strangely enough, included in that company there was also the managing director of Anglo American! He is a man who has a great deal to do and carries a great deal of responsibility. I ask: What is he doing in such company? What makes him leave his work in order to join that company? There was also Professor Tobias and Tumner of the Witwatersrand University, the absolute essence of liberalism at that university. There was also Benjamin Pogrund of the Rand Daily Mail, the so-called “African affairs correspondent”, the absolute essence of liberalism amongst the English-medium newspapers in Johannesburg. These were the people who were selected to “orientate” South African children before they went to America. My conclusion is—and the hon. member for Parktown can cross swords with me in this regard if he wants to—that if these are the people who are selected here in South Africa to “orientate” those students, then it is clear to me that the financial backers of the political views of the American Field Service are reflected in these speakers; and if these are the speakers whom they select here to “orientate” the students—as they call it— the influences which they will bring to bear upon the children in America will not differ to any great extent from those which they bring to bear in South Africa. We know that anything can be made to look very innocent if anything is to be gained thereby, but if the American Field Service wants to continue to select this sort of person in South Africa to “orientate” children before their departure for America, I shall publicly tell them that they are an appendage of the Progressive Party and the Liberal Party in South Africa and nothing more.

Actually, I want to refer to something else. I want to refer to the American Committee on Africa. If the American Field Service wants to do South Africa a favour, it will oppose the American Committee on Africa as much as possible. The American Committee on Africa is an association which exists in America and which publishes a fairly luxurious publication entitled Africa To-day, with the caption “Partners in Apartheid; United States Policy on South Africa”. It does numbers of other things as well in order to try to make matters as difficult as possible for us. Time will not permit me to discuss this publication in detail and I just want to refer to a fundamental statement which they make right at the start and which is apparently supported by a quotation from Hansard of 25 January 1963—

I have perused Hansard and this quotation is an absolute distortion of what Dr. Verwoerd had to say. Dr. Verwoerd used these words, more or less—

he said. He did not say: “We want to make South Africa White”. The Prime Minister went on to say—

That was a United Party argument that he was quoting against the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, as the quotation marks clearly show. But the punctuation marks which he used and which were obvious to everyone, were completely ignored. Instead of “keep South Africa White”, they said that he said: “We want to make South Africa White”. As everyone sitting here will remember, Dr. Verwoerd went on to deal in detail with National Party policy. He stated clearly that we want to keep the White part of South Africa White and allow the Bantu areas to develop so that the Bantu can have authority there. But the thing that disturbs one most about this American Committee on Africa is this sort of misrepresentation in the light of its aims and management. I want to quote here from the Sunday Times of 10 July 1960—

Two clergymen who are directors of this organization do not hesitate to commit an absolutely immoral action by taking Dr. Verwoerd’s words out of context and distorting them for their own propaganda purposes. This pamphlet makes many other statements which are just as distorted. The main purpose is to warn American businessmen that if they invest their money in South Africa and manage a business here, they will be “violating the ideals of the United States”. If this is what is said in regard to American businessmen who invest money in South Africa, how can one credit the fact that an association of this nature probably encourages people to invest money in Ghana where not the slightest vestige—and I say this with the utmost certainty —of the American ideals of justice and political and economic freedom exists? Can one imagine that they should say this about South Africa on the basis of false evidence but remain absolutely silent about Ghana? The American businessmen who have interests in South Africa find it difficult to step into the breach for South Africa in public but I hope that we can make the American public realize that the American Committee on Africa is disseminating these absolutely outrageous untruths in America with only one aim and that is to destroy the Whites in South Africa. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Innesdale (Mr. J. A. Marais) ranged far and wide in his speech, from the American Field Service to clerical immorality. I am sure his point about the American Field Service should be discussed further, although it was not my intention to do so. He said in effect that the representatives of the American Government in this country, in arranging the orientation course for the boys and girls who had been chosen to go to America, were communists in so far as they had chosen communists to give this orientation course. He did not use the word “communists”, but we know what that hon. member means when he talks about “liberaliste”. This is another example of how to win friends and influence people, National Party style. He says in effect that a well-meaning and idealistic service undertaken at their own expense by the Government and the people of the U.S.A, is in fact a communist-orientated movement, because it chose certain people against whom he had certain objections to give “orientation” lectures to those students. He forgets completely that he, also, was invited. Is he a communist, too? His reason for refusing is not the one he gives, because these people were not all chosen to give party-political guidance; some were chosen to orientate these students on other subjects, including the arts and music and literature. With due respect to that hon. member, he may have scored an excellent debating point in so far as the National Party Press is concerned, but he tended, at least, to mislead the House by what he had to say about this process of orientation. I leave it at that, because I want to deal with a wider issue, which is this cry from the heart we have heard today, that only we are in step and the whole world is out of step; that we are misunderstood, and that the U.S.A, as the leader of the West should realize that what we are doing in fact is to save America from its own folly. That is the burden of the speeches we heard to-day. I think it was crystallized by the hon. member for Middelland (Mr. van der Merwe), who said that the Western world could not afford to lose South Africa; they will lose the struegle against the communists in Africa and in the world if they lose South Africa. It took him three speeches to say that, but I have summarized it in one sentence. Now, it is an odd and remarkable thing that in a country with a population of 190 million, with probably the finest intelligence system in the world, they do not understand something which is so clear to the hon. member for Middelland. In fact, they take the contrary view. They think South Africa, under the present Government, is an embarrassment to the world; they think it is a dead loss to the Western world. As recently as May this year we had a statement by the U.S.A. Ambassador to UNO, Mr. Adlai Stevenson, which he made at Uppsala in Sweden, when he said that South Africa’s race policy was one of the most critical problems of the world to-day. And we know how much time and energy the U.S.A, and its Government and its embassies in every country in the world devote to world problems. How is it then that there is this tremendous divergence between the views of the hon. member for Middelland and those of Mr. Adlai Stevenson? There are certain explanations I can offer. For one thing, perhaps the U.S.A, and the people who speak for it take a far wider view of the world than we do in this country, and certainly a wider view than the Nationalist Government. In fact, they are obliged, because of their commitments, to take the global view to see the world as a whole, and to realize that in spite of differences between one country and another, we have to live in the same world. It is no use for anybody, including South Africa, to say that we are well and the rest of the world is sick; we are sane and the rest of the world is crazy. That does not get us any further, especially in regard to the attitude we have adopted towards UNO—we heard the criticism of it today, and some of it is easily supported because nobody has ever suggested that the UNO is a perfect body or a perfect instrument for world peace, but most responsible nations and their leaders recognize that it is the only available instrument for world peace, perfect or imperfect. We should remember that in the case of the leader of the Western world, the U.S.A., they have said unequivocally what they think of this Government and its policies, and what they are obliged to do in the UNO and elsewhere in regard to such policies. Here I have a speech which the same Mr. Adlai Stevenson made at the United Nations in December last year. He said—

So one can prove from this and other statements that as far as the leaders of the Western world are concerned they are under no misapprehension about the policies of this Government, and they are well aware of the implications of the attitude they have adopted. I do not believe for a moment, and although it may suit us to think so, we should not delude ourselves, as we have tried to do to-day in this debate, that the criticism of the hon. member for Middelland and others will in any way change the attitude of the world towards the policies of this Nationalist Government.

When it comes to explaining the ills of this world, we know, of course, that members of the National Party are adept at it, but when it comes to explaining South Africa to the world, then certain people, at least, must speak with a sense of responsibility, and I would assume that, apart from the Prime Minister, the person best qualified to do so is the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It is perfectly clear that he had nothing to say to-day which even remotely suggests a new look in our foreign policy, in our attitude towards other countries of the West. But I must say that outside of Parliament he has come up with something which, at least in verbiage, represents a new description of the policy of the Government. It appears that in the course of an interview with a German newspaper the Minister of Foreign Affairs said, according to this report—

The hon. the Minister looks surprised, but no more surprised than I when I read the statement, because here we are told about horizontal parallelism, and the Minister says we must enter into a transitional stage so that the horizontal parellelism will lead to vertical parallelism. I do not want to look like a Balinese dancer, but I want to illustrate it in this way —and so we find ourselves according to the Minister of Foreign Affairs finally in this ideal state of vertical parallelism, whatever that means, from which state I would say we are in an ideal position to fall flat on our faces, if I understand the position correctly. What can this mean to the outside world, let alone in South Africa? I say this without any personal animus against the Minister—I would like to understand it and I sincerely hope that when the Minister replies to this debate, which I believe he will do after I sit down, he will explain to us and to the world at large; what is horizontal parallelism, how do you set about the transition, and how do you finish up in this position of vertical parallelism, and what happens after that? [Interjections.]

Finally, I want to deal with a matter which arose from the statement the Prime Minister made last month when he complained about what he called “leakages of information” in regard to the attitude, firstly, of the U.S. Government, and then in regard to the attitude of the United Kingdom Government about the South West African situation and the possible implementation of certain aspects of the Odendaal Report. The Prime Minister complained bitterly about the statement made in South Africa by Mr. Clarence Randall, and he said in effect that this statement by Mr. Randall, which indicated the attitude of the U.S. Government, constituted a diplomatic leakage of which he took a very poor view. This indicates either one of two things, that the Prime Minister was not prepared to deal with the matter on the facts of the case, or that there is something seriously lacking in the intelligence service in our Foreign Affairs Department. [Time limit.]

I spoke at length this morning. I want to reply as briefly as possible now to the few points of criticism and the questions that have been put to me. Before I do so, I want to express my appreciation to hon. members both on this side and on the other side, who have made constructive contributions to the debate and who have made speeches which bear witness of serious study.

I think I have dealt with all the points raised by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), with the exception of his reference to Mr. Kaunda. In this connection I want to say that the Prime Minister has dealt very fully with this whole matter and also with the question of the exchange of diplomats with African countries. The Prime Minister stated the case very clearly, and any elaboration on my part would serve no useful purpose. I am sure that the hon. member, on further reflection, will agree that the suggested visit by myself to Mr. Kaunda could not be undertaken under present circumstances.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) referred to a reported interview and statement I made to the representative of a German newspaper, in which I used certain words. I have explained in the Press that there were certain misrepresentations in that report, but in regard to this particular statement, I fully agree that the report is correct. But I hasten to explain that what I said there was not new at all. On the contrary, the Prime Minister himself has used a similar expression in order to explain our policy. I do not blame the hon. member for not being able to follow it, because I am sure he does not appreciate what hon. members on this side and the Government are trying to achieve by means of apartheid. I do not think hon. members expect me to embark on an exposition of apartheid in this debate.

*The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) spoke about the changing of the members of South African missions to UNO and other foreign assemblies. If the hon. member had done a little research, he would have discovered that that interchanging also took place to a large extent in the past both at the mission leadership and at lower levels. During the period of office of the National Government there have, for example, been various persons who, from time to time, have acted as the leaders of South African missions to UNO. It is the fixed policy of the Government to introduce new blood every year. But I must also point out to the hon. member that this sort of thing can be exaggerated. I must remind him that personalities and personal contact at these international gatherings are of the greatest importance and value, and this fact is also, of course, taken into consideration. For example, I was particularly impressed during the past session of UNO by the extremely important and valuable contacts which the members of our deputation had with other representatives, contacts which mean a very great deal to us. I also want to refer in passing to the accusation that the Department of Foreign Affairs really does nothing. That accusation is, of course, devoid of all truth, and I do not think it merits reply.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also referred to the mixed parties which are given by certain foreign representatives. I deprecate the fact that the hon. member has again raised this matter. The matter has already been fully discussed during a previous debate in this House, and the hon. the Prime Minister has explained very clearly the policy of the Government in this regard. I am a member of the Government and, of course, I support that policy. It is still the policy of the Government to continue to act as it has acted up to the present. I repeat that I deprecate the fact that the hon. member has thought fit to refer to this matter again. I think he should take care lest he find himself fishing in troubled waters. This is a delicate matter and, to discuss it here, can serve no good purpose.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout and others have said that nothing is done to increase our contacts at high level abroad. How do hon. members know that this is the case? How do they know that their accusations are correct? In fact, how can they know it? Everything that is done diplomatically is from the nature of the case, not blazoned abroad in the Press. A great deal is certainly being done in this connection on a large variety of levels, from the highest to the lowest level. In order to explain this statement, I want to tell the House about one such matter, a very important case on which I personally am engaged. I want to tell the House that there was contact between the Foreign Minister of the Netherlands and myself in connection with the possibility of a visit by a group of Hollanders to South Africa, and a similar visit by South Africans to Holland. I explained our policy, and pointed out that we had consistently refused to permit interference in our domestic affairs. I also informed the Netherlands Minister that we were aware of the fact that a considerable amount of criticism of South Africa abroad was based on ignorance, and that in the past our Government was always prepared, and is still prepared, to receive visitors from friendly countries, so that they can meet us and get to know our problems and our policies; so that they can make themselves acquainted with the position here by visiting our country and discussing matters with us, on a basis, naturally, which will result in no interference. In this connection I can refer the Committee to the invitation which the Government issued last year to the Nordic Ministers to visit South Africa. Just as the Government was prepared last year to invite those Ministers, so we are still prepared to receive visitors from Holland, because we cannot accept the fact that the criticism against us in Holland is based on malice, having regard to the strong historical bonds between our two countries. We would, of course, prefer an official visit from Holland, but for the time being circumstances do not permit of this, and that is why arrangements are now being made for a visit by an unofficial group of persons on the basis that I have already explained. They will be impartial persons, and the purpose of their visit will be to enable them to form a better idea of us and of our problems. Discussions will not be restricted to our affairs only. Affairs in Holland and any action taken by Holland in which we may be interested will also be discussed. The details of this visit are being worked out at the moment, and all I can say at this stage is that it will probably take place during the second half of this year. I may perhaps add that the exchange of ideas took place in a very good spirit which strengthens my belief and confidence that the visit can contribute, not only towards creating a better mutual understanding of one another’s problems, but also towards promoting the relationships between South Africa and Holland.

*This morning I mentioned the necessity for our having to show a united front to the outside world. I am pleased that there have been speakers on both sides who have supported this point of view. The question often arises, to my mind, whether, in actual fact, South Africa does not present a more united front to the outside world than is made out to be the case in debates in this House. I am sorry that that degree of solidarity in regard to vitally important disputes with the outside world does not crystallize out more clearly in a debate such as this in order to make the outside world realize that, no matter what our domestic differences of opinion may be, we do stand shoulder to shoulder to a far greater extent when the future of our country and our people is threatened.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) talked about influencing others and winning friends in order to support us in the difficult position in which we find ourselves. Sir, this is basic in every action of ours, but we cannot purchase such support at a price we dare not pay, at the price of our survival, because that is what we are required to do. The hon. member talked about a guilt complex. Let me correct him. We do not suffer from a complex. If we did we would never have been able to withstand the campaign which he himself described so well.

*I hope that what I have just said disposes also of suggestions by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) about the matter of contacts. The hon. member referred to our image abroad and to increasing criticism. This is quite true, Mr. Chairman. It is the image of our policy which is criticized and not our policy as it really is. Hon. members should be careful not to contribute to the distortion of that image.

Sir, I am somewhat disappointed in this debate so far. I thought hon. members would come to my assistance and also to the assistance of South Africa in these difficult times we are experiencing. I thought for instance— and I am saying this in all sincerity—that hon. members would have shown how absurd it was to regard conditions in South Africa as a threat to world peace. That is a very serious charge which is made against us by the outside world.

We do not say it.

I know, but I wanted hon. members to assist me in convincing the world that that is not the case and to say what has been said by people like Sir Alec Douglas-Home and also Mr. Adlai Stevenson is not true. I do not say that hon. members opposite said so; I say that they could have helped me.

You can take it as read.

Hon. members could also have told the world about the inherent dangers of trade boycotts and economic sanctions and how this could threaten world peace, as it was pointed out in an article in The Economist not so long ago. Hon. members could have spoken about the increasing disregard of the Rule of Law in international intercourse, the abuse of double standards, etc.

Can we start all over again then?

Yes, next year.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Revenue Vote No. 42.—“Immigration”, R4,330,000,

I think that there is general agreement amongst members on both sides of the House that the immigration position in South Africa has certainly improved during the past years. There has been an improvement during the past year in the immigration figures, particularly in regard to the net gain in immigrants to South Africa. This is something which can, of course, only fill every good South African with joy. But when we look at these figures, particularly against the background of the problems facing South Africa during the next few years, then I feel that that immigration figure is still not adequate. We must also discover who has to receive the credit for this improvement in the number of immigrants to this country. It is completely wrong of the Government to claim the credit for the fact that there has been such a great improvement in the immigration figure. Some of the steps which it has taken have been good and others have been less good. If we really inquire into the good steps that have been taken we will find that these have been steps which have been taken in emulation of the United Party’s policy—our declared policy in the past. We know how, even after 1948, speeches were made on that side of the House against immigration; we know how the Minister at that time, the Minister of the Interior, was congratulated because he had tightened up the immigration laws. Even though we were facing a crisis in 1948, a brakeshoe policy was still applied in connection with immigration for years and years. But things progressed and eventually we were given a Minister of Immigration. But the policy of setting up a Ministry of Immigration was the policy of the United Party; it was announced by the United Party years and years ago, in the early ’fifties, and year after year that proposal of the United Party’s to set up a Ministry of Immigration was fought tooth and nail by the Nationalist Party, not only here but also throughout the country.

We are pleased to see that the prejudice against—one can almost call it “hatred of”— immigration is disappearing amongst the members of the Nationalist Party as well. It is pleasing to see that even the Transvaler writes leading articles to try to convince its readers that immigration is of vital importance to our country to-day. Not so long ago an article appeared in the Transvaler in which readers of the Transvaler who wrote letters criticizing the immigration policy of the Government were taken to task. To its credit the Transvaler pointed out that immigration was necessary and told its readers that because Simon van der Stel in his day had turned down Huguenot immigrants this had had an adverse effect upon South Africa.

An adverse or statutory effect?

No, Simon van der Stel’s rejection of the Huguenot immigrants affected South Africa adversely; that is what I mean. Sir, the policy of selection committees is a policy which was originally advocated by the United Party. Fair State support of immigrants, assistance with their passages and support when they land in the country are all matters which were advocated by the United Party. When credit is given for the slow improvement in the immigration figure, we must not forget the contribution made by the United Party and its policy. Sir, when we look at the immigration figure it is very clear to us that everything is not anywhere near perfect. The Tomlinson Commission estimated that at the present rate of immigration, immigrants would have very little effect upon the balance between White and non-White in South Africa. To tell the truth, we in the United Party say that our country can easily and effectively absorb 50,000 immigrants per annum—I am speaking now of a net gain of 50,000 immigrants. We must aim at that figure and I am sure that it will not result in unemployment or have any other adverse results for South Africa.

We are pleased that immigrants are coming to our country from other parts of Africa. South Africa offers a home to refugees from the countries of Central Africa which at the moment have Black Governments. But when one considers the matter in its entirty, it remains a fact that immigrants who move from, let us say, Rhodesia to the Republic still do not by their actions improve and strengthen the numbers of the Whites as against the number of non-Whites in Africa itself. We welcome those immigrants but we should like to see more immigrants coming to this country from our countries of origin in Europe; we should make things more attractive for prospective immigrants to South Africa. Secondly, I feel that people from certain White countries in Europe are sometimes discriminated against, either because of the fact that they come from the southern countries or because of the fact that they are not Protestants. I say that we must do away with that prejudice in these critical times. We must welcome all immigrants to South Africa from the White countries of Europe. I feel that that prejudice still exists in regard to selection although this is not something which is officially admitted by the Government. Thirdly, I believe that there is still far too much bureaucracy in connection with this matter. We know that selection committees exist, but when one considers the correspondence that is entered into between South Africa and the offices in Europe, back and forth, back and forth, and how it sometimes takes weeks and months before a single immigrant can be approved of, there is no doubt that there is still far too much bureaucracy in connection with immigrants to South Africa.

It is also necessary that we here in South Africa should make better propaganda for immigration. I mentioned the example of the article in the Transvaler, but that is only a drop in the ocean. Our people here in South Africa and particularly those in the National Party must be made to realize that immigration does not constitute a danger to South Africa. Firstly, immigration will not deprive anyone of his employment. An immigrant brings capital to South Africa; new industries are set up and new employment is created by means of that capital which those immigrants bring to this country. Immigrants create employment; they do not take away employment in South Africa. Not only do immigrants bring their capital to South Africa but they also bring the riches of their skill and their education. The education of one educated immigrant who comes to South Africa would cost us anything from R500 to R3,000. That R3,000 is given to South Africa free of charge; it is therefore a saving to the taxpayer of South Africa when an educated immigrant comes to this country. These are matters which we must bring more pertinently to the attention of the people of South Africa.

The old story which we heard so often in the past—that immigrants would swamp (onderploeg) the Afrikaner—is so much nonsense. Anyone who compares the numerical strength of the two large population groups in South Africa will immediately realize that even though 50,000 immigrants were to come to South Africa each year—one must also consider the fact that a very large number of them will come from the countries of origin of the South African people—there would be no danger at all that the Afrikaner would be swamped. The danger of swamping is not as great because we must remember that not every immigrant can become a Prime Minister to swamp us!

I want to conclude by saying that in this connection I believe that we must think big. If the hon. the Minister thinks big in this connection I can assure him that he will have the support of this side of the House. By “thinking big”, I mean in the first instance that we must aim high; we must aim at a net gain of, let us say, 50,000 immigrants per annum. Let us aim at a better and fairer form of State asssistnce; let us aim at giving even greater encouragement to people overseas in order to bring new South Africans to South Africa and let us aim at giving those people that assistance which they require when they arrive here in order to enable them to settle in South Africa. After all, we are all descended from immigrants. [Time limit.]

I am sorry that the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) has seen it fit to use the word “swamping” (onderploeging) time and time again during his speech this afternoon. The hon. member knows that the word “swamping” is a word which leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the Afrikaner. He knows that former political parties wanted to use immigration to swamp the Afrikaner, but that did not happen. While we are discussing immigration this afternoon I think that everyone in this House and in the country would like to express thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister of Immigration and his Department for the wonderful work that is already being done to bring the necessary immigrants to the Republic of South Africa.

What a change!

The point is that these immigrants who are now being brought into the country are being brought in at the right time. They are being brought in at a stage when we need manpower. It is extremely silly to say that we waited too, Jong before taking action and that we were too slow in bringing immigrants to this country. If we had brought immigrants to this country at a stage when we did not need their labour we would certainly have caused a great deal of unpleasantness here in our country.

Nonsense!

I want to ask the hon. member who is laughing so derisively what he has contributed towards the progress of this country. What contribution has his party made to this progress in South Africa? They have simply been a millstone about the neck of the National Government, a government which has taken action at the right time and has developed this country into one of the greatest industrial countries in the world. South Africa has developed more swiftly in the industrial sphere than any other country and she has done so without the assistance of the United Party.

Nonsense!

No, I am not talking nonsnese; it is the hon. member who is talking nonsense.

Order! The hon. member must continue his speech in the same language in which he started it. He need not react to every interjection that is made.

Mr. Chairman, there is one thing of which we as inhabitants of the Republic are guilty and that is that we are not prepared when immigrants come to the Republic of South Africa to make them welcome and to admit them to our various circles. We neglect our duty in not making those people feel welcome in our midst. We simply leave them to their own devices here. We are grateful for what the hon. the Minister and his Department are doing for the immigrants but the ordinary John Citizen does not contribute his share towards making immigrants feel at home in the Republic. I want this afternoon to make an appeal to every inhabitant of the Republic of South Africa who means well with the Republic to make these new immigrants and their children feel at home here; we must take them into our homes and into our society. I want to make an appeal to all the inhabitants of the Republic not to “blackball” immigrants in clubs as so often happens here. We need these people and we must make them feel at home. There are certain people who are rather sceptical in regard to the policy of immigration, people who feel that immigrants who come to this country will take their work away from them. A feeling of this nature certainly exists amongst many workers and it is our duty to point out to them that immigrants do not come to this country to take the work away from those workers but that immigrants come to this country to increase the number of Whites in this country and to assist us to keep the Republic of South Africa White. There is one thing which sticks out like a sore thumb and that is that the inhabitants of the Republic are neglecting their duty as far as our birthrate is concerned; we are too easy-going; we do not want to bring the number of children into the world whom it is our duty to bring into the world in order to keep our country White. So we must welcome immigrants to this country and I want to tell those people who are sceptical as far as our immigration policy is concerned that those immigrants come to this country in order to assist us to build up a great and mightly nation here. We must help them. Every organization in our country must assist them and our Churches must do their share in this regard. Each one of us who is interested in the progress of the Republic must contribute his share towards making immigrants feel at home here. We must not place the onus upon the hon. the Minister and his Department. We must help him to perform the difficult task that is his, a task which is not easy, a task which produces many problems from day to day. In this connection I want heartily to thank the various bodies, particularly the local authorities, who realize their responsibility towards immigrants and who do their share in order to make immigrants to this country feel at home. But I also want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to ensure that immigrants who come to this country are provided with the best accommodation available. Much criticism is expressed of the accommodation that is supplied to immigrants at various places. Some of our old people say: “You do too much for the immigrants; they live in luxury hotels and luxury flats and we as taxpayers have to pay for it.” That is why I ask that we erect places which will be a credit to the Republic of South Africa, places at which we can receive these immigrants, where they can be provided with the necessary information in connection with work and in connection with the conditions prevailing in the Republic. It is of the most vital importance to ensure that immigrants are properly informed in regard to the conditions prevailing here. We do not want leftist propaganda to be forced down their throats. Furthermore, I ask that the literature that is made available to them should be in their own language so that they will have a proper understanding of our country’s policy. In spite of criticism which may be expressed of our immigration policy we want to tell the hon. the Minister that we are grateful for what he and his Department have done up to the present in bringing so many immigrants to South Africa.

I will not try to follow the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout) in his panygerics about the timing of this Government in regard to immigration. This Government was trudging along slowly on its path to doom when it suddenly got a fright at the relative numbers of the Whites and the non-Whites in this country and then proceeded to embark on its present immigration policy in a panic. There is no question of the Government having considered immigration from the point of view of what is good or bad for the country as a whole: the whole matter was left in abevance, and the hon. member need not think that this policy of immigration was carefully timed; it was brought on in a rush.

Sir, the hon. Minister has on several occasions stressed that his failure to obtain sufficient immigrant doctors is not due to lack of qualified men wishing to settle in South Africa but that it is due entirely to artificial barriers entrenched in legislation which prevents them from practising their profession in South Africa. Those are his words. He accused the hon. Senator Pilkington-Jordan of repeating an untruth in the Other Place. If the Minister had his wishes fulfilled he would find that there would be a fall in the quality of the doctors coming into this country. As far as I can judge, his wishes are that his Department should decide who and who will not practise medicine in this country, and some obscure clerk of his in Rumania or Bulgaria, where he does not as a rule recruit doctors, will pick up people and send them here to practise medicine. The whole tone of his remarks implied that the so-called artificial restrictions should be removed at once holus bolus, and at the same time he paid lip service to “the maintenance of quality”. How he makes these two policies compatible is beyond my comprehension. He said he had hoped that the Medical Council would consider merits rather than a limited reciprocity and he scorned the number 12, which is the arrangement with Holland. I tell him now, Sir, that all his gallant and sustained efforts and that of his Department to recruit doctors from Holland have failed to produce more than six recruits per annum. Nobody has been refused admission from Holland except one person to whom the Netherlands Government refused permission to go; it was not this country which refused him admission. The Netherlands, with the repatriation of its citizens from Indonesia, has an excess of professional men, so he should have had no difficulty in reaping a rich harvest there. Sir, the Minister had hoped that the Medical Council would consider “merit”. It is a pity that he brought in that much overworked word “merit”, because that suggests that the Medical Council has a discretion. The council has no discretion. Medical registration is a right and not a privilege. If a man is suitably qualified he is entitled to registration and he can take the council to court if the council refuses to register him. Sir, the hon. the Minister omitted to mention that he has about half the civilized globe available to him for recruiting, without any restrictions whatsoever. The council is firmly convinced that before it accepts doctors or dentists with foreign qualifications it should have agreements with the statutory medical authorities of those countries. It cannot deal with academic institutions over which it has no control. In order to expedite matters the council—(and the Minister refused to contribute to the cost)—sent its president, one of its members and its Registrar through Western Europe to arrange these details. The principles were accepted everywhere except in Switzerland. The council, though it can hasten its own machinery, cannot hasten other people, but two arrangements are complete with Belgium for doctors and with Western Germany for dentists, and the conclusion of arrangements now rests with the Department of Foreign Affairs. It is probable that the rapid settlement with Belgium is not dissociated from the returning professional men from the Congo. Probably the repatriated Algerian doctors will stimulate the French Government to hurry. The Minister need not sneer at the number of 12. When he is in a position to tell the council that he has a waiting list or even a probable waiting list above that number. As I have pointed out, as he has not been able to do so. He will find that the council is co-operative. In fact, if he will give the council an estimate based on reliable figures of applicants during the past five years in the case of individual countries the matter will receive attention. The Minister must, however, be careful because inquiries which he counts do not necessarily mean immigrants arriving. In the year 1962 the council received 17 inquiries from Holland and the actual number of immigrants was six. The council is the guardian of the quality of the medical treatment of the country. It has devised this method of carrying out its task but the Minister prefers his own way. An analysis of his speech in the Other Place strongly suggests that he would like his clerks stationed in the various countries of the world to decide who is and who is not a suitable person to practise medicine in South Africa. He implies that the council is using the authority of the Government of which he is a member, to keep out suitable practitioners. Other countries too feel that they need protection. There is always a possibility of a flood from various countries as a result of national or international events. That possibility always exists. That started to take place at the beginning of 1933 from Germany. There was a grave risk of the immense number of about 3,000 doctors coming from Germany to this country. What would have happened to this country had the principles which the hon. the Minister advocates existed in 1917 when the Bolshevists seized Russia? We had found that other countries also feel the need of protection. They also feel that they must be protected against a flood of doctors from South Africa, because they do not feel as secure as we do ourselves that the day may not come when the doctors are running with all the other Whites out of the country. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) has told us that there is a shortage of doctors in this country. He defended the Medical Council and said that it is not their fault that these people cannot enter the country. I do not want to attack the Medical Council. Indeed, it is their duty to ensure that the standard of medical qualifications in this country remains high. It is their duty to ensure that we do not have a disproportionate influx of doctors to South Africa, as possibly happened in 1933. It is the task of the Medical Council to guard against these things, and I do not want to attack that Council. The fact remains, however, that we do not have reciprocal agreements with Europe. Accordingly, it is almost impossible to get doctors from Europe to come to this country. As the hon. member said, we can attract doctors from virtually three-quarters of the rest of the world. We know very well that at the present time there is a shortage of doctors throughout the world. Nevertheless, the hon. the Minister and his Department have succeeded in getting doctors to come to this country. While in 1962 we attracted 49 doctors to South Africa, in 1963 we attracted 60. This does indicate that there has been an improvement in this regard. It also indicates that the possibilities exist, in spite of the concern of the hon. member for Durban (Central), of our being able to obtain the services of more of these people. I reject the allegation of the hon. member that this legislation in connection with immigration arose as a result of the fact that the Government was panic-stricken. This is not the action of a panic-stricken Government; we are taking these steps because we need these people in this country and because we can accommodate them.

The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) told us the same old story—that the National Party Government opposed immigration in the past. We really should not discuss this matter in such a light-hearted fashion. We should rather see whether we cannot assist in attracting the necessary immigrants to this country. It is true that in the past the National Party Government followed a policy which did perhaps have a hampering effect upon immigration. The Government was not opposed to immigrants in principle. If you think back a little, Mr. Chairman, I am sure you will remember that we had no housing available at that time. At that time we did not have employment for all the unskilled labour which was available then and which is still available. It was that aspect of the matter that had to be considered. We first had to make sure that a reasonable amount of housing was available. We can remember how our own people had to live in backyards, in garages and in tents. I blame nobody for this; it was as a result of post-war circumstances. It would have been completely wrong if we had allowed an influx even of skilled workers at that time. That was the reason why a policy was followed which did hamper immigration to a certain extent. But circumstances have changed to such an extent now that we can welcome these people. I want to emphasize the fact that we do not welcome them because we are panic-stricken. We need them to-day. The hon. member for Orange Grove must not think that the country will consider them to be a danger. People have begun to realize more and more that immigrants do not constitute a danger to us. They bring their assets and their knowledge with them to the Republic and make these things available to us. Therefore, we should like to see co-operation in every respect. That is why we want to congratulate the Department on the policy which it has followed and is still following. When we consult statistics in this regard, we find that the immigration figure in 1962 was 20,916, while in 1963 it was 37,964. For January 1964 the figure was in excess of 4,000. This indicates that, in spite of the accusations that are continually being made, the Government is working to a definite programme. A good policy is being followed, a policy which is producing results. I think that, as good citizens of South Africa, we must welcome these people to our country because their coming is in our own interests.

The hon. member for Odendaalsrus (Dr. Meyer) has approached this whole question of the changed policy on the part of the Government in regard to immigration in such a friendly way that I feel disposed to draw a veil over the gyrations of the Government members, including the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout), in explaining why, in fact, they did not come forward with this at an earlier time. I would have thought that the reason given by the hon. member for Brakpan, namely to strengthen the White population here, was quite as valid 50, 20 or ten years ago as it was now. As I say, I gladly draw a veil over that matter and trust that, if the Government must touch upon this subject, it would make a frank admission and leave it at that.

It has certainly taken us many years to persuade the Government to this point of view in regard to immigration. But I fear it will take us many years to get them to tackle it in a really energetic way. I say that, notwithstanding the tribute paid by the hon. the Deputy Minister to the Minister, that he was showing great energy. I hope to satisfy the House that adequate energy is not being shown. More particularly when one sees this whole matter against the background sketched by the hon. member for Brakpan, it is clear that it is not being tackled with adequate energy. My accusation is that the Government still approaches immigration in a luke-warm manner, and there is no justification for this attitude.

The Du Toit-Viljoen Commission of 1958 recommended, or rather urged upon the Government, to bring in about 25,000 immigrants from Western Europe annually. That was the clear import of the Du Toit-Viljoen Commission recommendation. The Government has fallen extremely far short of that target since that report was brought out. In 1960 we still had a net loss of immigrants. In 1961 we had a net gain of 1,000. I now come to the actual numbers of immigrants: In 1962 we had 21,000 immigrants and 9,000 emigrants; and of the immigrants, 11,000 were from Africa. In other words, only 9,000 came from Western Europe. I am glad to say that the Department did better in 1963, if we accept the figures of the hon. member for Odendaalrus—which I do accept—namely a total of 37,000 people. I am not aware what number of those came from Africa. There were 7,000 emigrants, so there was a net gain of 30,000. If one uses the same proportions as last year, it would seem that in 1963 one got approximately 17,000 from Europe. Well, that is a big improvement, for which we are duly grateful. But, still, this is far short of the figure recommended by the Du Toit-Viljoen Commission that should come in simply to prevent jeopardy being caused to our expansion. That is the point. The Du Toit-Viljoen Commission said we needed those people so as not to place our expansion in jeopardy. We hear time and again that we are, in fact, very short of people. In many places there are bottlenecks due to that very shortage. In these circumstances, I suggest that the hon. the Minister ought to do much better. He ought to show an energy which is still missing. I shall be glad to hear from the hon. the Minister how many, in fact, did come from Europe of the number that came in last year.

One cannot help seeing this against the success of other countries. Australia is still attracting upwards of 100,000 immigrants per year from Western Europe. She is doing far more to induce people to come there. We are grateful for the inducements this country offers, but cannot we offer more—again seen against the background which the hon. member for Brakpan has sketched? The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) has pointed out that the saving we make on training probably more than compensates for any cost incurred in their movement to the Republic. Indeed, that is a finding of the Du Toit-Viljoen Commission. In other words, this is not costing us money; we are saving money by getting in immigrants.

It is hardly necessary for me to emphasize the value of these people. Firstly, they do away with bottlenecks; secondly, they create an expanding market for our farmers and industrialists. I think the hon. the Minister said as much himself. Well, if the Minister is so sold on this idea of immigrants, I think he ought to do more.

I also feel that immigrants help to strengthen the numbers of those who are steeped in the ways of Western Europe. I ask the hon. the Minister very pointedly whether this is a consideration which weighs with him in planning his immigration scheme? Because, if it is not, I want to know why not? And if it is, why does he not do more? I would also like to ask the hon. the Minister when a man is unskilled in his view? He has said he wishes to keep out unskilled people. So I want to know when is a person unskilled in his opinion? There are many people, such as estate agents and salesmen of all kinds, who have an education of a good standard; they can occupy positions in the community which certainly rank on the basis of skilled people.

I should now like to move to a different topic. The hon. member for Odendaalsrus mentioned the question of housing. He gave that as a reason. I want to say this: that where we press for a greater sense of urgency in bringing in immigrants, we are assuming that adequate preparations will be made to receive these people when they arrive. I am thinking particularly of the necessity to provide housing. I suggest the Government was caught napping in regard to housing. From the language used by the hon. the Minister of Community Development, when he introduced the Rents Bill, it was perfectly obvious that in regard to the shortage of houses, there had not been adequate liaison between him and the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister of Housing was surprised to find that immigrants were causing a housing shortage. He said it took several years to plan a housing programme.

I do trust, therefore, that greater contact had been made between the two hon. Ministers, and that we shall not get a repetition of what we had. I think I should like to ask the hon. the Minister for what number he is planning during, say, the next five years? I hope he will satisfy us that a big target is being aimed at. I also hope he will be able to tell us that he and the hon. the Minister of Housing will have the necessary housing ready. There is certainly no excuse, 19 years after the war, for any shortage of houses for people of this kind. Australia has imported an immense number of people. Initially there were some difficulties, but they have been completely superseded, and they have experienced a tremendous wave of prosperity there. One knows, of course, of the posperity of the United States being based on its tremendous immigration progamme of before this century.

I ask the hon. the Minister to give us the assurance that he and the hon. Minister of Housing have this plan under control, and are pursuing the question of housing with great energy.

Lastly, Sir, I should like to touch upon the question of emigrants. The figure of emigrants is still high. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what he is doing to try to persuade people who have made their homes here not to leave? Very often the decision turns on very little. I am glad to say that people have come back; but where we are losing 7,000, 8,000 to 9,000 people by emigration, it is neutralizing to that degree the good work that is being done in bringing others in. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that he is dealing with this matter. One appreciates that some people cannot be deterred from going, but I should like to know what the Minister is doing, and then we can judge whether he is doing enough in that regard.

What can the Minister do? They are free people.

The hon. the Minister doubtless gets some kind of forewarning that these people are considering going. I would have thought that, just as he distributes pamphlets mentioning attractions to people to persuade them to come, he could perhaps persuade some of these people not to leave by the same means. Steps of that kind can undoubtedly be taken, and I shall be glad to know that he is doing that.

I want to deal briefly with the points that have been raised. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) raised certain matters. He said the present immigration figures were not high enough and he exhorted the Minister ’dat hy moet groot dink’. Well, we are thinking big in respect of immigration. I think the figures for 1963 prove that we are thinking big. The hon. member went back, of course, to the year 1948 and before that. As the hon. Member for Odendaalsrus (Dr. Meyer) said it is not necessary to go into that question again. I have dealt with that on several occasions. I should like to point this out however, that as far as the United Party Government was concerned it never had a State-aided immigration policy. It was this Government which introduced a State-aided immigration policy for immigrants. The United Party had no particular policy in regard to immigration; they had no clear-cut policy. It was this Government which initiated the policy of State aid a few years ago. I think that has been one of the reasons for the success in the immigration drive. We now assist immigrants quite substantially to come to South Africa.

I think it is also interesting to give the Committee some figures in view of the remarks of the hon. member for Orange Grove. I find that from 1924 to 1948, under all the Governments during that period, including the United Party Government, a total of 184,791 immigrants came to South Africa. But under the National Party Government, from 1949 to 1963, 251,917 immigrants came out to this country.

You had the benefit of our immigration scheme of 1948-50.

The United Party had no clear-cut scheme at all.

What about the contract with the Union Castle Company?

That was all there was. I am talking about State-aided immigration. Those immigrants who came in those ships of the Union Castle still had to pay their transport expenses. That is the point I am making.

The other point raised by the hon. member was that there was a substantial delay in approving applications by immigrants; he said there was a volume of correspondence between overseas countries and Pretoria. Well, that has been done away with as the hon. member probably knows. Our immigration attaches overseas are now authorized to approve immigrants themselves. It need not be referred to Pretoria any more unless they have doubt about anybody. I can assure the hon. member that the process of selection and approval has been expedited very much over the last three years.

Then the hon. member suggested that there might be some discrimination as far as immigrants from South Europe were concerned. There is no discrimination. Let me give the Committee some figures. For instance in 1963 we had 1,207 immigrants from Greece; 506 from Italy and 499 from Portugal. We must bear in mind that these countries, particularly Portugal, give us no encouragement as far as immigrants are concerned. They insist that before an immigrant leaves their country he has to have a written contract of employment with somebody in the country to which he goes. If he is an artisan and has contributed to any Trade Union or other funds in Portugal those funds should be transferred to South Africa and he must get credit for them. In other words, they say this: If we are going to allow our people to emigrate they must emigrate to a welfare state such as the one they are leaving; they must get all the benefits of that system in the country to which they are going. Obviously we cannot agree to that. I have always said, as Minister of Immigration, and I repeat that I am not prepared to give immigrants from any country any more than we give our own people in South Africa.

The hon. member also raised the question of discrimination on the ground of religion. There is none as these figures indicate. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout) …

May I ask a question? Does the Minister keep figures in regard to the religion of immigrants?

Oh yes. Every person who makes an application to emigrate to South Africa has to fill in certain forms. One of the questions asked is: What is your religion. That is a routine matter. We keep statistics.

What are the figures?

I have not got those figures available at the moment. If the hon. member would put a question on the Order Paper I shall give him the figures. We get the figures from the Department of Statistics from time to time. As I say, there is no discrimination. As hon. members know we have complete freedom of religion in South Africa. We have churches for all denominations here and the immigrants who come here have no difficulty in going to the church they wish to attend.

I am grateful to the hon. member for Brakpan for his remarks. He made an appeal that we should assist immigrants; that we should treat them as South Africans; that we should take them into our homes and that we should make them feel at home. Well, in fact, Sir, our people are doing that. We have voluntary committees in most of the big centres. They are looking after these immigrants; they are making them feel at home and helping them with advice and friendliness and so on. They do everything in their power to assist immigrants. The hon. member for Durban-Central (Dr. Radford), I take it, spoke on behalf of the Medical Council.

No, I am a member of the Medical Council, but I have no authority to speak on their behalf.

Well, I think I must deal with the hon. member in some detail, because I want to get the record quite straight as far as the medical profession in South Africa is concerned, and their attitude towards immigrants. The hon. member quoted from a speech that I made in the Other Place, where this issue was raised. I want to refer to that speech, because I think it is of some importance for South Africa to know exactly where we stand as far as the Medical Council is concerned and its attitude towards immigrant doctors. We are told from time to time that there is a tremendous shortage of doctors in South Africa. Figures of 2,000, 2,400 and 2,500 have been mentioned and, of course, I, as Minister of Immigration, am concerned about this matter, and my job is to try to alleviate any shortage of skilled manpower as far as I can. So I want to say most emphatically that there is not one word of truth in the allegation the hon. member has made that the Government is prepared to accept medical practitioners of inferior quality. There is not a word of truth in it, and I resent the suggestion. As Minister of Immigration, I can give this Committee and the country the assurance that at no time has the Government considered or even discussed the possibility of admitting medical practitioners with unacceptable academic qualifications. To remove all doubt as to the Government’s policy, the Medical Council, on 26 February 1963, was furnished with a full report of the statement I made in the Senate. So there could be no ambiguity as to what I said in the Senate. From an immigration point of view, this, I think hon. members will realize, is a most important matter, and all I am seeking to do is to remove any artificial barriers which might hamper immigration. I am just as anxious as that hon. member, who is a member of the Medical Council, to protect the high standards, not only of the medical profession, but in all walks of life for which South Africa has justly become known all over the world as far as our professions are concerned.

I cannot understand why the Medical Council will persist with this argument of inferior qualifications. The hon. member for Durban (Central) has repeated it again to-day. He has persisted in that argument, and I can only assume that the only object that the hon. member has, or can achieve, is to create an entirely wrong impression of the Government’s policy, and to confuse this whole issue.

Of course there can be no objection to the methods employed by the Medical Council in deciding on the acceptability of overseas qualifications. No responsible person in his right senses would suggest lower qualifications than our standards, and that any inferior qualifications should be recognized by the Council. The Council has not been criticized on the grounds that too few overseas degrees are being recognized. I agree that the addition of further acceptable qualifications is a matter entirely for the Council. But the only objection is this: that, except for qualifications of countries with which South Africa has agreements of reciprocity, the so-called accepted qualifications are only registerable in the Republic if held by South African citizens. Let me put this case. If a South African, a student born in South Africa, goes overseas and, let us say, he goes to Berlin or Vienna and he qualifies there as a doctor, which takes him six or seven years, with the medical degrees he obtains there he can come back to South Africa and can register and practise as a doctor. But the student who sat next to him in the university for those six or seven years cannot register and practise here, because the Medical Council will not recognize the very same degrees. Now, does that make sense? As I have said, I have done my best as far as the Medical Council is concerned to see to it that degrees and qualifications should not be inferior. But do hon. members know that the Medical Council is prepared to allow an overseas doctor with his overseas qualifications to come to South Africa and to be employed in a Government institution or in a Government hospital or in a South West Administration hospital and to practise there as a doctor? But he cannot practise outside as a private practitioner! The inference there is that it does not matter what he does in his capacity as a doctor in a Government institution. According to them, he is not qualified to be let loose on the public. But he can practise in a hospital! What is the difference? The hon. member probably knows of the case of a well-known doctor who went to Windhoek. He is a qualified specialist who came to South Africa from Europe. He could not practise here. They —the Medical Council—said: No, you can get a job in an institution or a hospital. He went to a hospital in Windhoek and he has worked there for three or four years, and he is still working there. They will not allow him to practise outside. He has made every attempt to be permitted to register and to practise, but he is not permitted to see patients who come from far and near to Windhoek to consult him in the hospital because he is a well-known specialist. You know what the result has been? He is giving up and going back to Europe. That is what is happening. He is going back to Europe, where there is a big demand for his services, and we are losing the services of that man, who is a famous specialist, and whom we can ill-afford to lose. So I say that it seems to me that there is something not quite right in this set-up, and I think it is up to the hon. member for Durban (Central) to really go into this and see whether he, with his influence in the Medical Council, cannot help to find a solution to this problem. Let us get the immigrant doctors from Europe, with qualifications just as good as his or anybody else’s. Let them come freely to South Africa to assist us with this serious shortage of doctors, when the Medical Council and others tell us exists in South Africa. I make an appeal to the hon. member. As far as I am concerned, as Minister of Immigration, I can do no more. I have done everything I can. I recently received a long memorandum from the Medical Council—I think about 80 or 90 pages—in which they have attempted to put their side of the case. I have replied to that memorandum, point by point, and the hon. member will find my reply before him at the next meeting of the Medical Council. I hope they will lay my memorandum before him and he will be able to see what the replies are and to judge for himself. As I say, it seems to me that something should be done about this.

The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) made an allegation that our immigration attempt seems to be rather luke-warm. Well, if the hon. member would take the trouble to go and see these immigrants arriving in South Africa, both by sea and by air, I do not think he will find that his remark was justified that our attempt is luke-warm. It is anything but luke-warm.

As far as numbers are concerned.

The hon. member also said that the expansion of the scheme is in jeopardy. He asked why in competition with Australia and Canada we are getting so few immigrants. Australia gets 100,000 per annum. Let me tell the hon. member that the countries he refers to accept all immigrants, skilled or unskilled. But we of course follow a policy of selection. We select immigrants and they are still being selected to-day under the old Act of 1937 in which certain qualifications are laid down and they must conform to those qualifications before they can come to South Africa. But let me say that the class of immigrant that we have been getting for the last two years has been first-class. It seems to me we are getting the cream of the immigrants in South Africa, and I think everyone will agree with me when I make this statement. The hon. member also said we must offer greater inducements. What greater inducements can we offer? We give them R120 each, for the father, for the mother and the children, they all get R120 each, which pays their costs of transport. We look after them when they come here. We put them in an hotel or a boarding house until they get work. We provide transport from their port of entry to wherever they want to go and work. As the hon. member knows we had a loan scheme up to last year. In addition to giving the money, we also lent R60 a person. We have done away with the loan scheme and have incorporated that in the grant and thereby doubled the grant. I don’t know what further inducement the hon. member wants me to offer them. I would suggest to the hon. member for Pinelands that he could try and persuade his colleague who sits in front of him (Dr. Radford) to try to persuade the medical profession to allow doctors to come to South Africa.

The hon. member wanted to know what was the difference between skilled and unskilled workers? I think it speaks for itself. Let me tell him that last year we received 12,000 skilled immigrants. When I say “skilled”. I mean professional men, technicians, clerks, teachers, nurses and so on. Those are skilled immigrants. We even received quite a number of immigrants from Portugal who are skilled in the fishing industry, they are skilled fishermen. They have all been taken into the fishing industry in South West Africa, in Walvis Bay.

Finally, I think I should give the committee a few figures. The hon. member for Pinelands said: “What are we doing to urge people not to leave South Africa?” I do not quite know what we can do. He knows, and I think the committee knows that many people emigrated from South Africa in 1960 to New-Zealand and Australia and most of them have come back. Of course we don’t know beforehand whether people are going to leave South Africa or not. So what can we do to urge them to stay in South Africa? I think one inducement we can hold out to them not to emigrate is to assure them that this Government will still be in power for many years and that assurance will give them a feeling of safety and security here in South Africa. It is a good thing that South Africans should know that. I think that is one of the reasons why the figure for emigration is decreasing every year. In 1963 only 7,156 emigrants left South Africa, which was considerably less than in 1962 and 1961.

I want to answer the other question put about immigrants from overseas and immigrants from Africa. During 1962 there were 10,830 immigrants from territories in Africa and 10,086 from the rest of the world. So the proportion was about 50-50. For 1963, the figures were 20,058 from Africa and 17.000 from the rest of the world. So there was a big increase in the number of immigrants from Africa. The reason for that, of course, was that more immigrants were coming from Kenya and from the Rhodesias. Let me just give the committee one or two other figures. From the African Continent these 20,000 immigrants whom I mentioned came from East Africa and the Rhodesias and a few from Tanganyika. From Kenya there came 2,298, from Northern Rhodesia 7,003 and from Southern Rhodesia 7,645. In addition 771 merely gave Rhodesia as their country of previous residence. There were 273 from Nyasaland and 329 from Tanganyika. Then there were the following from the overseas countries: From the United Kingdom, 10,135, Ireland, 154, Austria 159, Germany 2,077, the Netherlands 705, Belgium 370, France 101, Greece 1,207, Portugal 499, Switzerland 240, Italy 506. And 338 White immigrants came from other countries in Asia. The Americas also contributed a fair number, that is 693, which included 183 who came from Canada and 376 from the United States of America. Finally, there were 397 immigrants from Australia and New Zealand.

Mr. Chairman, the 1963 immigration figure is nearly 38,000 with a net gain of 30,800, an all-time record for South Africa. The previous highest figures were for ’48 when 35,631 immigrants came to this country and the gain was 28,097.

Give us the figures from 1950 to 1960.

I have not got those figures here. I do not want to go back into those figures, I am looking forward now as I have been doing for the last two or three years.

You have changed the policy.

The hon. member for Pinelands asked us what our target is for the next five years. I have no target. The Government’s policy is that we will take as many immigrants as we can absorb in South Africa. In other words, we are not prepared to take more immigrants into South Africa than we can absorb into employment. We want to avoid unemployment. So I have no target. But let me say this: Judging from the figures so far this year and our prospects, it seems to me that there is a possibility we may this year reach a target of 40,000, but I am not prepared to say what will happen after that. I cannot say. I think hon. members will appreciate that it is quite impossible to say how many immigrants you are going to get for the next four or five years. But let me say this that the prospects at present indicate that the flow of immigrants may get bigger, particularly from the United Kingdom. Immigrants are coming from the United Kingdom to South Africa despite the effect of a hostile overseas Press, hostile television, hostile radio, and all that goes with it, hostile propaganda. Notwithstanding that those immigrants are coming to South Africa which is a republic, which is outside the Commonwealth, which has a definite non-European policy of which the world does not appear to approve. Notwithstanding that these immigrants are coming from the United Kingdom, and, as I have just said, they are first-class people, first-class workers, and they are coming to South Africa, because they realize that it is a land of opportunity, offering an opportunity for them and their children, and above all that they have got a stable, healthy good government.

I just want to assure the hon. Minister that the first occasion I have I will reply to his speech.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Revenue Vote No. 43.—“Coloured Affairs”, R36,850,000,

I ask the privilege of the half-hour rule.

There are two important topical matters affecting the Coloured people with which I wish to deal with under the hon. Minister’s Vote. They relate to Government policy towards the Coloured people of South Africa. Firstly I wish to avail myself of this opportunity of discussing with the hon. Minister the Government’s reaction to certain aspects contained in a book recently published by the South African Bureau of Racial Affairs, more commonly known as SABRA, with regard to the Coloured population of South Africa. This book contains many important proposals which may bring considerable influence upon the future racial policy of this country towards our Coloured people, and whilst I do not of necessity agree with many of the aspects raised in this important and far-reaching study of our Coloured people, I must confess there are certain points which merit the most careful consideration. From the Coloured people’s point of view, and indeed from the point of view of a very large section of the White people of this country it is necessary that we should hear as soon as possible the Government’s reaction to certain suggestions made in this intense study of the Coloured people by a very important and responsible section of our Afrikaner people. The work itself is a welcome contribution to new thought on the part of important members of the Nationalist Party—these Afrikaner people who have taken the trouble of making this intense study have rendered a service to this country, and I feel that they have made a wecome contribution to some new thoughts towards the policy to be adopted in respect of the Coloured people. It would, in my view, be a great pity if some of the realistic suggestions made in this report are shelved and not given the most serious and sympathetic consideration. I want to emphasize that only the Government can indicate to the Coloured people whether the ultimate political future of the Coloured people in this country is that envisaged by Dr. M. J. Olivier in his chapter on “Differential Legislation”, or whether there is to be continued indefinitely the obdurate policy of keeping the Coloured people for all time in the shadows as political second-class citizens in their own country. It is in the hope that we may be able to extract from the hon. Minister a sympathetic declaration of Government policy, giving effect to the recommendations in SABRA’s pronouncement that I now raise this matter.

The broad principle of SABRA’s study of the Coloured position in South Africa is the fact that our 1,500,000 Coloured people should ultimately be drawn fully into the White sphere. That is the basic principle behind SABRA’s approach to the whole of our Coloured problem, that these 1,500,000 Coloured people should ultimately be drawn fully into the White sphere. This to my mind is the key to SABRA’s approach to this important problem. I would like the hon. Minister in the course of his reply to this debate, to state definitely and succinctly that this broad principle is Government policy, namely, that our Coloured population should ultimately be drawn fully into the White sphere in this country. I think a declaration of this sort would bring a great deal of consolation to our Coloured folk. In view of all that has gone before in the past 15 years in relation to our Coloured people, we all realize that of necessity there must be many difficulties in the way before this ultimate object is achieved. I do not ask the hon. Minister to declare that the Government can with one fell swoop change the outlook towards and the the future of the Coloured people, but a declaration by the Government along the lines envisaged in SABRA’s report will bring a great deal of hope to our Coloured people and to their leaders. To put it in the words of Dr. M. J. Olivier, research officer of the Africa Institute in Pretoria in his very interesting chapter on differential legislation—

I am quoting the actual words of Prof. Olivier in this interesting chapter. He says that they should be assured that their future is in the White sphere and that the political question will be reviewed from time to time. I cannot stress too much the importance of the Coloured people, and particularly their leaders being given the assurance by the Government, that the last has not been said about their political future, and that the political question will be reviewed from time to time. I agree that it is most important to concentrate immediately upon a rapid improvement of the position of the Coloured people in regard to education, and in regard to the social and economic aspects, so that there should be a general upliftment in regard to these three very important necessities in life. I agree that a rapid improvement is necessary in order to equip our Coloured people sufficiently so as to fit them into the future and to enable them to face that future with some equanimity. Again I want to quote what Dr. W. J. de Kock in his chapter on “constitutional rights” says—

In all fairness I want to say that the Government has done a great deal to help the Coloured people materially and that the Coloured people are, generally speaking, appreciative of that. But I also agree entirely with what Dr. De Kock says in this dissertation on this subject, namely that—

From my knowledge of the Coloured people I agree entirely with the view so concisely expressed here by Dr. De Kock, namely that the Coloured people by and large, whilst appreciating the improvements they have received in the educational and economic spheres, still claim complete frustration as far as their political rights are concerned. They also maintain a deep-rooted unwillingness to accept the political status to which they have been relegated during the past 10 years. If we want to win back the goodwill and friendship of this important section of the South African population, it is, I suggest, necessary for us to apply our minds to finding constitutional methods by which our Coloured people can be offered a political future which will free them from this awful frustration and from what I regard as the justified aggrieved feelings on their part.

In this Sabra publication mention is made of four points upon which the Coloured people have expressed themselves strongly, namely (here I quote from the relevant publication)—

Now, Mr. Chairman, we must in all conscience acknowledge that these fundamental objections are justified and SABRA has hit the nail on its head when they brought out so forcibly these four points upon which the Coloured people have expressed themselves so strongly. While I want to admit again that it may not be possible to ameliorate the position of the Coloured people in one fell swoop, it is nevertheless essential that some Government pronouncement should be made which should have the effect of not allowing our Coloured people and their leaders to despair of their future. In other words, they should be assured that the basic objection which they have raised to their position at present, will not be allowed to continue for all time. They should, for instance, be assured that the political question affecting their political future will be reviewed from time to time; that the discrimination which has been imposed upon the Coloured people will not be allowed to remain; and that there will be planned concessions which as time goes on will give to the Coloured people by constitutional methods greater rights and restore to them the political status of full citizenship in their own country.

My appeal to the hon. the Minister to-day is that he should take a courageous stand and say to the Coloured people that, in broad principle, the Government accepts the proposals of SABRA contained in this far-reaching study about the Coloured people. I think that if the hon. the Minister could see his way clear to say that the Government is, in broad principle, prepared to give effect in due course to the recommendation of SABRA in relation to our Coloured people, he will do a great deal to ameliorate the unfortunate position which obtains to-day in regard to the Coloured people vis-à-visthe Whites in this country. I therefore ask the Minister to make a pronouncement which will indicate to the Coloured people that they are not to lose hope, that their future lies in the White man’s sphere, and also that the political question with regard to their political status will be reviewed from time to time. In the interests of the Coloured people as well as in the interests of the country, I feel it is essential that such a declaration should be made by the Government, and made at the earliest possible opportunity. I said this advisedly by reason of the frustration and the aggrieved feelings which are uppermost in the minds of the Coloured people.

They are being exploited to-day by certain political opportunists who see in this sad plight of the Coloured people an opportunity of furthering their own party political interests. Dr. Olivier, in his interesting dissertation, issued a warning against allowing this unfortunate trend to develop. He said this—

From information which has come to the knowledge of my colleagues and of myself in recent weeks, I regret to say that Dr. Olivier’s warning is entirely justified. Steps have been taken by certain people, whom I regard as political opportunists, to try and woo the Coloured people over to their way of thinking. I am glad the hon. member for Houghton is present because I propose dealing with the Party she represents in this House and with the attitude of her Party towards the Coloured people. Having failed to make any intrusion whatsoever in White constituencies and that despite the spending of countless thousands of rand, the Progressive Party is now wooing the Coloured people in the hope that they might win some Coloured seats to enable them to remain in this political forum …

Have you got the monopoly?

No, I have no monopoly, not by any means. I have no monopoly and no exclusiveness. Let me here make my position quite clear. I am not now speaking from my own personal point of view, because I have made it clear to my Coloured friends that after the life of this Parliament I do not, having already served more than 20 years, intend seeking re-election. Consequently I do not speak from my own personal point of view. But I should hate to see the Coloured people led up the garden path, and it is for this reason that I avail myself of this opportunity of associating myself with the warning Dr. Olivier has given about the Coloured people being exploited by some people who are taking advantage of the sad plight, the sad political plight, in which the Coloured people find themselves.

During the past few years the Progressive Party has contested numerous elections in White constituencies in an endeavour to get some of their members into this Parliament …

But that is legitimate, is it not?

Yes, absolutely legitimate … and into the provincial councils. But they were rejected ignominiously by the White constituencies. Now they realize that they cannot make any impact upon the White electorate; so now they turn to the Coloured people and by means of a handful of Coloured ex-communists and fellow travellers they endeavour …

Such as who? Who are these ex-communists? Give me names.

I can give you a list of names. I can give you a list of names of people who have gone to your meetings to meet you socially under the pretext of cocktail parties, etc. where they were given a batch of cards to go and enrol members in anticipation of your …

Who are the ex-communists?

But let me go on. To my mind this is an extraordinary position. In 1961, prior to the general election … I want the hon. member to listen to this …

I am listening very carefully.

Prior to the general election the Progressive Party was responsible for urging the Coloured people to boycott the election and not to participate in the separate roll system. That was their attitude and policy then towards the Coloured people. The Minister knows that what I am saying is correct. They urged the Coloured people to boycott the elections and not to take part in the separate roll system. As the general election approached they issued a wishy-washy statement, which I have here. Unfortunately time does not permit me to read it entirely. In any event in this statement it was claimed that the Coloured roll was quite unrepresentative of the views of the Coloured people. This statement drew a perfectly justified condemnation from the Cape Argus on the 15th August, 1961. In a leading article this newspaper averred that Dr. Steytler’s candidature and subsequent withdrawal from Queenstown was a bluff and went on to say—

Now this ludicrous position reveals itself. In 1961 the Progressive Party would not have anything to do with an election which was based on the separate roll system, but to-day, in anticipation of the forthcoming provincial council elections which are to take place next year, in anticipation of the Parliamentary general election in 1966 and of the election of councillors to the new Coloured Advisory Council, they are doing everything possible to enrol Coloured voters to support them. Mr. Chairman, I do not know of greater political hypocrisy! Surely, the discrimination and the segregation about which they were so vehement in 1961 apply still to-day. They still apply today.

Are you not against the Coloureds being on a separate roll?

I was and am opposed to the Coloureds being taken off the common roll and I have said so repeatedly. But I nevertheless went for the vote of the Coloured people in order to be able to have their views expressed here. In 1961, however, the Party of the hon. member told the Coloureds not to have anything to do with the separate roll but to boycott the elections. And now when the Progressive Party realizes that it cannot win any White constituency, they are exploiting the Coloured people in order to get in. (Interruptions).

Order! The hon. member for Houghton should allow the hon. member for Peninsula to make his own speech.

I already said, Mr. Chairman, that the discrimination and segregation about which the Progressive Party was so vehement in 1961, surely still apply to-day? If anything, Sir, I would say that more discriminatory laws have been imposed upon the Coloured people since that date and that the position of the Coloured has, if anything, become worse. Yet we find that despite its attitude in 1961, when it still hoped to win White constituencies, the Progressive Party is to-day making every possible endeavour to win Coloured seats. But I want to assure the Progressive Party that they will not get very far with these endeavours. The Coloured people are far too wise politically to be misled by this political expediency. The Coloured people realize only too well that the Utopian promises made to them by the Progressive Party at cocktail parties and at social receptions, etc., are mere eyewash. They know that the Progressive Party can afford to make the most extravagent promises to them in the knowledge that they will never be in a position where they will be called upon to implement those promises. That they know. No, Sir, I am convinced that just as the Progressive Party was rejected by the White voters of this country, so will they be rejected by the Coloureds.

Having now disposed of the Progressive Party, I want to say this to the Government, namely, that it should take heed of the warning issued by Dr. Olivier in his SABRA statement, i.e. not to allow the unfortunate trend to develop whereby some people see a good opportunity in the difficult Coloured problem to further their own party political interests. I am convinced that if the Government would show the Coloured people that the end of the road had not yet been reached as far as their political rights were concerned and if they were assured that their future lay in the White sphere as adumbrated by SABRA, the Coloured people, despite their present frustrations and hopelessness, would unhesitatingly reject the overtures of political opportunists.

Now I want to deal with another very important matter, one which has caused a great deal of consternation amongst the Coloured people of the Peninsula. I refer here to the unfortunate announcement which was made by the Administrator of the Cape Province in which he intimated that as a result of Government policy the Coloured people would be excluded from the new opera house which it was intended to build in Cape Town. This stark announcement has created a great deal of misgivings in the minds of Coloured leaders and more particularly amongst that section of the Coloured people who are concerned with the cultural upliftment of their own people. These leaders are highly intelligent men and women, well-educated and well-cultured in the arts. You can imagine the resentment with which they heard for the first time that Cape Town’s new opera house would be for Whites only and that in due course there will be established for the Coloured people an opera house and a theatre for themselves somewhere in the outskirts of Bellville. I think it is necessary for me to say immediately that I do not in any way blame the Administrator for this unfortunate announcement. The Government must accept full responsibility for it. I am sure in my own mind that if the Administrator had the final say in the matter, he would have found some means …

Order! Is that not a provincial matter?

No, it is not, Sir. My approach is that this is a pronouncement of Government policy. Government policy has compelled the Administrator to make this announcement. In fact, he said that that was Government policy. My appeal now to the hon. the Minister is to use his office as Minister of Coloured Affairs to get the Government in the interests of the Coloured people to change its policy in this regard. It only needs a declaration on the part of the Government for this policy in relation to the Coloured people to be changed. Consequently I am raising this matter under the Minister’s Vote. I said that I was quite certain that if it depended upon the Administrator, the unfortunate position would not have arisen. As I see the matter and as other hon. members on both sides of the House also see it, the Coloured people are ratepayers of the City of Cape Town in the same way as the Whites are ratepayers. Commensurate with their earnings, the Coloured people make the same contribution to the City’s revenue. Consequently there can surely be no moral or ethical grounds on which they can be excluded from the theatre which is to be built for the City of Cape Town and which will be paid for in part by moneys obtained by way of rates and taxes paid by the Coloured members of the community. I repeat: There can be no moral justification whatsoever for excluding Coloured people from such an opera house or theatre.

I have on numerous occasions in this House appealed to the Government and to the hon. the Minister to stop this nonsense of petty apartheid which has already brought so much contumely on our country. As a matter of fact, South Africa has received more condemnation from the outside world in respect of these stupid and petty apartheid measures, than in respect of the general and basic policy of apartheid. It is these petty pinpricks which have caused so much ill-feeling and resentment in this country as well as outside. I have appealed to the Minister to do everything possible in his capacity as Minister of Coloured Affairs to try and stop this petty apartheid which is causing so much illfeeling, friction and frustration in the minds of the Coloured people and which brings so much adverse criticism of our country.

It is in the hope that the hon. the Minister will make the necessary representations to the Prime Minister and also to the other members of the Cabinet that I am raising this matter of the opera house under this Vote. I say this particular decision in regard to the opera house and the civic theatre was an unnecessary one and a most unfortunate one.

Order! This particular matter does not fall under this Vote. The question of the opera house does not fall under this Vote.

I know, Mr. Chairman, that it does not fall under the direct administration of the Minister …

Order! The hon. member is continually referring to this question. He must now go on to another point.

The point I want to emphasize, Sir, is that I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether it is his policy to allow a situation to arise whereby this new building can be used exclusively by the White people of this country…

Order! The hon. member must abide by my ruling.

I should then like to deal with this question of petty apartheid which has this effect on the Coloured people of this country. I cite this announcement in regard to the opera house as one of the instances of petty apartheid which is causing frustration. But leaving aside for the time being the question of this opera house, I can say that this position applies generally to municipal halls, in fact to every theatre production in this city and in the country. In order to overcome the problem of mixed audiences, the Government has allowed theatres on certain evenings to be used exclusively by Coloured audiences, and on other evenings by exclusively White audiences. I understand that that is in conformity with the policy laid down by the hon. the Minister. All that I am now asking is that the Government should, in connection with this new building, adopt the same policy and say that the Coloured people will be permitted to use the new civic opera house during certain evenings for themselves exclusively. The hon. the Minister may say that that is a matter which does not fall under his jurisdiction but I venture to suggest that there is only one who can speak authoritatively in the Cabinet on behalf of the Coloured people and that is the hon. the Minister himself. He is, after all, the mouthpiece of the Government in so far as Coloured affairs are concerned. My appeal therefore to the hon. the Minister is that he must use his influence as Minister of Coloured Affairs to ensure that this policy of petty apartheid which so adversely affects our relationships with the Coloured people is not to be continued. [Time limit.]

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) on having sounded a new note in this House to-day, a new note in respect of the Vote of Coloured Affairs. He has demonstrated a new and objective approach to this matter. Hence his attack upon the Progressive Party. In this connection I agree with him because one can imagine the sort of promises that the Progressive Party make to the Coloureds at the cocktail parties which they give for the Coloureds. What they promise the Coloureds is a heaven on earth. I hope that the Coloureds will remember one thing and that is that years ago, when they were still on the Common Roll, the United Party also promised them a heaven on earth but that nothing ever came of it. Because they have already been so misled in the past, one can only hope that they have become sufficiently mature under the new regime which the Government has created for them to prevent their again being misled in such a fashion.

The hon. member for Peninsula had a great deal to say about the attitude of SABRA and that of Dr. Olivier. The hon. member said that SABRA stated that the Coloured population should be fully integrated into White society. It is not quite clear to me what he meant. But I want to quote to him what Dr. Olivier has to say on page 224 of his book “Die Kleurlingbevolking van Suid-Afrika”. I do this because I think that the hon. member rather misunderstood Dr. Olivier and has therefore in this respect done him an injustice. This is what Dr. Olivier has to say (Translation)—

I think that the hon. member has done Dr. Olivier a slight injustice. I do not want to discuss the “little apartheid” of the hon. member. The Government’s attitude is well known. I can tell the hon. member that we are prepared to give the Coloured his rightful share. Homelands can be established for the Bantu but not for the Coloureds. But this Government has embarked upon such a tremendous programme that there is almost a lifetime of work for all of us, for the Whites and for the Coloureds, as far as the carryng out of this programme is concerned. I am pleased that the hon. member for Peninsula got away to a large extent from the petty political wrangling which we have experienced in regard to these matters in the past. I think that it is the duty of every White man to approach this matter on a different basis, on the basis of this new regime. I want to quote a few figures in this regard. This new regime was first started in 1951. Moreover, it had a small start. In the beginning there was only Dr. I. D. du Plessis and four other officials. Between 1951 and 1959 that was only a sub-department. It was only in 1959 that it became a full-fledged Department and it was only in 1961 that it was allocated to a full-fledged Minister. What do we have to-day? Apart from the head office which is situated in Cape Town, there are 13 regional offices. While in 1951 a start was made with four officials, there are to-day, besides the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary and the Secretary for Coloured Education, 1,352 posts of which 609, that is to say, about half, are already occupied by Coloureds. All this has taken place over this short while. These 1,352 posts are over and above the 11,300 posts which have been created in the division of education, a division which was only taken over this year—that is to say, only at the start of 1964.

Mr. Chairman, the Department of Coloured Affairs has proved that the Nationalist Government means well with the Coloured people. The services of the Coloured are being made use of more and more in the service of his own people. It is no longer necessary for the Whites to serve the Coloured in his own sphere. They have their own people who are trained for this work. The Department is training these people. It has been under this Government that Coloureds have been able to become commissioners of oaths and justices of the peace and have been given the opportunity to serve their own people. The Department of Coloured Affairs also ensures that employment is available to Coloureds at other departments because this Department has liaison with all other departments. It is this new regime that is promoting the trade of the Coloured. Opportunities are being made available to the Coloured in the commercial sphere through the medium of the Coloured Development Corporation and it is because the Department is assisting them in this way that we find to-day that there is so much confidence on the part of the Coloured in the Department of Coloured Affairs. Everyone knows, including the Opposition, what the position was in regard to the Coloured rural areas. There were 2,000,000 morgen of land which were absolutely neglected. It is this Department which is establishing economic agricultural units for the Coloureds and giving them ownership rights to those rural areas which were formerly owned jointly by the Coloured people, and which is ensuring that proper townships are laid out. In this way they are making sure that the position as it existed in the past does not continue. [Time limit.]

May I have the benefit of the other half-hour? The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) more or less intimated that he was very pleased that the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) attacked the Progressive Party, as if the hon. member for Peninsula ever at any time stood near the Progressive Party. May I say that the hon. member for Peninsula throughout the years has always been a solid supporter of the United Party. He also made the point that the United Party promised heaven and earth to the Coloureds and misled them. The hon. member very clearly said that the United Party in the past promised the Coloureds heaven and earth and misled them, but he did not mention a single instance of where we ever misled them.

You cannot mention one instance in Hansard where you pleaded for them.

The Department of Coloured Affairs is a department which has to look after the interests of the Coloured people, but it should never be lost sight of that the Coloureds must in the first place be South Africans and in the second place Coloureds. I believe they are proud of their race, but I believe they are prouder still of the fact that they are South African citizens, and any sound policy should be to regard the Coloureds as good South African citizens. The Coloureds as a group fulfil a very important position not only as citizens, but also as part of the Western group on the southern tip of Africa. When we say this, the Coloureds become a key group to the greatest problem we have in South Africa, the continued existence of the Western group, and in order to secure that, and not to divide the Western group, but to keep the Whites and the Coloureds together and to strengthen and develop that relationship. This is where we differ from the National Party basically. The policy of the Nationalist Party leads the Coloureds away from the Western group, on the road which makes their own racial interest the predominant interest, and will subordinate the interests of the Western group to their own interests. The policy of the National Party is deliberately teaching the Coloureds to look to their own interests first, and only thereafter to their interests as South African citizens. Nobody expects the Coloureds not to look after their own interests or to forget their own people. I have already said he has to be proud of his own race, but still prouder of being a South African citizen. It is tragic that the National Party is committing a few political crimes in South Africa with this approach.

Firstly the National Party is leading the Coloureds on a road of civilisation which without doubt is worse than the political status which is given to the Bantu. By doing so the Government is causing a wave of frustration and despair among the Coloureds which can have only one result, and that is that it will eventually boomerang against the Whites. The policy of separate development leads not only to bad race relations between the racial groups, but it also gives us a bad name overseas and worsens our relations with the outside world. The constant curtailments of the rights of the Coloureds are not doing our reputation any good. I need mention only a few. There is the prolonged struggle we had to remove the Coloureds from the Common Roll, and this was replaced by four members of the House of Assembly and two Provincial Council members to represent them. These are the things that frustrate them, so much so that the Coloureds to-day virtually no longer register as voters, and it has been found virtually impossible to register because it has been made so difficult and humiliating for them to register. The second thing is job reservation, which is hampering their progress in many respects, and has resulted in us having a shortage of skilled labour at the present time. The third is the immorality acts, which seek to protect the Whites, but do not protect the Coloureds against the Bantu. A fourth thing which causes frustration and bad relations is the manner in which the Group Areas Act is applied. In many instances it causes much hardship. The fifth thing is the application of the population register, which is tragic in many instances. The sixth is the Act on Separate Universities which restricts their opportunities. All these things lead to the frustration of the Coloureds and have caused us to get a bad reputation overseas.

A second crime the National Party has committed is that it is saying farewell to the traditional policy pursued for generations in respect of the Coloureds, and while they are doing that, they are nevertheless trying to delude the people into believing that they are pursuing the course set by the great leaders, while they are in fact renouncing that. General Hertzog made a promise that if the Coloureds helped us to segregate the Bantu, we would not segregate them but would always keep them with the Whites politically and economically. We promised them that they would remain an appendage of the Whites. They want this because they believe that the closer they are to the Whites, the better it is for them to uplift themselves. Thirdly, they are deluding the White people into believing that the National Party can save them, while they are driving away from us our most powerful ally, the Coloureds, by inciting them against us and building up racial feeling. If the Minister occupies himself only with the socio-economic upliftment of the Coloureds, nobody will object to that, because it is very necessary. It is necessary that the dwellings be built and that the schools be built so that their children may receive education, but they are entitled to it. All the things the National Government is doing for them, are things to which the Coloureds are entitled.

Why did you not do it then?

We did do it, but not on the present scale. There are more White schools than there were in the past also. That is the logical development that has taken place over all these years. I honestly believe that if the United Party were still in power to-day, these people would have progressed much further, because we did have their interests at heart. But the building of homes and schools is merely what is their due and no more, for it is in the interests of the country that they should get schools and education and should be trained, and that by so doing we should uplift the entire population whereby we shall be uplifting the country. This policy of the removal of the Bantu from the Western Cape will not improve their position. The Coloureds will then only be depressed to do the unskilled work the Bantu is doing at present. [Interjections.] This Government is putting the Coloureds on a separate political course the end of which it cannot foresee and which can never make more than second grade citizens of them. This House is aware of the Prime Minister’s policy of a state within a state, which he departed from subsequently because it can lead to nothing further. Such a policy cannot culminate in anything. The fact that 2,000,000 morgen of land has been acquired as a kind of home (tuiste) for the Coloureds is valueless, because they can never regard it as a home; that land is virtually valueless and it is merely a bluff. They are pursuing a policy which is not a policy at all as regards its terminal point, and it can only lead to further frustration of the Coloureds and a deterioration of race relations.

The hon. member for Peninsula elaborated upon the report of SABRA and pointed out that the SABRA thinkers, most of whom are not supporters of the United Party policy, also see the future of the Coloured man as closely connected with the White man, as the United Party sees it. This road to nowhere on which the Coloureds find themselves at the present time, is not the only anomaly in the policy of the Government either. Take the position of the four Representatives of the Coloureds in this House. The Minister has told us solemnly that they will remain here, but it does not fit in with the policy of the National Party. The National Party, taken as a whole, does not provide for the presence of such people. The fact of the matter is that they are here as a result of the policy of a Malan and a Strijdom, and the logic of the Malan policy does not require only that these members shall sit here, but that in due course they will be replaced by Coloureds. That is the policy of SABRA too, that they will eventually be replaced by Coloureds. The hon. member for Malmesbury read from the SABRA report just now, where SABRA said the Whites must remain here, but he repeatedly read also what Dr. Olivier says: “At this Stage”, in other words, their policy is that there will have to be a change eventually, virtually the policy pursued by the United Party actually. The actual truth is that the policy of the National Party in connection with the Coloureds does not plan for the remote future. They do not know what the ultimate end of it will be. If they want to pursue this policy in order to gain political advantage for the National Party from it—because it is a policy which has been conceived for nothing but political advantage; they created it in 1936 in order to catch the White vote and thereby to enable themselves to form the Government. It is a policy they created for plain political advantage, and if they wish to pursue it it is their own business, but what is the business of the people is that by this shortsighted conduct they are jeopardizing the White man and his way of life in this country in that they are driving away from us our best allies, the Coloured people. They are making enemies of them while they wish to stand by us. The only policy that can succeed, and which can once again bring the outside world closer to us and create goodwill, and which will retain the goodwill and friendly disposition of the Coloureds, is the policy of the United Party.

And what is that?

The hon. member knows as well as I do what the policy of the United Party is. Our policy will ensure the continued existence in this country of not only the Whites, but also of the Coloureds, and the sooner we return to the policy of the United Party the better it will be for all of us.

The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) began by accusing the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) for saying that the United Party always promised heaven and earth to the Coloured, and then betrayed and misled them, but I should like to go further and say that the United Party promised them not only the heavens and the earth, but also the sun, the moon and the stars, and thereafter they misled the Coloured. I do not want to revert to the old days when the United Party ladies in glittering motor-cars carried the Coloured voters to the polling booths and the next day did not know them again. I recall very clearly, in the days when I fought my first political campaign in 1954, how the United Party supporters said to me: We can never vote for you Nationalists, because your policy aims at doing much too much for the Coloured; our policy is aimed at appeasing the Coloured a little on polling day and the next day we forget them again and they must remain just where they are. That is why I feel that I am fully justified in saying that the United Party at least does not promise the Coloured quite as much as the Progressive Party is promising —I concede that to the hon. member for Peninsula—but the whole policy amounts to mere promises which will most certainly not be honoured. So I shall not deal with the policy of the United Party any further, but I should like to turn to the hon. the Minister and his Department and congratulate them on the great success they have achieved in the transfer of Coloured education.

I do not think anybody in this House, who does not know what those men have done during the past 18 months, will realize how much hard work was put into that switchover. We wish to pay tribute to-day to those people, the Minister and his Department, for the wonderful work they have done. We want to congratulate them on the success they have achieved thus far. We realize of course that there are numerous problems and that very thorny problems are still arising from time to time, but we are thankful that the Minister and his Department has succeeded in procuring so many able White school principals and inspectors to cause this switch-over to be effected so smoothly. We are grateful that they do not spare time or trouble or sacrifices to do this great work, and we believe that this work will produce ripe fruit in the future. We wish the Minister and his Department godspeed in their great task.

But then I should like to bring a matter to the Minister’s attention, which is causing many of our White voters a good deal of bother, and that is the question of children’s allowances for the very large number of children of Coloured mothers born out of wedlock. It is a fact that about 36 per cent of all Coloured births are out of wedlock, and so many of those mothers come to the Department and apply for allowances for those children born out of wedlock, and it is being abused very seriously. It is a well-known fact, particularly in the rural areas, that very few of these young Coloured girls do not step over the traces and have illegitimate children before marriage, and then apply to the State for allowances for those children. I should like to ask the Minister to have the necessary inquiry made to see whether the fathers of those children cannot be traced and compelled to meet their paternal obligations. Why should the White taxpayer pay for those children? I shall appreciate it very much if the Minister and his Department will give their very serious attention to this matter and see to it that the man responsible will also pay for the support of his child.

It is strange that the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) did not devote his valuable time to putting up a case for his voters instead of attacking the Progressive Party. There is an awful lot he could have dealt with. He could have dealt with the disabilities of the Coloured under group areas and under the separate education policy and the disabilities of the Coloured people as far as job reservation is concerned, instead of which all he dealt with was the case made out by Sabra for integrating the Coloured people with the White people, and in passing he mentioned, and said it was wrong, that the Government should continue with its petty apartheid policy, as if petty apartheid is what worries the Coloured people, instead of the major issue to which he should have devoted his time. I can only assume, since he did not devote his time to these important matters, that he was much more worried about the fact that the Progressive Party appears to be organizing in what he considers to be his monopoly, i.e. the separate seats that he and his colleagues hold and that he is worried about the position. He has told us that he himself does not intend standing again at the next election. Well, I have heard many protestations from sitting members about not being interested in standing at the next election, but it is strange how many of them change their minds when it comes to election time. Anyway, I can only say that if he and his colleagues feel so strongly about the possibility—and it is still only a possibility—of the Progressive Party fighting the Coloured seats, it cannot be on a question of principle because obviously they themselves would not be sitting here if they felt that it was a matter of principle. So it can only be because they suddenly feel that somebody might be entering their own field and they do not like the idea of competition.

Now I want to say right away that as far as I am concerned, one cannot simply equate Coloured seats in this House with the seats occupied by persons representing White constituencies. There is an important difference, which is that the Coloured people have been done a grave injustice by being removed from the Common Roll, and they feel it. The method whereby it was achieved is also something which they do not easily forget. A great many Coloured people who at the time felt that they would not have anything to do with using separate representation are now changing their minds because of the practical aspect. They feel they want the only remaining forum, Parliament and the lesser body, the provincial council, to have a legitimate voice to speak up on their behalf, and that is why a number of Coloured people who formerly objected to having anything to do with the Coloured seats are to-day thinking again; and if there is a sufficient demand from the politically aware Coloured people to have that straightforward representation, we would in that case be perfectly entitled also to change our minds about our attitude. A lot of people have changed their minds about politics in the ten years I have been in this House, even I, although I have never changed my basic ideals, as the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) ought to know since she attended congresses with me and very often supported resolutions I moved. That is just the difference. I gave up all hope of achieving anything from within the United Party, but she is still in her political youth and she will give it a few more years. I do not know how much longer she will last, but I wish her luck in her career. If we do change our minds, which is by no means certain, about this question of fighting the Coloured seats, that is our business, but it is after all our legitimate business, and I think hon. members must concede that no one party can have a monopoly in this House and that anyone is entitled to fight any seat, and if we do so we would at least be doing it on a straightforward basis, and that is on the straightforward basis of the removal of racial discrimination.

Why not straight forward in 1961?

We will stand for what we believe in, unlike hon. members here who seem to be at variance as to their true policy as far as the Coloured vote is concerned. I have mentioned before to the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) that if he remains a member of the United Party, one is entitled to assume that he follows their policies as far as the Coloured people are concerned, and therefore one assumes that he too does not agree that Coloured women are ready for the vote and that he too agrees that Coloured men in the Cape Province lose their “experience of voting” when they cross a border and go into the Free State and the Transvaal. Of course, how the White voter when he turns 18 suddenly acquires experience and is allowed to go on the Roll is something which has never been quite explained to me by people who maintain that only the Coloured voter in the Cape has any experience of exercising the franchise. Sir, it would also interest me to know how the hon. member, who apparently does not feel himself decently clad unless he stands under the banner of the United Party, feels about the question of membership of the Coloured people of the party to which he belongs. I think if we straightened out those matters instead of worrying about the possible competition of the Progressive Party at forthcoming elections, he would be doing his constituents a much greater service.

Tell us why you did not fight the Karoo by-election.

Because we did not decide to fight Karoo. Surely any party has the right to decide what seats it is going to fight and what seats it is not going to fight. The hon. member will find that the National Party Government is going to be returned with a lot of unopposed seats at the next election; he need not worry about that. His own party is going to be returned no doubt with some unopposed seats.

Why did you not fight the Karoo election?

Because we decided that we did not want to fight it; it is as simple as that.

Why?

We did not decide that on a matter of principle. The reason why we decided not to fight the election is our business, just as it is the business of the United Party if it decides to fight or not to fight, for instance, the seat now occupied by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Why did the United Party decide not to fight that election.

Because we thought we could not win.

Well, maybe we had the same reasons.

We have given you an honest answer; now give us an honest answer..

That is a very good reason. Maybe we were not ready for it; maybe we had not decided in principle whether we wanted to fight Coloured seats or not, but that does not affect the future situation and we shall feel ourselves quite free to change our minds despite the strictures of the hon. member for Peninsula, and as I said earlier on, at least if we do fight those seats we will fight on the straightforward policy of the removal of race discrimination which might very well be something of which the Coloured people will approve in South Africa.

Have you changed your policy?

No, our policy has always been the removal of race discrimination; that has always been my policy, even when I was deep in the heart of the United Party in the days of my ugly past!

Now I want to get on to a matter which refers more specifically to the Coloured people and which is a little less party political, and that is the question of Coloured Education which falls under this particular Vote. I want also at a later stage to discuss housing and other matters with the hon. the Minister and also the question of group areas, but I gather that that should be left for a later Vote. Coloured education, however, does fall under this Vote, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he has seen an article which appeared in the Rand Daily Mail earlier this month on the whole question of the disabilities of the Coloured people since the transfer of Coloured Education to his Department, in the Transvaal. The complaints are as follows, and I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will tell me whether they are in fact justified and, if so, what he proposes to do about them: Firstly, that temporary women teachers have not been paid since January—the same sort of complaint that we had in the case of Bantu teachers—that married women teachers are being paid R50 per month until their old salary scales under the Transvaal Education Department are certified correct; that only three inexperienced (at any rate as far as education is concerned) White clerks are serving the needs of 72 Coloured schools in the Transvaal and that only Whites are administering Coloured education in the Transvaal. [Time limit.)

I do not wish to interfere in the quarrel between the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), on behalf of the Progressive Party, and the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg). I am sure that one of his colleagues will be able to deal with those arguments. I was somewhat amazed that the hon. member now says that her policy in respect of the Coloureds is the removal of racial discrimination. Formerly we heard that the Coloureds should have the vote on merit and on merit only. The two things are not quite the same, because if merit and merit only has to decide, then there will be many Coloureds who will not get onto the Voter’s Roll.

I said I wish to confine myself to certain things said by the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan). When he was asked what the United Party’s policy was in respect of the Coloureds, he said we knew it as well as he did, but the only positive point mentioned by him in his whole speech was that the Coloureds should be economically integrated with the Whites. Now I should like to ask him this question: What about social integration? Is the United Party in favour of social integration? No, now I do not get any reply. I shall ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition then: What is the policy of the United Party in respect of social integration between Whites and Coloureds? No, he does not reply.

What was your policy?

I always said there must be no social integration, and that was when I was driven out of the United Party. Is the United Party in favour of social integration between Whites and Coloureds, or are they not in favour of that? No, they will not answer; they evade it. I want to ask them whether the United Party is in favour of separate residential areas for Coloureds and Whites. We know they were in favour of it formerly, but I should like to ask them whether they still are in favour of that to-day.

Eden says “no”.

Are they in favour of it today? No, I get no reply. They say they are in favour of the Coloured being restored to the Voters’ Roll. Are they in favour of all the Coloured from all the provinces of the Republic being included on the Common Voters’ Roll, or are they limiting it to the Coloured of the Cape? Is the United Party in favour of giving the Coloured woman the vote? What is their reply? Somebody is murmuring here behind me that I need not put the question; that I can read it myself. Why cannot they get up in this House and tell us what is their policy? Why can they not reply to these questions?

They are too scared to reply.

The hon. member for Gardens says they have never misled the Coloured. I should like to remind him how the Coloured fared under the United Party. In the first place, they expelled the Coloured who had representation in the Cape Peninsula Council from it. There was a time when Coloured people could be members of the Cape Peninsula Council of the United Party.

Did you agree with that?

Yes, I was in agreement with it.

Are you still in agreement?

What is the United Party doing now? I voted in favour of the Coloured being put on a separate roll. The hon. member was too young at the time to know what happened. What did the United Party do? They robbed the Coloured of membership of the United Party. The Coloured could originally be members of the United Party branches they wished to join. The United Party kept them out of that. They then said the Coloured could have separate branches. Note carefully, Mr. Chairman, not mixed branches, but they could be members of separate branches, and when a lot of Coloured became members of separate branches they sent their delegates, as every branch was entitled to do, to the congress at Port Elizabeth, and the United Party refused to permit them to take their seats at the congress. They then promised the Coloured that they could hold their congress at a later date, and that congress has not been held to this day. They kept the Coloured out of the provincial council.

Do not be such a humbug!

The hon. member for Blikkiesdorp should rather keep quiet, she is the greatest humbug in the whole House.

A political “humbug”.

Order! Will the hon. member please repeat the word he used.

I said the hon. member for Blikkiesdorp should rather keep quiet, for she is the greatest “humbug” in Parliament.

Order: Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Which words must I withdraw—the word “humbug”?

There is no member for Blikkiesdorp in this House.

All right then, I shall say the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) who referred to Blikkiesdorp.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw “Blikkiesdorp”, but she also used the word.

And the word “humbug”.

On a point of order, then I should like to ask you to order the hon. member also to withdraw the word “humbug”, because she said to me: “You are the biggest humbug”.

The hon. member for Wynberg must withdraw those words.

On a point of explanation; I never called the hon. member a “humbug”.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to call all the members present here as my witnesses that she did in fact use those words.

The hon. member has denied it. The hon. member may proceed.

Sir, here she has just said it again. I was saying that the United Party, which is supposed to be so much in favour of restoring the Coloureds to the general Voters’ Roll, during their régime saw to it that the Coloureds did not have a single representative in the provincial council. They rode into the provincial council and into Parliament on the backs of the Coloureds. There were a few Coloureds in the provincial council but after Abdurahman and Reagon there has never been another Coloured man in the provincial council. The United Party made use of the vote of the Coloureds, but they never said to the Coloureds: “Look, here is a seat you can have in the provincial council”. Now the hon. member for Gardens comes along and he refers to the four representatives of the Coloureds sitting in this House, and he says that those representatives should, in due course, be Coloureds. But, Sir, it is their policy that the Coloureds should be restored to the Common Voters’ Roll. I predict from my knowledge of the past, that if the Coloureds were to be restored to the Common Voters’ Roll, under their régime, there will not only be not a single Coloured person in this Parliament, if it is to depend on them, but that the four White members representing the Coloureds here will also disappear, for then they will have no reason for existence once the Coloured are placed on the Common Voters’ Roll. So the United Party will deprive the Coloureds of the four representatives they have now; they cannot do anything else.

Now I should like to say a word or two on the question of separate universities. The Coloureds have never yet had it so good as regards higher education as under this régime where they have their own university. They are enrolling at that university in progressively increasing numbers; they go there as students of full status and not, as they were at the few so-called open universities, as inferior students who may not appear on the campus, who may not attend certain occasions, but who may go there only to sit in a corner of the class and to attend lectures. To-day they have their own university with full status with a high standard and with an outstanding staff. They are receiving education among their own people such as they have never had before. Not only that, they also have an opportunity to become lecturers, and professors, which they could never have had under the old régime. This separate university for the Coloureds has given the Coloureds an opportunity for the future such as they never had in the old days, and which they will never have again if we were to revert to the old policy of integrating them at the White universities. [Time limit.]

Although we have been listening to the members of the United Party Old Boys’ Union having a private war, I do not propose to worry about that at all, because it is not a question of what party is going to do what, when the Coloured elections are held, but, what the Coloured voters will do. These are the people with whom we concern ourselves. I want to discuss the Vote with the hon. the Minister because the debate we have had this afternoon is typical of the sort of debate which takes place, when dealing with Coloured people in the Republic. I do not think there is any question that the Coloured people as a group are seriously concerned. They are frustrated and deeply hurt at the attitude of the Government towards them. There is no shadow of doubt that a great deal has been done for them, and will be done, in a material way. But man does not live by bread alone, Sir. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will tell us to-day, at what stage, and when, the Coloured person will become a first-class citizen. The Coloured man does not expect that to happen immed’ately, but I think he is entitled to know when in the future he can expect to share in the wealth, the prosperity and in the life of this country to the full.

Full political rights?

I would just like to ask the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) to make his own speech. I have no time to answer questions. I have examined the Vote with great care. I find that the increase, which is considerable, is exclusively in regard to education. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that when these people are educated, I hope we are going to have compulsory education for all Coloured children. I hope they will enjoy the same facilities that White children enjoy in regard to bursaries, transport allowances and hostels. I want to know what he is going to do when the Job Reservation Act has got to be faced. I want him to say this afternoon that he will use his influence with j the Government to do away with this iniquitous Act, because every Coloured man is entitled to sell his labour in the best market.

Order!

I use the word “iniquitous” in the political sense, Sir; but I shall withdraw it. I do not wish to cast any reflections, Sir.

Order! The hon. member should not cast any reflection on legislation of this House.

I do not wish to cast any reflection, Sir. I apologize for that. What I should like to say is this: The effect of that Act is to exclude these people from selling their labour in the best market. We have had the Minister of Labour explaining to the Coloured people that the effect of the Act, is to protect them against the Bantu. The Minister of Labour also said that the Act was the result of representations by White trade unions. In my knowledge of the White working man he does not fear any competitive labour. The White artisan or tradesman can hold his own at his trade in any country. The machinery of the law is there to be used to negotiate and to bargain collectively. One of the reasons why we had to leave the I.L.O. was because the principle of job reservation cannot be defended in the forums of the world. The hon. the Minister is to-day the custodian of the Coloured man’s destiny. I want the Minister to give this House the assurance that he will do his best to make absolutely certain that every Coloured person, who is capable and competent, shall be entitled to share in the fruits of his labour and to sell it where he can best do so.

I noticed with regret that the hon. the Prime Minister said that no concessions were to be given to the Coloured man. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would answer this one: When A and B negotiate, and A says there shall be no concessions, and B pleads for them, as we the Coloured Representatives plead for them in this House, what is B’s remedy? Because, if the Government stands back and says “We make no concession”, the Coloured man will remain a second-class citizen for ever and for aye. The Government must then expect the Coloured man to be dissatisfied, to be unhappy and to be frustrated.

I want to refer briefly to the hardships that Coloured persons have to suffer under the Group Areas Act. It is a strange thing, Sir, but it is always the Coloured community which has to move. There have been cases where a Coloured community has quite happily moved to a township but are being moved a second time. It is a strange thing that in 99 cases out of every 100 it is the Coloured community who must suffer under the Group Areas Act. They are the people who have to lose money on their property because of basic values. They are the people who have their properties frozen.

Order! The hon. member can discuss that under the next Vote.

I am prepared to do so Sir. On the question of education I want the hon. the Minister to say this afternoon, whether Coloured persons are going to get the identical education that Whites are getting? Is there going to be a difference between his syllabus and that of the White child? These are the questions the Coloured people ask, and these are the questions they want answered.

I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that the question of employment for the Coloured man and woman is a most serious one. They make first-class workers in factories …

And first-class voters too.

I said that last year if the hon. member for Houghton wants to discuss it again. I would like to see a constructive programme launched so that Coloured people can receive employment. We have heard a great deal about the “ontvolking van die platteland”, of White people going to the cities. But the Coloured person has not got the means to go to the city. They are left in ever-increasing numbers in the small towns throughout the country unable to make a living. They are very seriously handicapped. If the hon. the Minister would consider some recommendations, there are people who are willing to advise him on methods and means and avenues of employment for Coloured men and women. There are people who can tell him how these people can be brought into the sphere in which they should work, and in which they should be engaged.

I want to make one final point, Sir, and it is this: We hear a great deal about the fears and anxieties of an integrated economy. Are we so blind that we cannot see that we have Coloured persons, up to the second and third generations, working amongst us; Coloured people serving our needs, doing jobs and carrying out duties? Are we so stupid as to deny that that is so?

Oh yes, members opposite are.

It would appear so from the type of speech I hear from time to time. One would think, judging from those speeches, that the Coloured community was something in a separate compartment with other groups in other compartments and that somebody was trying to put them together to go and work. In actual fact that is happening. They are with us now. The hon. the Minister, under this Vote, has an opportunity, because he is going to handle education, of doing a service to the Coloured community by doing his job properly and by having those restrictions removed. No man is able to do that at the present moment except him. [Time limit.]

At the commencement of his speech the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) said, inter alia, “a great deal has been done for the Coloured community”. I then really thought the hon. member would come forward with some constructive thoughts within the framework of that policy which has already done those great things for the Coloured. If the hon. member says he thinks that much has already been done for the Coloured by the Government now in power, he must admit at the same time that those things have been done by the Government within the framework of the policy of the National Party. Although the hon. member made this admission at the beginning of his speech, he went completely off the rails subsequently. As in the past, he made a number of demands and launched an attack, demands which he knows cannot be given effect to. Where were his requests in the days when his Party was in power?

Why did you not make those requests?

Our policy is completely different. Our policy of separate development for the Coloured is completely different from that of the United Party. It differs from the policy pursued before 1948. That is the very reason why the hon. member for Karoo is able to admit that so much has been done for the Coloured. It is as a result of that very policy. In this Department I see great praise for the policy of the Government of the day, because this Department has done something we never contemplated before. This Department of Coloured Affairs has created possibilities for the Coloured. They have given the Coloured opportunities they never had before; they have instilled confidence in the Coloured. Mr. Chairman, when you recall the days before these opportunities were in existence, before the Department of Coloured Affairs was there to create these possibilities for the Coloured, when the Coloured were still on the Common Voters’ Roll, what was the position then? What opportunities did the Coloured have then? The only thing they had was to travel around in posh motor-cars during the elections. That was all they had. I ask hon. members on both sides of the House in all sincerity: Where did we have an opportunity in those days to discuss matters affecting the interests of the Coloured on a sound level, as we are doing in this House to-day? That opportunity just did not exist. Why was it not there?

You merely made propaganda.

No, Mr. Chairman, we were not the ones who were making propaganda. There was simply no opportunity to do so. That was in the days of the S.A.P. policy. Those were the days when they wooed the Coloured vote, but never raised a voice in this House in the interests of the Coloured. Indeed, they were never granted the opportunity to do so, because that opportunity only arose as a result of the policy of the National Party. It is because of the policy of the Nationalist Government that the opportunities there are in this House of Assembly to-day were created. And not only that. Every day when matters affecting the Coloured are discussed, there are four representatives of the Coloured present who have their interests at heart and can promote those interests …

But you do not listen to them.

Of course we listen to them. Only the other day I referred to what the hon. members are trying to do here in terms of great praise. I do not always agree with them, but they know that. Nevertheless they are given a hearing. In fact, they will be the first to say that through their mediation, that is to say, by means of interviews with the Government, they have already obtained much for the people they represent in this House. The hon. members may rise and say whether or not this is so. If they say it is not so, then I say it is so because they have not done their duty. But they know they get a lot for the Coloured—much more than was ever obtained for the Coloured in the past. I have just outlined the position in the past. There was never such an opportunity for the promotion of the interests of the Coloured in this House such as we have made possible at the present time. And not only that either. Look at the Estimates, and it will be seen that provision is made in it for an amount of R36,000,000 only for the rendering of services, specifically for the Coloured. But we should not suppose that this is all the Coloured are getting. On the contrary. In all the other services provided in this country, the Coloured still get their share too. It is not true that we want to isolate him and make a kind of Transkei of him. We want the Coloured to remain a part of us. [Interjection.] Hon. members opposite want to create the impression … whether that is what they desire I do not know, but the hon. member for Gardens has said that land has been acquired for the Coloured, but that does not create a separate homeland for them. We do not wish to place them in a separate homeland, and it has never been our intention to do so. This Government accepts that the Coloured people are standing close to it. It has been said repeatedly in this House. We do not wish to place him in a separate state, and the assumption of the hon. member for Gardens that when land is acquired for the Coloured, it must be a homeland for him, is wrong therefore. He used the word “home” (tuiste) and said that a “tuiste” is not being created for them. But we do not wish to establish a home (tuiste) for them …

Why should he get less than the Bantu?

Just imagine the hon. member for Transkeian Territories asking me such a question. He wants to know why they get less than the Bantu. I suppose the hon. member means that because we are giving the Bantu a separate area where we envisage eventual complete independence politically, and because we are not doing the same for the Coloured, the Coloured are getting less than the Bantu. But, Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member suggesting that we should give the Coloured …

Answer my question.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Transkeian Territories is dissatisfied with what we are giving the Coloured and says that they are getting less than the Bantu, then surely I must infer that the hon. member wants us to give the Coloured a separate area too. Is that what the hon. member wants? He need only say “yes” or “no”.

Why do you discriminate?

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories suggest that we are not treating the Coloured as well as we are treating the Bantu because we are not giving the Coloured separate areas. But the United Party particularly wants us to intertwine the Coloured with the White community. [Interjections.] The hon. member himself made that remark and therefore must reproach himself if he finds himself in difficulties on that account. He now comes along and charges us with not giving the Coloured what we are giving the Bantu, but that is so for the very reason that we regard the Coloured more as a part of the White community.

What about his political rights?

Now the hon. member raises another point. He is anxious to escape his other problem and therefore he comes along with a new thing. We cannot possibly give the Coloured the same political rights as we are giving the Bantu unless we treat him in the same way as the Bantu. If the hon. member wants us to treat the Coloured in the same way that we are treating the Bantu, then he should say so. [Interjections.]

I am glad I am not a Nat!

Then the hon. member for Transkeian Territories must tell us he desires that, and he must not come along here and blame us for not giving the Coloured the same things we are giving the Bantu, when he himself does not want that. [Time limit.]

I want to calm the atmosphere a bit by dealing with a different aspect of Coloured Affairs. I intend dealing entirely with Coloured education. Since the Government has not yet had a full year in which to implement any of its plans for Coloured education, we shall not be justified this year in doing anything more than asking certain questions. Next year we shall be in a better position to judge what is being done. Last year we were confronted with all sorts of high-sounding promises and protestations of goodwill. Those we are prepared to accept, at any rate until we can judge whether they are being implemented or not.

I want to deal in the first place with compulsory schooling for Coloured children. On 10 April a notice appeared in the Government Gazette announcing that Natal had become the first province to experience the introduction of compulsory schooling for Coloured pupils under the new dispensation, and I should like to say at once how gratified we, on this side of the House, are that the Government has decided to make the level of compulsory schooling for Coloured pupils Std. VIII or 16 years of age, which is also the level prescribed for European children, except that White children are obliged to enrol in their sixth and not in their seventh year. I should like to have the Minister’s assurance that where this principle has been applied in Natal, it will also be applied to the other provinces when the stage is reached. In an interview with the Cape Times on 9 April this year, a senior departmental official concerned with Coloured education—I shall not mention his name—told that newspaper that there were more than 14,000 Coloured children of schoolgoing age in Natal out of a total Coloured population in that province of about 70,000. It is a small point, but I should like to point out that the Coloured population of that province, excluding Asiatics, is only 45,000. So I wonder how the figure of 70,000 was arrived at. It might, of course, have been a slip on the part of the official concerned or even on the part of the newspaper concerned. The Minister was interviewed at the same time when he was questioned about the introduction of compulsory schooling in the other provinces. He is reported as having said that it depended upon the availability of properly trained teachers, school buildings, hostels and other quarters. The Minister is of course quite correct. When he was pressed a few weeks ago in this House by the hon. member for Kensington as to when compulsory schooling for Coloured children was going to be introduced in the other provinces, the Minister said that if we raised the matter under his Vote he would give us a reply. So we are doing it now in the hope that we shall hear something from the hon. the Minister in regard to this matter in due course.

On 15 May I had a question on the Order Paper about the number of Coloured children at present enrolled in schools in the Republic and the estimated number of those not yet enrolled. I want in the first place to say that it was very pleasant to have received a full and comprehensive reply to that question. I appreciated it very much indeed. I should, however, like to analyse the position in this regard in the four provinces as it is at the moment. In the Free State the total number of Coloured people is just under 26,000 and it is doubtful whether the school-going potential there can be much more than 8,000 or 10,000, if one may judge from the figures in Natal. The estimated number of Coloured children in the Free State who are not yet at school is only 808. Has the Minister any plans for placing this very small number of children at school within the next 12 months or so? It does not seem to me as if that would present any insuperable problems. In the Transvaal it is a different matter because the total Coloured population of that province is about 108,000 while the estimated number of Coloured children not at school is about 3,181. I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister has any plans in hand for the implementation of his policy of compulsory schooling for Coloured children in both the Free State and the Transvaal in the foreseeable future. As I said before, this does not seem to present any insuperable problems.

There is the question of the take-over of schools. On page 96 of the Capital Estimates, there is an entry listing the take-over of schools for Coloured children in the Transvaal as “full State schools”. R900,000 is being voted for that purpose. Will the hon. the Minister tell us whether these represent State-aided church schools and private schools? Will he also give the House any idea of his policy in this regard, i.e. in regard to the take-over of church and mission schools? Are they, for instance, to be given any option upon their being taken over? Are provincial or Government grants of the past to be withdrawn if they do not fall into line with Government policy? I think it is important for us to have some indication of where the Government is going in this particular matter. We know what happened with Bantu education. We should like to know whether the authorities concerned are going to get adequate compensation when any schools are taken over.

I raised this matter specifically because in the Cape Province, in which I happened to work for a number of years, no less than 1,206 of the Coloured schools—representing the vast majority—have been run by denominational or undenominational bodies. That obviously must apply also to a number of schools in the Transvaal or otherwise it would have been unlikely for this figure to appear on the Estimates.

But these schools are heavily subsidized.

I know that, I should, however, like to hear from the Minister what his policy is in this regard. Now the Minister has placed the emphasis in connection with the introduction of compulsory schooling for Coloured children firstly on the availability of a sufficient number of properly trained teachers and, secondly, on the availability of adequate accommodation. In the circumstances I want to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that his plans for teacher-training facilities this year are adequate. According to the Estimates, there are only three items which are being revoted from the provinces, i.e. a new building and hostel at Oudtshoorn, the conversion of a building into a training college at Uitenhage, and additions to Beckett College in Natal. There is also an item of R112,000 in respect of the purchase of Crown Mine buildings and grounds for what is called in the Estimates “the Rand training college”. No further provision is being made for the training of teachers in the Free State.

I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us how many more Coloured teachers he thinks should be trained before he can implement this policy of compulsory schooling for Coloured children throughout the country. I ask him because I take it that some estimate has been made in this regard. The real problem of course lies in the Cape where we have 90 per cent of all the Coloured schools, 84 per cent of Coloured teachers and 86 per cent of Coloured pupils. When the hon. the Minister talks about a shortage of accommodation, two things are implied. One is the purchase of sites for schools and the other the allocation of capital funds for the creation of buildings on those sites. Now, on this year’s Estimates the total sum voted for Coloured schools and institutions—I should like hon. members to note “and institutions” because that covers everything—is R5,354,000 for the whole of the Republic. It should not be forgotten that this sum covers technical colleges, hostels, agricultural training centres, teachertraining colleges and primary and secondary schools. The total amount to be spent on projects already decided upon by the provinces equals R3,845,000 to which must be added a few new works, such as a technical college at Bellville, R150,000 and the take-over of schools in the Transvaal, R900,000. These items represent an extra R1,508,000, making a total of R5,845,000. [Time limit.]

I shall not try to reply to the specific questions put by the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) to the hon. the Minister because I am sure he will do so himself. I would, however, refer to the spectacle we witnessed in this House this afternoon in the form of the skirmish between the hon. members for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) and Gardens (Mr. Connan) and Karoo (Mr. Eden). They reminded me of the old chap who could not speak properly and could not pronounce the word “sny” (cut) correctly. His little boy inherited that defective speech and always said “sly”. One day he said to his father “Dad, I ‘sly’ with the knife’ and his father replied “Do not say ‘sly’ like I do; say ‘sly’ ”. That is precisely the spectacle we witnessed here. All three hon. members for Houghton, Gardens and Karoo said: Give us integration, but do not give it to us the way others want to give it to us; give it to us in a better way. I think the crux of the whole story is that they simply cannot accept in this House that we have an accepted policy and that the Minister and his Department have to act in accordance with it and that is the policy of separate development. That is why they keep on arguing in a circle, but the crux of the whole matter is that they want integration. If they were to tell us that frankly and honestly this Vote would long since have been passed, but they use many words to say the same thing. I want to say this to the hon. member for Houghton: She has proved herself to be an actress in this sense that she can say something very clearly without saying it in so many words. We are wise to her, however. It is clear that she is preparing herself to enter another field with the next election and that she is getting ready to conquer a Coloured constituency. I want to warn those hon. members sitting around her to be on their toes because I think she will be a formidable opponent.

Be careful, I am coming to Namaqualand!

I leeave the hon. members at that. I want to say very briefly that the Government’s Colour policy is based on certain principles. We observe strict principles. The Government believes in uplifting the Coloured in the social and economic fields. That is the first leg of our policy. If hon. members think the Minister and his Department have failed to carry out that policy, I challenge them to say so. They talk a great deal, however, but do not come to a single accusation because that would be nonsensical. The Minister would only remind them of their own past. They simply cannot accuse us of having neglected that aspect of our policy.

The second leg is the expansion of the political rights of the Coloured within the framework of the Coloured Representative Council while they retain their representation by Whites in this House. That legislation was passed this year and if they think we are not honest in that they will see that the Minister will also act honestly in this direction. I wish to make a third plea this evening in connection with the execution of that honest policy, that policy we are not ashamed to propound, because I believe there is another respect in which we can greatly promote the interest of the Coloured and advance the fulfilment of our own policy. I wish to plead for the development of the Coloured group areas so that that development can form the basis of a pride in themselves as a group alongside their broader national pride as citizens of South Africa. I am making this plea with reference to the experience I have gained in my own constituency. There you have the Namaqualand Coloured in their own reserves where they enjoy a special status which they do not enjoy anywhere else. History has placed them there and that has brought about the position that the people who live there enjoy certain rights which they call citizen rights. They refer to themselves as citizens of the Steinkopf reserve and the Concordia reserve and the citizens of the Rigtersveld reserve and of the Leliefontein reserve, etc. These people are extremely proud of that citizenship right. As Coloured they are proud of that citizenship right they have as a group, alongside the pride they have in being citizens of South Africa. That pride which they have has helped them to reach heights the other Coloureds have not yet reached. They do not suffer from that inferior complex which the Opposition is continually trying to encourage by the attitude they adopt in this House in referring to second-class citizenship. You need not be an appendage to, or form part of another group, in order to be a first-class citizen with vour own pride. We do not want to turn those people into half-baked Whites. We do not want to make appendages of them. We want to keep them with us and retain their goodwill; we want them to be true to the Western way of life, but not as an appendage to ourselves. It is that sort of thing which completely undermines the self-respect and pride of those people. Instead of the Coloured Representatives trying to assist those people to develop a pride of their own, they are continually undermining that pride. They will pay dearly for that because once those people have developed a pride of their own, they will say: You were the people who tried to undermine the pride we wished to develop as a group. I maintain that if we can assist those people to develop a pride in themselves as a group, they will indeed be first-class citizens although they are not integrated with the White race and although they are not politically integrated, because we have given them a political home of their own, although they are not integrated in our economy, as the Opposition continually maintain they are, and although they are not socially integrated, like some hon. members plead they should be and others too ashamed to plead for openly. We wish to develop them as a separate group with its own pride. In order to do so we have to develop those group areas more quickly. I wish to pay tribute to the hon. the Minister for the wonderful development he has brought about in my constituency. Those reserves were in a scandalous condition in the days of the United Party. This Government has developed the rural areas into something of which one can be proud to-day. Sir, you should see how proud those people are of their reserves and how they try to improve their stock in order to suit the improved farms on which they are living to-day.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.