During the discussion of the Vote of the Minister of Information last week, I said the following—

to which remark the hon. member for Vereeniging interjected and said: “Of course he is fit to hold his position; he is more than fit.” I then used these words in reply—

On consideration, and after having received the Hansard report, I feel that this remark, made in the heat of debate, may have conveyed the impression that the hon. member for Vereeniging had made such an observation personally to me or others. This is not so, and I accordingly apologize to the hon. member. In making my original observation, I had in mind a statement which the hon. member had made publicly, which was at the time the subject of newspaper comment.

I have already said during the second reading that we are not quite sure about the trojan and the five rand gold coins. I just want to add this, that if we accept the one ounce gold coin I am very anxious to find a better name than trojan for it. We should like to have suggestions. The legislation is going through as it is and I do not want to make any changes. I have already said that we may scrap the whole idea completely. It may also be that we accept the principle of a one ounce gold coin but with another name. I should like to re ceive suggestions. Perhaps the Press could assist us in this regard. I am not saying it is not being accepted, but I should like to have a few alternative names.

Schedules put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

When we adjourned on Saturday, I made the point that this Government was not applying the Marketing Act in the spirit in which it was intended to be done. I quoted some figures which we got from the Department with regard to the production costs of certain commodities and the selling prices, to show how it varied over a certain period. In regard to production costs, the Department states—

From that I deduce that in the fixing of prices for the different commodities, it is only in the case of wheat that the terms of the Marketing Act are applied, and in regard to the other commodities no notice is taken of that and an arbitrary price is fixed which I presume they do, especially in the case of products like maize, by determining what the export will be and what the loss will be on it, and on that they determine the price to the farmer, and they have got away from the principle of the Marketing Act that the producer’s price should be fixed on the basis of his production costs.

Your assumption is wrong.

From what the Department says, it would appear that I am correct. The Minister does not appear to be a strong supporter of one-channel marketing at all, and I again want to refer to the marketing of onions. The scheme was introduced some four years ago for one-channel marketing, but it was a half-baked scheme, which only applied to a portion of the producers, with the result that it could never work, and that was the reason why it failed, and not because the United Party organizer, as we were told, went around among the ’ onion producers and agitated among them for the abandonment of the scheme. I spoke to him, and he said he had never agitated and had nothing to do with the matter. If, on the other hand, it is right that he had so much influence in getting the onion producers to go against the scheme, he must be very influential, and in that case I think we wifi put him up as a candidate in the False Bay constituency at the next general election.

What are we going to have in the place of the old scheme? Must the onion growers continue day after day producing onions at completely uneconomic prices? The Minister replied the other day, and from his reply it would appear that he is not over keen on ever having another scheme, because this is what he said—

Hulle moet onthou dat as die skema ooit weer ingestel word, sal hy daar bly, en hy sal alleenlik ingestel word as ek oortuig daarvan is dat ten minste 90 persent van die boere in daardie produksie-area daardie skema wil he.

Then an hon. member opposite said—

to which the Minister replied—

You may not quote from this year’s Hansard.

I think it is a shocking state of affairs, to say that the onion growers are not finding things difficult enough yet, that they are not suffering enough. They already find it extremly difficult to make ends meet, and the Minister is not prepared to help them until such time as they suffer much more. Sir, it is peculiar that whenever we have, a Nationalist Government, the farmers are in trouble. At the end of the previous Nationalist regime in 1933, the farmers were on the brink of destruction. They passed through the most difficult time that this country had ever had, due partly to general economic conditions, to the depression, but largely on account of the fact that the Nationalist Government stuck to the gold standard policy which almost completely ruined the farmers in this country. This Nationalist Government is again reducing the farmers to a similar state. Whenever we have a Nationalist Government, the farmer finds himself in extreme difficulties. Therefore, I say that we are completely correct in saying in our amendment that this Government is unfit and incompetent to govern the country, and especially the two Ministers of Agriculture.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) is not here at the moment. When he spoke on Saturday he made an oblique reference to the Rivonia case and said a number of things which deserve to be discussed, I think. He made four submissions. He referred to those people who were described by the Public Prosecutor as persons who had pre-eminently committed high treason as “political offenders”. He referred to them as political offenders and said the policy of the Government was “fundamentally unjust”, that there was no way in which to give political expression, that the Minister of Justice could only maintain order in one way and that was to put more and more people in gaol. Sir, when you consider everything the hon. member has said it actually amounts to two basic submissions. He exculpates those people he calls “political offenders”; he exculpates those people who were found guilty and in the same breath he lays the charge at the door of the Government that its policy is responsible for the fact that those people have committed the offences which he calls “political offences”. In the second place the hon. member suggests that the United Party has a policy which will satisfy these people and that that will prevent them from committing the offences of which they have been found guilty. I think that is the conclusion one is forced to come to. I now wish to ask the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) this: Is the policy of the United Party of such a nature that it will satisfy these people who have been found guilty to such an extent that they will not commit these offences? Is it true that the United Party has a policy which is of such a nature that it will prevent these people from committing the offences they have committed?

I think we can easily put that to the test. Albert Luthuli is the leader of the A.N.C. and in terms of the judgment of the Judge in the Rivonia case the A.N.C. has launched the movement known as Umkonto we Sizwe with the full knowledge of Luthuli and after he was consulted. I just want to read to the hon. member what Luthuli said in 1960 when he gave evidence in the treason case—

That was said by the leader of A.N.C. who is still the leader with reference to the policy of the United Party. I want to know from the hon. member for Germiston (District) what the United Party’s party contains which entitles the hon. member for Yeoville to claim that the United Party has a policy which will prevent these people from committing the offences of which they were found guilty in the Rivonia case?

Another question is coupled to that. If what the hon. member for Yeoville says is true namely that the system in South Africa is “a fundamentally unjust” system and that that is the reason why these offences are being committed, I want to know this from the hon. member for Germiston (District): If the United Party comes into power will Oliver Tambo, Resha, Matthews, Kotane who are to-day in London and who gave evidence before the apartheid committee of UNO return to South Africa and sit here quietly and be satisfied with the policy of the United Party? They are members of the A.N.C. which is the body which is responsible for this unrest in South Africa and which wanted to start a revolution. I do not want to blame the hon. member for Germiston (District) for all the sins of the hon. member for Yeoville but when a responsible front-bencher says these people only acted the way they did because our policy is fundamentally unjust and implies that the policy of the United Party will prevent that, somebody must tell us on the strength of what that claim is made. Othewise we can only come to one conclusion and that is that once again, as has often happened in the past, the United Party is only associating themselves with the propagandists outside. Because I cannot imagine that he intends these things for the ears of South Africa seeing that everybody in South Africa knows that the policy of the United Party does not satisfy the demands of those people. Surely we know what we are dealing with. This is not only a case of “political offences”, a case of people acting simply because they are against the policy of the Government. It has long since been clear that that is not the case. Why should the charge so often be laid at the door of the Government in this irresponsible manner that it is because of its policy that these people act the way they do? Why should we tolerate that in South Africa when the true facts contradict that? Surely we know what the Judge said in his judgement in the treason trial in regard to Communist influence in the A.N.C. Surely we know the court found that the A.N.C. stood for a Communist State in South Africa. The people concerned in the Rivonia trial were surely not all non-Whites; surely a number of Whites were also concerned. It is really so obvious that these things have to be accepted that one is all the more surprised that the United Party is continually losing sight of them and trying to accuse us and telling us that this is a spontaneous protest against the policy of the Government. I want to read to the hon. member what appeared in a Communist paper published in France as recently as last year. This quotation is from a Communist paper—

What are you quoting from?

I am quoting from Dagbreek of December last year, and Dagbreekin turn is quoting from the French paper La Novelle. Mr. Speaker, a few years ago an American, Mr. Stevens, of the U.S. News and World Report, a very prominent American weekly, come to South Africa. Mr. Stevens was here in 1960 and he said the following to Die Vaderland-. “You must be careful of incitement amongst the masses of Natives you have in this country; it was only necessary for me to attend the treason trial for two days in Pretoria to realize that Communism was the only driving force behind the dissatisfaction on the part of the Natives.” It is not we who are saying that; it was said by Mr. Stevens who came to Africa to study the position here and a person who can speak with authority on such phenomena. I want to put this question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes): Will the policy of the United Party satisfy people like that? Is the United Party fair when it makes that claim? Can they satisfy them? Are they pretending to South Africa and the world outside that they can satisfy those people? No, they pretend to have a policy which will satisfy those people just to be able to lay the charge at the door of the Government that its policy is fundamentally unjust. That is the only reason why they pretend they can satisfy those people, because they know those people reject the policy of the United Party. Mr. Speaker. I am glad the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is present. He will remember that he stated in South West, for example, that as a result of Bantu Amendment Act the position of the Bantu workers in South Africa was as bad as that of the Russian workers in Russia under the Stalin regime. He said that it was only the workers under the Stalin regime who would be able to appreciate how bad the position of of the workers in South Africa was. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he still stands by that statement?

Answer! It is a very reasonable question.

He was so kind the other day as to tell us that South Africa was not a police state. Did he think he was doing South Africa a favour when he said, as he did on that occasion at Windhoek, that the position of the workers in South Africa was as bad as that of the workers in Russia under the Stalin regime? Sir, that is the sort of statement that is made, statements which cannot be accounted for whatsoever but which are made for one specific purpose only and that is to imply that the policy of the United Party is different from that of the Government and that their policy will enable them to bring about peace and happiness and prosperity in South Africa, a state of affairs which will prevent any rebelliousness. Sir, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not reply. I shall ask him another question. When I say the policy of the United Party will not satisfy these people I base that statement on what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said. I should be pleased if he would listen for a moment. I wish to quote what he said on 10 April 1962 according to a report which appeared in the Cape Argusof a speech he made at the Cape Town University. On that occasion he said this—

The Leader of the Opposition says it is very simple to equate White survival in South Africa with White domination. In answer to a question he said the following—

As the hon. the Prime Minister has so often stated in debates in this House, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition clearly stated here that the essence of United Party policy was White domination. I do not think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has ever repudiated this report. I do not think he has ever denied what is contained in this statement. If we accept that the essence of United Party policy is White domination I put this question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: By virtue of what fact is it stated or is the impression created in the world outside that the United Party has a policy which will satisfy people like those who were found guilty at the Rivonia trial? If the United Party know that they cannot make that claim, by virtue of what fact do they accuse this Government of having a policy which is fundamentally unjust and imply that this policy forces people to commit treason? By virtue of what fact does he say that? I maintain that the United Party cannot make such a claim in South Africa because they know that if they held out such a policy to those people they must be prepared to say that they are relinquishing their authority in the Government of South Africa and that they are abandoning the idea of the continued existence of the White man in South Africa. However, it often happens that the United Party blow both hot and cold; that they pretend in the one breath that they will satisfy these people and in the next breath that they will safeguard the future of the Whites in South Africa and maintain the authority of the State. We have also had the case of Nusas. According to the reports of Jonty Driver’s speech Nusas associates itself with the aims of the A.N.C. Nusas accepts communists as members like the A.N.C. does. Nusas says it is not opposed to Communism; it is only “non-commuriistic” like the A.N.C. says it is “neutral”, that it is “non-aligned”. The A.N.C. is part of the Liberation Movement; Nusas says it is also part of the Liberation Movement. I can quote to the hon. member from the Botha Hill document if he wants me to do so. As far as the Liberation Movement is concerned, I just want to mention something …

Do you want to do away with Nusas completely?

I shall reply to that in a moment.

Which organization will your children join if we exterminated Nusas?

While I am on the subject of the Liberation Movement which is such an acceptable idea to-day within the ranks of Nusas and the Liberal Party and the A.N.C., I just want to quote to the hon. member what Edward Roux, a listed communist, says in his book about S. P. Bunting—

The Liberation Movement we have in South Africa to-day has its origin in the Soviet, that movement with whose aims Nusas so boldly associates itself and then says: “We are not anti-communistic; as a matter of fact we dare not express ourselves against Communism in the world otherwise there would be serious repercussions” as the hon. the Minister of Justice has revealed. I say Nusas and the A.N.C. have precisely the same aims and adopt the same attitude as far as both Communism and the Liberation Movement are concerned. Both also advocate revolution and both are in favour of violent revolution, as I indicated the other evening when I read a quotation. Sir, I do not want to read to you what was revealed at the Rivonia trial as far as the A.N.C. is concerned but, for the edification of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher), I just once again wish to read what Mr. Jonty Driver has said about “revolution”. He said—

When he talks about revolution—and he does so often in this document—he means in the first place “armed revolution”, but not only “armed revolution”; he at least includes the other meaning as well.

May I ask the hon. member whether Nusas as a body has ever supported or accepted the views of Mr. Driver.

I can give the hon. member many examples of where Mr. Driver has said that Nusas is what he says it is— not that Nusas has to or will become that, but that Nusas is that.

Those are his views.

I want to put this question to the hon. member for Durban (Point): Does he suggest that Mr. Jonty Driver subscribes to this view as an individual?

He is their leader.

If it is true that Mr. Jonty Driver is such an isolated being in Nusas why is it that every communist in South Africa who has ever gone to university has felt at home in Nusas and has found that a much happier place to give expression to himself?

There are many Nationalists who are also members of Nusas.

No, but seeing that the hon. member has referred to that I just wish to show him how far Mr. Driver has already led Nusas. This is a statement which only emanates from him. He spoke in Durban in May and said the following according to the Sunday Times—

Those are the people he wants out of Nusas; there is no room in Nusas for people who believe in the policy of this party, but there is room for the communists; they are protected; the members of Nusas are instructed not to express themselves against Communism.

As a result Natal resigned from Nusas.

No, Natal has not resigned from Nusas. The hon. member knows that Natal has withdrawn its resignation and is waiting upon the congress. Why is he trying to mislead the House? Surely he knows that what he is saying is not true.

Order! The hon. member may not say an hon. member knows what he says is not true.

Does he not know it, Mr. Speaker.

Order!

I withdraw it, Sir. I say Nusas and the A.N.C. are in complete agreement with each other in regard to Communism, the Liberation Movement and revolution in South Africa. But there are other things too on which they agree. We know Mr. Driver places great emphasis in this document of his on the fact that Nusas is “non-racial” and on the fact that during the past few years the leadership of Nusas has changed from Cape Town and Wits to Fort Hare. I am not saying it will change over. Here are his words on page 4—

(“UN. NE.P” refer to the non-White section of the Natal University.) This is what Mr. Driver says “during the last five years”.

Surely he is the leader of Nusas.

Yes, he is the leader; he knows what is happening. Is the hon. member for Durba (Point) suggesting that he knows better than Mr. Jonty Driver what is happening in Nusas? There is something else I should like to quote to the hon. member because he says there is a difference between Nusas and Driver. I shall read the whole paragraph to the hon. member—

Then Mr. Driver says—

In other words, “we must disregard a man’s race and judge him on merit”. What does the hon. member for Durban (Point) say to that? The hon. member for Yeoville referred to Nusas the other day and the only good thing he could say about it was that it was such a “fine and noble” institution. Why? Because the hon. member for Yeoville said, it was multiracial; because it was one of the few institutions in South Africa which was still multiracial. The hon. member preferred to call it multi-racial. Nusas itself says that over the past number of years it has only adopted one attitude and that is that a man should be judged on merit irrespective of his race, and that is the policy of the Progressive Party and the policy of the Liberal Party; and in criticizing Nusas the United Party says that the great merit of Nusas lies in the fact that its policy is one of “non-racialism”. Because there is no “multi-racialism” in Nusas. Or is there? Does the hon. member for Durban (Point) again know better than Mr. Driver? I wish to say this to the hon. member for Durban (Point): I am quite happy to rely on Mr. Jonty Driver for my knowledge of Nusas and my evidence on Nusas. Just as I accept that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can speak most authoritatively on the attitude of that side of the House because he is informed, I take it that Mr. Jonty Driver can speak most authoritatively on Nusas. I am quite happy to rely on him without any further knowledge of the matter. But if the hon. member for Durban (Point) rejects his evidence as president of Nusas I want to know on what grounds he does so. Does he know better than Mr. Driver? I repeat that in essence the A.N.C. and Nusas have the same aims in respect of this question of “non-racialism”; they have the same values; they accept the same basic axioms and principles; they harbour the same sentiments, as is also reflected in the election of Luthuli as their honorary president. Luthuli, the president of the A.N.C., is the honorary president of Nusas. Let me just read to the hon. member for Durban (Point) what resolution Nusas passed when they re-elected him as their honorary president on the last occasion—

Mr. Speaker, this is not Driver talking here; I am reading to the hon. member for Durban (Point) the resolution passed by Nusas at their congress, a resolution in which Nusas says that Luthuli is the embodiment of all the ideals Nusas strives for. What does the hon. member for Point say about that? I want to know from the hon. member for Durban (Point) why the United Party remains quiet about these things in this House? The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) flies to Durban to address the students, but the United Party remains silent about the revolutionary aims of Nusas; they remain silent on the fact that it associates itself with Communism; they remain silent on the fact that it represents itself as a non-racial society which aims at a non-racial South Africa. They elect Luthuli as their honorary president and say that Luthuli symbolizes every ideal of theirs. Why does the United Party remain silent on that?

Or does it support them?

Yes, does it support them? Sir, one is forced to come to that conclusion. The hon. member for Yeoville got up and said a few small insignificant things against Nusas but he did not mention the important matters. That is why I am positive I can accept that the United Party supports it because what else can a sensible person accept? I want to put this question to the hon. member for Durban (Point): We know that he has not yet been taken in tow towards the Left. I know these things worry him in his heart of hearts.

I have confidence in them to put their own house in order without your assistance.

I do not want to assist them; I just want to focus attention on what the hon. member for Yeoville did on Saturday. When he blamed the Government for the offences committed by these offenders, he was actually paving the way…. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Innesdale (Mr. J. A. Marais) has built up a reputation for himself as being a good debater but I am afraid he has destroyed it to-day.

It was a good speech.

May I point out to the hon. the Prime Minister that the first part of his speech was based on false premises. He devoted the major part of his speech to Nusas, obviously with the Prime Minister’s approval. Sir, we are very puzzled. The Minister responsible for the security of the State is the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice dealt with Nusas under his Vote and he refused to ban Nusas. He takes the same line as the United Party. [Interjection.] Was the hon. the Prime Minister here while the Vote of the Minister of Justice was under discussion? If he was here he would have heard the Minister of Justice say that Nusas must put its own house in order.

He did not say that it was a fine, beautiful, noble organization.

Who said that?

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn).

Sir, what the hon. member for Yeoville did was exactly what the Minister of Justice did.

Oh no.

The Minister of Justice, by allowing Nusas to continue and by exhorting them to put their own house in order, was also paying tribute to the organization. He was also paying tribute to a big organization which has fallen into the wrong hands, that is why the Minister of Justice made an appeal to them. He does not want Nusas to disappear, unlike the hon. member for Innesdale. If the Minister of Justice wanted Nusas to disappear, why does he not ban them? Why did he make this appeal? He went further. The Minister of Justice said that he would be honoured to accept the presidentship of the conservative organization and he said that he could not see why the Leader of the Opposition had not accepted the presidentship of Nusas. He thought that the Leader of the Opposition had been invited to accept the presidentship and he was admonishing the Leader of the Opposition. He said there was nothing wrong in being president of Nusas and he hoped that if the Leader of the Opposition was invited again he would accept the presidentship; That was the attitude of the Minister of Justice.

[Inaudible.]

I cannot understand why the hon. the Prime Minister is so agitated about Nusas. If he feels the same way about Nusas as the hon. member for Innesdale, why does he not use his influence with the Minister of Justice to ban this organization? If it is such a dangerous organization why, instead of just sitting here and saying, “hoor, hoor” to the speech of the hon. member for Innesdale, does the hon. the Prime Minister not get up and make a statement as to the policy of the Government with regard to Nusas? Let him do that, Sir.

Was he not a member of Nusas himself?

Never.

Not even automatically?

Never.

I think there is a Cabinet split on this.

The hon. member for Innesdale took the same line in his opening remarks as the S.A.B.C. this morning according to the 7.45 a.m. parliamentary news, and that was to suggest that the hon. member for Yeoville was taking sides in the Rivonia trial.

Of course he did.

Sir, the hon. member heard the hon. member for Yeoville refer to the 1,100 people who have been detained for political crimes. How can that be applied to the Rivonia trial?‘The hon. member for Yeoville particularly mentioned the number of people who had been detained; that has nothing to do with the Rivonia trial; he did not mention the Rivonia trial. The hon. member for Innesdale should not take exception to the fact that the hon. member for Yeoville raises this question because the fundamental difference between the two parties is simply that the policy of the United Party is that every section of the population should have some representation in the Central Government, some way of expressing its political views, and the policy of the Nationalist Government is to deny them those political rights. The Bantu have no political rights except in the Transkei, and the majority of them do not accept that. Sir, this is fundamental to our difference; it is the basis of the difference between our respective policies.

What does Luthuli say about that?

I am not interested in what Luthuli says. The hon. member for Innesdale keeps on quoting Luthuli and organizations which support the Communist Party. Sir, we have made it quite clear in setting forth our race federation policy that we do not attempt to satisfy the communists; we do not hope to satisfy the communists, but what worries us is this, that under the policy of this Government, with all the apartheid legislation and the minor apartheid legislation that it passes and with all the pin-pricks caused by the Government’s policy, the Coloureds and the Bantu and the Indians are left with the impression that the only people who can help them are the communists. That is what worries us. We are worried that they may be driven into the hands of the communists. Sir, we have always said—and as one who lives in the Transkei I know that this is correct—that the African is not a communist. He believes in a communal form of life but he is not a communist. A few of the leaders may be communists but the ordinary African is not a communist. Sir, why are we having trouble in this country? We are enjoying a boom. We are not the only country enjoying a boom, as the S.A.B.C. and Government speakers would like the public to believe. Practically every country in the world is enjoying a boom. I think Australia is enjoying an even bigger boom than we are. We are enjoying a boom but what is troubling us; why are we not all happy under these boom conditions? It is simply the fact that we are faced with the difficult problem of finding a way for our different race groups to live in amity in this country. The country does not close its eyes to the fact, as the Prime Minister tries to do, that we are a multi-racial state. What worries this country is the fact that we with all our wealth and all our minerals are faced with the problem of how we can solve our race problems. Sir, the Government has brought forth the policy of apartheid as the solution. The Prime Minister and Chief Matanzima prefer to call it a policy of separate development. Sir, that policy offers the impracticable ideal of complete separation. Dr; Malan once referred to “algehele territoriale apartheid” as an ideal, but he said that it was only an ideal, just as it is everybody’s ideal to go to heaven, although we know that we may not get there.

The Republic was also an ideal.

Oh yes, but the Republic was a practical ideal. (Laughter.) Are hon. members opposite suggesting that it was not a practical ideal? I know the Prime Minister still believes, or he tells the country he still believes at any rate, that this ideal of complete separation is practical. He admits that the position in regard to integration is getting worse and worse at the moment and he says by the year 1978 the Bantu will start leaving the White areas. Even the Prime Minister and the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, who is not here at the moment unfortunately, must admit that no matter how energetic the Government is in establishing the reserves we will always have at least 6,000,000 Bantu in the so-called White areas. How can the Prime Minister pretend that the policy of complete separation is a practical ideal? The policy of Bantustans and complete separation does not only mean the establishment of African states in this country it also involves the political and other rights of the Coloureds and the Indians; it affects all the race groups in the country. When we discuss the Bantustan policy we must not only discuss it as appertaining to the Bantu; we have to discuss it as it appertains to the Coloureds and the Indians as well. I am not going to talk about the inconsistencies in the statements made by the Prime Minister as far as the Coloured people are concerned or the Indians. I want to deal mainly with the Bantu to-day.

The impression has been given by the Prime Minister and the Nationalist Government, not only to people in this country but to people abroad, particularly to the White people in the north, that this Government stands for the protection of White interests. Particularly the people in the north have come to believe that this Prime Minister is the only man in the world who is prepared to protect the White man. Why this country must be led to believe that the Nationalist Party Government is the only Government which can act powerfully in a time of crisis. I do not know. The hon. member for Innesdale wanted to know whether the United Party would submit to the actions of Mandela and those people who were tried at the Rivonia trial recently. I want to remind hon. members opposite that neither the United Party nor the old South African Party were ever weak in a time of crisis. There is no justification for any member on that side pretending to the public that the United Party will not use force to repel force or that the United Party will not maintain law and order. I want to remind them what one of their Leaders, Dr. Malan, once said; he accused General Smuts of being too strong in exercising force. I say there is no justification for members of this Government to make the people believe that the United Party will not maintain law and order.

As far as the White people are concerned a false impression has been given abroad that the Prime Minister is a man of granite who will protect the White people. The first step he took in carrying out the practical side of his policy of Bantustans was to establish self-government in the Transkei. And there the Prime Minister was faced with the same problems as those which confronted Britain and other metropolitan powers in Africa. One of the problems which faced the British Government was what to do with the White people in Kenya. I said the other day that the Prime Minister had done a Kenya on the White people in the Transkei. The Commissioner-General in Umtata said that was balderdash because there were two important differences according to him. The one difference, he said, was that the White people in Kenya could not influence an election in Britain and sceondly, that no White man would be forced out of the Transkei. As far as influencing an election is concerned, the Transkei has always voted against the Government and will continue to do so. The Transkei has done its best to bring about a change in Government but so far it has failed. As far as the White people not having to leave the Transkei is concerned, the White people were not asked to leave Kenya. In fact appeals were made to them to remain there. The Kenya Government is doing everything in its power to keep the White people there. In order to help those who want to leave the British Government has given a loan to the Kenya Government to enable it to buy the farms of those who want to leave. So there is no difference as far as the two points mentioned by the Commissioner-General are concerned.

What is the position of the White people in the Transkei? After the Prime Minister had announced his policy insistence came not only from the United Party, but also from the Nationalists at their congress at East London, that the Prime Minister tell the country what he intended to do with the White people in the Transkei. Mr. Speaker, you will remember that the Prime Minister appointed the Heckroodt Commission. The accusation we level at the Prime Minister is that he should have known what he was going to do with the Whites before he embarked on the scheme. But he did not know what he was going to do with them. It was only when pressure was applied to him that he decided to appoint a commission to help him decide. The Heckroodt Commission sat in 1962. It went through the Transkei, gave everybody hope, promised them that the Government would look after them and after a year we heard that they had submitted their recommendations to the Government. We were given to understand that the recommendations would be Tabled early in this Session and that a White Paper would be issued giving the Government’s decisions on those recommendations. When we asked at the beginning of the Session when the recommendations would be Tabled we were told soon. The Liaison Committee in the Transkei got in touch with the Minister of Bantu Administration and asked him what he was doing about those recommendations and when they would be Tabled. According to the chairman of the Liaison Committee they were eventually promised that the recommendations would be Tabled on 20 or 27 May. But they were not Tabled then, Sir. Eventually ten day ago we got those recommendations.

We were entitled to expect, after that length of time, to get substantial recommendations, but what did we get? We got two pages, not of recommendations, but two pages of recommendations and decisions, and the White Paper says that these are the important recommendations of the commission—there are five. The Government has accepted two of the recommendations, one with a proviso, and the others are rejected. I cannot believe that the recommendations contained in this page can be the only recommendations made by that commission. The Government says these are the important recommendations, but I say we should have been given all the recommendations so that we could have decided which were the important ones and which not. I do not think it is for the Prime Minister to select those he thinks are important. We have not had an opportunity of discussing those recommendations; we do not know what they are except for these mentioned here. How do these recommendations and decisions help the White and Coloured people in the Transkei? The first is that in principle compensation must be paid for every loss resulting directly from the change in the constitutional status of the territory. The Government accepts that principle, Sir, provided the trader proves that his losses are not imaginary, but are directly because of the change in the status. How does a trader prove that? The only way he can do it is by getting some person to come along and to say: “I am prepared to buy this station; I am prepared to pay such and such a price, but no building society or bank or anybody else will lend me the money to raise the purchase price because of Government policy.” How else is he going to prove it? I hope a statement will be made as soon as possible by the Department telling the traders how they must set about proving that the loss is directly due to Government policy.

The Government does not accept the recommendation of an Adjustment Corporation to carry out the valuations. The Government says it will appoint an Advisory Committee to do the adjustment. This committee will value the stations, the land and the improvements which existed on 30 June 1963 and the goodwill “being the profits for three years calculated retrospectively from 30 June 1963.” Well, the method of calculating the goodwill may be a good one; I am not going to quarrel with that. But I want to know on what basis the land is going to be valued? There is no market value for trading stations and properties in villages to-day. We have not been told on what basis land will be valued. We know this that a Valuation Committee was appointed in South West Africa. According to the Burger the values placed on farms in South West Africa, which had to be taken over in terms of the Odendaal Commission recommendations, were as follows—

Of course you realize that is only a newspaper report.

Is this not true? Are you not going to compensate these farmers on a fair basis? This comes from the correspondent of the Burger there. All I can say is this, that when the Government does appoint a committee to make the valuations in the Transkei, I hope they will send down those valuators they had in South West Africa. I should also like to point out that when the Government buys farms for the Native Trust, a generous valuation is placed on the farms and, in addition, 20 per cent is added to compensate the farmer for the inconvenience he is caused in having to move from the farm. I want to know why the same consideration is not given to the trader. Why is there no provision in this White Paper for 20 per cent to be given to the trader as well for any inconvenience caused him?

As for the zoning of the villages, according to the White Paper, once a village is zoned the property zoned for Black occupation will be valued. Luckily the Government has not accepted the recommendation that the Group Areas Development Board provisions be applied. I am thankful for that. But I want to point out that those people who fall in the zoned area will probably be the only people who can sell their property. I am worried about the White or Coloured people who fall outside the zoned area, because they will never be able to sell their property until it is zoned Black. Nothing is done to help these people. I want to know from the hon. the Prime Minister—unfortunately the Minister of Bantu Administration is not here—whether every trader will now have to offer his property to the Trust; will that property then be valued, and will the Minister of Bantu Administration buy every property that is offered? In terms of the White Paper he may buy it. There is no compulsion on him to buy the property. What is the policy going to be in regard to those properties? Are they going to buy every property which is offered? Sir, the White and Coloured people in the Transkei deserve better of this Government than they have received from it I hope the White people in the rest of the country will now realize that this Government is not a Government to protect the White people. It is a Government which is fumbling in trying to find a solution. The Government is battling away; the Prime Minister is making inconsistent statements and the country is becoming more and more worried about them. Not only the United Party supporters are becoming worried about those inconsistencies, but Nationalist Party supporters as well. That was why it was necessary for the Burger to write that leading article on 3 June. They wrote a leading article on “Aan-passing” (adaptation), and what did they point out, Sir? They said there had been two different statements by the Prime Minister with regard to his policy. They said the Prime Minister said in 1951—

The Burger then goes on to quote the 1961 statement—ten years later—

The Prime Minister has not replied to these inconsistencies as pointed out by the Burger. The Burger went on to say that circumstances have forced this upon the Prime Minister and they pay tribute to the Prime Minister for being able to change his mind. They point out that the leaders in the country should realize that they can change their minds and the people will still follow them and that therefore they must give more leadership. What I think they were getting at, Sir, was that the Prime Minister and the Transvalers must change their mind in regard to the Coloureds and see that the Coloureds are given direct representation in this House. I think that was what they were getting at.

But the Prime Minister attacked the United Party Senators in the Other Place. He accused them of building up distrust. He did not refer to his own supporters or to the leading article in the Burger which had taken the same line as the Opposition had in the Other Place. He said he wished to deal with historical events. He said there was nothing inconsistent with what he had done because he had merely said in 1951 what everybody else was saying. He traced the growth of the Native policy in this country and referred to the policies of General Smuts and General Hertzog. He said the policy he was carrying out was the traditional policy. He said that there was a movement afoot in 1951 by the metropolitan powers to give their colonies in the north greater self-government but under the control of the Central Power. He made that quite clear. He said—

And then the Prime Minister went on to say that thinking had changed throughout the world in the next decade. That is quite right. He said—

The point is this: The Prime Minister had referred to the policies of General Hertzog and General Smuts as justification for the statement he had made in 1951. He was probably right. But I want to point out to the Prime Minister that when General Smuts formulated his Native policy he never intended depriving the Bantu of all their political rights; nor did General Hertzog. Although General Smuts had promised to give the old Bunga of the Transkei more executive power I want to remind the Prime Minister too that before the 1948 election General Smuts said he was also going to give the Natives’ Representative Council executive power. This is the point the hon. member for Innesdal overlooks: General Smuts warned at all times that the Bantu and all other sections of the community must have some political platform. That was why he supported the idea of the Natives’ Representative Council being elected by the Bantu throughout the country and he was going to give them executive power. He said it had failed as an advisory body and therefore they had to be given executive power to control their own affairs. That was the start of the idea of race federation. It all fits into our policy of a race federation of every community, each one dealing with its own affairs. In justifying his policy of giving the Bantu states independence the hon. the Prime Minister says he was compelled in 1961 to make that speech because of what had happened abroad. That shows that this Prime Minister is continually making concessions. He does what world opinion wants of him. I ask the Prime Minister this: If he was compelled in 1961 to change his policy from the policy he had in 1951, because of what was happening up North, if he was compelled to give the Transkei self-government before the time, as he himself said in this House, because of world opinion—He did not want to do it but he did so because of world opinion,—how does he think will he able to control that stage when they get independence? [Time limit.]

I just want to reply to a few important points raised by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes). I want to begin with his reference to the words of the hon. the Prime Minister in 1951 and in 1961, as quoted by him. Together with that, I want to deal with his allegation that General Hertzog in his time never foresaw and never alleged that Natives would be deprived of their political rights which they enjoyed in those years. The hon. member should realize that if ever there was an example of how the policy of a political party in regard to the independence of the Bantu in South Africa has developed evolutionarily, it is to be seen in the policy of this party as expressed by, inter alia, the Prime Minister in both those statements he quoted here. Those two statements do not contradict each other. Those two statements follow on each other, just as the policy of General Hertzog in 1924 and later that of Dr. Malan and of Mr. Strijdom was followed by the policy which we apply to-day. When the Prime Minister used those words in 1951, they were, as he correctly said, used in the spirit of those times. Nobody else but the Prime Minister and the present Government were the first who, in view of the evolution at that time, as the nations demanded independence, were able to adapt their policy to it.

We say very clearly to-day that as it became clear right throughout the world, particularly after the Second World War, that nations, whether they were able to do so or not, wanted to become independent, we accepted that principle. This Nationalist Government gives effect to that principle. That is why in recent years, from 1952 with the Bantu Authorities Act and thereafter with the Bantu Self-Government Act, and after that with Transkei Act and other measures which will come at the right time, we took the Bantu to an increasing extent, one step after another, to further forms of self-government, which is not only according to the fashion of the time but which is the natural result of present-day developments. In other words, the policies which the Prime Minister set out in 1951 and in 1961 follow logically on each other. According to the requirements of the time, and according to how the desires of particular peoples are justified, they get further forms of self-government in their own area as a nation on their own, and not mixed up with any other nations in the same geographic area. That is where the policy of hon. members opposite is absolutely static and rather goes back than forward in the spirit of these modem times. Because what is the policy of the United Party? It is a policy which, as the hon. member for Innesdale (Mr. J. A. Marais) correctly stated here to-day and as was also stated on previous occasions, is nothing else but a policy of utter domination in one integrated geographic area. The policy of the United Party is “White leadership with justice”, a system of race federation with the Whites always in the lead. It is nothing else but a naked policy of domination of the White man over all the other races in one integrated geographic area. That is quite behind the times; it is in conflict with the spirit of the peoples of the world and even with UNO, for which they have so much respect. Sir, the words of the Prime Minister, as contrasted with the policy of the United Party, clearly show that we can honestly say we are complying with the demands of the times. We do so not according to their yardstick but according to our yardstick.

Then the hon. member also spoke about the Whites in the Transkei. I should like to talk to him about that, but it seems to me he does not want to listen to me, unless his colleague over there will give him the opportunity to listen to me. The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) should really allow the hon. member for Transkeian Territories to display some good manners, if he cannot do so himself. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories said that with reference to what the Government had announced in the White Paper, the Government is now doing with the Whites in the Transkei what the British Government did with the Whites in Kenya. If ever there was a stupid allegation, it is that one. If what the hon. member for Transkeian Territories said to-day is all the criticism the United Party can voice on our announced guarantees to the Whites in the Transkei in so far as their properties there are concerned, then the United Party has failed miserably to point but any shortcomings.

What is the position of the Whites in the Transkei as compared with the position of the Whites in Kenya? Their position is quite different in every respect. What happened in Kenya? The White authority in Kenya withdrew itself completely; it left those Whites completely in the lurch. It gave them no guarantees. It handed them over to the Bantu Government. The result is that they left. What did that White Government of Kenya do further? It did not bring any prosperity to Kenya; it started no economic development there; it did not even help Kenya to keep order by putting people there. The position in the Transkei is in every respect just the opposite of the position in Kenya. The White guardian Government of the Republic of South Africa, which for all these years had Kenya directly under it and which now has Kenya under it less directly, is not withdrawing from the Transkei at all. As the hon. member knows, there are still many matters in the Transkei which are being directly administered and developed by this Government. In regard to the matters which were handed over to the Transkei, the hon. member ought to know that that was done with the approval of this Parliament. It cannot happen without the approval of this Parliament, because where will their supplementary funds come from? Those funds are voted here. This Government gives the Transkeian Government financial assistance. In other words, the White guardianship of this Government over the Transkei has not been withdrawn but has rather been strengthened, and the Whites who are there now also benefit from it.

How will they sell their trading stations?

I shall reply on that point if the hon. member will just be a little more patient. As I said, the Whites benefit from the development which is being stimulated in that area, not only the administrative development, but also in other spheres. The development we set afoot in terms of the five-year plan continues. Money is flowing into the Transkei as the result of the actions and the co-responsibility of this Government, and that is why in the Transkei we see just the opposite of what happened in Kenya. The Whites, of course, fled out of Kenya, as many as possibly could. What do we see in the Transkei? The White people in the Transkei who told me two years ago at Umtata that a dark future was awaiting them, supporters of the United Party and not of our party, now do not want to leave the Transkei at all. The Whites in the Transkei are in no hurry to leave.

What about the trading stations?

I shall reply to the hon. member in a moment. The Whites in the Transkei have been experiencing for two years already that more development has been set on foot by this Government, that more money has been brought in and that there are greater prospects for prosperity. That is why they do not want to leave at all now, whereas two years ago they pretended that they would all leave the Transkei. They do not want to leave because they see the prosperity and are experiencing it and because they know that it will increase.

I now want to go into more detail in regard to a few of the points raised by the hon. member. He spoke about the basis mentioned in the White Paper. In the White Paper we give the details, and in the first recommendation the Government gives the basic assurance that it guarantees that the people there will not suffer actual loss. I am not talking now about imaginary losses. Then follow the second group of decisions, and the basis is given on broad lines. Now the hon. member must understand that we cannot now give in detail here the value of every trading station and of every dwellinghouse in that area. But here the broad basis is given. And the hon. member, as somebody who has experience of business and who is an attorney, ought to know that this is an honest and fair basis. I make bold to say that the hon. member knows that it is a fair basis. That is why his criticism was so weak, so pointless and so unconvincing to-day. What do we say here? It is said that in the Transkei the following will serve as the basis for the taking over of trading stations; the value of the land, if the land belongs to the person. How will the value of the land be determined? By this committee appointed by the Government. It is not necessary to establish a permanent corporation, as is recommended here, and the hon. member agrees with me that it is not necessary.

Yes.

Then I need not deal with it further. We therefore say that a temporary committee will be appointed which can deal with all the cases that occur. How is the land value ascertained? By way of a proper valuation. And the advantage of it is that the land value will be determined at that stage in the future when the sale takes place, and judging from the enthusiasm of the Whites to stay there, they do not want to leave soon. In other words, it boils down to this, that as the land values increase, they will derive the benefit, because that valuation will always be made in future not on a static level, but to the extent that land values increase, as they must increase in a time of prosperity.

Have you taken every trading station which was offered to you? Will you buy every station which is offered.

Theoretically the possibility is stated in this White Paper that every owner of a trading station can offer it for sale to the Government to-day, and if the Government has the valuation made and is convinced that he should sell his station, then those stations can all be bought to-day. But they will not be offered because those people want to have it both ways. The Whites want to share in that prosperity as much as possible, and I do not begrudge it to them.

The second point mentioned here is in regard to the value of the improvements, and it will be the value of the improvements as they existed on 30 June 1963. Some date had to be fixed. The end of the financial year was taken in which notice was given that the Transkei would become increasingly Black and less White, and I think that is a very fair and reasonable date, and I did not even hear the hon. member criticizing it. As a Department, we will ensure that we have a proper inventory in regard to the improvements at those places which existed at this date, so that we will have it available if it is needed in future. The third poin mentioned here was not even mentioned by the hon. member.

I did mention it.

I refer to the goodwill, and I did not hear the hon. member say a single word about that. But here also a very fair basis has been laid down, and I see that the hon. member nods his head affirmatively. He agrees. I made some inquiries as to what the practice is in the business world, and to determine the goodwill in terms of the profits over three years retrospectively is a very fair basis. Therefore what has the hon. member proved? He asked whether the 20 per cent would be added. Sir, that is a detail in connection with the land valuation. Is the Government compelled always to give the 20 per cent on all land it buys?

The principle was adopted by the Government.

But the Government has not bought a single trading station yet. Surely the hon. member should wait to see how the Minister determines the price. This White Paper surely does not say that these three people will determine the price. It says that they can make recommendations to the Minister. Then the Minister can determine that that will be the value plus somehing or plus nothing; and the hon. member ought to know from the long experience of purchases of land by the Trust, i.e. by the Minister, that the Whites have always been treated very fairly. What is the great advantage derived by the Whites in the Transkei from this? That it is not an external adaptation corporation which supplies its own yardsticks without having a record of the past. No, it will be the Trust which throughout the years has bought much land in the whole of South Africa and also in the Eastern Province, and which has developed a pattern for the purchasing of land for Bantu, and does the hon. member now think that it will go against that tradation of land purchases in the past in the cases which may come up in the future?

Why do you not give these people that assurance?

The hon. member now wants assurances in regard to the details of every particular trading station which has to be dealt with. Why should we give such assurances now? It may be that all those trading stations are sold to the Bantu, and not even to the Trust.

You know yourself that that does not happen.

What is going to happen in the future? It has not happened yet because the whole stimulus to the Bantu community has not been there yet. That stimulus is now coming in regard to Bantu life in the Eastern Cape, in the Transkei, and many of those trading stations may perhaps be bought by the Bantu themselves. The hon. member now wants details because he wants to hawk with them. I think I have now replied to all the points raised by the hon. member, except in regard to the zoned and the unzoned area. Now the hon. member should know that Section 60 of the Transkei Constitution Act says that the Minister must appoint a zoning commission, and the names of the members of that commission have appeared in the Press recently. Therefore a commission has been appointed to zone the whole of the White towns in the Transkei. The hon. member surely knows that in the past we also had a zoning system which worked voluntarily. That is why certain local authorities did not want to indicate areas to be zoned, but in many towns there was zoning. Now the hon. member need not be afraid at all that an injustice will be done to the people in those White towns. It is stated very clearly that the purchases can take place in the area to be; oned. That can easily be done because such an area which is zoned, whether it is a quarter of the town or half of the town or the whole of a small town—we do not know what the commission will recommend—may easily be declared to be a released area, and then the Trust can buy land on the same basis that we have just discussed here and as stated in the White Paper. What is unfair about that? And if outside the zoned area it so happens that land is offered, there is still the provision in the Urban Areas Act whereby the State President can grant approval if the circumstances justify it. But if it takes place under the zoning system, precisely the same procedure can be followed which we have hitherto followed, namely that the zoning of a town can be done gradually. Supposing it is recommended that one-third of the town be zoned as an area to be taken over by the Bantu. Then a further one-third or other percentage of the town can again be added as the zoned area becomes occupied fully. Less than a year ago I personally had to deal with a case, I think in Cala, where a White man found himself in a very bad position. He had to sell. But unfortunately his property lay outside the area which was zoned. We wanted to keep our word vis-à-vis the Municipality by not allowing a sale to be authorized by the State President outside the zoned area. We then approached the local authority, which went into the merits of the case and agreed to enlarge the zoned area in order to include that property in the new zoned area. The man sold his land and everybody was satisfied. If there is goodwill, there is enough elasticity in this scheme, and the hon. member for Transkeian Territories should really look for something else than this White Paper with which to frighten the White people of the Transkei. There is nothing contained in this which need make them afraid. It is a fair basis and the details set out in it offer a guarantee to the White man that if there are bona fide reasons for leaving the place, and he cannot sell to a Bantu, then the assistance of the Trust can be invoked.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) referred the day before yesterday to the West Rand and the East Rand and compared them with each other, and he stated that the West Rand area was being greatly neglected by the Government as compared with the East Rand. Then he quoted certain statistics. My colleague dealt with him very effectively from the industrial point of view and from the angle of building plans approved. But what is the real meaning of the figures he himself quoted? In the past, in so far as that hon. member is concerned, I have repeatedly learnt that if he quotes figures it pays one to scrutinize his figures, because he juggles with figures to such an extent that anyone who is not a magician cannot follow his tricks. I saw at first glance what he is. The hon. member said: There is the West Rand area, half as big geographically as the East Rand area. He described it from Roodepoort right to Oberholzer, and the East Rand right to Springs. I then went into the matter. Then the hon. member said it was half as big and the income of the public there was half that of the people on the East Rand. But what did the hon. member do when he made this comparison? The hon. member compared the bare veld of the West Rand area down to Carletonville with the industrialized area of the East Rand. This argument of the hon. member in regard to the size of the area is therefore of no value, because he compared bare veld with the factories on the East Rand.

The population also.

Thank you. I had hoped that he would again raise the population argument. Because what •is this population argument? The fact in regard rio the population is that the population on the West Rand which the hon. member compared with the population on the East Rand is not even half what it is on the East Rand, and the income is also half. The income of the population is half that of the population of the East Rand.

Who is conjuring now?

No, Sir, I know what sources the hon. member used. I used the Bulletin of the Bureau of Statistics, and the figures given there and the figures mentioned by the hon. member, in relation to the West Rand area, differed by just a few thousand. It is basically the same. In other words, half the number of people must earn half of what is earned by twice as many people. That seems quite logical.

I only referred to the industrial production.

Let us now discuss the industries. In that regard my colleague has already said enough, but I still want to say this: It is well known, and all of us who live in the Transvaal know, that the East Rand started developing industrially much earlier—Benoni, Brakpan, Springs, Germiston. Germiston, one of the financial giants among our cities in South Africa, was an industrial area right from the very beginning, but not the West Rand. The industrialization of the West Rand only started in recent times. It is an area which is now beginning to develop industrially, but the hon. member compares it with a fully industrialized area on the East Rand.

Two months ago my colleague, the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) and the hon. the Minister of Transport and I were present at the opening of a very large industrial township on the West Rand. These things are only starting there now. Now I just want to mention one statistic in regard to the West Rand, and I know that the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) will again jump up and talk about that cement factory. Then it will be the seventh time that he talks that nonsense here. But I just want tomention something in regard to the population, because the hon. member for Yeoville also referred to the population. What is the position in regard to the population on the East Rand and on the West Rand? I studied the statistics carefully, and I obtained these figures from the Bulletin of the Bureau. From 1951 to 1960 the increase in the population, in so far as Whites are concerned (the hon. member also spoke about Whites only) in the East Rand area was 16.1 per cent.

16 per cent of nothing is nothing.

I am not going to compare incomparable things. I shall take the same period for the West Rand.

Do not give percentages; give figures.

That is how the hon. member does an eggdance. The hon. member should now remember: The population increase on the East Rand from 1951 to 1960 was 16.1 per cent.

What was the basic population?

The hon. member must give me a chance now. My time has practically expired. The same area of the West Rand mentioned by the hon. member, for the same period of 1951 to I960, had a population increase of 37.5 per cent. Now what is the inference? The hon. member says that the West Rand area is being neglected by the Government. But in the same period the White population on the West Rand increased by twice as high a percentage as was the case on the East Rand. Can that be called neglect? No, the hon. member for Yeoville can juggle with figures, as I said. I want to go further and say that the hon. member evidently has an inborn tendency to dishonour figures and statistics.

My time is up, but I should very much like to react to a refrain which I have heard right throughout this Session, viz. the allegation made to-day again by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories that the Government, with its policy of apartheid or separate development, is busy with an impracticable policy, that we are inefficient, and as I have also heard on various occasions this Session particularly also from the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman), that it is a policy which has failed and is still failing. Now I want to say that if ever there was a policy in regard to which we are achieving increasing success, it is in the implementation of separate development. I should like to afford the proof for this in respect of four forms of the policy of separate development, although I will probably not have enough time to do so. Firstly, I say that in respect of the geographic aspect of the population groups we have achieved great success, and that in fact we have already made so much progress that we practically have complete separation in regard to the geographical application of separate development. Also, in regard to the political separation we have already achieved total separation, and all this was done during the regime of the present Government, from 1948. [Time limit.]

I listened very attentively to the political lesson which the hon. The Deputy Minister tried to teach us in regard to the evolutionary development of the policy of separate freedom. Of course, the hon. the Deputy Minister tried again, as he has always done, to contend that this policy is nothing more than the natural result or continuation of the traditional policy of South Africa. I understand the eagerness of the hon. the Deputy Minister and hon. members opposite to do this because if there is one party which is as afraid of breaking away from tradition as the devil is of holy water, it is the Nationalist Party. That party is so afraid that the public may gain the impression that they have broken with the tradition of South Africa as far as race relationships are concerned that they make use of every opportunity to try to convince the public that they are really trying to maintain that tradition.

I want to put this question to the hon. the Deputy Minister: He says that this policy is a continuation of the tradition of this country. When in the past has there ever been an indication by any other leader of the Nationalist Party that they were following a policy which would eventually give full independence to the Black man?

Botha said it in 1912 and so did Hertzog.

I think that the hon. the Deputy Minister would do well to brush up on his history in this regard. If there was one principle to which General Hertzog remained faithful throughout it was that there should be political unity in South Africa. The races could live apart but political unity had to be given effect to by this House. Every leader of the United Party and of the Nationalist Party has always believed in that political unity, the tradition of South Africa, hoping that at a later stage this House will reveal that political unity in respect of the White man only and that the Black man can rule himself. This is a complete rejection of the traditional policy of South Africa and the sooner the Nationalist Party realizes this, the better.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has told us that wonderful success has been achieved with this policy of separate freedom. He says that geographically it has been very successful. I want to ask the hon. the Minister why they can give us no definite information in regard to this crucial problem of boundaries. Why do we have to struggle to obtain information in this connection?

You do not want it.

The hon. Deputy Minister speaks of political success. But what success has he achieved in the social and economic sphere? I want to come back to this point and then we shall judge total apartheid using the norm with which the hon. the Minister has provided us.

Before I leave the point in connection with the South African tradition and how they have clung to it, I also want to ask the hon. the Minister when he discovered that a change had taken place in the world? The hon. the Minister has told us that the Nationalist Party is only keeping abreast of the changes in the world. Only eight years ago, as is recorded in Hansard, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development told us that it had never been the policy of the Nationalist Party to guide the Bantu in the direction of independent states. Does the hon. Deputy Minister admit that? If he does admit it, I want to ask him when this change of heart took place, when this basic revolutionary change of heart took place in the ranks of the Nationalist Party. When did he discover that the world was changing? The fact of the matter is that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has been caught, just like the hon. the Minister, in the web of thought of the hon. the Prime Minister, and to-day they have to stand or fall by it. I want to place this on record. I refer here to Col. 5364 of Hansard of 14 May 1956—not donkey’s years ago.

Eight years ago!

The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said this—

The policy of “new states”—

This is something which hon. members opposite have so often done. The hon. the Minister went on to say—

What does this mean? That the Bantu do not want separate states. The White man does not want them either, But the hon. the Prime Minister has forced his party to follow this policy.

Read a little further.

I can continue quoting until to-morrow morning.

This Session is almost at its end and, like previous sessions, it has left us with certain impressions. The matter which has made the greatest impression on me during this Session is the two lines of thought, the double-barrelled policy which is being revealed by the Nationalist Party more and more in connection with race relationships in South Africa. It has never been so clear to me that the Nationalist Party is blatantly showing off the fruits of economic integration while completely deny that integration as far as their policy is concerned. It has never been so clear to me that while the Nationalist Party is squeezing the last drop of propaganda value out of the policy of total apartheid, they are in effect showing that policy nothing but lip-service. It has never been as clear to me as it has become during this Session that although hon. members opposite make their policy out to be the only salvation for the White man, this Government has set a process in motion in South Africa which can lead to only one thing and that is the destruction of the White man and his way of life in South Africa.

They boast with the fruits of economic integration but who can stand up in this House and say that he is not proud of our economic prosperity? Who on the other hand can stand up and deny that if it were not for our integrated Bantu labour, that prosperity would not be as great as it is? Another fact is this. Who can stand up and deny that unless we are prepared to make more and more use of Bantu labour, we shall not be able to maintain our economic prosperity or our standard of living? But when we tell hon. members that this is economic integration they say: It is not economic integration because the Bantu are only here temporarily; we control every movement of the Bantu; we make them citizens of another state and that is why they are not economically integrated here.

But it is clear to me that no matter what the Government may say, as long as Bantu labour is required in our economic structure, so long will the Bantu remain economically integrated with us: and even if Jafta does that work one year and September does it the next, the fact remains that the Bantu are needed. As long as they are required we will have economic integration. I want to address this remark to the hon. the Minister who boasts so much about the success of apartheid. What has he done to bring about the removal of the Bantu from our economy? No, he can only do this in one way and that is not by words, including the words of the law; it can only be done by deeds; the Whites will have to be prepared to do all this work themselves and to take the consequences.

Are you going to give the Basutos the vote because they work here?

When it comes to telling the White man that he has to do all the work presently being done by the Bantu, I tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that this Government does not have the courage to make this demand of the Whites of South Africa. In the meantime the Government is proceeding with its twin trains of thought, is continuing to sit on two stools until it eventually falls between those two stools, most probably taking the people of South Africa with it.

But I want to make a second point. I say that the Government are squeezing the last drop of propaganda value out of the theory of total apartheid but in reality they are doing nothing more than to show a lip-service to that theory. But when we talk of total apartheid we must be very clear and we must not be led up the garden path by the political dictionary of the Nationalist Party. They have their own political dictionary and we now have a new term called separate freedom. We must not allow this to mislead us. Separate freedom and separate development both mean total apartheid because total apartheid is a term which was forced on them by the Tomlinson Commission. The commission said that this was the only policy by means of which the White man in South Africa could be saved. The Government has now to stand by that policy. It has to follow that path because it has promised the people of South Africa that it will do so. If it now wants to leave that path, as it is doing in practice, it must be honest with the people and tell them that it is no longer striving to achieve total apartheid but is aiming at something else. The Government must also tell us what they are now striving to achieve. Only a few weeks ago the question of total apartheid was confirmed by the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Van Staden). He said that since 1948—I do not think his date was quite correct—it has been the policy of the Nationalist Party to remove the Bantu from South Africa. The propaganda machine of the Nationalist Party is trying daily by means of this promise of the removal of the Bantu supported by the Tomlinson Commission plus the Transkei Act, to make the public believe that the Nationalist Party is still following the policy of total apartheid. But in the meantime the facts prove just the opposite, that we are moving further away from that aim. No one is interested in total apartheid any longer, least of all the Government. They talk of the political success and of the geographical success of the apartheid policy but the hon. the Minister has nothing to say about the matter which is of so much importance, the economic facet, because he knows that the Bantu are more deeply integrated in our economy than they have ever been before. What right has the hon. the Deputy Minister to say that he is following a policy of total apartheid when every day it is clear to us that the facts prove the opposite? What right has he to say this when the White man is leaving the platteland and the Bantu are moving into the platteland to an increasing extent? Look what is happening in the Western Cape where it should be the easiest thing in the world to apply total apartheid because, so the Nationalist Party says, there are sufficient Coloureds to do the work here. What is happening here? We know how the Government have since 1961 been recruiting an increasing number of Bantu to work in the Western Cape. The figure has already been mentioned here. In 1961 it was 666. The State recruited those Bantu itself. In 1962 the number was 892 and in 1963 it was 3,864. For the first three months of 1964 it was 3,511. Is this the removal of the Bantu from our economic life? The Railways have tried to remove the Bantu from Table Bay Harbour. Have they made any progress? Let us see what the 1963 report of the Railway and Harbour Board has to say in this regard (Translation)—

If we have to recruit Coloureds in the Transkei to do the work of the Bantu in Table Bay Harbour, what has become of all the Coloureds here? Where is the great unemployment? The argument cannot be that we needed trained Coloureds for that work and that we did not have the time to train them. Surely, if the Transkei Coloureds were trained for that work, the Coloureds here should also have been able to do that work? The fact is that we simply do not have the Coloureds here to do that work and if this is the position in the Western Cape what will be the position in the rest of the country? Let us read what the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais) had to say about this position. He was referring to the secrifices which the White man would have to make in order to make this policy possible. This is what he said on 2 November 1963 (Translation)—

He is worried. What fine words. But the Nationalist Party is by no means giving effect to these words in the Western Cape. The hon. member went on to say (Translation)—

What is the Government doing in this connection? Where is that more formidable thought? There is no thought and the fact simply remains that the Nationalist Party is doing nothing as far as the economic facts of South Africa are concerned to give effect to total apartheid.

I have said in this House previously that the Government can do nothing if it does not give attention to the time factor. The hon. member for Moorreesburg expressed concern in regard to the time factor. He said that we must launch a crusade in the north. This is not being done. No, conditions in South Africa, in Africa and in the world are such that we cannot devote too much time to this matter. We cannot continue too long to hope that a Black, voteless proletariat will remain the basis of our economic structure without giving them some recognition. I can mention other things which the Government is required to do. Do hon. members know what is happening? This is a very serious matter. The Government is picking the economic fruits of a multi-racial population pattern but it is not prepared to accept or recognize the political and social demands made of it by that pattern. What is the result? A wave of frustration is building up amongst the non-Whites which will make it completely impossible at a later stage to apply any reasonable policy as far as race relationships are concerned. If the time comes when it is impossible to formulate a reasonable policy, then the blame for this fact must be placed at the door of only one party, the Nationalist Party, which is prepared to win elections by means of a theory but which is not prepared to face reality as far as the results of its actions are concerned.

The hon. member who has just spoken is still fairly young and inexperienced and to judge from his speech to-day he will place his party in a very embarrassing position. If one says things in this House in a challenging way, things which are not in accordance with historical facts simply because one has the right to say what one wants to say in this House, and one makes use of that opportunity because one imagines that one is on the top of a very high mountain and is free to say what one likes without considering the fact that what one has to say is in conflict with the true facts, then one makes a great mistake. He has taken it upon himself to-day to issue a challenge to this side to say which other Statesman or Prime Minister emphasized this policy of total segregation which we are implementing to-day. I want to start with General Hertzog. I think that for future reference it may be in the interests of the hon. member to go back to school and to learn elementary South African history before he discusses these matters. If he does not do so he will only be placing his party in a most embarrassing position. He suggested that no other Prime Minister had ever laid down the principles of separate development. I want to teach him an elementary lesson. General Hertzog, the father of segregation as he is often called—and what is segregation and its consequences other than separate development as we are implementing it at the moment —had the following to say in this House as early as in 1925 (Translation)—

In order to remove this danger General Hertzog then suggested that the Natives in the Cape be removed from the common Voters’ Roll and be given separate representation. [Interjections.] He also had this to say in connection with the question of separate development and the authority of the Native in the political sphere (Translation)—

If words mean anything, then this means nothing less than separate development for the Bantu.

And independence?

I want to ask the hon. member to give me one instance in which the words “independent states” are used in that speech.

What has that to do with this point? We are not dealing here with absolutely independent states. We are dealing here with the limited representation which we are already giving the Bantu in exchange for what he had here. We are giving him the opportunity, according to General Hertzog, to show how he can live out his independence according to his own ability. This is something which still has to be proved by the coming into being of the homelands with their own Governments.

The present Prime Minister had the following to say in connection with this matter in regard to which the Opposition have consistently placed South Africa in a wrong light by saying that we oppress the Bantu and that we have deprived him of his political rights and have given him nothing in exchange (Translation)—

This is the basic difference between the United Party and ourselves—that they are opposed to the fact that a portion of South Africa should be placed under Bantu control. But they are indifferent to the consequences of their policy in that the whole of South Africa must eventually be dominated by the Bantu. That is the basic difference between us. If it were necessary to do so I could still prove to the hon. member how Dr. Malan laid down the same policy from time to time and pointed out that we had to have territorial segregation and segregation in the political sphere, which has already been given effect to as the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated this morning. The hon. the Prime Minister went on to say (Translation)—

What is more, we are now establishing the Bantu, in exchange for what he had here—and if hon. members deny this fact again to-day I shall produce proof to show that even General Smuts said that in this lies the only permanent solution not only for South Africa but for the entire continent of Africa—Bantu councils and Bantu homelands where we can set up a platform for the educated Bantu and for the Bantu statesmen on the basis of separate development. Even General Smuts supported this idea. During the discussion of the 1936 legislation he argued that this would one day be the permanent solution for South Africa and for the whole of Africa. I see that hon. members are satisfied that this is so because they have not questioned my statement. I shall prove it by quoting from the Hansard of the Joint Sitting of 1936, Col. 317. General Smuts had this to say (translation)—

In the same speech General Smuts said that he stood alone and did not have the support of his party. In Col. 320 he said that his party did not see eye to eye with him in this regard. That is why they are to-day trying to run away from the attitude which he adopted then. The hon. member knows that the attitude which they have adopted is not more favourable to UNO because the truth is gradually catching up on the lies. It is gradually beginning to penetrate to statesmen throughout the world that in South Africa’s present policy of separate development one has a platform from which to defend oneself because this is the only way in which we can live out the principle of one man, one vote, while, if we have a form of race federation in which, as the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) said this morning “there is some form a representation”, the pressure from abroad will simply be increased because “some form of representation” will never satisfy the outside world. But the logical consequences are that this can and will be the case on the basis of separate development. Because hon. members are afraid that we will completely disarm the entire world and deprive them of their most powerful weapon against us, that we will convince the whole world that this is a pattern which will serve as a model not only in South Africa but in many parts of the world, they oppose us. Instead of their assisting us in the interests of the survival of White South Africa by declaring this policy to the world, they consistently misrepresent it and substitute for it their policy of a race federation which can provide no solution to these problems either in South Africa or in any other part of the world. These are the remarks I have to make in regard to the points raised by the hon. member.

But I rise actually to reply to something that was said on Saturday by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). The hon. the Deputy Minister has already replied to him but I want to say that it is not necessary for the hon. member for Yeoville to step into the breach for industrial development on the West Rand. Without mentioning any further figures, the facts are that the confluence of industrialists on the West Rand is so bad that the three most important municipalities there cannot keep pace with the demand for housing which prevails there at present because of the tremendous influx of industrialists, workers and dealers from all parts of the country. If there is one factor which indicates that a particular area is growing, it is the demand for dwelling houses. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs pointed out the other day how those three municipalities are at present under pressure because of the demand for housing. For the hon. member for Yeoville to talk about the poor West Rand is absolute nonsense. He should confine himself rather to his own constituency. I want to tell him that I am sure that there is not a single hon. member in this House who would not like to see more industries developing in his own constituency. I am one of them but I make an important condition in this regard. I want no industrial development in my constituency which will have the effect of increasing the influx of Bantu to that area. I am in favour of the establishment of all industries which want to comply with the policy of the Government; in other words, industries based on White labour. Sir, the Opposition say one thing one day and another thing the next; they want to see a number of factories come into being there so that they can come along here next year and say that there are too many Bantu in the White areas. One day they complain that there is an influx of Bantu into the White areas and the next day they say that more industries employing Bantu labour should be established in the White areas. There are certain industries which will have a great future if they are established in the border areas because Bantu labour is available there if they want to employ that Bantu labour. On the other hand, if they want to establish industries in the White areas they also have the opportunity to do so but I want to warn them that the Witwatersrand and more specifically the area which I am discussing now will not always be able to afford them all the facilities they need; a time will come when saturation point will be reached. I have raised this matter in my own constituency and my voters support me. It is of no avail for us to talk of the decentralization of industries if this—the proposal of the United Party—results in an even greater influx of Bantu into the Witwatersrand area. Sir, if you go to the Witwatersrand today and see the White people who are employed there on the mines and in the factories and not only on the Witwatersrond but also in Pretoria, you will find that the vast majority of those White people were born elsewhere—in the Free State, in the Western Transvaal and in the Cape. They grow up in other parts of the country; they are educated up to matriculation standard and then they disappear from those areas in which they were born. Sir, where are the young people who were born and grew up in Rustenburg, Lichtenburg, Christiana, Kimberley, Wepener, Rouxville, Ficksburg, Bethlehem, Harrismith, Vrede, Brandfort. Vredefort, Kroonstad, Hoopstand. Senekal, Winburg, Smithfield and other towns in the Free State? They were born there; they were educated there but where are they to-day? They are concentrated on the Witwatersrand simply because we did not have this process of the decentralization of industries in the past. That is why I most strongly support and subscribe to the policy of the Government of the decentralization of industries. That is why I say here that a proper survey must be made of the industrial potential of even the smallest town in the country to ascertain the possibility of industrial development there so that it wil no longer be necessary for the people who are born in those areas and who receive their education there to move to the Witwatersrand or to one of the large industrial centres to find their niche in life. We cannot stop this process until such time as we give definite effect to the policy of decentralization of industries so that our young people can find their niche in that series of towns I have just mentioned. It is only in that way that we will be able to place the unprecedented—I would almost say uncontrollable—growth of industries on the Witwatersrand and elsewhere within reasonable limits. For this reason I hope that industrialists will take note of the appeal made to them by the Government to establish industries at places where water, labour and power will be available to them and what is more, where they can obtain cheap land. Two other important reasons why industrialists must give serious attention to the desirability of decentralization is the question of public health and the safety of the State. There are a hundred and one reasons why we must act positively in connection with decentralization. We must warn our industrialists that they must be careful where they establish their industries; that they must not establish those industries in parts of the country which are already over-populated because the city councils and the municipalities find it difficult to comply with the very heavy demands made of them in connection with the provision of housing. The city councils will not always be able to comply with the housing requirements of the employees of the steadily increasing number of industries. I have already pointed out that even to-day the city councils on the West Rand are not able to provide sufficient housing in order to keep pace with the tremendous influx of workers into these areas. Things cannot go on in this way. We cannot permit the small town in the country to become steadily smaller and the large cities to become steadily larger for the reasons I have already mentioned. That is why I want again to appeal to industrialists to turn their eyes towards the smaller towns in South Africa where water and power and housing are available and where the influx of workers will not constitute a danger to public health. This steadily increasing influx into the large cities is creating more and more problems. There are even Members of the House of Assembly, so-called leaders of the United Party, who do not even have an elementary idea of the reasons why these problems have arisen.

I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg). In the first place he made an appeal to industrialists to establish their industries in small towns. Is this a change of Government policy? I was under the impression that the policy of the Government is for industries to be established in the border areas. The hon. member for Krugersdorp has just advocated the establishment of industries in the small towns.

You do not know what decentralization of labour means.

The hon. member also said that he only wanted industries based on White labour to be established at Krugersdorp. But in this regard he will have to appeal to the hon. the Minister of Immigration, because the hon. the Minister of Immigration is only prepared to allow skilled immigrants to enter the country. Every factory or industry is, after all, based partly on skilled and partly on unskilled labour. If an industry wants to flourish it must have both skilled and unskilled labour at its disposal. If Whites are not available to do unskilled labour, then this work will have to be done by non-Whites. This, of course, will mean that a large number of non-Whites will have to be permitted to settle in Krugersdorp.

But the hon. member has proved to us that there is a difference of opinion in the ranks of his own party in regard to the history of their policy. He wants to make out that this is the traditional policy of South Africa, while the hon. the Deputy Minister admitted quite frankly this morning, certainly by implication, that this change in policy had to be effected in order to meet changed conditions. I hope to put an end to this story simply by reminding the hon. member of what a Nationalist newspaper had to say about this question in April last year. On 4 April last year a columnist of the Burger discussed the question of whether this policy was the traditional policy of South Africa or not, and this is what he wro te (Translation)—

Here we have the correct approach set down for us in black and white. We would have a far higher opinion of hon. members opposite if they accepted this fact, because this is, indeed, the position. The hon. the Prime Minister himself said in 1951 that there was no question of the establishment of independent states; the hon. the Deputy Minister also said so. We all know that the hon. the Prime Minister came forward with this revolutionary change in policy because he wanted peace in the face of United Nations attacks.

We also want racial peace in our own country.

The hon. member says that this was done for the sake of racial peace in our own country, but I am giving him the reason advanced by the hon. the Prime Minister himself. He said that he had done this in the face of United Nations attacks, and because he wanted peace. The hon. member is trying to reason away this fact, but the fact remains that it was done for that reason. This was also the reason given to the world, and we, and particularly the Nationalist Party, are saddled with this policy to-day.

No, the deciding factor is peace in our own country.

The hon. the Prime Minister made the very courageous statement on Republic Day that the Government would not sacrifice the Republic. Sir, this side will not sacrifice the Republic either. The important question is which policy will ensure that the Republic will remain standing?

Under a Black Government in terms of your policy.

It is precisely in this regard that the Nationalist Party is leading the country into so much trouble. Let us test this policy against the success, if any, which has been achieved in this regard. I want to start with two tests set by the Burger itself when it had its discussion with Trouw recently. On 13 December 1963 the Burger had this to say (translation)—

The first point I want to make is that we have only just made a start with one of these Bantustans, and I ask hon. members opposite whether they can produce any evidence to show that the urban Bantu accept their policy. Where is that evidence? The urban Bantu evinced very little interest in the election.

Where do you get that from?

Let the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) tell me what meetings were held amongst the urban Bantu to get them to participate in that election. No public meetings were held, as far as I know, and how can one generate interest in an election without holding large public meetings?

Where is the evidence that they did not accept it?

There is evidence that they continue to accept the fact, as they have done in the past, that South Africa is still following the old policy. They did not know that the hon. the Prime Minister had made the Nationalist Party do a complete about-face.

Let us now apply the second test. I quote (Translation)—

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

Afternoon Sitting

When business was interrupted I was reminding hon. members of the words of the hon. the Prime Minister to the effect that his was a policy which would keep the Republic standing. I have said that we all want the Republic to remain standing. I have said that no evidence has been produced to show that the policy of separate development of the hon. the Prime Minister is accepted by the urban Bantu. It is true that the voters of the Transkei do not want to be cut off from South Africa and even the governing party there has a completely different understanding of this policy of separate development. I want to quote from a report in the Cape Times of 11 June this year which states—

This proves that they understand the position in a completely different way to the way in which the Government wants them to understand it.

I come now to the second test which I want to apply—the massive development of the border industries. I have said that border industries simply do not want to get under way. In this connection I want to quote what the hon. the Prime Minister had to say in April. He said—

When the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) speaks, he always includes the numbers of the old-established industries as though they were actually border industries: he wants to re-christen them in that sense. But the best test is still the Transkei itself. As far as the Transkei is concerned only 2,800 positions have been created for the Bantu there, notwithstanding all the efforts of the Government, from the start of the application of its policy of border industries up to to-day. When one remembers that the Transkei has more than 2,000,000 people, it is clear that this is only a drop in the ocean. Sir, where are the plans which are going to provide employment on the borders of the Transkei? We know of R200,000,000 and more for the 500,000 people of South West Africa, but we have heard of no plans in connection with the creation of employment for the 2,000,000 people of the Transkei. We have also heard of the R2,000,000,000 which is to be spent over a period of five years in the so-called White area. This is a very good thing and we welcome it. This is also our policy, but this fact will simply draw the Bantu back to the Republic at a swifter rate. We do hear pleas made to factory owners to establish their factories on the borders of the Bantu areas, but there are no signs that money is being invested by the Government to implement its plans in this regard. In other words, after 16 years of Nationalist Party Government the Whites are even further in the minority in the so-called White area as against the Bantu.

How many children do you have?

It must also be remembered that the Tomlinson Commission stated that the reserves would only be able to hold a maximum of 10,000,000 Bantu by the year 2000. At the end of 1962 the Natural Resources Development Council said that there would be 26,000,000 Bantu in the Republic by the year 2000. If, therefore, we deduct those 10,000,000 —which is the maximum number the Government can hope to settle in the Bantu areas— we still have 16,000,000 Bantu left in the so-called White area. What then will we have achieved? We will still be in the minority in the White area. The Natural Resources Development Council estimates that by that time the Whites will number 6,000,000; in other words, the proportion will then be 16,000,000 Bantu to 6,000,000 Whites in the so-called White area, and this after we have created all these dangers which the Government is creating by means of this policy which it is following!

I come now to the third test that I want to apply to prove how this policy has already failed. The hon. the Prime Minister took this step, as I have already indicated, to try to buy peace in the face of UN attacks. I just want to say in passing that this step which it has announced is a further proof of its weakness. The hon. the Prime Minister came forward with this policy impulsively without giving it sufficient thought. I doubt very much whether he discussed this policy with his colleagues at high level before he announced it in 1959. What success has thus far been achieved by this policy? The Government has achieved absolutely no success with this policy. Indeed, the attacks against us continue and this policy has increased pressure upon us to make concessions. I admit that the concession made by the hon. the Prime Minister was a very great concession; I readily admit that, but the outside world is making demands for further concessions to-day. That is why I say that the sooner we return to the old and tried policy of South Africa, the better.

I also want to tell hon. members why this matter has become a very urgent one. The Transkei is the first state which is now being led toward independence. Six months ago Zanzibar, an Africa state, received its independence. Only six months have elapsed since that happened and we find that the communists are already there. I want to quote from a report which appeared in the Cape Times on 11 June this year—

Mr. Speaker, hon. members are continually reminding us of the ferocity of the attacks made upon us by the communists and Afro-Asian countries. If this is so—and there is much truth in this statement—then those people will take advantage of the first opportunity that presents itself to try to overthrow us, and if we open the door to them in the Transkei and other places, as the door was opened to them in Zanzibar, then it will be our own fault if they take advantage of that fact as they did in Zanzibar. We hear that they are already in Tanganyika and other African states. Hon. members opposite are continually referring to Basutoland. I want to refer them immediately to a report which appeared on 26 August last year in the Burger. The report states (Translation)—

Colonel Van den Bergh of our Police Force said of Bechuanaland that it was a haven for communists and saboteurs. I also have here a report which appeared in Dagbreek of April, 1964, in which it is stated (Translation)—

I say that the policy followed by the hon. the Prime Minister and his party of renouncing the Protectorates is a very wrong one. They have thrown away our chances and we are now saddled with a very difficult problem because the Transkei is a more dangerous place. As the hon. the Minister of Defence said, we must be prepared for a full-scale attack from the direction of the Indian Ocean and it is precisely on that coastline that the Transkei and these other territories are situated.

I want to conclude by saying this: I trust that hon. members will come to their senses in this regard. I hope that they will begin to realize that where, at best, we will have 16,000,000 Bantu in the so-called White area, we will achieve nothing by continuing with this policy. I also know that the supporters of the Nationalist Party are beginning to realize more and more that this is not the policy which they thought the Government would follow. I have every confidence that as good South Africans, South Africans who want the Republic to survive, they will not remain silent for long. I hope that they will as soon as possible bring about a change in this regard in the interests of their country.

I want to ask the hon. member whether he will please tell us how his party voted when the late Dr. Malan, as Prime Minister, moved a motion in this House to petition the British Government to hand over the Protectorates to us?

Mr. Speaker, this merely shows that they have done a complete about-face because at that stage they themselves asked for the incorporation of the Protectorates and they now no longer want them to be incorporated. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) is without doubt the dearest infant we have in politics. He says now that we have renounced the Protectorates. We were in the Conservative Party at that time when Dr. Malan made an effort to obtain the unanimous consent of this House to have the Protectorates incorporated with South Africa. Who opposed Dr. Malan at that time? Mr. Strauss opposed him. I still remember how uncomfortable the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) felt on that day. [Interjections.] I voted for the motion. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition at the time, the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) and all the other members on that side voted against it; they said that we should not incorporate the Protectorates. They said that we should not make this request to the British Government. That was in about 1954.

You know nothing about it.

Of course I know about it. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must not think that he can get away with that. There were private negotiations between the late Dr. Malan and Mr. Strauss. Dr. Malan introduced a motion to this effect: “That this House unanimously requests the British Government to transfer the Protectorates.” Mr. Strauss then made known the private discussion between himself and Dr. Malan. The hon. member for Yeoville still shouted to Mr. Strauss at the time: You dare not do it! Does he deny that? We were then in the Conservative Party and we voted with Dr. Malan in favour of the incorporation of the Protectorates. That is the position.

The hon. member for Pinelands asks: Where are the plans for the Transkei? I want to say to this young infant: His predecessors said exactly the same thing. They asked: Where are the plans for the Republic? And we have the Republic. They told us that we would never have a Republic. They asked: Where are the plans for Iscor; you will never make it a paying proposition. To-day it is a paying proposition. In latter years hon. members opposite have asked: What do you want to do with Sasol? It is a bankrupt business; all you ask for is more and more capital. Where are the plans for Sasol? Sasol is there to-day; it is producing petrol on a profitable basis. No, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member for Pinelands is still very young in politics.

I come now to the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes). He said this afternoon that the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. the Minister of Justice had precisely the same ideas on Nusas! He said that both of them had said that the students had to rectify the matter themselves.. The hon. member for Yeoville said that Nusas was an honourable organization and the hon. the Minister of Justice said that it was a canker in student life in South Africa. The hon. the Minister of Justice said that he left Nusas to the students so that they could eradicate that canker in our student life. All that those hon. members want is simply to get rid of a few of the members of Nusas and get their own people into those positions. In principle, however, they have no objection to the general executive of Nusas. Not one of them has ever condemned Nusas.

Just before I return to the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville I want to tell the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) that I appreciate the apology he made and that I accept it wholeheartedly and unconditionally. He added a rider at the end of his apology which I accept as having been added to make excuses for what he did but not to detract at all from the apology he made. While I am on this point I think that this is a very good opportunity to clear up a matter which I have wanted to clear up for some time now but as yet have not had the opportunity to do so. The hon. member referred of course to a Press report in which I had apparently said, referring to the appointment of Messrs. Waring and Trollip to the Cabinet, that there were far better members in the National Party who could be appointed. Of course, I said nothing of the kind. I lauded and praised the hon. the Prime Minister for this gesture of his to the English-speaking people. I added that it took a man of courage to do something of this nature. I said that it was not an easy thing to do because there were many men of Cabinet calibre behind the hon. the Prime Minister, people who had devoted their entire lives to serving the National Party. I praised the hon. the Prime Minister in that in the face of this fact he had had the courage to make a gesture of goodwill to the English-speaking people by appointing Messrs. Trollip and Waring to the Cabinet. I want to add this: By doing this the hon. the Prime Minister demonstrated a greater measure of goodwill towards the English-speaking people than any Prime Minister has ever demonstrated towards any group in South Africa in the history of this country and we are enjoying the fruits of that gesture to-day. This entire attack against the hon. the Ministers of Labour and Information is simply the less tasteful manifestation of a childish, spiteful and pathetic attempt on the part of the Opposition to drive a wedge between ourselves and the English-speaking people. Because they have not succeeded in doing this they have now developed a new technique and that is to try and belittle every single English speaking person who comes over to our side in the most spiteful and caustic and unpleasant manner possible. This is what the hon. member for Yeoville was guilty of doing last Sautrday. He made the most spiteful and the most distasteful attack on the hon. the Minister of Labour and the hon. the Minister of Information. He said that the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister had appointed them to the Cabinet was an insult to the English-speaking people of South Africa. And he is the man who complained to me in the Lobby because I called him weak-kneed; he accused me of being much too personal.

I said that what you had done was not important.

He said that I was far too personal. Then he had the effrontery to say that it was an insult to the English-speaking people of South Africa to appoint Messrs. Trollip and Waring to the Cabinet! Let us see whether this is such an insult to the English-speaking section of the people. What was Mr. Waring’s position in that party? He occupied a leading position. They made him the Whip for the Transvaal. It is their policy to make a Whip of a person who is an insult to the English-speaking people of this country? Let us take the case of Mr. Trollip. It is an insult to the English-speaking people to appoint Mr. Trollip to the Cabinet! What was his position in their party? He was the chairman of their caucus. Do they appoint a person who is an insult to the English-speaking people in the country, to be the leader of their caucus? Is their present Chairman, Mr. Piet van der Byl, an insult to the English-speaking people of South Africa? Not only did they appoint Mr. Trollip as chairman of their caucus but they elected him unanimously as Deputy Speaker of this House. Was he then an insult to the English-speaking people? No, Mr. Speaker, then they regarded him as a man of stature; then they elected him unanimously to the highest positions in their party. But now that he is a member of the Nationalist Party he is an insult to the English-speaking people! Then the hon. member for Yeoville takes it upon himself to make an attack upon the competency of the hon. the Minister of Information in the most spiteful and unpleasant manner possible. You know, Mr. Speaker, I gain the impression that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is one of those people who just cannot carry on a debate in a decent way because as soon sa he finds himself in difficulty, he starts drawing conclusions which are extremely distasteful.

The hon. member for Yeoville has made an attack upon the competency of the hon. the Minister of Information. Mr. Speaker, I do not say that the hon. the Minister of Information is the most competent person in the world. There are people who are more competent than he is; who are more competent than I; who are more competent than the hon. member for Yeoville. But when one makes an attack upon the competency of somebody else, one must at least be sure that one is more competent than that person is. Let us compare the hon. the Minister of Information with the hon. member for Yeoville. Mr. Frank Waring is a very successful businessman; he belongs of one of the oldest trading families on the Witwatersrand; he belongs to one of the largest wheat-dealing families. His family and his father built up a successful business and he has made an even greater success of it. I have not yet heard that the hon. member for Yeoville has made a success in the business world. He and I had one attempt at starting a business but within six months that business was bankrupt. It was my fault that the business went bankrupt but the hon. member was very little help. Let us take journalism. The hon. member for Yeoville was a journalist as I was—below average. He did not make a great success of journalism either. He was an advocate with a B.A. LL.B, degree. But he did not start a practice so one cannot judge how successful he would have been. He was in politics. I shall tell him just now how much success he achieved in this regard. Take the question of sporting ability. The hon. the Minister of Information reached the highest rung of the sporting ladder; he was a Springbok. He progressed as far as any man can go in that sphere. What are the achievements of the hon. member for Yeoville in that sphere? In the days when we played snooker together I used to give him such a thrashing that eventually I had to give him three black balls. But I say, give honour where honour is due. I hear he was the best marble player at Steynsburg [Interjections.] The hon. member here says that he was not. So he did not make a wonderful success of journalism and he did not shine in the sporting sphere, except as far as marble playing is concerned and now this hon. member has denied even that! We now come to the political sphere. The hon. the Minister of Information has achieved much success in the political sphere. He has been a Member of Parliament for a long time and to-day he is a member of the Cabinet. What has that hon. member achieved in the political sphere? He has led his party from one disaster to the other. He flees from one constituency to the other. That is the success that he has achieved.

I just want to say this to hon. members opposite: The more they berate Messrs. Waring and Trollip, the closer they drive these people to us. I say to-day with the greatest conviction that those two gentlemen are two of the best loved and most highly respected members of the National Party. The Opposition make me think of an old spinster who has her last chance to marry and is then spurned by her prospective husband. She is embittered; she gossips about men and she makes a nuisance of herself. The United Party are also losing their last chance—the English-speaking people in South Africa. We are making a breakthrough and neither their gossip nor their spinterish attitude will prevent our making that break-through. All they do is humiliate themselves.

Mr. Speaker, there is another matter I have promised to deal with. This is in connection with Mr. Victor Norton of the Cape Times.In the debate on the Interior Vote when the report of the Press Commission was being discussed, I said that the Press Commission had found that Mr. Victor Norton had sent lies out of South Africa and that he had transmitted those lies about South Africa in times of crisis. The Cape Times then directed my attention to the fact that this was not the case—that the Press Commission had not found him guilty of “very poor” reporting, but only of “poor” reporting. I immediately published an apology in the Cape Times. I withdrew my accusation and undertook to do the same thing in this House at the first available opportunity. I want to say here quite unconditionally that the Press Commission did not find Mr. Victor Norton guilty of having sent lies out of the country or of having published lies. I want unconditionally to withdraw that remark and I apologize unconditionally in this regard. And with this my debt to Mr. Victor Norton is fully discharged. Now I want to know when he is going to discharge his debt to me. I want to know when he is going to discharge his debt to his own readers and to the people of South Africa. I accused Mr. Victor Norton in the columns of his own newspaper of publishing lies, of writing those lies himself and of publishing lies well knowing them to be lies. I challenged him to take these reports to three ex-Judges for their opinion. I want to know when he is going to discharge his debt to me. I say to-day in this House—and I am prepared to say it without the benefit of parliamentary privilege—that he is too much of a coward to accept my challenge because he knows that he published lies and he knows that he allowed lies to be published well knowing them to be lies. But this is not his weakness only; it is also the weakness of a large section of the English-medium Press.

Say that outside this House.

I shall say it outside this House with the greatest of pleasure. I have already said it. I go further: I say that this is the big weakness of the entire English-medium Press because the report of the Press Commission is a document condemning certain senior journalists in South Africa. It makes the most scathing attacks against certain senior journalists. It accuses them, amongst other things, of having sent lies out of the country and of having transmitted those during a time of crisis. This is what they say of one senior journalist in Johannesburg—

They say the following of another senior journalist in Johannesburg—

Of another senior journalist in Johannesburg they say—

Of yet another senior journalist in Johannesburg they have this to say—

And up to this stage not one single editor of an English-medium newspaper has written a leading article either to deny these things or to say that he is sorry that it has happened or to say that it will not happen again in the future. And not one single member of that party has done so either. Not one single member of any board of directors of those companies has denied these things or said that this will not happen again or expressed sorrow in this regard. This is in complete conformity with the attitude of those people and the attitude of their party. I readily admit that over the past years the English-medium Press has moderated its language considerably but it has not done so with any good motives; it has moderated its language because it has suited the English-medium Press to do so. That is precisely the attitude adopted by the United Party. When it pays them, when they think that there is anything to gain, they are the most spiteful enemies of this country. Then we are a police state and then we are this or that! But when they think that matters are starting to improve they calm down and, just as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did the other day, they say that we are not a police state and that there is complete freedom of the Press in South Africa. When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said this I warned the hon. the Minister of Justice. I told him not to expect anything of those hon. members; I said that if trouble arose and they thought that that trouble was worthwhile exploiting in an effort to bring about the fall of this Government, they would do so. When I said this, Mr. Speaker, I did not expect the hon. member for Yeoville to repudiate his leader within 48 hours! The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that South Africa was not a police state but 48 hours later, when there were demonstrations in England in regard to the Rivonia case, when hon. members opposite thought that a crisis was arising which they could make use of to bring about the fall of this Government, the hon. member for Yeoville said that there were 1,000 and more political prisoners in South Africa.

All found guilty at Rivonia?

May I ask the hon. member for Yeoville who these so-called political prisoners are? Who has been sentenced in this country because of so-called political crimes?

Were 1,000 accused at Rivonia?

I am excluding Rivonia; I am speaking of these 1,000 people. Does the hon. member for Yeoville want to tell me that those people are in jail for political reasons? If a person is put in jail for political reasons what is he doing out of jail? Mention to me the name of any one person who is at present in jail for so-called political reasons. The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) had this to say in the Sunday Times of yesterday—

These are the only people who are in gaol. They are the people who commit acts of sabotage, people who belong to underground movements, people who want to bring about the downfall of the Government by unconstitutional means. Are these political prisoners in the opinion of the hon. member for Yeoville? Are these people in gaol for any political reasons or is it because they have committed the usual run of crimes? He will not reply, Sir. I want to put this question to the hon. member for Yeoville: Where else but in a police state are people put in gaol for political reasons? Will he answer me? The prosecutor in the Rivonia case, Dr. Yutar, had the following to say—

The hon. member for Yeoville wants to know why they were not charged with high treason. He does not condemn these people; he says that they are in gaol for political reasons.

I did not say that; that is untrue. If I did say it I will stand up and apologize.

The hon. member cannot get away from it. All the other people are in gaol either because they are guilty of committing acts of sabotage, because they belong to subversive organizations or because they want to cause the downfall of this Government by unlawful means. And these, so the hon. member says, are political crimes. He then asked: Why are there 1,000 people in gaol for political crimes? He said it was because those people have legitimate grievances; because they have no representation in this House! In other words, he is taking the part of those people; he tells them that they are martyrs, who are fighting for a just cause; they are freedom fighters. This is exactly the same language used by De Blank; precisely the same terms are used by our enemies overseas. The hon. member for Yeoville knows that when the Bantu had representatives in this House we had more disturbances in this country than ever before.

That is untrue.

Untrue! From 1946 there were no fewer than 41 disturbances in this country. Between 12 and 16 August 1946 73,000 Bantu took part in strikes. During that period alone 1,248 were injured and no fewer than 11 were killed. And that was when they had representatives in this House! There were 41 cases of strikes, of bloodshed and of injuries when the Bantu had representatives in this House. Now those people are made out to be freedom fighters, to be heroes, to be people who are fighting for their rights, people who are fighting against this tyrannical Government. They are political prisoners, according to the hon. member for Yeoville, who have no other alternative. All they can do is to commit acts of sabotage! All they can do is to import weapons, to make Molotov-cocktails and landmines. That is all they can do; that is their only possible solution to the problem! But I understand that story. It will also disappear, because these demonstrations against South Africa have failed so miserably. Tomorrow or the day after hon. members opposite will say that this is not a police state. They will only say this until our enemies abroad are again on the warpath. What did the hon. member for Yeoville do on Saturday when he thought that the demonstrations in London were going to prove to be a success? He thought that those demonstrations in London could bring about the fall of this Government, so he said there were 1,000 political prisoners in the gaols in South Africa, and that they were there because of a just ideology.

When he said this he was speaking the language of the Reeves’ and the Collins’ and all the enemies of South Africa. At that time the enemies of South Africa were marching against us; De Blank was marching again; at that time the Collins’ and the Reeves’ and all the enemies of South Africa were marching against South Africa in London. Then the hon. member for Yeoville thought that he should beat the drum for them; he had to play march music for them; he had to tell them why they were marching. He said: There are political prisoners here, prisoners who can only come into their own in this way.

Then they tell the Western world: Put us in power and we will eliminate all the objections of the Mandelas and the Susulus and the Sobukwes; we will give them everything to make them satisfied. They say this to the outside world, but they do not say it to the people in this country. But there is one careless member in their ranks. They have one member in their ranks who every now and again blurts out their secrets. I am referring to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson). He told the students at the University of Stellenbosch what the policy of his party was. This report appeared in Die Sweep of June 1964—this is a Stellenbosch University paper. I quote (Translation)—

That is a completely wrong report.

It is no longer a question of Cyprus or the Federation; it is now Louren?o Marques, where mixed marriages take place, where there are mixed schools, where they have mixed universiy training, where everyone is included on the same voters’ roll. He says that this is the example he wants us to see.

I did not say that.

Why do your newspapers lie so much then?

I was wrongly reported by a young student.

The hon. member may have been reported wrongly by a young student, but it appears to me that we have here a young politician who has spoken out of turn! But I have warned the United Party against him. He is leading them into the arms of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman).

It is a tragedy that this houonrable House should have had to listen to the tirade to which we have just had to listen. I can do no better than to quote the words of one of the member’s own colleagues who, referring to the hon. member for Vereeniging, said this—

That was such an accurate description that the member who said it, the then member for Groblersdal, Mr. Hans Abraham, was promoted to Commissioner-General as a reward for his accurate description of that hon. member. And the hon. member for Vereeniging himself had a few views about his own colleagues, when he said—

Mr. Speaker, if there was anybody trying to pin something false on the United Party, it was that hon. member this afternoon. No worse attempt to pin false allegations on the United Party have I ever witnessed. This hon. member who attacked Nusas, does he deny that he, when he was a student at Stellenbosch, was a member of the same group with Sam Kahn and other communists? He asked who the political prisoners are. I will tell him. They are the people with whom he associated and for whom he argued and debated when he was a student at the university. If anybody knows how irresponsible a student can be then he should know after having been a socialist and a colleague and supporter of Marxists. The hon. member himself said in this very Parliament—

That was the hon. member for Vereeniging. He wanted communists in Parliament, Mr. Speaker. He supported them in the student Nusas parliament. But that is not all. After he left university he joined the Cape Parliamentary Debating Society in 1937. And whom did he support? The Socialists. He was a Socialist. He was leftist. And that is the hon. member who makes tirades against this side of the House.

The hon. member then went on—he was so jealous of the wreckers and agitators whom he envied on that side of the House that he joined them. He could not resist joining the National Party. The temptation was too great. And that hon. member this afternoon again, despite the denials from this side of the House, the clear and unequivocal denials, tried to make out that this side of the House had said that South Africa was a police state. I would have thought that after what that hon. member did the other day, he would have kept very quiet about this. That hon. member got up and quoted from Hansard, accused the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) of stating that South Africa was a police state, and he read this from Hansard—

There he stopped. And the next words, not the next paragraph, but the next words, the very next words were—

That is not true.

Well that was published in regard to a speech to the Institute of Citizenship. The hon. member wants to run away from that. He denies it. But that hon. member who has made so much fuss about distortions and lies should remember his own words again in this House, when he said to one of the present Government members—

He should know that you can sell practically everything in this world, but there is one thing you cannot sell, you cannot sell an untruth, you cannot sell a stone and tell people it is a bit of soap. If he does that, his business will soon go bankrupt.

I think the hon. member at that stage was sincere. He believed that you could not sell an untruth. To-day he accuses the press of South Africa of having sold untruths to the world and those untruths having been bought by the world, when he himself was the man who said that you cannot sell untruths. Now he blames the whole troubles of South Africa on us. I think that is the last hon. member who should come to this House and try to tell this House about false reporting, false news, suppression of truths, distortion of the truth. Why does he get up here and make that sort of attack, the bitter, personal attack which he made, instead of trying to defend the policies of the Government? The reason is that he cannot defend the policies of this Government.

Where did I make a personal attack?

He made one of the most vicious attacks that I have ever heard on the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). But we could remind that hon. member of some of the things he said in the past. He dealt with the hon. member for Yeoville’s personal business.

That is not true.

He dealt with the hon. member for Yeoville’s personal financial business.

I said that we too tried something together, that we went bankrupt and that I took the blame.

The hon. member talked of the hon. member for Yeoville as a journalist. Let me say that the hon. member for Yeoville never wrote any pornography or published pornography. I suggest that we leave that sort of personal attack out of this sort of debate. We are dealing here with the Government and with the failures and weaknesses of the Government.

There is one other remark which the hon. member for Vereeniging made to which I want to refer, and that was his sour grape reference to the Ministers of Information and of Immigration. We understand that it is a touchy subject for the hon. member for Vereeniging. We don’t blame him. Nobody likes to be so close and then see the fruits plucked from under his nose. But I want to point out what the hon. member himself said about these two Cabinet Ministers. He told this House this afternoon in so many words that they were appointed as a gesture of goodwill to the English. Not because of their ability, but as a gesture of goodwill to the English! Let me tell the hon. member firstly that the English of South Africa don’t regard themselves as a separate apartheid section, as that hon. member appears to do and as the Government appears to do. We regard ourselves as South Africans, first, second and only, not as a section of South Africans, not as a language group. We are South Africans and we are the true South Africans, because we deny that distinction based upon language. And we don’t need this Government to come with any gestures to the English-speaking people, gestures to a section of the people. The next thing we are going to hear is the Government coming along with a separate voters’ roll for the English. Is that what we are going to get? Sir, the English-speaking people are an essential part of the body politic of South Africa, and when we get Cabinet Ministers who speak English in South Africa they will be there because of their ability and not as “a gesture of goodwill” on the part of any government or any Prime Minister. The hon. member then, on the basis of this gesture of goodwill, appeals to the English-speaking people to support the Government. A few days ago we learned that their own propagandist of the S.A.B.C., Ivor Benson, resigned from the Nationalist Party because there was no place in it for his feelings in regard to English-speaking people. Two weeks before that Stirton resigned from the Nationalist Party—for the same reason?

He did not resign, he was expelled.

There we have examples not in the distant past, not people who are offered high positions in order to change parties, but people who have left the Government party and who have left the possible fruits of loyal support to the Government party. They are people who have left because of their honest convictions and who have said that there is no place for an English-speaking person in the Nationalist Party. And that hon. member a few days later comes and appeals to this House. I say to him again that South Africans, whether they speak English or Afrikaans, in the United Party, are South Africans, and we will have no appeals made to us on the basis of emotional sectionalism or a langauge. We will play our part in South Africa as South Africans, as we have always done in the past. If the hon. member wants an example of how that has worked in South Africa, he merely have to look back to the rich years when the English- and the Afrikaans-speaking people did not ask each other what language they spoke but worked and fought together in the interests of South Africa, through the bitter years of war, and proved in those years that they were and could be true South Africans.

[Inaudible.]

I am not referring to the hon. member for Edenvale. You always get an exception.

I said that the hon. member for Vereeniging had been forced to come into this debate, because the Government had to have a distraction from the charges which this side of the House has made. Speaker after speaker from this side of the House has laid charges at the door of the Government, and in a day-and-a-half of debate we have had no real reply from any member on that side. We have had the sort of speech to which we have just listened to distract attention, but the real charges of this side of the House remain unanswered. The hon. member for Yeoville accused the Government of incompetence, inadequacy, and shortsightedness, and speaker after speaker from this side has substantiated those charges. We have not heard from any of the Ministers of Agriculture. We had the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs trying to defend the Ministers of Agriculture. He was the speaker on agriculture. We have had a few other speakers telling the country how rosy everything in Agriculture is. Let them go back and tell the public that everything in the garden is rosy, that the farmers are living in a Utopia. That is all they can say. Not one of them could come with a constructive suggestion, with a constructive idea, nor reply to the constructive ideas from this side of the House. Then we came to economic affairs. We challenged the Government on their lack of an economic policy. The Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs said “Of course I have got a policy”. We said “for Bantu areas?”, and he said “yes”. But when we challenged him on everything else, silence! Except a few figures of buildings in Johannesburg, which prove the case beyond any doubt made by the hon. member for Jeppes that the only prosperity and progress taking place in South Africa to-day is taking place where the policy of the Government is not in fact being carried out, where apartheid is not being applied, where more and more Bantu are being taken into industry. There you are getting progress. But where the Government’s policy is being applied in practice, there you have no progress at all.

What have we heard from the Government? Not a word. Not a speaker who can deny that incontrovertible argument that the only progress there is in South Africa to-day is despite and not because of the policies of the Government. Not one has been able to stand up and deny that South Africa is dependent, as the hon. member for Jeppes proved, out of 87,000 new workers every year, on the Bantu as far as 55,000 of them are concerned, 55,000 new Bantu hands in the industry of South Africa each year. That is far too cold and hard a fact for them to face. It is a fact which they cannot face because it is the condemnation, the utter and total condemnation of the policy for which they claim to stand.

Then we had the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) who made some challenging statements. What did we have in reply? No reply to the hard realities which he put before this House. He made the point that the Prime Minister had changed his policy because of pressures and changes which had come about. I want to take that argument further. I want to say that having embarked on the Transkeian policy, the Government has abandoned control of the progress and rate of development towards total independence. The Government has claimed that it is following the policies of Africa, the policies of releasing areas and countries and nations to independence. But not one member of the Government, from the Prime Minister downwards, has told South Africa how he will be different from every other metropolitan country which once it had started colonies on the road of self-government, lost control of the rate of development towards self-government and ultimate independence. It has happened in every state. Does the Government believe that Britain and France and Belgium wanted to hand over those countries and give them total independence when they did? Or were they forced to do so because of pressures which they could not resist? But now this Government with its eyes open has embarked on the same road, and no member has tried to tell us how they will resist the fate which befell the other countries who embarked on that road in the rest of Africa. They have also not told us, Mr. Speaker, their intentions in regard to the consolidation of the other Bantustans, and this question is one which they have got to answer before they can hold their policy up as a realistic policy for South Africa. Do they believe that you have non-contiguous, scattered areas under an independent government divorced from the Government of South Africa —that you can have a spot here and a spot there, separated by White territories, governing themselves under one Parliament, free and independent of the control of South Africa? Because unless they are prepared to say that is their policy, they have got to face the fact that they have got to consolidate those areas. I think for instance of an area like Umzimkulu, separated geographically from the Transkei. When the Transkei obtains independence at a rate which this Government cannot control, is Umzimkulu then going to be part of the Transkei, divorced physically from that territory and governed from Umtata. But I think more particularly of Zululand, with its multiplicity of separate areas, the result of the Shepstone gridiron policy, areas separated from each other by interwoven White areas. Are those areas to achieve ultimate independence in that separated state, or are they to be consolidated? That is a question which this Government has got to answer before it has any right to claim that it has a policy for South Africa. If the answer is that they are to be separate and not consolidated, then their whole plan becomes a mockery. If the answer is that those areas are to be consolidated, then they owe South Africa an answer of where and how that consolidation is to take place. Only a week or two ago in the Senate the hon. the Prime Minister admitted that there would have to be changes to the boundaries of South Africa. He admitted that there would have to be consolidation. He said—

“Te midde van byeenbring”. In other words, the Prime Minister says that there must be a consolidation. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) confirms it. When? But more important where, and how? Where and how is that consolidation to take place?

It is already taking place.

The hon member says that it is already taking place. Now I want to ask him: Is he going to follow it to its logical conclusions? Will all the Bantu areas of Zululand be contiguous? It is a simple question: Will all the Bantu areas of Zululand when they achieve their independence be contiguous? Let me ask the hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development: When Zululand achieves its independence as a Zulustan, will Zululand be a scattered clump: of separate states and areas, or will it be a solid consolidated block? There is no answer, because the Government dare not answer that question.

If you will sit down, I will answer the question.

But it is a simple question. Either you are going to have separate scattered areas, non-contiguous or they are going to be consolidated and contiguous. That is all we want to know. All we will get is that it will be a gradual policy of development. The hon. Minister knows that he cannot answer the question. He has spoken already, but he can give the reply by way of an interjection quite easily: Is it going to be a consolidated block, one contiguous area, becoming independent, or is it going to be “stukkies en brokkies” scattered all over Natal? They cannot answer that question and they will not answer, because if their policy is sincere and genuine then the answer must be “consolidation”. It cannot be otherwise.

Political lock-jaw on the other side!

That is a question this Government cannot answer, a fundamental question which faces South Africa, and South Africa is starting to realize how it has been led up the garden path by an incompetent government without a plan for the future for this great country of ours.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) has launched a very bitter attack on the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. Coetzee) in connection with the allegation that we had a police state. I wish to read two quotations from that same debate, one which the hon. member did not read in full and the other being one which has not been quoted in this debate at all. The one is what Mr. Hamilton Russell has said, Mr. Russell, who was a front-bencher of the United Party last year. He made this statement as Leader of the United Party during that debate because he was the main United Party speaker on that side of the House. On that occasion Mr. Hamilton Russell said this—

He is not a member of the United Party.

He said it in the debate last year as the main speaker of the Opposition.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) then read out Another quotation in connection with which he said it was a disgrace that the hon. member for Vereeniging had not quoted it fully. I want to quote more fully than he did from what the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) said. The hon. member only quoted as far as the following—

He says the hon. member for Vereeniging only read as far as that and he wanted to read further. So he read the following

But the hon. member stopped there. What did the hon. member for Hospital say further? He said this

That was what the hon. member said. These two quotations alone are sufficient proof that the United Party have continually in the past gone around with this story of a police state. I remember how it started in those distant days of Mr. Strauss. He was the first one who started it in this House and since then we have had this story of a police state year after year.

I want to say a few words in connection with the “gesture of goodwill to the English” in the appointment of Ministers Waring and Trollip. The hon. member suggests that the hon. member for Vereeniging insinuated that that was the only merit which justified their appointment. I want to tell him that they were appointed on their own merit. I want to remind the hon. member that Minister Trollip, for example, was one of the best Administrators Natal has ever had and that aopointment was made by the National Party. He showed what he had in him and he was then included in the Cabinet. I can refer the hon. member to a long list of articles which appeared in the English daily newspapers in those days in which they insisted that the Prime Minister should prove his bona fides if he alleged that he aimed at unity between Afrikaans-sneaking and English-speaking in South Africa.

There were a series of long articles in which it was demanded that he should show his bone tides by taking an English-speaking person into his Cabinet.

The hon. member also made an allegation in connection with our Transkei policy, our Bantustan policy. I want to reply to that briefly. He says we have not yet shown that this policy we are now introducing into South Africa differs in any way from the policy being carried out in Kenya and in other northern states of Africa. He asks what proof we have that the same thing will not happen here as is happening there. That was the gravamen of his charge. I want to reply to it in this way: In the first place we follow a policy of separate development and under that policy they get self-government and not immediate independence. They are being trained to govern themselves properly. In this connection I wish to quote what Kaiser Matanzima stated in the Transkei Parliament when he introduced his Budget. He set out his policy as follows—

I want to ask him whether Kenneth Kuanda, or any of the leaders there, is a wholehearted supporter of separate development in Rhodesia? How can he make such an allegation? Surely he knows that is not true. Surely he knows what he is dishing up here and presenting to the people is false.

On a point of order, is the hon. member maintaining that I am knowingly telling an untruth?

I did not use the words that he knew it, because most of the time he does not know what he is saying.

Order! Did the hon. member say that?

No, Sir, I said most of the time he did not know what he was saying.

On a point of order, the hon. member used the word “false”.

Yes, I used that. I said he had dished up a false statement.

Did the hon. member say the hon. member for Durban (Point) knew it was false?

No, I did not say that.

Order! The hon. member may continue.

I want to quote further from the speech made by Matanzima on that occasion. He also said this—

I ask him whether there is any Bantu leader in the northern states who subscribes to that policy? He says further—

On that basis we have every right to expect our policy to succeed in the Transkei.

The hon. member also referred to Zululand and asked whether all the areas of Zululand would form one bloc once they got independence. We have never yet alleged that they will form one bloc, but we have said that the large areas will be consolidated. The Zulu state, which will be established, may consist of one or two or three blocs. We do not know yet and we cannot say at this stage. The Prime Minister very clearly stated that for the purposes of such a Bantu state it would not necessarily have to consist of one single bloc, because Pakistan did not consist of one block but of two. In regard to our policy of consolidation, therefore, we have never yet alleged that before the Zulus get their state it will have to be one solid bloc. The Transkef is not a solid bloc to-day. Umzimkulu is separate. What is the hon. member trying to achieve by representing our policy in this distorted way?

Will it remain separate?

I can only say that the Prime Minister was also very clear on that point because he said the time would arrive when there would be a process of exchange of areas in the White state and in the Bantu state when the latter was fully mature and in a position to negotiate with us on that question.

I really want to come to another matter, namely the allegation made by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) and his attack on the Government with reference to the Rivonia case. He said the following and I want to read it from Hansard so that there can be no doubt about it—

In reply to that the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) said the hon. member for Yeoville had without any doubt referred to the judgment in the Rivonia trial. The hon. member for Yeoville did not deny it. On the contrary when the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) went further and said he wanted to point out that the judge had said they were indeed guilty of high treason, the hon. member for Yeoville asked why they had not been charged with high treason. It is very clear from what happened in the House that the hon. member for Yeoville was referring to the Rivonia trial when he made the allegation that the policy of the Government was one of the “fundamental causes” why those persons were charged. I can only draw one conclusion from that. In passing I just want to say that hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) referred this morning to what was said over the radio in that connection and that it was suggested that the hon. member for Yeoville had sided with the offenders in the Rivonia trial. As a matter of fact they did not say that because here I have an explanation of that broadcast and they did not say that. I maintain that because of the fact that when the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) said the hon. member for Yeoville had obviously referred to the Rivonia trial and he had asked by way of interjection why they had not been charged with high treason, he did indeed have those people in mind and I can only draw one conclusion from that and it is this that the hon. member for Yeoville who spoke for and on behalf of the Opposition, justifies the actions of the accused in the Rivonia trial and blames the Government for those actions.

Of course he does not stand alone in this matter. We have all the Leftists and those vociferous organization in Britain who have embarked on a strenous campaign in this connection; they even want to submit the matter to UNO. The hon. member for Yeoville must remember that in having made that statement he now finds himself in the company of every member of the Communist Party in every country in the world.

But that is not really the reason why I want to deal further with this matter. I really want to deal with it because this accusation is also made in the London Times which is a very influential newspaper. I do think, however, that the untruthfulness and the hollowness of this allegation should be exposed and that it should be pointed out that what the London Timessays and what the hon. member for Yeoville says by implication is absolutely devoid of any truth. The London Times makes the following anti-Semitic.

I think the London Times has committed a ghastly outrage because I want to remind it that the Judge said the following in his judgment. He said—

He then said they had not been charged with that but with something else. I now want to bring to the notice of the London Times and others who think like it that the legal system of South Africa is based on Roman Dutch law and that the crime of high treason has its origin in Roman law, a law which operated two milleniums before this Government came into power in South Africa. The crime of high treason is as old as Western civilization in Europe. I want to remind the London Timesand all those who think like it that the accused were accused of the following: Firstly, that they tried by means of revolution to overthrow the lawful government and that 192 acts of violence were concerned in that, acts of violence which are described as sabotage in modern language; secondly, that the accused took a part inside and outside South Africa in training people in the military field in order to overthrow the lawful government in South Africa; thirdly, that the accused had promoted the aims of Communism in South Africa and lastly, that the accused had received assistance inside and outside South Africa in order to promote the aforementioned acts. It is abundantly clear from the charge sheet that not a single law passed by the present Government is concerned in those charges, I want to know from the London Times to which “evil laws” it is referring. The only one it can refer to is that governing high treason and let me remind the London Times that the British definition of high treason is practically the same as the South African and also the American definition.

There are many reasons why they were not charged with high treason as such. That rests with the prosecutor himself. He knew there was a high treason case a few years ago and in view of the experienced gained on that occasion he probably thought it would be easier to charge them specifically with these crimes, crimes which were in essence similar to high treason, as the Judge said. I want to know what connection there can be between the Government’s policy of separate development and these crimes? I say emphatically that there is no connection whatsoever. I want to assure the London Times and the world in general as well as the hon. member for Yeoville that it is not the intention of South Africa to capitulate to the wicked influence of the Communists under the pretence that concessions are made to Black nationalism, as other European powers have capitulated to Communism and in this connection I wish to mention Zanzibar, Tanyanika, the Congo, Ghana and Algeria. [Interjections.] They condemned the policy of separate development in those countries and there they left the Whites in the lurch; they did not capitulate to Black nationalism but to Communism.

To condemn South Africa’s actions against revolutionary powers and Communism by trying to link that to the Government’s policy of separate development may make an impression on the Afro-Asiatic countries, those countries the world is so ardently courting, but it will not make any impression on the citizens of South Africa, White and Black, because the Whites and non-Whites in S.A. stand shoulder to shoulder in their stand that we shall fight with equal force any force which tries, either from inside or from outside South Africa, to undermine the lawful authority in this country. I say Black and White because I again want to quote Kaiser Matanzima in this connection. He recently said the following in a speech—

And Matanzima represents at least 1,500,000 Xhosas but whom do Mandela and Sisulu and those other criminals represent? Matanzima and the other chiefs in South Africa who are well disposed towards the Government and its policy, represent 99.9 per cent of the Bantu in South Africa and these Communists who have made themselves guilty of the crime of violence do not even represent 5,000 or 1 per cent of the Bantu people. Sir, you may ask me why they are so dangerous if they represent so few people? They are dangerous because they are the spearhead of the Communism which is rolling towards us from the north and that is why they must be suppressed.

I wish to add that neither the Coloured community nor the Asiatics have never yet made themselves guilty of violence. That disposes of the charge sheet. I just want to draw attention to the accused in order to refute the allegation that legitimate grievances are supposed to have been the reason why these crimes were committed.

Who were the accused? Goldreich and Wolpe; those two got away; Hepple who turned Crown witness; Bernstein and Kantor who were found not guilty, one White person called Goldberg who was found guilty, and seven non-Whites who were found guilty. It is clear from the composition that they were not all Bantu but a mixed group of people. I do not want to refer to the fact that they were five Jews otherwise the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) will again accuse me of being anti-Semitic.

Weil, you have mentioned it.

But I want to say this to him that I know these people are a disgrace to the Jewish community in South Africa and a disgrace to the whole of South Africa. I would rather hold out a man like Ike Greenberg as the true representative of the Jewish race in South Africa, a person who came to South Africa as a pauper, a man who started life here as a hawker and who died a rich man and who left his wealth to the country and the people he had come to love. I want to hold him out as representing the Jewish race in South Africa and not these criminals. I am sorry that Goldreich and Wolpe who were the leaders of this movement escaped because they were the people who actually incited the Bantu. I am sorry that the Bantu have allowed themselves to be misled by this type of Communist, these people who in their own interests have tried to exploit the Bantu. The fact that the real leaders are Whites gives the lie to the allegations that we had to have a Rivonia trial because of laws which supposedly made it impossible for the non-Whites of South Africa to find a political outlet. It gives the lie to the allegations made by the hon. member for Yeoville that it is because of the policy of the Government that we have had a Rivonia trial and that “one of the fundamental causes was the Government’s policy, which is fundamentally unjust”. That statement is given the lie because of the fact that the real leaders were not Bantu. I wish to produce other facts as well to dispute this allegation of the hon. member for Yeoville that the non-Whites are deprived of all political rights, I wish to hold out the Transkei to him as an example.

The Bantu in the Transkei indeed have the opportunity of exercising political rights to the highest degree. The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) said this afternoon that we had not indicated to what extent the Bantu in the White areas would have self-expression there. The hon. member, of course, lives completely in a world of his own, and that is a world of ignorance because last year witnessed the enthusiasm with which they registered for the election in the Transkei. As a matter of fact, over 70 per cent voted. I think the figure was 77 per cent and a great number of those Bantu were in the White areas and not in the Transkei. What is more, meetings were indeed held in all these centres. He tried to create the impression that no meetings were held. The fact that five territorial authorities have been established for the Tswana, the North Sotho, the Venda, the Tsonga and for the Ciskei Bantu proves the extent of the co-operation we already get from the Bantu people in order to give them a political outlet. There is not a single Bantu tribe in South Africa which is not connected with a territorial authority and there are only a few tribes who do not have a tribal authority. Only during this Session we established representative councils for the Coloureds and Indians. Opportunities have been created everywhere for the non-White citizens of South Africa to find political expression. This allegation of the hon. member for Yeoville that “there is no political outlet” for the aspirations of the non-Whites is simply not true. On the contrary an increasing number of non-Whites are subscribing to the policy of separate development. The allegation that the Rivonia trial was the result of political frustration on the part of the non-Whites because they have no political rights, is devoid of all truth. The allegation that we had a Rivonia trial as a result of apartheid is so much nonsense. It is not often that I quote the Sunday Times with approval and it is perhaps with some malicious pleasure that I quote the mentor of the hon. member for Yeoville against him….

He did not say it. [Interjections.]

The Sunday Times of yesterday wrote the following—

After the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) had sat down, I had hoped that the tone of the debate might be raised a little, but I think the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) made a disgraceful reference to a section of our community by his veiled attack on the Jewish people of South Africa. When he was talking about the Rivonia trial, he said—

That is absolutely disgraceful.

Why?

Once again, he makes a veiled attack upon the Jewish people.

I wonder why the hon. member did not mention that the prosecutor in this case was a Jew?

Exactly, i also mentioned Mr. Greenberg.

The hon. member did not mention the prosecutor, I did, I hope that when the hon the Minister replies to the debate, he will have the courage to do what has not been done by any of the Ministers on that side of the House when this matter was raised, and that is to repudiate the sentiments expressed by that hon. member. The only member who unashamedly feels like the hon. member for Heilbron is the hon. member for Karas (Mr. von Moltke); he was looking at him with admiration in his eyes.

But when the hon. member takes the hon. member for Yeoville to task for what he said in regard to the Rivonia trial, and other matters, and for saying that there is no outlet for these people, and when he says that the hon. member for Yeoville was wrong when he said that owing to the fact that this Government denies representation to these people, the Bantu express themselves more and more in illegal ways, it is fair to ask what are the other outlets to which the Bantu is entitled but those which the hon. member mentioned? He mentioned a Coloured Council. We had a long debate on that. What does it mean to the Coloured people? What sort of outlet is that for them of political expression? There will be a council for the Indians, which will also give them an outlet for expression, so he said, and there are the Bantu Authorities. But what representation is that of their views? Are those bodies going to have any real powers? Has the Coloured Council got any real powers, and will the Indian Council have real powers? When will they ever get representation here? But I want to tell the hon. member for Heilbron that the thing that frightened me most was the Press pictures of the people outside the court at the Rivonia trial, the pictures of those faces. It frightened me, because despite what happened in that court they were still prepared to fight for what they thought were their just deserts. If one wants any answer to the question of whether I am right or wrong in what I saw in those faces, there was the news this morning of another sabotage attempt, showing blatant defiance, as I read it. That was the answer to the hon. member for Heilbron. I condemn sabotage, but what are we going to do about sabotage? Are we going to pass more laws of the sort we have? Surely the experience we have had of all the laws is that we are not stamping it out, because the root cause of this has not been tackled. The root cause of this is Pan-Africanism.

No, Communism.

No, not just Communism. The number of communists in South African compared with the number of PanAfricanists is very small. The problem of South Africa is Pan-Africanism; that is the problem we face, and the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Grey ling) now agrees with me; he says, “Nou kom jy reg.” Pan-Africanism, as we have seen, is a political hydra; you can chop its head off and it will grow another head; you can chop all three of its heads off and it will grow another three heads, and that, Sir, is exactly what we found here last year when we discussed the General Laws Amendment Bill; we found an organization which was a political hydra. You cut off its head and it grows another one; you put its leaders in gaol and they produce new leaders; you take their legs off but they find some other means of perambulation. We have this problem with us as much now as we did before any of these laws were produced. In fact, I would go so far as to say that we have this problem with us even more to-day.

What must you do, then?

Sir, I will tell the hon. member what you must do: The first thing you must do is to abandon the policy of this Government towards these people. That is the first thing that you must do. The question might well be asked how long we are going to have this Pan-African menace; how long we are going to have the situation that we have to-day. Sir, we are going to have it as long as this Government is in power.

As long as there are communists here.

What has the Government done in 15 years to do anything about the root causes of this problem? It has removed the political expression which the Bantu had in this House. Why? Were the representatives of the Bantu in this House a danger to anyone. Did anyone ever suggest between the year 1936 and the year 1959 that the three Bantu representatives in this House were a danger to South Africa; that they were the beginning of the end for South Africa; that their presence here would lead to the whole of this House becoming flooded with Black members leading to a Black majority? Of course, no one ever suggested that then, and they were here for 23 years. That is the only contribution which the Government seems to have made, but the Government has made a greater contribution to PanAfricanism in its rampant form by its laws in this country than I think the Pan-Africanists could have done if they had had a free hand to do what they wanted in this country under a different Government.

Sir, what is the background to all these acts of sabotage? What is the background of Rivonia: what is the background of all these other trials we have had? It is Pan-Africanism. What is the background of the pressure which is being brought to bear upon South Africa outside our borders? In the lobbies of the United Nations, what is the pressure group? It is Pan-Africanism. And then, Sir, we have the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, who has the impertinence to say that the United Party policy does not develop in the spirit of modern times! Sir, what is the spirit of modern times? What is the spirit of modern times in our part of the world, in Africa, in South Africa? Pan-Africanism.

You have made a break-through now.

I hope I have made a break-through to the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling), because I say it is the policy of this Government to encourage Pan-Africanism. The Government’s laws produce a rampant, savage Pan-Africanism in South Africa. I say that the Government’s laws have produced it. I go further and say that this rampant and savage Pan-Africanism has been created by the Government’s repressive laws, by their nonsense laws, by their laws to remove the representatives of the Africans in this House, by their job reservation laws, by their laws to remove the security of the urban Bantu. But, Sir, I want to go further and show that the official policy of the Government as outlined by the hon. member who has just sat down, is giving active legal encouragement to Pan-Africanism in South Africa. The policy is aimed at separating the Bantu from the influence of the White man and from the influence of our civilization in this country. That is the object of that policy. Can anyone deny it?

You are talking nonsense.

Sir, I am told that I am talking nonsense. I say that that is the object of the policy. The object is to drive them into another world. If I am wrong, why do we have a different education for the Bantu; why do we have Bantu Education; why do they not have our education, if this is not the object of this policy? Why do they have tribal colleges if this is not the object of this policy? Why do we have lapas instead of campuses, if this is not the object of this policy? Sir, in doing this the Government is actively encouraging African Nationalism. The hon. member will no doubt say that African Nationalism is only for African areas, but let us take those African areas; what are those areas? There is the Transkei. The Transkei is too weak economically to survive by itself; it must of necessity remain with us economically even though we are trying to drive them out, but Sir, there are other willing hands ready to help. The Pan-Africanism Movement of Africa will help them and help them very much, and the hon. member for Vereeniging knows that that is correct. He admits that this is a calculated risk that they are taking. Sir, what are the areas to which this policy in fact relate? It is the areas in which the Bantu are, and the areas in which there are most Bantu are the areas in which the White man lives, that is to say, the urban industrial areas of South Africa. That is where this policy is to be applied. Is anyone in this House going to deny that the two political parties which have developed in the Transkei are not going to become African nationalist organizations? Is anyone in this House going to deny that the party of the Chief Minister of the Transkei is not an African nationionalist party already?

A national independence party.,

Yes, a national independence party. It is an African nationalist party, and if they become Pan-Africanists and if any African movement is to be regarded as part of a Pan-Africanist movement in the eyes of those who are pushing this movement to the north of us, what is the position going to be, then? Sir, that is what is happening in the Transkei. But, Sir, that does not worry me so much. What worries me particularly is that the people to whom this policy is being applied are the Bantu in the towns. Those Bantu in the towns have the protection of the laws of this Government, because in terms of the Transkei Constitution, not only are the voters for the Transkei in Cape Town and Durban and Johannesburg, but now they have a political party and that political party, whether it becomes Pan-Africanist or communist is going to have the right to go and talk and spread its propaganda amongst its members, the majority of whom are living outside the Transkei, the majority of whom are living in our urban areas. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to tell us what he is going to do about this; whether he is going to say that he is going to stop Pan-Africanism amongst these people; whether he is going to prohibit these parties from having a policy of Pan-Africanism, a policy of Africa for the Africans or a policy of Communism. I would like to know how on earth he is going to stop it, because the moment he tries to stop it the whole basis of his policy falls apart.

But, Sir, these things are happening now, in our urban areas; they are happening with these political parties at the present time, and if this situation is to remain then I hope the Government will be realistic about the other aspects of Bantu policy. Sir, nothing is more calculated to bring about the sort of situation in which we find ourselves to-day—and it is a very parlous situation when you have a trial like the Rivonia trial and the next day, as an act of defiance, you get another act of sabotage— when everyone is living in a sort of suspended fear of what the future may hold for us. I say that nothing is more calculated to bring about this sort of situation than the Government’s present policy. Sir, the one danger to the White man in South Africa, as it seems to me at this moment, is the urban Bantu who are now being made rootless by this Government. They are the people amongst whom all the riots have taken place; they are the persons who have recruited all the saboteurs; they are the persons who have provided the members of the A.N.C. and Poqo and Night Club and all the other African nationalist organizations. They live here amongst us in the urban areas, and they live here amongst us in the urban areas not because this Government wishes it but because those are the hard, cold economic facts of South Africa. And what is this Government going to do about them? Is it going to prohibit Matanzima’s party from spreading its propaganda amongst them; is it going to prohibit Poto’s party from spreading propaganda amongst them, or for that matter any other Pan-Africanist or communist organization that arises in the Transkei and that wishes to propagate its policy in the urban areas? Because, Sir, if they do want to do that, they will find willing hands amongst the people in the urban areas. What has this Government done? It has stripped every single one of them of any security that they had. This Government must take full responsibility for it. The hon. the Minister of Housing made the most significant statement of the year in relation to the Bantu when he said that we must give people a feeling of security, which you can only do by giving them a settled, fixed, permanent family abode; and he read from a Russian newspaper which said that we (i.e. the communists) must try to destroy this bourgeois mentality which wants a home, which attaches far more importance to the individual and his home and his family than he attaches to his function as a unit in the State. In our urban areas this year this Government has deliberately destroyed the one thing with which we can fight Pan-Africanism.

I do not believe for one second that it would have been possible for the Government of the day to clear up and clean up Poqo and allied Pan-Africanist associations, as the hon. the Minister says he has done, were it not for the fact that the majority of the Bantu are law-abiding citizens. But I think we are entitled to ask ourselves how long this situation is likely to go on; how long can we expect it to go on if the Government is not prepared to do anything whatever about removing the root causes of the problem. The hon. member for Innesdale says, “What sort of alternative do you have to prevent what happened at Rivonia?” It is clear that the Government has no alternative but to pass more laws of this kind. Sir, that is not going to solve this problem. Is it going to hurt this Government to give these people homeownership; to allow them economic opportunities; to give them some hope for the future, even if they do another little jingle-jangle with their policy and say, “Oh well, in terms of our policy in fact they have always been allowed to remain there”. If they did that, which is not beyond the wit of the hon. the Prime Minister, they would be able to fight Pan-Africanism, but if they are not prepared to do that they are not going to succeed in fighting it. They must either abandon their policy in relation to the Transkei or they must abandon their policy in relation to the urban areas, but unfortunately the two go together. While on the one hand they say that the Bantu can have political rights in the Transkei, we find that via the backdoor they allow not only political rights but the worst form of rampant, savage Pan-Africanism in the urban areas on our backdoors, by courtesy of the Government, as a result of the passing of the Transkei Constitution Act. I think South Africa is entitled to ask how long we are going to have to put up with this. The hon. the Minister of Justice can say every day of his life that he has broken this organization or that organization, but the evidence indicates that every time he says something like that, another organization springs up. As long as this Government remains in power we will have that situation. The answer to the question is very simple. As long as we have this Government we will have sabotage: as long as we have a policy directed at curing the effects of something—only the effects and not the cause —so long will we have acts of sabotage.

You are putting your foot into it again.

No, I am not putting my foot into it.

You are putting both your feet into it.

Why don’t you keep your mouth shut, then they won’t go in?

Sir, I knew the hon. member was speaking, but I did not see his mouth moving otherwise I might have put my foot into it. [Time limit.]

I think I must put a few questions to the previous speaker. He says very clearly that as long we have this Government we shall have trouble. He naturally refers to the National Party Government. I want to ask him whether all the countries which have been overrun by Communists and who are having trouble with the Communists have National Party Governments? Are the Nationalists who are sitting here in power in those countries? Sir, the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. Van Niekerk) must not worry the hon. member; I want to lay my hands on him. The hon. member must not distract his attention. I want to know whether this National Party Government is responsible for the Communism we find in Zanzibar and in Cuba and all those countries?

It is the same sort of policy.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Drakensberg who is talking to that hon. member that when a lady associates herself with those men she is no longer beautiful. I want to ask the hon. member to remain a lady! Mr. Speaker do you notice how hon. members are descending on the hon. member now that I am addressing myself to him. I want a reply from that hon. member; he must not allege that it is this Government which is attracting Communists to this country. Communism is filtering through into all African countries. Is this Government in power in those countries?

Is the policy the same—Nationalism?

The hon. member must not talk nonsense. Is this Government in power in Zanzibar? [Interjections.] Sir, if I were of the calibre of that hon. member who does not even mind insulting his Leader in the presence of all of us who are gathered here, I shall never again open my mouth in this House. I shall tell him what I mean. When his hon. Leader is attacked from this side of the House that hon. member sidles up to him and worries him; he goes and sits next to him in order to distract his attention. He makes of his leader not a man but something with trousers on. I do not make of him something with trousers on; I recognize him as the Leader of the United Party, but he wants to protect him the way one would protect a thin little kid, like that other hon. member who is again talking to the Leader of the Opposition and trying to protect him. Sir, I deprecate the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is protected by certain members on his side every now and then when something is put to him to which he has to reply.

On a point of order, surely the hon. member is not entitled to refer to another hon. member as something with trousers on

Order! Will the hon. member please repeat what he said.

I said the hon. member made of his Leader something with trousers on: that he did not treat him like a man because he protected him like a baby. I regard the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as a man and not as something with trousers on.

When this debate started we thought hon. members opposite would talke about finances and that they would state their policy against ours. It is true that the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) did so to some extent. He hit to the left and the right as he went through the team but he came out at the other end without having achieved anything and immediately after that members of the Opposition turned their backs on financial matters and followed another direction. I now wish to come to the hon. member for Yeoville who followed that other direction. Such a great deal has been said about him to-day and so many explanations have been given that very little remains to be dealt with, but something does remain on which I wish to say a few words. When speaking about the Rivonia sentences the hon. member for Yeoville said he found no fault with them, but he went further and said: “It is high time that we investigate the matter; I am convinced that the Government’s policy is the cause.” The hon. member attacked the Government because of its policy and said the policy of the Government was to blame. The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) has repeatedly said the same thing just now. Does the hon. member not agree with his own member? [Laughter.] The hon. member laughs but he knows that is the position. He said the cause of all the trouble was the policy of the Government. Every member on that side of the House has said that if this Government were thrown out, those difficulties would come to an end. They have said: “We can only stop this trouble if we can remove this Government.” Sir, whose language are they talking when they say that? That is the language of U Thant; the language they are speaking is the language of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman); they are speaking the language of the saboteur; they are speaking the language of Patrick Duncan and of Luthuli. Surely that is the language of Luthuli and Patrick Duncan. Is that the language of the Afrikaner? Are those the Afrikaners who tell us they will at all times fight for South Africa? Has the hon. member who has just spoken used the language of a South African? He said the Government was to blame for all the trouble. In other words, he did want to say it in so many words, but what he tried to convey was that what those people did they did as a result of the policy of this Government; that if this Government were not here there would not be a single communist in this country; that if this Government were not here not a single act of sabotage would have been committed in this country and there would not have been a Rivonia trial. Sir, do you know what they are saying to those people by implication? They are saying to them by implication: “You are quite right: you are merely the political opponents of the Government; you are not saboteurs; you are not communists: you do not want to overthrow the Government of the country.” That is the implication of what that hon. member has said.

That is nonsense.

Will that hon. member shut his trap while I am speaking!

Order! The hon. member may not use the word “trap” instead of “mouth”.

It is very difficult. Sir, not to be personal when ons is treated in that way. I bow to your ruling, Sir, but when the hon. member says that to me I have to rebuke him.

Let us analyse for a moment what the hon. member for Yeoville has said. He said this Government has not done anything for those areas on the Rand where border industries cannot be established, and he attacked the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. Van den Berg). I used to live on the West Rand; I was born there and I grew up there. I still have a few small properties there. The hon. member must not tell us such nonsense in this House. The hon. the Minister has given us figures to prove what is happening on the West Rand. I do not want to repeat those figures because time does not permit me to do so but I just want to ask the hon. member whether he knows what is happening in the building sector on the West Rand, as a matter of fact, over the whole country. What does it signify when the building industry is very active? Why are those buildings being erected? Do people build just for the pleasure of seeing those buildings? No, it is a sign of progress, development and prosperity. Never before have they built on a larger scale on the West Rand than they are to-day. Building contractors simply cannot get the necessary bricks. Bricks are being conveyed there from points 40 to 50 miles distant and I know what I am talking about because I own brick-kilns in that area. What is happening in the building industry in that area is proof of rapid development. Did any hon. member of the Opposition try to prove that this country was going backwards in the economic or any other field? They tried to attack the agricultural policy of the Government and even there they made no impression on anybody. Sir, when hon. members opposite are concerned, as the hon. member for Innesdal (Mr. J. A. Marais) has cornered them to-day, by giving them chapter and verse, they try to laugh themselves out of the difficulty or else they join their leader in order to protect him. The hon. member is a big businessman and I should like to recognize him as a very intelligent person; I do not regard him as a stupid person: I regard him as being intelligent; but do you know what he tells this House? He says the people in the lowveld, where I live, are completely insolvent: that the Government has been buying the farms of the farmers over the past three to four years. Sir do you know what happened? After we had a drought for two years that hon. member opened a branch of the Netherlands Bank in Thabazimba and that branch is still there to-day. Does that prove insolvency? A year later Volkskas opened a branch there. That branch is also still there and is doing good business. Barclays Bank also has a branch there and that too is doing good business. In spite of that, that great economist, a person whom I regard as being intelligent, tells this House that everybody there is bankrupt. He says that to the House in spite of the fact that his own bank and other banks have opened branches there during this severe drought. That only proves that even those drought-stricken areas in the lowveld are going ahead. Had that not been the position those banks would not have opened branches there.

Sir, the language those hon. members opposite speak is the language of the hon. member for Suzman. The hon. member for Drakensberg can laugh; she looks even better when I make a slip of the tongue than she looks when she laughs. The hon. member for Houghton tells us every day how unjustly we are treating the non-Whites. Sir, the state of mind that hon. member reveals is such that you can hardly touch it with a barge pole; as a South African it will make one sick even to touch it with a barge pole.

I wish to return to the hon. member for Yeoville, the hon. member who tells us he is a good South African. Had I not had so much respect for the Chair I would have said “ciss” but because of my respect for the Chair and for the House I shall not say so. Sir, we cannot carry on in this way. We cannot continue with an Opposition such as the one on that side of the House. We cannot continue to listen to the remarks which come from that side, particularly when you consider the way in which they are made. We shall have to devise some plan either of going to have some coffee or of attacking them as strenuously as a party has ever been attacked. That is the only way in which those hon. members can be brought to their senses. You will never get them to co-operate. Sir; you will never get constructive criticism from them; you simply no longer get that from that side of the House.

The hon. member who has just sat down reminds one of the person who goes to a braaivleis and gets himself a mixed dish and does not know really where to start. He has done his best here to-day to confuse the House with the views that he expressed here on farming; with an attack on the political views of the Opposition, and at the same time he tried to introduce the usual red herring of racialism. Unfortunately, good fellow that he is, he has told us nothing at all about Government policy and he has certainly not told us how Government policy is contributing to the future prosperity and happiness of South Africa. It has been definitely stated on this side of the House that despite the fact that the Minister of Finance has such an excellent surplus he had not been able to give us any indication of any sense of happiness and contentment in South Africa. What we have seen over the last years is anything but happiness and contentment amongst the people. If anything at all. Sir, we are constantly faced with problems, difficulties and a sense of insecurity on the part of the people of this country. I do not think it is going to be very long before this Government, worried as it already is, will find itself in great difficulties with the electorate of South Africa. Sir, there are certain problems for which this Government must find the solution. When criticism is levelled against it we are told that there is prosperity in the country and that things are progressing satisfactorily. But these things are happening despite the Government’s policy. These things are happening in spite of the fact that this Government is in power.

Because of the strong Government.

It is not a question of a strong Government. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs said the production of the country was increasing rapidly year by year. He gave us certain figures to indicate, what seemed on the face of it, a fair measure of progress. But is this increased production not really due to the fact that the backlog in production and employment has been wiped out over the last two or three years because of the increase in capital investment in the industrial and financial sector of the country? Until that backlog is completely wiped out production will continue to increase year by year. I want to quote a leading mining expert to the hon. member who has just sat down in the person of Mr. Anderson. Deputy-Chairman of the Rand Mines who said—

In other words, the whole of the industrial momentum of South Africa has moved ahead because of the fact that there was stagnation for some years. When finance began to move more freely, when it could no longer withstand being constantly hoarded up, development went ahead because it had to wipe out the tremendous backlog which had been created both in the employment sector and in the general production sector.

Now that the backlog is beginning to be wiped out we have to look more seriously to the future and to the policy of the Government in this direction. We find nothing in the policy of the Government that gives us any sense of security with regard to continued production in future. We are facing a manpower shortage in South Africa and we find that insufficient provision is being made to meet that shortage. The Minister of Finance said he was unable to give back to the taxpayer some of the surplus because it would lead to inflation. The question we are asking ourselves, Sir, is this: Will the refund to the needy lead to inflation? No. It is the manpower shortage in the production field which will lead to inflation and that shortage is due to the short-sighted policy of the Government.

Exports have to-day become the lifeblood of the country’s national earnings. In fact, Sir, exports are to-day responsible for one-third of our national income. We are becoming more and more dependent on exports; it has become essential to maintain our exports. Exports are responsible for R 1,675,000,000 of our national income. It is essential for South Africa to maintain a continual increase in her exports and to find new and diverse market; In fact, we are trying to do so. To-day, for instance, we have a big industrial exhibition in Hong Kong in order to encourage that part of the East to take a greater interest in purchasing from South Africa. If we are to maintain this improvement in our exports it will be necessary for us to provide a satisfactory and adequate source of labour. The Minister of Labour himself has admitted that immigration is not sufficient to meet this shortage of manpower. The Government by restrictive legislation is not making use of the full potential of manpower in this country. We feel, and industrialists feel, that unless this is done the export momentum of South Africa will gradually begin to slow down. If it does it will prove a very serious set-back to the general economic development of South Africa and the economic momentum of the future.

Another factor we have to consider is this: In order to advance our export trade it is necessary to provide a highly competitive export product. And to provide that product in the export field it is essential that production in the country must be at as low a unit cost as possible. To do this it is essential, as has been proved in other countries, to improve and develop your internal consumption market and in order to do that you must either provide a higher earning capacity to the smaller number or you have to provide a larger number with a wider spending capacity. In that case the demand for goods becomes greater, the full use of your labour potential provides you with a greater spending power in the country. You are then able to produce goods at a lower cost and able to provide a much more competitive article for export thus developing your export market. Unless we can do that. Sir, we will find that we are unable to produce goods at that competitive rate which is essential if we wish to continue to build up our export market.

An example of the importance of this internal consumption market can be found in the United States, which has that enormous internal consumption market, and their exports only yield 4.5 per cent of the national income. Tn the case of Britain it is 17 per cent, Canada 21 per cent, France 14 per cent as against our earnings of 33⅓ per cent.

What does that mean?

The importance of that is that we are becomoing more and more reliant on our exports to contribute to our national income.

Just to give an example of the viewpoints of other people on this particular subject I wish to quote what Mr. Barrett said at the meeting of the Cape Chamber of Commerce. In answering the allegation of the Minister of Labour who has said that job reservation is not even being felt in this country because of the number of exemptions that are granted Mr. Barrett said—

Industrialists make this other point that there is a lack of consultation. This was dealt with by the president of the Federated Chamber of Industries. He said this—

That means that there should be much more consultation and co-operation by Government Departments with industry and commerce in order to deal with some of the problems of the country, one of which, I think, is this question of the shortage of labour. Unless we embark on a policy which will enable, not only a small section of the country’s population but every section of the population, including not only the Bantu but also the Coloureds of the Cape, to be integrated more closely into the industrial life of the country, a policy whereby they will acquire better skills and a policy which will give them an opportunity of playing a fuller part in the whole of the productive life of the country, we are going to face difficulties in the future. That is one important aspect of fhe Government’s restrictive policy which is holding back the fuller development of the economic life of South Africa.

We believe that the policy of job reservation, which is so stoutly defended, is one that is ultimately going to lead to setbacks in the economic life of the country. It is not sufficient to say that it is not being applied in practice when it is in fact on the Statute Book. The complaint of this side of the House is that that legislation is on the Statute Book and such legislation is one of the strongest contributory factors to the feeling of unrest and insecurity, not only on the part of people who are not represented in this House but even on the part of people who are represented by the vast majority of the Members in this House. Despite the prosperity of which the Government constantly boasts there is in the hearts of people a constant sense of insecurity as to what the future holds in store for them. One of the important ways of dealing with this is in the economic field where they can share the best of what we have. Everyone must have a fair share in the economic life of South Africa and a sense of hope for the future, a sense that he will be able to provide for his family.

Dealing with the export side of our economy I want to make it very clear indeed that if we are going to lean heavily on our exports for an important share of our national income, we have to ensure in future that there is a constant flow of exports from this country and that we can meet the demands that may be made. We are developing in a very restricted field. Our exports are mainly taken up by only a few countries. It is only recently that we have been doing business with a country like Japan. That country has purchased a considerable amount of goods from us. The goods which a country like Japan purchases from us consist mainly of raw materials. In order to improve our export market we must also be in a position to compete in the field of the finished product. We must not rely only on raw materials because the exportation of raw materials does not give us a stable and permanent market in the future. It is a sort of product which can be subject to all sorts of changing events, politically and otherwise, in other parts of the world. South Africa must ensure that her goods will be sought after by a very much wider field than the field in which we are operating at the moment. [Interjections.] This gentleman is obviously unaware of what industrialists and businessmen in the country are saying on this particular subject. They are certainly concerned about this subject. Dr. Marais, for instance, said recently—

Dr. Marais himself said that in an article regarding certain statistics. He is economic advisor to Sanlam. He indicates that we are far too dependent on these exports. It is therefore the duty of the Government to ensure that the momentum of exports from South Africa be maintained with the fullest use of all our potential labour resources.

Mr. Speaker, a political party can be as strong as it wants to, but when it allows two things to enter its ranks its doom is sealed. The United Party was a powerful party; it was a strong party but it allowed two things to overpower it and those two things are race hatred and political immorality. I want to prove that, Mr. Speaker.

That was again evident in the debate to-day. The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) accused this Government of having abandoned the idea of incorporating the Protectorates. That story is not only told here in this House but also on the platteland. It is particularly on the platteland that the charge is laid at the door of the Government of having neglected its duty and of now being unable to get the Protectorates. I do not know whether hon. members opposite have such short memories. Do they not remember what happened in 1952 and subsequently in this House and outside? The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) referred to it in passing that when the hon. Dr. Malan was Prime Minister he did his best to petition the British Parliament. He wanted, however, to get a unanimous decision in this Parliament. What attitude did the United Party adopt? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition told the hon. member for Vereeniging that he did not know what he was talking about. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he has completely forgotten what attitude his Party adopted on that occasion? Their newspapers followed them up, or rather their newspapers dictated to them what to say. Sir, I want to read to you what the Natal Mercury said about that matter on 15 May 1952—

That was the language they used—

This is important—

What does that mean? You are telling the Bantu in the Protectorates in advance: “You need have no fears; the right-minded people in this country (that is the United Party) and the people in England will never allow the Protectorates to be incorporated as long as this Government is in power.” They are quite prepared, however, to allow them to be incorporated when the U.P. is in power. Mr. Speaker, I ask you: Is that politically moral?

Is that not the worse degree of immorality?

Why?

That question of the hon. member proves my statement that they have become the victims of political immorality.

I go further. The hon. member for Yeoville has made sneering remarks. [Interjections.] I think you are very sorry that he ever did so. They always do that, Sir, It is not only in the case of these two hon. Ministers that they act the way they have. What did they do to the late Adv. Quinlan when there was a rumour that he would stand by the National Party? What did they do? They broke him economically.

Who?

The United Party people. Everybody who knows anything about the politics of those days who knew Adv. Quinlan will know what I am saying here is the truth.

Who was he?

It astounds me that the hon. member does not know who he was. Their memories are conveniently very short.

Not conveniently; who was he?

Yes, conveniently. What did the Uunited Party do to the hon. member for Pietersmaritzberg (City) (Mr. Odell) when he made his first speech as a Nationalist after he had walked over to the National Party? Sir, I have never witnessed more disgraceful conduct on the part of the Opposition. They treated Mr. Odell as though he was scum, as though he was untouchable. It is not only in the case of these two Ministers, therefore, that they act in that way. Every person who leaves their party gets treated in the same way.

I now come to a much bigger figure in our political life than this person and that is the late Gen. Hertzog. The late Gen. Hertzog was good enough to be their Prime Minister and their leader; then they lauded him sky-high; then they arrayed themselves behind him as a great Prime Minister. But what did they say about him the day he took a stand? What did the Cape Times say—

An then the hon. members ask “Why?” That is an old characteristic of theirs; their old method of castigating everyone who was within their ranks and who because he could no longer endure their politics, joined the Nationalists, as they castigated Gen. Hertzog and as the hon. member for Yeoville castigated the two Ministers Trollip and Waring. I want to say this to them: You can repeat those attacks; the more often you repeat those attacks on these two Ministers the more will we, the Afrikaans-speaking people on this side of the House, gather around them and support and sustain them. Do you know why, Sir? We shall support them, not only because they are capable, but because to us they symbolize the English-speaking aristocracy in South Africa. That is why we are doing it.

The hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) is unfortunately not here. But he accused the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. Bootha) of not having contributed anything to this debate in the interests of South Africa. I want to ask him what his party has contributed. I cannot think of one single thing they have said during this whole long debate which I can regard as a constructive contribution in the interests of South Africa. They have only broken down; they have only continually inserted the crowbar to dislodge the foundation stone.

You do not require a crowbar for that.

The hon. member who has just made that interjection has a good head on his shoulders. I gladly listen to his speeches in this House, but he is positive proof of what the United Party can do to a decent man. The hon. member for Florida said we were saddled with problems. That was his great difficulty. There is unrest in the country, problems await the people! I want him to show me a country which is without problems today. There we have the mighty America who has to force integration on her people. Does she not have problems? She is continually faced with problems she has created herself. And what about England? Has she no problems? Have France and West Germany no problems? Go to any country in the world and you will find that they too have problems. A nation which has no problems dies; it dies from anaemia.

But what are you doing to solve those problems?

The hon. member also said there was great prosperity in the country in spite of this Government. I want to ask hon. members whether there has ever been a country in history which has prospered while it did not have a strong and stable Government? Show me any country in the world who has been prosperous under a weak and unstable Government. History teaches us that that is impossible because no investor will invest money in such a country if the Government of that country is weak and unstable. If the hon. member for Maitland, who is smiling, had had millions of rand would he have invested those millions in this country had this Government been weak and unstable?

South Africa cannot help itself…

Listen to that! There you have another example, Sir, of what the United Party can do to a man! Prosperity and a stable and strong Government are inseparable. The hon. member also expressed himself against job reservation. I have already said that the United Party was suffering from political immorality. Now they want to abolish job reservation. Let us put them to the test. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will probably still take part in this debate. He must tell us whether he is in favour of a policy of no job reservation. Let him tell us that he is in favour of its abolition in the mining industry as well. That would be honest and moral. If they do not do it surely they are politically immoral. If they want to do away with job reservation they must also abolish it in the mining industry. Why does he make an exception in the case of the mining industry? If the United Party is not politically immoral they must tell us that they will also abolish job reservation in the mining industry.

Then I come to the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw). We are accustomed to not taking him seriously. He pretends to be very serious but he is laughing up his sleeve all the time. He makes a farce of everything. But he also said one thing which proves my statement. He said the English-speaking section did not want any gesture of goodwill from this Government. Why not? Why may this Government not do so, this Government which has all these years been represented by that side of the House as the Party which wanted to trample the English-speaking section underfoot? Some time ago the hon. member for Hillbrow still warned the English-speaking people at Paarl that their flag would be taken away from them and one thing and another. To-morrow it is their language rights that will be taken away from them! We have had the story here that there will shortly be a separate voters roll for the English-speaking people. Why do they say these things when they know they are not true. Why do they not wish this side of the House to make a gesture of goodwill towards the English-speaking people? They spurned the gesture of goodwill made by the late Dr. Malan when he asked Mr. Shepstone to accompany him to the Coronation in England. That must not be. English-speaking persons must not be appointed to the Cabinet, not only because they are English-speaking, but not even on merit either. Why? They are afraid that if the National Party were to continue practising this policy of showing goodwill towards the other language group the United Party would lose English-speaking supporters at a faster rate than it is losing them to-day. As it is they are becoming depopulated of English-speaking people. I should like any hon. members from Natal to deny that many of the most prominent English-speaking businessmen in Natal, in Durban, Pietermaritzburg, as well as in the olatteland of Natal, are leaving the United Party. They are seeking their salvation with the National Party.

Nonsense!

Give us a few names.

No, wait a minute. I am not as stupid as all that. Why does the hon. member want the names? As always they want to embark on a witch hunt which is characteristic of the United Party. I shall not be so irresponsible as to mention names. But I often come in contact with people like that, prominent English-speaking people, also businessmen, in Durban and Pietermaritzburg, as well as on the platteland, people who are beginning to shake the United Party dust off their shoes and seeking their salvation with the National Party. That is the reason why the United Party does not want us to show goodwill towards the English-speaking people. Let me say this: The National Party will continue to show goodwill towards the English-speaking people. It will continue to do so because goodwill does not cost anything. As a matter of fact, it is only a big man who can show goodwill towards another. The United Party can only prey on race hatred. The hon. member for Durban (North) stated, as though it was a fact, that the hon. member for Heilbron had attacked the Jewish race in this country. The hon. member should be ashamed of himself.

What did the hon. member for Heilbron say?

The hon. member pretends that he does not know what the hon. member for Heilbron has said. I listened to him just as hon. members opposite listened to him. He said that those Jews who were concerned in the case he had in mind were no credit to the other members of their race in this country, or words to that effect. He still mentioned the name of the late Mr. Greenberg as an example of the aristocracy of the Jewish race. The hon. member for Pretoria (East) sat next to me on that occasion and still said that the hon. member need not only mention Mr. Greenberg’s name because what about Dr. Yutar, a South African patriot? Where and when did the hon. member attack the Jews? But the hon. member for Durban (North) immediately states that the hon. member has made an attack on the Jews. He once again wanted to inflame race hatred, because the United Party can only exist if it inflames race hatred.

You cast suspicion on the people.

The hon. member for Durban (North) made a few other stupid remarks. He said, for example, that in spite of all our laws—and remember this comes from a legally trained person—we had not yet succeeded in putting an end to sabotage. As though we have succeeded in putting an end to theft, murder, arson, fraud, etc., with all our laws! Which country has managed to do that? No country in the world has succeeded in doing that because as long as human nature is what it is you will be faced with murder, theft and that sort of thing. But does that mean that we must not pass laws in an attempt to put a stop to that sort of things? That was precisely what we also did in the case of sabotage. Laws were passed to combat those things. I admit that no law will change human nature but you can at least try to curb its activities and you can only do that by way of legislation. It astounds me that an advocate can make such a stupid and childish statement in this House. I want to ask him what would have happened had we not had the necessary legislation to combat sabotage and had it not been possible for the hon. the Minister to act the way he did indeed act? Would we still have had the privilege of sitting here to-day? Surely hon. members know what has been happening in the country. Surely they know what has come to light in the courts. But hon. members opposite do not want us to make those laws; they do not want us to act the way we have indeed acted.

He says the Rivonia trial is hardly over when sabotage is again committed the following day. Was that as a result of the laws we have passed? He suggested that it was as a result of the laws we had passed, because, said he, as long as this Government was in power and passed such laws we would have Pan-Africanism and sabotage. If that is not direct encouragement to the saboteurs in South Africa to continue committing those reckless deeds, I do not know what encouragement means. These saboteurs are clearly told that they are not to blame for what they have done but that the Government is to blame. [Interjections.] Oh, yes. They tell those saboteurs that they are not to blame for doing those things but that the Government and its laws are to blame. I maintain that there is no greater encouragement to those people than words of that nature. And these words come from the United Party! And then they still say they are good Afrikaners and good patriots! But at the same time they tell the saboteurs that they are not to blame for what they have done but that the Government, who tries to restrain them with its laws, is to blame.

We did not say that.

I can still understand the hon. member not remembering what happened a few years ago, but how he could have forgotten what happened only to-day in this House is beyond me! I do not know what has happened to the memory of the United Party.

Have you forgotten what happened during the war?

That hon. member must not tempt me. He is vulnerable and very vulnerable at that. He must not tempt me therefore. They further told the saboteurs that they were not the people who came with the idea of Pan-Africanism but that was a creation of this Government. Sir, imagine, this Government creating Pan-Africanism!

Who said that?

Please read your colleague’s Hansard to-morrow. However, hon. members know that it does not centre around the laws we have passed or our apartheid policy. We have too many examples to think otherwise. We have Rhodesia and many other countries. So it does not centre around that, it centres around one thing only and that is that they want our fatherland, our wealth and our strategic position. That is what they want and towards that end apartheid is merely a very convenient peg on which they can hang all these diabolical deeds. The Opposition does not want to realize or believe that. And then we still have such inflammatory speeches as those we have had to-day. The hon. member for Durban (North) also said that we were driving the Bantu away from Western civilization. That was merely a statement of his because he did not and cannot substantiate it. What has this Government done to show that it wants to drive the Bantu away from Western civilization? Hon. members cannot give me one example of that. Yet the hon. member makes that statement and makes it in such a way that it has to stand out like a pikestaff.

The hon. member is also concerned about the fact that the Bantu can form their own political parties in their homelands. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with the Bantu organizing themselves into political parties? Are we not continually accused by hon. members opposite of not giving the Bantu a political outlet? Now that the Government is making it possible for them to have such an outlet it is something evil. How can a person be so politically immoral? The hon. member simply accepts that such a political party must of necessity be either a Communist Party or a Pan-African Party. By virtue of what fact does he adopt that attitude? Why can’t it be a purely national party, a party which will operate to the advantage of their own homelands? Why must it of necessity be a Communist or a Pan-African Party? To say that is surely just to cause trouble and confusion in the country. Of course that is possible, but the the hon. member accepts that that will be the position. He accepts that Bantu parties can be nothing else than either communist or PanAfricanist. Is that not to cause unrest? Is that not to create a wrong image?

The hon. member also says we are uprooting the urban Bantu. In what way have we uprooted the urban Bantu? I want to ask those hon. members, particularly those who live in cities and do not know the Bantu, please not to talk such nonsense as far as the Bantu are concerned. Since when have the urban Bantu been uprooted? Show me one Bantu in a city who has lost all tribal connections and who is without an anchor. Show me one! I invite hon. members to check the position. I did so myself and I found that a Bantu whose father and children were born in Johannesburg still had his interests in the district of Ladysmith in Natal. He still has a wife with children there, he has his stock there and he goes there annually to plough. He retains his tribal connections and he can still tell you who his chief is. Yet both he and his father were born in Johannesburg as well as some of his children. He retains his tribal connections. He never loses that. It is only the United Party who says the urban Bantu has become detribalized and that that is the fault of the National Government.

Tomlinson also said so.

I am not concerned with what he said. If he says they have become detribalized I repudiate it and I know what I am talking about. Sir, had the hon. member understood the complex workings of the Bantu’s mind and had he understood his moral codes and customs he could also have talked, but he does not know the Bantu. It is only recently that the hon. member has seen a Bantu for the first time. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. D. J. Potgieter) was heard to say that we who come from the towns, the urban areas, in other words the city-slickers, know nothing about the Bantu, so that when we allege, as we do from time to time, that the vast majority of the urbanized Bantu are in fact detribalized, that they do not have this longing for what the hon. member for Vryheid calls their “homelands”, that they do not go “home”, because there is no home for them to go to in the reserves, and therefore there is no land for them to plough for that matter, that many of them are in the towns in the third and fourth generation as town-dwellers, then the hon. member says: “We prove that we know nothing about him”, i.e. the Bantu.

Now for one thing, the C.S.I.R., for which the hon. member may have some respect, made a survey in 1962, I think, in which it was proved conclusively that the overwhelming proportion of the Bantu in the towns, in the urban areas, was already detribalized—I think the figure was something like 90 per cent. But if the hon. member does not accept that, then I make him an offer now. Let him come to Johannesburg during the recess. I will take him to Soweto, where there are some 375,000 Bantu living in a comparatively small area; he can choose any township, he can choose his own sector of that township, and then let us do a simple survey together, and let him find out how many of them are detribalized or how many of them have still got their hearts in their homeland or their heartland, and which of them have any land to plough there; and if he does not find that 75 per cent of them are detribalized, then I will gladly pay his expenses at the best hotel in Johannesburg. If he is a man, and I have no doubt that he is, he will take me up on this offer, even if he does not like my company. I will give him a good time, anyway. He also referred to an allegation made by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman). It is quite right that certain people are not an ornament to their race. Of course, what he forgot was that the hon. member for Heilbron always chooses from the bottom drawer, and not the top drawer, when he comes to the other man’s race, as he calls it—in this case, more correctly, religious affiliation. He picks the very worst specimens, and then he says: “They are not ornaments of their race.” Talking about ornaments—“sierrade”—would he say, for example, that the hon. member for Vereeniging is an ornament of this House? Would he say that the hon. member for Vereeniging adorns the Afrikaner race? Would he say that he even adorns the human race? I raise this question because this same hon. member for Vereeniging was good enough to send me a note this morning. (I am sorry he is not here now.) He addressed me in endearing terms, which I appreciate, and he said: “I hope to take part in the debate this morning; you get honorable mention, in case you are interested—Blaar.” Very fair, Sir, because last Thursday the man whom he so greatly admires, the hon. Minister of Information, although I did not take part in the debate on his Vote, sailed into me with all guns blazing, without so much as a “by your leave” or a note saying: “Dear, I am going to blast you.” I appreciate this. But where was that hon. member to-day when it came to blasting me as promised? He did not say a word about me! He was scared off by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw)—and, incidentally, he met me in the lobby this morning and said to me, did I have his note? I said “Yes”. He said to me, “I am going to harm you very much”, “net ’n paar harde klappe”. Now I ask the hon. member for Vryheid to stand up in this House and say that he regards that hon. member to whom I referred as an adornment of or to this House!

Another point he raised was our alleged treatment of the late General Hertzog. Sir, I am not supposed to have a sense of humour, according to the hon. member for Vereeniging —frankly, one could not survive here without a sense of humour, with the hon. member for Vereeniging in the House—but the point I want to make here is this: How can the hon. member get up here and tell us about what we are supposed to have done to the late General Hertzog? Does he remember what his supporters and that hon. member’s political colleagues did to the same late General Hertzog in the Orange Free State? I don’t hear the shout of “Vrystaat” coming from that side now. Don’t they remember what they did to the late General Hertzog? Yet the hon. member has the gall to tell us what we did, according to him, to the late General Hertzog. Another point he made in a very intelligible, if not intelligent, address was that stable government and progress go hand in hand, and what is more, that you cannot have progress unless you have stable government. And by “stable”, according to the way he used the word, he obviously meant that a strong Government which had the country in a grip of iron. I don’t know whether he has ever visited Germany. I toured that country in 1961, and if that hon. member goes to Germany, even now he will see the signs left by a very stable Government, “stable” in the sense that it had the country in a grip of iron for ten years— not “stable” mentally; I do not want to draw an analogy between his Government and that Government, but if he wants to see what happened under a stable Government, as he calls it, and the very visible progress, the Autobahnen which in some cases still survive, the magnificent bridges and buildings, the economic progress and what finally happened to the country, he must go to Germany.

I have seen it.

There you have it. The hon. member has seen it. Now I come to one other point he made, which is extraordinary. He says: Look around the world—where do you see a country that has no problems, where do you see a government that has no problems? He is, of course, right. I cannot think of a single country without problems. But I say that this particular Government is unique in as much as they have deliberately set out to create the very problems that now beset this country. Whereas in other countries, governments do everything that they can possibly think of to combat problems that arise fortuitously, through no fault of their own, we are blighted in this country because we have a Government that spends all its time, or the greater part of its time, deliberately creating problems. I will give you one example.

What about the racial problems America has? Who created them?

Maybe the Almighty; the fact is that there are in America 19,000,000 or 20,000,000 Negroes who now make certain claims, but the American Government did not start a Bantustan policy to create that racial problem.

They started integration.

Where have you ever seen a government that deliberately places its own country on the operating table in the operating theatre, and then proceeds to dismember a country of 475,000 square miles with a population of 16,500,000, into little bits and pieces? This is called hari-kiri in Japan. I do not know what the Afrikaans word is for it, but this is what the Government is trying to do to South Africa. And then the hon. member talks about problems. This country has one basic problem, and that is the fact that the National Party governs it. Before I go any further, I say again that the condition of ¡South Africa to-day can best be described by the word “kakistocracy”. You remember what it means? It means “the government of a state by its worst citizens”. This is our misfortune to-day in South Africa.

In the time left to me I want to deal briefly with the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs. I am sorry he is not here. And with the hon. Minister of Information, whose absence I deplore even more. I do not know what is wrong in the intelligence section of our Foreign Affairs Department. In May—last month—the hon. the Prime Minister complained bitterly in this House of certain leakages of information, leakages of which he accused the United States Government and the British Government, in regard to their attitude to what might eventuate from the acceptance or rejection by the Government of the Odendaal Commission’s report. He said in effect: This is not the way for friends to behave, and the evidence he proffered of that leakage, as far as the American Government was concerned, was a statement by Mr. Clarence Randall made in South Africa in March, according to a report in the Cape Argus on 16 March. Remember, he was once an honoured visitor to this country. Last year and the year before we could hardly say a word in criticism of the Government, but someone on their side would say: “What about Clarence Randall?” Now this is what Clarence Randall said in the interview—

Then he went on to say that he was absolutely certain that the United Nations, backed by the United States, would enforce such a decision because it involved the rule of law. Sir, this is clearly based on a statement, of which I have the transcript made by the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Sidney Yates, on 30 October of last year. I was in New York at the time. Why is it that our Department of Foreign Affairs, and our Intelligence Section in it, did not advise the Prime Minister that there was no leakage of information that what Mr. Randall said in March 1964 could have been seen in black and white on 30 October 1963 by anyone who wanted to look at the document, and that it was in fact reiterated in almost the same words by the senior Ambassador of the United States at the United Nations, Mr. Adlai Stevenson, in December last? I have the documents. I was not favoured. Anybody could get those documents. I say that the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs should find out just why that type of criticism of a friendly power, being the United States in this case, can be made by the Prime Minister himself on the basis that they leaked the information through Mr. Clarence Randall in March 1964, when that information, in fact, should have been available to the Government—as it was to everybody else—by the end of October 1963—and available to the hon. Foreign Minister himself since he was then at the UN as our Ambassador to Britain.

Another point to which I want to draw his attention is the recent activities of the hon. the Minister of the Interior in refusing to give permission to certain people who wished to come to this country, usually from the United States. I have the case here of a man by the name of Gusewell, an American journalist representing the Kansas City Star.with a circulation of 350,000. He was turned back from Jan Smuts Airport. Nobody knows the reason. Now I do not believe that the Kansas City Star, or the American Government, would allow anybody to come here who is going to join up with saboteurs. This man was going to write news stories about South Africa. But he was asked in New York by one of the officials at the Consul-General’s Office, apparently, according to this report, what he was going to write about, and the official told him that he might not be allowed into South Africa because “our relationship with your paper has been worse than with almost any other paper in the United States”. In other words, criticism of South Africa, or of the Government, in this case was anticipated. Mr. Gusewell was turned back from Jan Smuts Airport, and then, if course, proceeded home to write a series of very critical articles about the Republic and its Government. This is what we got for it. There was the case of another journalist by the name of Friedman, who had a letter of accreditation and commendation from the present President of the United States. I took this up with the hon. the Minister of the Interior. The President, who was then Vice-President, said, recommending the application: “It would be my hope that the South African Government would give favourable consideration to the application.” I asked the hon. Minister of the Interior why this man was not admitted. He said that it was not in the public interest to give the reason. Sir, it is certainly not in the public interest to keep people out merely because they are journalists, merely because they come from the United States, merely because it is assumed that they may write critical articles. I think it does a lot more harm to keep them out than to let them in, because if we have anything to hide we shut them out—that is the conclusion they would jump to—if we have not, we would let them into the country. There was the case of the Claremore Quartet, touring Africa under the State Department’s auspices, and at its expense— as a goodwill gesture they wanted the Quartet to come to South Africa—harmless musicians, apparently, nobody knows any better or worse about them. The Minister refused them permission to enter. These are matters which I would like the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs to take up with his colleague in the Cabinet, to find out just what the purpose is of this kind of conduct when we already have, as has been admitted freely, that unfortunate reputation in the outside world which we would all like to improve, and which this Government will persist by its stubbornness in some cases, obtuseness in others, ill-will in yet more cases, in magnifying. Further, there is the matter that the hon. Minister of Information raised on Thursday in the debate on his Vote when, for no apparent reason that I know, he criticized me severely, not only for having undertaken a tour of the United States last year, but having said certain things there, and also on my return. I said, for example, when I came back—and he quoted this—summing up my impressions of our so-called image—

The hon. Minister was livid with me because I said it. The Minister disputed that statement of mine. Why is it then that a man who is persona grata with the Government—of course, I am not—a man who is invited to Groote Schuur—of course, I have not been there (recently), but I have hopes of getting there when the Government changes—why is it that a man who is persona grata to the extent that he, of all the people in the world, has been commissioned to write what is called a “sympathetic profile of Verwoerd” for the U.S. magazines, Time, Life and all that, who has said that he admires the Government and its Prime Minister and apartheid, can criticize without being attacked for it? When I said in November last that our image or our reputation stinks from one end of a certain country to the other, I am reviled as an enemy of the people; but when Mr. Stuart Cloete says, in March 1964, that “the name of South Africa overseas stinks”, there is not a word from the hon. Minister of Information! In other words, the question is: who finds the bad smell, who defines it? It is undoubtedly there. If Gorshel finds it, he is an enemy of South Africa; if Cloete finds it, that is all right. Furthermore, I said on my return that the Government, through its Department of Information, is “wasting millions on information”. I have said it. I have meant it, and I still mean it quite honestly, because the greater part of our allocation of funds being spent overseas is being spent futilely, is wasted. I said so when I came back, and I gave examples of how our Department could not even get a hand-out— the usual and regular Press release—into a Washington newspaper. When I say that, the hon. Minister of Information says in effect: “How dare you make this kind of attack on the Department?”, when all I am trying to do is to show them where the defects in the operation are, in order to make him correct the position. Here we come back to Mr. Stuart Cloete. What Gorshel says in November 1963 is a lie, but what Cloete says in 1964 is true. This is what he said—

When I say that they are “wasting millions”, why am I accused of being inimical to the Department? Why is it that five months after my statements, on my return, statements which I made in all sincerity. Mr. Stuart Cloete, a very well-travelled and well-known novelist, can make the same statements and then apparently they are acceptable and they are correct. I think that instead of Stuart Cloete following me as he has done in this connection, I should start following Stuart Cloete. Then what will the Minister say if I were to write “Turning Wheels”?

In the Committee Stage the hon. Minister made great play of the fact that Press reports referred to me as being a guest of the United States’ State Department, yet I was paying my own expenses. He dragged this matter into the argument. Here is the letter of authority, as it were (a photostat), from the Foreign Service of the United States of America, and it happens to say—I did not write it—“This is to certify that Mr. Alec Gorshel, M.P., member of the United Party in the National Legislature of the Republic of South Africa, former mayor of the major South African industrial city of Johannesburg, is a guest of the United States Government under the Voluntary Leaders’ Programme. His itinerary has been arranged by the Department of State. Mr. Gorshell is entitled to every courtesy as a distinguished visitor to the United States.” You may have a doubt about the use of the word “distinguished”. The letter says further that the costs of his visit are borne by Mr. Gorshel. What was wrong in the Press reports saying, as they did in America and elsewhere, that I was a guest of the State Department and that I was still paying my own expenses? This latter point must have pleased the American taxpayer more than the visit of the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller).

I have such a stack of evidence here, such a stack to show how inept is the operation, so-called, through no fault of the officials of the Department of Information in the United States, that I cannot possibly be expected to give all the facts now. It is for us, for this Parliament of the Republic of South Africa, to ensure that this Department operates efficiently, and it cannot do so as long as the hon. Minister takes the line that all is well because he has so many on his staff, he has a Budget of R3,180,000, and all that is expected of him is to report annually. There are greater things expected of a Minister of Information than merely the expenditure of money and the engagement of staff. What is expected is that where there is this bad image—and nobody denies that we have it in the United States— it should be corrected by Government policy and by ministerial action.

If Stuart Cloete’s view alone is not conclusive, mine obviously is not. Here then is an article by a British expert—I can give the hon. Minister a copy if he has not got it— in which he says, discussing “why the British Press is beastly to South Africa”—

Not my words, but there it is. Why don’t we sit up and take notice of this? Why don’t we do something about it, instead of accusing the people who bring this to the notice of the hon. Minister—like myself—of being unjust?We still have the same position in June of 1964—that the Department of Information, having failed to correct all the wrongs and mistakes committed, not by the officials, but by the Government, is faced with the same kind of “image” in America, if not worse. I have a cutting here from the New York Times of Sunday, 7 June—

Only eight days ago. It goes on to say that this speech was cleared by the State Department—in other words, it is the authoritative view of his Government—and just one sentence will convince you. Sir, that this is not a good “image” to have. It reads—

This is not my opinion. In conclusion. I sincerely hope that criticism levelled, firstly, in good faith, and secondly, on the bare facts of the matter, will be accepted in that spirit, and not in the “smalende” way that the hon. Minister “accepted” it from me, for one; and I say furthermore that there is ample justification for the wording of the motion moved by the hon. member for Yeoville—the Government is in fact inept, inefficient and inadequate.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) commenced his speech with a very unsavoury and personal attack on the hon. member for Vereeniging in his absence. I should like to voice my strong objection to this kind of personal attack which that hon. member makes, where he said that the hon. member for Vereeniging is no asset (not an ornament) to the Afrikaner nation. For my part, I want to say that I regard the hon. member for Vereeniging as someone of whom I am proud as a fellow-Afrikaner, and I am aware that those hon. members who criticize and vilify him in this way have a holy fear of him. They are very afraid of him and they seek to discredit him as much as possible in order to neutralize the strenuous attacks he makes on them from time to time. The hon. member for Hospital in all this speeches concentrates on saying pithy things, in such a way that the rest of what he wanted to say is lost. He just looks for something pithy to say and then he tries to find ideas which can fit in with it. His whole speech was larded with this type of pithy remark, and if one analyses it it has no substance.

The hon. member launched a great attack on the Department of Information because they do not do enough to set right the image of South Africa, the bad image which exists overseas. It is his right to criticize the Information Service and to point out mistakes and shortcomings, but I think it is only fair that he should also point out the reasons why this bad image of South Africa exists overseas, viz. the reports emanating from the so-called “stringers” in South Africa” the false reports about South Africa which are sent overseas. We would have expected him to say a few words of disapproval in that regard, but he said nothing.

The official Opposition has a duty and a responsibility towards South Africa, but what do they do? We find that they are busy developing a spirit which is very dangerous, a spirit of liberalism which is also permeating South Africa and which particularly prevails in those organizations and bodies which serve as a source of strength to the United Party and from which the United Party must seek its expansion potential. Now we find that in these organizations and bodies this spirit of liberalism is exerting a very strong influence. I want to mention a single example. You will remember, Sir, that just before we became a Republic a certain Nelson Mandela took the lead at a conference at Pietermaritzburg to urge that a national convention be held to draw up a multi-racial constitution for South Africa. That same person, who happens to be one of the persons who has now been found guilty in the Rivonia case, and who was the deputy-leader of the A.N.C.—and everybody knows by this time that the A.N.C. was a communist organization, and even after it went underground it continued to be communistic—also set afoot an organization to proclaim a country-wide strike of non-Whites in order to stop us from becoming a Republic. That failed, but when he had to become a fugitive as the result of his subversive actions the same Nelson Mandela managed to get his messages published continually in a certain section of our Press. He was supposed to have telephoned the editorial offices, and so doing full publicity was given to his attempts. But we remember that a then front-bencher of the Opposition, the hon. member for Wynberg, fully associated himself with the actions of Mandela and that he also insisted on a multiracial convention to draft a multi-racial constitution for South Africa. This action on the part of the organs supporting the United Party and their front-benchers, and particularly the speech last Saturday of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), have a very clear meaning to me if I look at an article which was published at that time, just before we became a Republic, in the Sunday Times, written by Stanley Uys—

That has now been given due meaning, these views of one of the worst liberals in South Africa, after the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville on Saturday, in which he violently attacked the Government because they are supposed to lock up the so-called political prisoners and do not give them the opportunity to exercise their political rights. Those people who are now in prison as the result of sabotage and other crimes are the people who wanted to hold this convention. It is the extreme liberals who insisted on the holding of this national convention, which amounts to nothing else, as now becomes very clear from the agitation by the Cape Times and the Rand Daily Mail,than that they want to see a majority government in the country. All these bodies and organs and persons are playing into the hands of the liberals who are exercising influence on the Opposition and already have a very strong influence on the Opposition. That is why I say the Opposition also has a responsibility towards this country.

The A.N.C. is communistic out and out and it was also protected by these newspapers which are the spokesmen of liberalism in South Africa. So we find that on 23 March of that same year, before we became a Republic, the Cape Times said the following in a leading article—

In that way this communist organization was protected by this newspaper, which is also one of the organs of liberalism which has an influence on the Opposition against which they should be warned that this organ is busy protecting the A.N.C. We also find that the same newspaper is busy propagating a multiracial government, and we saw that particularly recently when it had a quarrel with the Burger, and it does so deliberately, and it admits that a multi-racial government will mean that the majority of non-Whites will rule the country. It propagates it deliberately. We find the same phenomenon in the Rand newspapers, where there was also a quorum between the Star and the Rand Daily Mail. The Rand Daily Mail also propagates a majority government, i.e. a Black government. Those are the organs of liberalism whose influence is becoming stronger. But there are also other sources from which the United Party gets its inspiration and its strength. So we find that the Christian Council of South Africa, which consists of a large number of English churches, attacked the Government in regard to the 90-day clause, and they tried to give a Christian slant to the whole matter, but that same Christian Council quite forgot about its Christian spirit during the last war when Afrikaners were detained without trial indefinitely. Now it is so concerned about the rule of law where Bantu are concerned, but in those years when Afrikaners were concerned it was not concerned about the rule of law.

Another source from which the United Party draws its strength is the English-speaking universities. We find that at the Universities of the Witwatersrand and Cape Town there are no fewer than five listed communists on the staff, and there are also a large number of self-confessed liberals. Those are the people who have to give guidance to the future leaders of the United Party. In those universities we find various leftist organizations. In the 1950’s, after the Communist Party was banned, the Students’ Liberal Association was established, of which, inter alia, Goldreich, Wolpe, Hepple and Slovo were members. Is it surprising that such people received their training there and that these universities are the breeding-grounds of liberalism, when listed communists are on the staff? There is another one, the Human Rights Society.

Do you want to abolish the universities?

That hon. member, who is not a leftist, has a duty to raise his voice against the influence which is getting a hold on the universities where the children of the members of his party study. As I say, there is the Human Rights Society, of which the leader was a certain E. Hall, who is now serving six months’ imprisonment for promoting the objects of Communism. We find that the founder of this Association was a certain Ben Turok, who was also the founder or the chairman of the Congress of Democrats, the successor to the Communist Party, and he also is serving a sentence of imprisonment for sabotage. But it is not only these leftist organizations which flourish there and where liberals were deliberately trained at those universities, but we have also heard much about Nusas. We see the role which Nusas played at these universities. We now find that the United Party, through the hon. member for Yeoville, also takes this leftist organization under its wing, in spite of its connections with communist organizations overseas. In view of the fact that these leftist movements and the spirit of liberalism are so prevalent in the sources from which the United Party has to draw its strength, is it then surprising that the liberals already have such a hold on that party? Is it surprising that this Session has revealed that the liberals in that party have obtained a hold on that party and have come out with their ideas?

Who are they?

I am prepared to name them all, but I lack the time, and hon. members surely know them all. I say we are grateful that in spite of all these movements and the leftist influences in the sources from which the United Party draws its strength, and in spite of the spirit of liberalism which so strongly reveals itself in their own party, that there are still individuals in these universities who are calling a halt and are coming up in arms against this spirit of liberalism which exerts such an influence on those hon. members. We are grateful for it and we will give our fullest support to those Egnlish-speaking conservatives, and they can depend on our fullest protection.

The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Sadie) is extremely worried about the politics of students at our various universities. I have always believed that the primary function of a university was to get students to think. If they happen to think askew for a while, it does not matter very much, provided they come right in the end. I believe students throughout the world are much the same. I can remember the student union at Oxford taking a decision that it would not fight for king and country, but those who supported the motion fought as well as those who voted against it. I think the first public meeting I ever broke up was one, held by Mr. Sam Kahn when he was forming a party which the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) supported afterwards. But he changed his point of view, as I did mine. I believe in essence there is no harm in our students to-day. I believe that Nusas has the wrong leadership at the moment; we have repudiated it; we have made it quite clear what our attitude is. I think these young men and women are well able to put their own house in order, given the opportunity, and I do not think that hon. members opposite are doing the students of South Africa a service to make them think that they are so important that they are worthy of debate in this House. Sir, student politics has always been of an ephemeral kind; it changes from year to year, from month to month and from almost day to day, depending on the people who are there.

But, Sir, certain issues have been raised in the course of this debate, three of which I want to deal with very rapidly before I come to the main things I want to say in support of the amendment. The first is that suggestions have been made in the course of this debate that we on this side of the House refused to support the Government led by Dr. Malan when they wished to incorporate the protectorates in the Union of South Africa and that therefore we must carry some responsibility for the fact that those protectorates are not part of the Republic at the present time. Sir, I said while those suggestions were being made that certain of the members making those suggestions did not know what they were taking about, and for that reason I have looked up the amendment which was moved by the then Leader of the United Party, Mr. Strauss, to Dr. Malan’s proposal. What is interesting is that from correspondence between Dr. Malan and Mr. Strauss, the then Leader of the Opposition, in 1954—not in 1952 as has been indicated by hon. members opposite—it is clear that Dr. Malan orginally thought of proceeding in terms of Section 151 of the old South Africa Act. It is clear too that he was dissuaded from taking that course, and I think the then Leader of the Opposition did a service to South Africa in dissuading Dr. Malan from taking that course. Nevertheless the then Prime Minister came with his motion before the House, to which Mr. Strauss moved this amendment—

Then there are just two other matters to which I think the attention of the House should be drawn. I was the last speaker before the hon. the Minister replied and this is what I said—

Then, Sir, we have the reply of the then Prime Minister in which he said—

This was said by the then Prime Minister, Dr. Malan, “in that regard there is no difference of opinion”, and yet hon. members opposite come here and say that there was a difference of policy between us—

Then just one further passage; the then Prime Minister went on to say—

And, Sir, the proof of the pudding came in the eating because ever since 1925 it had been accepted that there would be consultation with the people of the Protectorates prior to any transfer. As the result of this motion what happened? We had a resolution in the House of Commons that there would be no transfer, not without consultation but without consent. That was the tragedy of the debate, which hon. members opposite are now trying to exploit for their own purposes. The tragedy was that as the result of the activities of hon. gentlemen on that occasion, those protectorates were placed beyond our grasp at that time, because whereas in the past it had been accepted that there would be consultation and consultation did not mean consent, the House of Commons passed a resolution that there would be no transfer without consent.

The second matter that I wanted to deal with is one which I felt should be mentioned before this House went into recess. Sir, we are reaching the end of the session, a most important session for South Africa but one in which we are still faced with a dark cloud of uncertainty hanging over the country because of the position in South West Africa. These events affect not only the Government but they affect the people of South Africa. Therefore I do not want to say anything to make that cloud darker or to complicate the problem even further, but I think it is wrong that we should go into recess without having some clarity on certain matters. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we accept that South West Africa has a peculiar international status. It does not belong to us as part of the Republic of South Africa. I think the second thing is that its people, its European population, are our people and their lives and their future are interwoven with those of the people of the Republic. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned our objective is to see the day when the people of South West Africa, of all races, appeal to us to become part and parcel of the Republic of South Africa. That would be evidence of a measure of self-determination which no one in the world could oppose. But, Sir, I want to warn this Government—and I am going to leave it at that—that by their race policies and by the poor relations that they have established with the outside world, they may easily create a state of affairs where our objective may become impossible.

Then there is a third matter, and that is that in the course of this debate there has been mention of the trial known as the Rivonia trial, which has ended in life sentences for eight of the accused and the acquittal of one. Attempts have been made to use that trial and what happened for political purposes.

By whom?

I am very glad to hear hon. members ask, “By whom?” How many members on that side of the House have not mentioned the Rivonia trial in the course of this debate?

Who mentioned political prisoners?

I want to say quite clearly that we of the Opposition want it on record, so that not only this House will know but so that the outside world will know too, that we are convinced that the verdicts in that trial were just, that they were necessary and that they were right in view of the actions to which the accused themselves pleaded guilty. Those findings were arrived at by one of South Africa’s great Judges, a man who has proved himself not only a learned jurist but a wise man. In his judgment he pointed out that these men were guilty of treasonable activity. I want to say that if I have any regret then my only regret is that they were not charged with high treason, and I have that regret for this reason that if the prosecution could have sustained such a charge—and I believe it could have done so in the light of what the Judge has said—the world would have understood the outcome of this case very much better than it does at the moment. You, see, Sir, our law of treason is based on the tested principles of Roman-Dutch Law, a wonderful combination of Roman juris-prudence and, if I may say so, Western European commonsense. It is perhaps a pity that the State preferred to bring charges based upon statutes passed by this Government since they came into power and not charges based upon high treason according to our common law, which is universal, eternal and well understood by the nations of the outside world. Sir, since attempts have been made at political capital in regard to this trial, I want to say that what concerns one is not the fact that these criminals were found guilty as the result of magnificent work by the police, on which I believe they are to be congratulated—I believe that that is entirely satisfactory—but what concerns one is that they seem to have had a significant degree of support from the voteless section of our population and that the conviction of these criminals was preceded, as the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) pointed out, by the conviction, either judicially or by executive action, of more than 1,000 people held at the present time in our jails in South Africa for offences of a kind which must be described as political. I want to say that that is a warning to South Africa. I believe that the matter to which we have to turn our minds during the recess is why South Africa should have such political unrest; why there should be such a large number of political crimes.

Because there are people who want to overthrow the constitutional government of this counry.

It is my sincere conviction—and I believe it is the sincere conviction of my party—that probably one of the major reasons for the support of this underground, political seething in South Africa is the fact that millions of people of South Africa are denied legitimate political outlets. You see, Sir, it is one of the axioms of political science that every government generates opposition in time. Wise Governments accept opposition: it is a legitimate part of the organization of this State; unwise Governments deny people opportunities for expression; they deny opposition, and that very often leads to attempts at illegal political expression.

Are you trying to justify their actions?

Oh no, I am condemning it out and out, but I believe that if you want the co-operation of these people, if you want their understanding, if you want them to work with you for the good of South Africa, you have to allow them some means of political expression instead of denying it to them. That is what you are doing; you have destroyed every means of political expression they had; except for the Bantu in the Transkei. What means of political expression have they?

What concessions do you want to make?

That is why I say that the contrast between the Government and the United Party and Opposition is that we believe that all races should have a voice in this Parliament. They should have a voice in the Parliament which controls their destinies and a representation commensurate with the standard of civilization they have attained.

Have Wolpe and Goldreich no representation in this House?

You see, Sir, the Government denies sections of the population such a voice, and I believe they are denying it at their peril and at the peril of the State. The hon. member asks whether Wolpe and Goldreich did not have representation? Of course they had representation. You will find rebels, communists, revolutionaries and the like in every state in the world. That does not worry me; what worries me is the fact that they got support. It is that that worries me. I believe that had we had another Government with a different approach we would have had a very different situation in this country.

Having dealt with those three preliminary matters, I now want to deal with certain matters in connection with our policy. There have been many attempts to compare the policy of the Government with the policy of the Opposition. The attempts in the past have been confined to a comparison between our policies in the sphere of race relations. I want to carry this comparison a little further to-day. I want to carry it a little further in support of the motion which is before the House at the present moment, a motion in which it is suggested that the Government, collectively and individually, are incompetent and unfit to govern South Africa.

I want to start by saying a word or two about agriculture. What has interested me so much, Sir, that while there has been consistent criticism from this side of the House of the agricultural policies of the Government at the present time, there has not been one informed reply to those criticisms from the Government benches during the course of this debate. There has not been one reply that has met the criticisms which have been launched from this side of the House. If I were to be asked to-day what the Government’s policies were in respect of the problems with which agriculture was faced in South Africa, what solutions the Government were offering, then I would be reduced to having to say I think their policies are fourfold. The first is fewer farms. They are managing that all right, Sir. I would say their second solution is a system of price manipulation, a system of price manipulation which has perhaps had its worse outlet in respect of the dairy industry and which has resulted in the fact that throughout the country to-day you see dairy herds of established old dairy farmers up for sale. And while that is going on in the country we have the position that butter and cheese have to be imported because we cannot meet the needs of our own people. I would say the third thing this Government was doing was that it was departing from the principles of the Marketing Act laid down by Statute. You see, Sir, we accepted under the Marketing Act that the farmer was entitled to his cost of production and a reasonable reward for his labour. But now we hear from this Minister that supply and demand have to be taken into account, that if the farmer wants economic freedom, he cannot have price support from the State. In other words, the hon. gentleman is departing from the principles of the Marketing Act. Go and read the report of the Mealie Board, Sir, and you will see how often “vraag en aanbod” is mentioned whereas it was not in the past. Their fourth solution is the solution they mention in the report of the Food and Agricultural Organization, namely, farm planning. For farm planning you need farm economists, you need agricultural economists. I believe the position at the moment is such that there are so few agricultural economists that if we are to proceed at the rate at which the Government has been proceeding over the past eight or ten years it would take at least 80 years to plan the farms of South Africa that are in difficulty at the present time. By contrast we on this side of the House have proposed alternative policies. We have asked the Government to accept that there are short-term solutions and long-term solutions; that there must be assistance to the farmers during the period when a change-over is necessary; that something must be done to build up internal markets. We have spoken to them about the importance of getting markets overseas; we have spoken to them about what was being done by the Australians in Japan and what was being done by Australia and New Zealand to take our dairy markets away from us in Rhodesia. Nyassaland and in the countries immediately to the north of us, despite the long haul to get their goods there. What have we had from this Government? We have had a lot of talk but nothing has been done.

We have had the further problem in which we differ from this Government. We have drawn their attention time and again to the fact that many farmers are leaving the land. We have asked them how they are going to resettle these people and their families? What is the Government going to do about them? In almost every civilized country in the world where this process is taking place it is regarded as a sociological problem for which the Government takes responsibility. When I was in the United States of America, I remember Professor Piston delivered a report on the Goals Committee for Americans, a committee specially appointed by the President. I remember his dealing with this very problem of how the agriculturist who has been forced off the land should be settled and what steps the State should take to see that he is dealt with as a sociological problem.

Only two years ago I was in Holland. In Hardenberg, in the Province of Overyssel, after the war, they found themselves in the position that that province had the highest birth rate in Holland—22 per 1,000 as opposed to the national average of 13 per 1,000; that that province had the largest number of unemployed; that they had the highest percentage of smallholdings; over 76 per cent of their holdings were under 10 hectare. What did they do, Sir? The Government tackled the problem and they reduced the percentage of the population in that province engaged in agriculture from 54 per cent in 1947 to 20 per cent in 1960 and they found work for those people who were forced off the farm in their own province. What is this Government doing about the same problem? They had land reform schemes in Holland, equivalent to our farm planning, but they had economists. They did the job properly. They went further and declared it a development area. There were liberal grants and subsidies for people establishing industries in that area. Now tell me, Sir, what have we got from this Government to meet the position of those farmers which this hon. Deputy Minister tells us are going to be forced off the land every year for the next five years. The furthest we have got was the hon. the Prime Minister talking about the Orange River scheme in the Other Place.

On a point of personal explanation, Sir, I never said they would be forced off the land. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was here on Saturday he would have known that I merely indicated that that was the tendency.

If the hon. gentleman wants to explain what he said I am perfectly happy. I am perfectly happy and I accept his explanation. But why should I quote that hon. gentleman? He is not an authority. Let me quote instead the hon. the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council. The only difference between the hon. the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs and the Economic Advisory Council is that the Economic Advisory Council says the farmers will leave the land at the rate of 2,600 per year and not 2,400 over the next five years. [Interjections.] What have we had from this Government? We have had statements from the hon. the Prime Minister in the Other Place about the Orange River scheme and possible resettlement of these people.

I come to another point where there is a difference of opinion which has appeared only too clearly during this Session. How is the manpower shortage being handled in this country by this Government? We have had the hon. the Minister of Labour telling us that he is doing his best with immigration, but that it is not adequate; that he is quite satisfied that it cannot solve the problem. We have the statement from the hon. the Prime Minister in an earlier debate in this House that the matter was still being studied and considered. That was five months ago, Sir. We have not got the answer yet. We do not know what they are doing. We have suggested that there should be a crash programme. We have suggested that this matter should be tackled. We said we felt job reservation should be done away with. We said we felt there should be even more activity in regard to immigration. We suggested five important matters that could be tackled by this Government. We suggested first of all that the salaries of the technical staff in our Civil Service, in our technical colleges and our universities should be increased so as to put an end to this drain on our brain power in South Africa. We said that steps should be taken to raise the salaries and to improve the position of our school teachers in South Africa to try to attract those back who had left the profession. We said further that we would relax discrimination against overseas professional qualifications as long as that was necessary to alleviate the crippling shortages. We suggested that it should be made a condition of all Government contracts, other things being equal, that the contracts should go to those firms which employed a certain percentage of people over 45 years of age. We spoke about the necessity of giving assistance to every child to continue his education to the maximum of his ability. What has been done, Sir? We have been talking about this now for more than a year. We have raised it in this House but not one single plan has come from the Government in respect of this matter.

Let us take another matter, the question of the siting of industry. The Government tell us they stand for decentralization. We also stand for the decentralization of industry. But there is no doubt whatsoever, Sir, that as far as the Government is concerned the emphasis is on border industries. Because there is an emphasis on border industries there has been a neglect of many of the underdeveloped areas. As a result of the emphasis on border industries and the preferences and advantages they are giving to many of those industries we find an adverse affect in certain of the existing areas. We find that there are restrictions on Native labour which is making industrial development difficult in certain areas. We are told that Bantu labour is going to be replaced by Coloured labour in the Western Cape. I wonder what inducement that is to industrialists to establish themselves here? We, by contrast, have suggested to the Government that if they want to decentralize industry, surely they should decentralize it to those platteland towns who are losing their population, those platteland towns where there is power, water, markets and means of transport. We pointed out what an economic stimulus that would give to the entire country. What have we had? We have had some of their experts, even a man like Dr. van Eck, talking in that direction. What has been done by this Government? Look at their record through this Session. We have raised this matter time and again. We were politely met but nothing happened.

They talk about establishing industries in the reserves. What industries have been established in the reserves in the nine years this Government has been on the job? But they still refuse to have White skill, White capital and White initiative in those reserves. Those industries must be established by the Bantu, they say and what has happened? Exactly nothing is happening, Mr. Speaker. Those industries are just not being established.

Let us take another matter, Sir. Take the steps to eliminate poverty in South Africa amongst all races. What has been the Government’s approach this Session, led by this stony-hearted Minister of Finance? What has it been? A minimum of relief, a harsh means test, the subjection of economic laws to ideological considerations, the acceptance of the idea seemingly that the poor will always be with us, reaping our com while it is green and not seeing to it that our young people are getting adequate and sufficient training. By contrast, Sir, we suggested that the means test should be relaxed, that there should be a national contributing pension scheme. When we suggested that we were told the Government could not afford it. When we speak of a national contributory pension scheme, supplemented by social pensions, we are told the Government cannot afford it. But what is his surplus? R 128,000,000, and it probably will be greater still by the time he has sorted it all out. What is being done from the point of view of assistance to the child for his education? We want to see a proper recognition of economic laws as opposed to ideologies. We want to see a more dynamic policy for industrial expansion, we want to see a greater recognition of the part that women can play in our economic life. Time and again we have said “equal pay for equal work for women”. We have asked for tax relief. What have we got? We have spoken about family allowances, and what have we got? We have spoken about a medical aid scheme. And what have we got from this Government? I said that if you start comparing policies, you begin to understand why it is we feel that this Government is not doing the job. Whenever one talks about the policies of the two sides of this House, one is always returned to Bantu Affairs, to race relations, because that seems to be the only thing that hon. members on the other side can talk about. I will not disappoint them. We are not afraid to meet them on that field.

I have compared in the past the dangers in the policies of this Government and the dangers in the policies of this side of the House, and I have shown very conclusively how much more dangerous is the policy of the Government than is the policy of this side of the House. In the course of this Session, I think, we have had two new issues emerging, and I think the first of those issues is the complete frustration we are finding today amongst the detribalized urban Natives. Some of them are being told that they will have a vote in a future Bantustan, some of them have been given a vote in the Transkei. They are settled here in our urban areas, Sir, They are completely detribalized. Mr. Speaker, we would like to see those people with a proper sense of function, we would like to see them feeling that they belong, that they have a function and that they are part and parcel of the machinery of the State. I think there is another danger which is developing, and that is this myth that the Government is going to manage to reverse the flow of Bantu from the urban areas back to the reserves in 1976 or 1978, or some other date in the distant future.

I want to say that all the evidence at my disposal and my own belief is that that flow will never be reversed under this Government, or any other government, and it will not be reversed in 1978 or at any other date. I think that the fact that the flow is still strongly in the other direction anct that it is growing in volume, exposes the complete hollowness of this theory of Bantustans, and is one of the main causes for the frustration which is attaching to the detribalized Bantu. At least under the policy which we advocate those people would have a stake in the maintenance of law and order. We believe they should have home-ownership in their own townships, in and around our industrial areas. Separate residential areas, but home-ownership. We believe they should have undisturbed family life. We believe we must consider again a system of pass exemptions. We believe that they should have the rights attaching to domicile, which has been taken away from them by the recent legislation of this Government. We believe steps should be taken to foster the emergence of a Native middle-class. We believe they should have a sense of belonging in the sense of function, that they must be given opportunities for political expression.

If you compare the policies of that side of the House with the policies of this side of the House what do you find? You find on that side of the House a barren government debarred of any new ideas in dealing with the problems with which we are faced at the present time. You find an Opposition, Sir, that for many years now has been pressing for changes which most reasonable men believe should be given. You find on that side of the House a Government which is unable to get the goodwill of the nations of the outside world because of the stubborn manner in which it is sticking to policies which are not in the best interest of South Africa, and which most of the world believes are going to lead to trouble and difficulties. We have on this side of the House a party which has taken its decisions in the best interests of South Africa, a party which believes that that will not only lead to more racial goodwill, quicker economic development and higher standards of living for everybody, but as an added pasella will get the goodwill of other portions of the world as well.

I have listened with very great interest to this great speech made here by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Sir, he comes along at the end of this debate and as usual he raises a large variety of points, and he apparently expects me, in the time that I have to use to reply to the whole debate, to deal with these points in detail. The hon. member reminds me very much of the Duke of Plaza-Toro, of whom Gilbert and Sullivan, as you know, said—

I am quite prepared to accept that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition finds it much less exciting to raise these matters here instead of raising them on an occasion when the Prime Minister or the Ministers whose policy he attacked here would have had the opportunity to reply to him.

Cannot you reply?

I only have an hour, and, after all, it must be remembered that all these matters concerning the particular policy of the various Ministers are matters which could have been raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when the Votes of those Ministers were under discussion.

We did raise them.

Then I can only say that this is merely a “re-hash” of what has already been dished up here before. I must confess that what he said here sounded a little familiar; I imagined that I had heard all those things here before, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now admits that that is correct! I just want to say to him that if he really wanted information from the Ministers concerned he had a full opportunity of obtaining that information in the course of this debate. Sir, I propose to reply to those points which do affect me but if he wants information in connection with matters falling under other Ministers he should rather try in the future to lead his regiment from the front and not from behind. I do not know whether excitement is bad for his health, but I think it might be a very good thing to introduce a little excitement into these debates! The debate now ends on this note! Is this the best that he can do to end a debate which has lasted nearly 13 hours on this note? I really expected something better. When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition decided to bat at the tail-end of his team, I thought we were going to see some spectacular batting on his part. Instead of that we had this rehash of old, hackneyed things that we have heard here time and again. I am really disappointed in the Leader of the Opposition!

They always sent in their weakest batsman last!

I must say that he was preceded by much better batsmen. But at least he can say that he did not take up his full time, and for that I am grateful to him. He simply gave himself out and started walking back to the pavilion.

Sir, there are just a few points that I want to deal with. A few general points have been made here which affect me more particularly and with which I want to deal for a moment. I come first to the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member also ventured on to the slippery path of finance. As you know, Sir, if you have any knowledge of skating, it is always a very difficult thing for an amateur to keep his balance when he skates on ice. The hon. member for Yeoville says that the Minister alleges that the surplus cannot be given back to the taxpayer because of the danger of inflation. What is the true position? Of this surplus of R128,000,000 R88,000,000 is being spent for the direct benefit of the taxpayer— R6,500,000, on taxation relief and R52,000,000 on Defence, R8,000,000, which otherwise would have had to be raised by way of taxation, is for general Government expenditure. R5.100,000 for increased pensions and R 16,000,000 for expenditure on Loan Account. Surely the expenditure of these amounts, which all come directly out of the surplus of R 128,000,000, directly benefits the taxpayers.

The only amount which does not benefit the taxpayer at the moment is this sum of R40,000,000. Of that sum, R20,000,000 is being deposited in the Special Defence Account. The taxpayer will not necessarily get the benefit of that amount this year but if he does not get it this year he will probably get it next year. That amount will be available for Defence expenditure and to that extent therefore it will not be necessary to impose higher taxation on the taxpayer. As to the balance which is not being spent at the moment, that is to say, the R20.000.000 which is being deposited in a Taxation Reserve Account, that amount has already been discussed by the House, it will not benefit the taxpayer immediately but it is being kept in trust for him and it will be given to him next year or when the time is ripe for it, when the fiscal and economic position is such that that amount can safely be given to him together with the other amounts.

An election fund.

It is in this connection that I referred to inflation. With all this expendiure which directly benefits the taxpayer I say that we have gone as far as we can safely go; we do not want to increase the danger of inflation.

I was dealing with the few clumsy points made by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) in connection with Finance. He said that I was scared of inflation. In this regard hon. members opposite make the most contradictory statements. Some members say that there is no inflation; others say that the danger of inflation is much greater than I realize. But the hon. member for Yeoville comes along and says in his wisdom that other countries like the U.S.A., for example, are giving, taxation relief without any fear of inflation. I want to point out that in the United States they have a single Budget, not two Budgets as we have in this country, a single Budget which covers all expenditure (both on Capital Account and on Current Account) to be defrayed from the normal Budget, and that fact makes a great difference as far as taxation relief is concerned.

The second point is that the level of taxation in the U.S.A, is infinitely higher than it is in this country and that is why they are under a greater obligation and under greater pressure to grant taxation relief. In the U.S.A, company taxation, for example, is 521 per cent in comparison with 30 per cent in this country.

Do they have the principle of apportionment there as they have in Britain?

No, I do not think so. We have heard a great deal about taxation relief that is going to be given in the U.S.A. I do not want to go into the question of personal tax, but as far as company tax is concerned they propose to reduce it within the next few years from 521 per cent to 48 per cent whereas in this country it is only 30 per cent!

The third difference is that in the U.S.A, there is a comparatively high degree of unemployment (between 5 per cent and 6 per cent) which greatly reduces the risk of inflation. They do not face the difficulty there of a possible bottleneck owing to a shortage of labour. They are anxious to solve their unemployment problem and that is why there is much less danger of inflation in the U.S.A, than there is in this country. But a further and a most important difference is that the U.S.A, is not as vulnerable as South Africa is as far as inflation is concerned. South Africa is a gold-producing country and any increase in costs caused by inflation could have a crippling effect on the development of our gold mines. I think I stated here last year that an increase of 25 per cent in the cost structure per ton of ore milled would mean that gold to the value of R 11,000,000 to R12,000,000 would remain underground, unexploited. As far as our industries are concerned it must be remembered that they have to compete in the foreign market and if there is a great increase in the cost structure of this country as the result of inflation, our industries which have to compete in the international market will not be able to maintain their present high level of exports. I say therefore that in this country the danger of inflation, because its consequences can be so much more serious, is so much greater.

A third point which the hon. member for Yeoville made was that the Government was not doing enough to help the farmers. Government members have already replied to this criticism but just to refresh the memory of the hon. member I want to refer him to the figures for 1964-5. Agricultural subsidies now amount to R40,000,000. This includes subsidies on fertilizers, butter, maize, wheat, fodder under the drought loan scheme, rehabilitation under the Farmers’ Assistance Act, loans for seed, fertilizer and fuel. This amount does not benefit the farmers only; to a certain extent it is also used to subsidize consumers’ prices, but the fact remains that many of these schemes were instituted to place the farmer in a better position in times of drought. I have also stated that out of this windfall we have specially set aside R2,000,000 for the raising of dam walls in the drought-stricken Northern Transvaal to make sure that there will be no repetition next year of the position which obtains there this year. Furthermore, there is the technical assistance given to farmers by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services at a cost of R22,500,000, which is much more than the amount spent 10 or 20 years ago. This represents direct assistance given to the farmers and it has enabled them to reduce their production costs per unit. These are all things which we have done for the farmers in this Budget. That is all I need say in reply to the hon. member for Yeoville. Perhaps the hon. member will see that he is better informed before he again ventures to deal with a subject in respect of which his knowledge is clearly very limited.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) said that certain hire-purchase institutions were evading the provisions of the Usury Act. Generally speaking the Government prefers to rely on free competition to protect the consumer from exploitation, but I am quite prepared to go into this matter and to see whether there are any grounds for departing from the general principle followed by the Government.

Mr. Speaker, you will forgive me for disposing rather hurriedly of these few criticisms on financial matters before I proceed to make a few general observations. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) made a few statements which also call for some comment. He said that decentralization of industry was being encouraged for political rather than for economic reasons. I want to tell the hon. member that both reasons are important. There are certain border areas which are eminently suitable for the establishment of industries, quite apart from the political aspect of the matter. In any event if the political objective is of the utmost importance to the future stability of this country —and I maintain that it is—then we are quite correct in encouraging decentralization to achieve that objective, but that is not the sole purpose of decentralization. The general policy, not only in this country but in other countries as well, when there are certain areas of the country in which opportunities of employment are scarce, is to establish industries in those areas rather than to shift the population in those areas to the existing industrial areas. That principle is one which is generally recognized and it is being applied at the present time in countries like England and Holland.

The hon. member then proceeded to make a rather strange statement. He said that the Government must declare war agains waste; so far I entirely agree with him. The Opposition found it necessary to criticize inefficiency in certain departments, including Finance. I have already said that we are investigating the point which they made here with regard to Finance. A tremendous amount has been done, by means of the merit system that we introduced and by applying O and M methods, to make the Public Service efficient and much more efficient than it ever was in the days when hon. members opposite were in power. Then the hon. member proceeded to make the allegation that the Minister should really have budgeted for a deficit; that it only encouraged waste to budget for a surplus! That was the proposition he advanced, but I do not think he will find a great deal of support for that proposition amongst economists because I think it is generally accepted to-day that deficit budgeting may in fact have the effect of encouraging inflation. That is what the hon. member wants, and what we want to do is to try to check inflation. I shall come in a moment to the reasons why I feel so strongly that every effort should be made to check inflation by means of fiscal methods. The hon. member then goes on to say that it is becoming more and more difficult to justify the retention of import control. I do not know whether he is aware of the extent to which import control has been relaxed over the past 12 months, but that fact will be brought home to him if he looks at our import figures and compares them with those of the previous year. We relaxed import control to such an extent that during the first four months of 1964 our imports were 27.7 per cent higher than they were during the corresponding period last year, in 1963, and 46 per cent higher than during the first four months of 1962. In actual fact import control is no longer a retarding factor. We have already seen what the effect of these relaxations has been on our reserves. We have relaxed import control to such an extent that in the past year our reserves have not grown to the same extent as they did in 1962-3.

Then the hon. member goes on to say that it is very difficult at the present time to justify the retention of exchange control. I do now know whether the hon. member has read what the Financial Mail says in this regard. The Financial Mail is not an authority which I frequently quote but, after all, anybody can be right once in a while! I do not know whether the hon. member has read what the Financial Mail says. Up to a year ago the Financial Mail held the same view as the hon. member, but it has now changed its mind completely; it now admits that under the circumstances of South Africa the best policy is to retain exchange control. This exchange control has also protected oversea investors with the result that at the present time over sea shareholders, practically without exception, are able to obtain higher prices for their South African shares overseas than they were able to get when exchange control was instituted in June 1961. In spite of this there is a considerable margin between prices on the London Stock Exchange and on the Johannesburg Exchange; the margin is about 20 per cent, and this is largely due to the strong demand for shares in South Africa. The abolition of control could have the effect of entirely disrupting the local share market, and that indeed is the crux of the argument advanced by the Financial Mail. Oversea investors have ample facilities for the repatriation of their money. I have referred on several occasions in the past to the various ways that we have offered to them to take their money out of the country if they wish to do so; that is to say, by selling shares overseas or by purchasing the special non-resident debentures locally. Good opportunities are available to them, and even if they sell their shares on the oversea market they can get a much higher price to-day than they were able to get when exchange control was instituted.

Lastly the hon. member referred to the restriction imposed on South African bank notes which may be taken out of the country by persons travelling overseas and to the refusal of the Reserve Bank to buy back the bank notes of oversea banks. He says that that is a poor advertisement for South Africa. I do not know whether it is a poor advertisement because I do not think it is necessary for any bona fide traveller to sell South African bank notes abroad. We allow them a reasonable amount that they can use upon their return to carry on with, but the amount that we used to allow offered an opportunity for the smuggling of capital out of the country, inter alia, by fugitives from South Africa. They took with them not only the permissible amount of R100 but more than that sum, and in this way they evaded exchange control. We have now closed this loophole. The harm that can be done by fugitives who smuggle capital out of the country outweighs any possible disadvantage to the Republic and its bona fide travellers, because we have seen already what they do with that money overseas.

I now come to a point which has frequently been made in the course of this Session and also in this debate, and that is that pensioners have had no share in the general prosperity that we have been enjoying in past years. I think it is just as well that I should set out the facts in this connection. I have figures here showing the increase per capitain the amounts received by pensioners as against real prices, which have been adjusted to allow for price fluctuations. Then I want to compare this increase per capita with the growth during the previous 15 years of our national income, which is the only effective test of general prosperity. I find that in 1947-8 the amount paid out for old-age pensions was R6,700,000. In 1962-3, 15 years later, the amount was R24,800,000. There are, of course, many more pensioners to-day than there were in 1947 and that is why I had these figures worked out on a per capita basis to ascertain how much our pensioners were receiving at the present time on a per capitabasis in comparison with 15 years ago. But I was not content to leave it there; I wanted to reduce it to the same price level because after all, there has been an increase in prices over the years. I therefore adjusted the figure to allow for price fluctuations. I find that in 1947 old-age pensioners received an average of R169 on a per capita basis. In the same year, on the same basis, the net national income was R222 per capita. Now I come to the position 15 years later, and I find that old-age pensions increased from R169 to R288 while the net national income per capita rose from R222 to R305. These figures already reflect a big increase, but in order to bring out this point even more clearly I asked my officials to work out the average rate at which pensions were increased and the average rate of growth of the national income, and I find that during these 15 years pensions were increased at the rate of 3.6 per cent per annum and that the national income increased by 2.1 per cent per annum. Sir, I am not satisfied with these figures; I should like both to be higher. I should like to see an increase in both the national income and in pensions, but the point I want to make is that pensioners have had more than their share in the general prosperity of this country over the past 15 years. That is clearly borne out by these figures. I am not at all satisfied with the present pension, but we must remember that there must be some relationship between pensions and the national income, although over these 15 years—not every year but on an average—we find that on a per capita basis there was a bigger increase in pensions than there was in the national income.

Will the Minister give us a similar comparison with regard to the means test over this same period?

The means test has been taken into account in both cases. But let me give the hon. member another comparison. We admit that there has been a considerable increase in the wages of the average worker employed in industry. I only have the figures for five years as from 1959 but I find that during that period there has been an average increase of 3.7 per cent per annum in the wages of White workers employed in industry. I have not had an opportunity to work out the figure for the same period of 15 years but it should be considerably higher. This figure does not include the best years as far as the wages of industrial workers are concerned. But during the same period pensions have been increased by 3.6 per cent per annum. I think we must get away from the idea that the pensioner has not shared in the general prosperity. No evidence has been adduced to support that allegation. That general prosperity is reflected in the increase in the real national income on a per capita basis, and I say that on the same basis there has been a bigger increase in pensions, a fact for which I am thankful. [Interjection.] Sir, I cannot reply to further questions because my time is very limited and I still have a wide field to cover.

Hon. members have taken me to task for feeling so strongly that we should do nothing to hamper our economic growth or to fritter away our prosperity or to endanger our financial stability. The reason—and I think that should be the reason of every one of us—why I am so anxious that our economy should remain healthy and that we should retain our financial stability is that I realize the importance of a strong economy to our country in times such as these. It is always important, of course, but at this stage it is absolutely essential for our survival. That is why I am so obsessed with this idea. I do not want to go into details but let me just put this point to hon. members: If it had not been for the growth of our national economy and the improvement in our standard of living we would certainly not have succeeded to the same extent in maintaining industrial peace in this country and in combating the activities of agitators. This fact is one which is of tremendous value to us under present-day conditions and it is a fact which is also appreciated by our enemies. It seems to me sometimes that our enemies appreciate it better than some of our own people in South Africa who want me to spend money recklessly and endanger our financial stability. And it is because our enemies realize this that they are making these desperate attempts to undermine our economy because they know that if they succeed in undermining our economy it will be so much easier for them to prey upon us and that we will not be in such a strong position then to defend ourselves against aggression as we are at the moment. That is why they realize how important it is to try to break down our economy.

I cannot help coming to the conclusion when I think of this debate and of what has happened during this Session that the reason why the United Party frequently adopt an unSouth African attitude is because they are obsessed with the idea of denigrating the National Party and of running down and embarrassing the Government. I want to mention just three examples of what has happened during the course of this Session. I refer in the first place to the hon. member for Musgrave who on one occasion put certain questions to the Government, with the obvious object of embarrassing the Government, with regard to the conquered area in the Free State; he wanted to know whether this area would be handed over to Basutoland.

The hon. member for Musgrave never said anything of the kind.

Pardon me, it was the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman). Why does he ask that sort of question? Does he think it will do South Africa any good? The only object of the question is to attempt to embarrass the Government but the effect of it is to put all sorts, of conquest ideas info other people’s minds. They forget about South Africa’s interest; their sole idea is to embarrass the Government and to bring the Government to a fall. Then there is also the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). One would never have expected this from the hon. member but he read out lengthy extracts here from the judgment in the case of The Starv. Die Transvaler which was heard almost 20 years ago. Why? What useful object can it serve? This is an opportunity which the outside world will once again be able to grasp —because they do not realize how many years ago this all happened—to say that the Prime Minister of South Africa is a Nazi. That is the effect of it; I do not know whether that was the object.

It was said because we were accused of being traitors to South Africa.

But why was it necessary to read it out here? The third example I want to mention is what was done here this afternoon by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) when he tried to make excuses for the saboteurs. He says that they are guilty, of course, but that they were driven by the laws of this Government to do what they did.

Do you deny that?

Sir, if the Governments of other countries, hostile or otherwise, were to use this argument, if they were to say that the sentences in the Rivonia case are unfair, because they assume that what the hon. member for Durban (North) says is correct, and that these people were forced to do what they did, one could still understand it, but in making this point the United Party are only trying to score a debating Point—and that is my accusation against the Opposition. All they are trying to do is to denigrate the Government. That is my accusation against the United Party. They are out to do one thing only and that is to see how they can disparage and embarrass the Government. There are many other examples that I could mention but I leave it at that.

I want to say a few words now with regard to the amendment which has been moved here and which says, amongst other things, that the Government have shown themselves to be collectively and individually incompetent and unfit to govern South Africa as a modem and developing State. Mr. Speaker, the United Party are really becoming pathetic.

We may be becoming pathetic but you are pathetic already.

Just imagine their coming along with such an amendment! However, perhaps one should not judge them too harshly. We should really be sorry for the United Party. After all, they have lost seat after seat since 1948, and they now find that they are losing all the props which are supposed to support their policy. There was a time when the Federation of Central Africa was held out to us as a model …

That is untrue. [Interjections.]

… as a model of conditional political integration—not necessarily the details of it, but they certainly held out the idea of a conditional political integration to us as an example. But this prop which was supposed to support their policy was kicked out from under their feet. They then pointed to Cyprus and said, “Look, after years of discord and strife, that has proved to be the solution in Cyprus”. And the policy in Cyprus is nothing but a sort of race federation policy. But this argument of theirs, this prop, was kicked out from under their feet equally cruelly. [Interjections.]

Order!

They then came to the Bantu homelands policy and used the argument—an argument which they are still using to-day—that we were establishing eight small Cubas. But when one looks at the development of the protectorates which are developing much more rapidly towards independence than our homelands …

Whose fault is that?

… when one looks at Basutoland, which is going to become independent in the near future, one finds that this argument about eight small Cubas is nothing but a farce; there is no substance in it. [Interjections.] As far as I know they have never rejected it. So far they have submitted no petition to the British Government. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, when I listen to hon. members on the other side, I wonder whether it might not be a good thing to read out to them a letter which appears in this evening’s Argus. The writer of this letter says—

[Interjections.]

Who signed it? [Interjections.]

Order!

It does not matter who signed it. There are many other passages in this letter which are very interesting, but the point is that the man who expressed these sentiments is not the only person who feels this way; he is just an example of many others who think exactly as he does. But the hon. member comes along with an amendment which says that this Government is incompetent. I think perhaps I should quote a few further extracts from the letter from which I have just quoted. The writer goes on to say—

He therefore includes the Opposition—

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that if ever there was an amendment which is applicable to the Opposition, it is this amendment.

May I ask you a question?

No. Unfortunately I have a limited amount of time at my disposal. My time is not unlimited. [Interjections.]

Order! Do hon. members want to make a farce of the proceedings this evening? I appeal for order in the House, and that applies to both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I have already said that we should really feel sorry for the Opposition. I am still sorry for them. But when I read in this amendment what they say about this Government, when I think of what the vast majority of the voters of South Africa think of the Government and in what light they regard the Opposition as an alternative Government, then I say that this amendment is an autobiography of the United Party because they are the people who are “collectively and individually incompetent and unfit to govern South Africa as a modern and developing state and to lead South Africa through the difficulties that beset us both internally and externally”. Those words aptly describe the United Party, and this debate has convinced me more than ever before that what they have tried to attribute in this amendment to somebody else, in an unconscious admission of guilt, actually applies to the United Party. It is with great confidence therefore that I move that this Bill be now read a second time.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—69: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker,.H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout,G.P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. L; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; Dönges, T. E.; Faurie, W. H.; Fouche, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A.H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, A. I.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mulder, C. P.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Odell, H. G. O.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—44: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje,F.J. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield,G.N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.;Timoney, H. M.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a second time.

Bill not committed to Committee of the Whole House.

I move—

I do not intend occupying the time of hon. members with a long introductory speech. If there are any points which I do not cover sufficiently in this introductory speech I shall be only too pleased to do so at a later stage. On this occasion, however, I should just like to explain briefly a few new principles contained in this Bill.

The most important one of those is the one which deals with the members of the Citizen Force and Clauses 1 to 4 and 6 to 14 deal with that. The present balloting system has been put to a severe test ever since the Act was passed in 1957 and it has now been found necessary to effect certain amendments in order to allow that military machinery to function more smoothly. Due to the fact that a citizen has to register during the month of January of the year within which he turns 17 and usually starts his training in the succeeding year, there is not enough time to comply with all the prescribed procedures relating to balloting and in addition give the citizen reasonable notice that his name has been drawn and the date on which he has to report for training. Administration becomes difficult and parents often complain that notification at the end of the year to the effect that the son must report for training early the next year creates problems in regard to plans for his academic or professional training. It has consequently been decided that citizens must register in the first quarter of the year in which they turn 16.

A new principle now follows. In terms of the existing Act the Exemption Board only has power to grant a postponement from balloting on application by a citizen or by somebody acting on his behalf or to agree not to include his name in the ballot list. After the balloting has taken place his training can only be postponed; he cannot be exempted from training. The result is that there is often duplication in that a citizen whose application for postponement or omission from the ballot list was refused again applies at a later stage for his training to be postponed on the same grounds. It also often happens that the circumstances of a citizen after his name has been drawn in the ballot change in such a way that to postpone his training really offers no solution; but the board has no power, as the law stands at the moment, to grant exemption from training in such circumstances.

The following is envisaged in terms of the proposed amendment:

1. (a) As I have already said in future a citizen will be obliged to register in his 16th year although, as at present, he will only undergo training in his 18 th year. That gives the Department of Defence an additional year in which to draw up the ballot lists, do the balloting itself, consider applications for postponement or exemption from training, allocate and notify the citizens, etc. Administration will consequently be facilitated and citizens will have certainty at a much earlier stage as far as their military training is concerned.
2. (b) In future no one will be able to apply that the inclusion of his name in the ballot list be postponed or omitted from the ballot list; Section 66 of the Act which provides for that, is being deleted completely. Instead of that a citizen whose name has been drawn in the ballot may now apply for postponement or exemption from training. The Exemption Board is now given the power to grant exemption from training, i.e. before a citizen has actually commenced his training. The amendment does not in actual fact, therefore, detract from the existing rights of a citizen. As a matter of fact it is definitely in his favour.
3. (c) Because the procedure relating to the postponement of the inclusion of a name in the ballot list or the omission of such a name is being done away with the names of all the citizens who have registered for training in the year concerned will be balloted and consequently the requirement that preliminary ballot lists be drawn up and posted up in magistrates’ offices falls away. As hon. members will remember the object of preliminary ballot lists was to notify citizens that their names will be subject to balloting and in order to give them an opportunity of submitting their applications for postponement or omission from the ballot list. That will no longer be necessary in future.
4. (d) In future the Exemption Board will also have the power, instead of granting exemption from training, to order that the member concerned be assigned to a commando. It often happens that a member for some bona fide reason or other cannot undergo the nine months Citizen Force training or complete it, while there is no reason why such a member cannot undergo the uninterrupted service prescribed for commandos, namely a maximum of 21 days in any one year. If the power of the Exemption Board is limited only to granting exemption from Citizen Force training in such cases members who are exempted in that way will completely escape military training unless provision is made in the Act in terms whereof they are forced to serve in the commandos.

Mr. Speaker, since the publication of the Bill doubts have been expressed in various circles about the advisability of effecting the amendment envisaged in Clause 15 of the Bill and on further consideration I have therefore decided not to go ahead with the amendment to Section 83 of the Act. I shall, therefore, move in the Committee Stage that the clause concerned be deleted.

Legal power is granted in Clause 16 for the establishment of a fund from which all medical expenses incurred by Permanent Force pensioners, their families and dependants, will be defrayed. During his term of office a member will pay in an amount monthly, an amount which must still be decided upon on consultation with the Treasury, until he retires on pension from service. After his retirement he, his family and dependants will receive free medical treatment. For example, members who will retire shortly will first have to pay in a certain amount which has not yet been decided upon yet before they will be entitled to share in the facilities envisaged. I may just add that in the Police Amendment Bill a similar fund is envisaged for members of the South African Police Force.

The following and final clause I wish to refer to is Clause 17. I may just mention that sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the General Law Amendment Act of 1963 provides that if anybody should, without the permission of the person in charge of a place or area which has been decaired to be a protected place or area, enter such a place or who being inside such a place commits an offence, can be sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment. In terms of sub-section (1) of Section 89 of the Defence Act the Minister of Defence may also prohibit or limit any person from entering such a military camp, barracks, shipyard, etc. by way of an order signed by him and published in the Government Gazette. Although the object of these provisions in the General Law Amendment Act and in the Defence Act is precisely the same as far as this aspect is concerned, it is provided in the first mentioned Act that a sentence of imprisonment of a maximum of 16 years can be imposed in contrast to a sentence of R200 or 6 months’ imprisonment in the case of the lastmentioned Act.

The object of the amendment set out in Clause 17 of the Bill before the House is therefore to obtain uniformity of punishment for the same offence.

I am afraid we on this side cannot go all the way with the Minister in his brief approach to the second reading of this Bill. But the Minister has, however, done quite a lot to clear the passage for this Bill by proposing to remove a certain clause. That Clause 15 was one of the main objections we had to this Bill but it having now been moved out of the way, the position has been decidedly eased. I want to point out however that this Bill is a fairly complicated piece of legislation. It applies to from 16,000 to 20,000 odd young fellows who each year will be called up for training. This Bill, if adopted, will also constitute a portion of our permanent defence legislation and consequently it requires very close examination even at this late stage of the session. We must make sure that what we place on the Statute Book now will not need still further amending, at least not in the near future.

The Minister himself has explained that a number of the provisions in the Bill before us have become necessary as the result of experience gained in the general build up of our defences and by the rapid and extensive defence expansion that has been necessary. Under those circumstances it could be expected that flaws would show up, especially as our existing legislation did not take into account such extensive development. So it can be said that these amendments deal primarily with defects which have shown themselves in the present legislation and aim at the smoother working of our defence legislation. Apart from the clauses in the Bill aimed at rectifying these defects, there are also clauses dealing with changes in the established procedure and organization to one of the most important features of our defence legislation, i.e. to the system under which trainees are called up, the general procedure they have to follow and particularly the grounds on which they can submit applications for deferment or exemption. This is a matter which is exercising the minds of quite a number of young people whose careers are being held in abeyance for the period they have to undergo military training. It is also a matter which has been exercising the minds of their families. It has been found necessary to make certain adjustments to the ballotee system itself, adjustment because of the experience which has been gained in the call-up scheme for trainees. But apart from this aspect, the Bill is also attempting to ease difficulties being experienced in certain phases of defence administration, difficulties which are the result of extra pressure, exceedingly heavy pressure in cases, placed on an organization which has not been able to develop as quickly as one would have hoped or as quickly as it was expected at the beginning to do in order to keep pace with the expanding trainee system itself.

The Bill deals with two types of trainees. In the first instance there is the ballotee trainee who is being called up as a result of being drawn in a ballot. The Minister has explained the changes in this respect in regard to age groupings. There will now be a longer time lag between registration and the date of actually reporting for duty. A time lag which must be to the benefit of both the defence administration and of the trainee himself, because a longer time is now available to deal with formalities, particularly those lads who feel they have a right to apply for an exemption and consequently must submit a number of forms. Hitherto these formalities have had to be completed in a very short time. This has been causing difficulties and even resentment to a certain extent amongst the people affected. It is now proposed by this Bill to lengthen this period an consequently a much easier approach will be possible because much more time will be available to dispose of all the necessary formalities. It will also be possible for the trainee himself to know well ahead of the time that he is due to report for training what the decision in his particular case is, i.e. whether he still has to go forward or not.

One other practical difficulty which has been experienced and where a welcome improvement is proposed by this Bill, is dealt with under Clause 2. That provides that a trainee may now be exempted where something unforeseen develops in connection with his home responsibilities. There is no provision in the existing defence laws to deal with such a situation. There is, for instance, the case of a lad who, as a result of a sudden death in his family, has to return home to take up the responsibility for the maintenance of the family. Hitherto it has not been possible to exempt that lad from the rest of his training period. Now, hoever, provision is made for that. This provision therefore meets a flaw in the existing legislation and will make for a smoother working of administration between the trainee and the defence authorities.

Another important provision is the one whereby a trainee, instead of getting a deferment or an exemption, can now be drafted to a commando in order to complete the unfinished portion of his military time. In other words, the commando system is being used for such trainees to work off their commitments to defence and thereby avoid a heavy interruption of his studies such as would have been the case had he obtained a deferment and had to make up the entire period at a later date.

Only at the rate of three weeks per year.

Yes, but it does not constitute such a continuous interruption in the lad’s normal life.

It will not be spread over a longer period.

But the proposed amendment does aim at making an improvement in this direction. This is another improvement which we can accept because it remedies harshness under the existing legislation.

One of the most important provisions of this Bill flows from the setting up of the Exemption Board under the Minister of Labour and which now forms a part of the trainee system. It is now being laid down fairly clearly, the grounds under which a trainee may apply and expect to receive exemption. These are generally well-founded grounds, mainly connected with the domestic affairs of the individual concerned, or with his education. Hitherto an application for deferment was in the nature of a ticket in a lottery sweep because the individual who wants to apply for exemption was never sure what would be the best grounds to go for. Consequently he was never sure of his fate. Now it is proposed to take into account interruption of studies— whether they be university studies, studies for matric or technical studies. These matters will in future be taken into account. What is more, in Clause 13 the various grounds are set out on which a trainee can apply for exemption, and that, together with the longer period he now has available within which to apply, must assist those lads who feel they have justification for applying for a deferment or exemption. There is however one aspect of this in regard to which I should like to have the Minister’s attention Let me say at this stage that this Bill has been published quite a long time ago and consequently we have had ample time to study it. Now, one of the reasons for exemption aims at the avoidance of calling up students who have either just commenced, or are in the course of their studies for a degree of whatever professional qualification they may want to attain. In many cases these young men are equipping themselves for vocations constituting key positions in any modern defence force. If ever they should be forced to go into action, they may be in a position to provide the scientific and technical background on which the force itself depends in respect of so much of its equipment and type of action. Consequently it is important that their studies should not be interrupted. It seems to me therefore that, particularly in view of the provisions of this Bill, somewhere along the line there has been a pretty serious slip up, because over the last couple of weeks a very large number of students, some of them already in their final year of study and others in their second year, have received call up notices after having been granted exemption for the first or second year of their training period. Take the engineering section alone of the University of Cape Town. There something like 20 students, some of them already in their final year of study, who have received deferments previously, have received notification at the end of April that they had been drawn in the ballot for continuous training this year. I want to make it clear that exemption has previously been granted on a yearly basis and accordingly they have to apply again at the end of each year. In any event, these students received notification just after the long weekend in April that they had been drawn in the ballot for this year and were asked to report the date on which they desire to be called up. Naturally that caused some consternation amongst the chaps who are undergoing university training.

Does it not say “this day six months”?

No, they were asked to give the date on which they desired to be called up. There was not even the latitude of “this day six months”. They naturally reapplied for exemption. They rightly thought this way a formal matter and that they could reapply. What has happened in fact is that they have now been notified that they have been drawn in the ballot and instructed to take their medical examinations. In fact, a large number of them have already taken their medical examinations. That seems completely contrary to the spirit of the existing and proposed legislation and certainly contrary to the principle on which we understood the principle of exemptions would be applied. From information received it appeared that this situation did not only apply in the case of universities in the Cape but also to universities in Natal and to certain of the universities in the Transvaal. I would ask the hon. the Minister whether he would have the position examined with a view to putting right any slip-ups which may have occurred. There can be nothing more disturbing to these chaps who are at university, especially those in their final year, to be suddenly notified: You have gone so far but you must now drop your studies and do nine months’ continuous training after which you can go back to university. The Minister, knowing the many key positions these qualified young men from universities will be called upon to occupy in defence, is I am sure anxious to see that no such slip-ups should occur. If the Minister finds the culprit I would suggest that he gives him nine months continuous training; it might make him a little bit more careful next time. But it does seem a pretty bad slip-up in organization to have taken place at this stage.

I want to deal with trainees in general. Many of the provisions of this Bill deal with the various facets of the trainee call-up. Among the total number of lads who are registered at the beginning of every year, there is a fairly large surplus, if I may call it that, between the number who are finally required to serve and those who, because of registration and age, have to take their place in the ballot. We know that industry in general is suffering from an acute manpower shortage and the position is no different in the case of defence, a manpower shortage particularly of the type of young men who have had fairly advanced training to fit into the various facets of defence, in which it is required for them to be trained to-day. I want to ask whether it is not possible, in applying the call-up provisions, to use that surplus of registrations to some extent as a cushion, so as to ensure that those who are called up are not put in blind-alley occupations. In other words they must be used to the best advantage of the particular career they are going to adopt. Cannot they be used in that particular, field of defence so that while they are doing their training …

Why do you say the surplus?

No, I am saying the surplus must be used so that as far as possible you do not take into defence, and call up for ordinary infantry training, for example, boys training for key positions say engineering or medical. Rather than training them for basic military defence they will be of greater value to our national defence if they are allowed to complete their technical calling and to get proficient in that. We have a fairly big cushion that we could use for that purpose. Those who have to be called up should be diverted into the particular line in defence which coincides with the profession they intend to take up or the profession they have been studying. It is a two-way benefit. Defence gains by the knowledge they have already acquired and they gain by the fact that during their training, apart from their basic military training, they can concentrate on the type of work they expect to take up when they have finished their military service. I know this may be difficult to carry out in practice but I think it is a matter which is well worth consideration, especially with the new board which will now operate more actively. It will mean a certain amount of screening before they are finally balloted into the army. To take it back to a war-time simile it really means that certain lads—similar to the keymen in industry in those days— will get some form of automatic exemption or be drafted into the commandos where the call on their time is not so great.

The third alternative, of course, in the case of university students is to develop as fast as possible their own particular units, units in which the trainees from that university, after their basic military training, can do a considerable portion of the rest of their call up period, fitting that military training in with their professional university studies, thereby benefiting in both directions, themselves and national defence.

The Bill also makes provision for those young men who for conscientious reasons object to any service in the armed forces. Let me say at once, Sir, that we appreciate the Minister’s difficulties in dealing with this type of case. It is recognized throughout the world as one of the most difficult cases one has to deal with. This Bill now provides that where a lad objects, on religious grounds, to serve in a combatant capacity, he can serve in a non-combatant capacity. But even that is not going to solve the problem altogether. Far be it for me even to offer a solution at the moment.

The only thing you can do is to sit next to me and look over my shoulder.

I would try that if it would help. In my own constituency I have one such case. There are four lads in the Peninsula today who have already undergone a prison sentence rather than take up military training in any capacity at all. I have tried to reason with one. I have tried to persuade him to serve in a non-combatant capacity but he insists that in accordance with his own religion and scruples he is not permitted even to do that. These lads are probably facing or already undergoing a second term of imprisonment. No matter how one feels personally about the matter, I do not think one can continue to put them in prison. The provision in this Bill is the one which is usually adopted in most countries, an opportunity to serve in a non-combatant capacity, say in the medical corps, where they can in effect remedy the effects caused by the armed side of the forces to which they object. But if their religious scruples and their consciences will not even permit them to do that I do not think one can go on indefinitely sentencing these boys to imprisonment. I am handing it over to the Minister and his advisers to try to devise a remedy and a remedy will have to be found. Sir.

A marked improvement with which we on this side of the House are in full accordance is the proviso contained in Clause 14. This clause provides that nobody will be compelled to commence his military training before reaching the age of 18. Under the old system they could be a bit younger. We feel that this is a step in the right direction and that 18, if it is still not old enough, it is just across the border from being too young to commence military training. It also allows at least one year to elapse between the earlier stages of registration and the time they are being called up for service.

The hon. the Minister referred to a medical benefit scheme provided for in the latter stages of the measure in respect of the Permanent Force and their families. I do not propose to enlarge on that but I understand that this medical benefit scheme is being introduced as a result of the recommendations of the Byrack Commission which has sat on this matter. It is on all fours with the police scheme. Certain suggestions will be made by other speakers on this side where we think certain improvements can be effected. But in general, as far as we are concerned, we are wholeheartedly in support of such a scheme. We believe that it is long overdue. We also believe that it is one of the steps of the many we have advocated which will provide that security in the forces generally that will attract people to take up the Air Force the Navy or the Army as a permanent profession. It gives them that additional security. It provides for the pensioner from a certain date as well as the man still serving. Certain of the benefits can be continued to be enjoyed after the man goes on pension. We also believe this scheme will encourage people to serve in the forces and to remain there instead of joining in the manpower wastage which takes place, much to our disappointment, at the present time. I know the hon. the Minister has said in the House before that he cannot compete with industry. Well, I suppose he cannot compete in hard cash but these are the sort of things where he can compete and help to retain the people.

There were two provisions in the Bill about which we were not too happy. The hon. the Minister has already removed one—Clause 15. But in terms of Section 67 of the original Defence Act it is provided that not later than the 15th day of April in each and every year the Minister has to publish in the Government Gazette the number of persons to be called up for citizen force training in the ensuing year. In terms of Clause 9 of this Bill it will no longer be necessary for the Minister to publish that information. I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister will give us the reasons for deleting that provision. The publication of that information was not just useless information. Especially in these days of manpower shortage the publication of that information is very valuable to other people interested in the general manpower pool which is provided by school-leavers. It gave them information as to the reserve pool which was left to them to draw on after the requirements of Defence had been met. That information will in future no longer be available. Because of the restricted labour pool to-day the information is very valuable, and it is also a valuable check on Defence demands and a brake on any unnecessary tying up of labour beyond the limit which can satisfactorily be employed by Defence. When I say “satisfactorily employed” I take into account all the facilities such as training, accommodation and all the rest.

This refers only to volunteers.

Well, the volunteers form a portion of the general labour pool. Even if it is only in respect of those who volunteer it does give that additional information to outside industry. At the moment we see no reason why the publication of that information as originally provided in the parent Act should not be continued. We are however prepared to wait for the Minister to give us the reason. If we think it is still necessary to publish that information we shall move an amendment in the Committee Stage to have such a provision restored in this Bill.

The hon. the Minister’s explanation in regard to the withdrawal of the promotion Clause 15 has eased the position on this side of the House considerably. It has removed objections which we might otherwise have raised to the Bill. With these few remarks and those to be made by other members on this side of the House I should like to assure the hon. the Minister that as far as we are concerned we shall not oppose the passage of this Bill.

I want to express my appreciation for the speech which has just been made by the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay). I must say that it is encouraging that the hon. member has such an objective view of this Bill. He raised no fundamental objections to this Bill. In other words, the hon. member for Simonstown has, as it were, supported this Bill. He asked the hon. the Minister for information in connection with minor matters here and there and I am sure that the hon. the Minister will give him that information. I think that this is probably the first occasion on which no fundamental objections have been raised by the Opposition in connection with a defence Bill.

That is nonsense.

And so we have this Bill to-day which will stand on solid ground when it reaches the Statute Book. There is nothing doubtful about this Bill. When we have the position in which the Opposition support a Bill it is not necessary to discuss that measure at any great length. When we agree on everything it is not necessary to carry on a long debate on the Bill. I do not blame the hon. member for Simonstown. As the leader of the defence group on the opposite side and the person who has introduced the debate on that side, he has acted quite correctly in going into detail and in pointing out in which respects this Bill is an improvement over the old Act and in which respects he thinks minor changes can perhaps be effected. We are on solid ground as far as this Bill is concerned, Mr. Speaker. In the past we were always faced with this difficulty that if a person was a member of the Citizen Force and found that he could no longer fulfil his obligations in this regard, trouble arose. This Bill now makes provision whereby such person can be transferred to the commandos. We now, as it were, have cooperation in this regard. This person who can no longer remain a member of the Citizen Force will now not be lost to the country as far as his services are concerned because he will be given military training in the commandos.

The hon. member for Simonstown referred to students. This Bill makes provision for the exemption of students and medically unfit persons from military service. I am very pleased that in terms of this Bill everyone will be called up by means of the ballot system and there will be no exemption from the ballot. Everyone will be balloted and those who are then called up for service because of that ballot will then be able to apply to the Exemption Board if they cannot undergo their service for some reason or other. That Board will then be able to grant exemption if it considers the granting of such exemption to be justified. I do not think that there is anyone in this House who has not already been approached to try to obtain exemption for a person who has been balloted. That-difficulty will now disappear. Such person will now know that he may be balloted and if he is balloted and it is impossible for him to serve, he can apply to the Exemption Board for exemption.

I think that this Bill will place our defence system on a very sound and solid foundation in the future. I repeat that I am pleased that the hon. member for Simonstown has admitted that this Bill is not one to which he wants to move an amendment. He said that a change could perhaps be made in connection with certain minor matters, for example, in connection with those people who have conscientious objections to serving as trained soldiers. The hon. member for Simonstown has admitted that this is an improvement over the old Act. The fact that this is an improvement ought to prove to the hon. member that the hon. the Minister intends making this legislation as acceptable as possible to everyone in the Republic. He mentioned the fact that training would only begin after the 18th year.

Not after the 18th year.

I mean, from the 18th year. I also think that this is a very good improvement of the Act. The training that these soldiers receive to-day is strict training; it is training which hardens those people who are inclined to be a trifle soft. If a person is physically weak, he just cannot last out the training and I am pleased therefore that the age limit has now been raised slightly.

There is no change in that regard.

Be quiet. The hon. member’s face is so attractive that he will look better if he turns his back!

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I just want to repeat that this Bill is an improvement in every respect. Because the leader of the defence group on the Opposition side has accepted this Bill in principle I do not think that we will experience any opposition from hon. members opposite as far as the principle of the Bill is concerned. I do not want to take up the time of the House any longer. I hope that this Bill will have a swift passage through this House.

The hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker), the chairman of the defence group on the Government side, talked his usual nonsense when he started off with his speech. I can remember very many Bills going through this House over the last number of years in respect of which we have given this Minister our wholehearted support. For him to say that he is glad to see that we are now for the first time co-operating is nothing but nonsense and I treat that remark with the contempt it deserves.

I said on defence matters.

Sir, as far as this Bill is concerned it is very clear to me that the amendments asked for in this Bill are as a result of the experience gained over the last number of years under this new training scheme of ours. I have no doubt that the improvements suggested here will make the machinery of the administration run so much more smoothly. It will also make it easier for the bailotees because they will now be given longer notice of when they will be called up.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has told the House in great detail what our attitude is towards this Bill. We support it wholeheartedly. I also want to tell the hon. the Minister that I am very pleased that he has deleted Clause 15 because that clause would have caused his Department endless trouble and it would have caused the officers concerned a lot of heartache, dissatisfaction and frustration. We are grateful to him for having dropped this and for having found ways and means to overcome his difficulties without the inclusion of this clause.

I want to refer to the amendment which provides for the establishment of a fund in respect of medical, dental and hospital treatment for Permanent Force men who have retired. I am very pleased indeed that the Minister has come forward with this amendment. This has been a long-felt want. Very many of the men who have served in the Permanent Force and who have gone on pension have fallen on difficult times as a result of ill-health. The Permanent Force form a unique group of people. Medical care is part of their service contract and they cannot contribute to a medical aid fund. The result is that everyone who goes on pension is thrown on his own resources as far as medical expenses are concerned. And that is the time in his life when he really needs that assistance. I take it that this fund is going to be self-supporting. I want to appeal to the Minister tonight to investigate the possibility of deleting the words “retirement on pension on or after 1 January 1964” and making it applicable to all pensioners of the Permanent Force. We can discuss this in detail in the Committee Stage, but I think it can be done because further on in the clause it is stated …

Order! I think the hon. member is quite right—that should be discussed in the Committee Stage.

Yes, Sir. I bow to your ruling. May I just suggest to the Minister that he should look upon those members of the Permanent Force who are already on pension in the same light as those who will retire after 1 January. Those other pensioners did not have an opportunity while they were in the force of contributing towards this fund. I take it that they will have to make a lump sum payment in order to belong to the fund. I ask the Minister to turn my suggestion over in his mind and when we come to the Committee to see whether it is not possible to allow all pensioners of the Permanent Force to become members of this fund on payment of a lump sum.

Mr. Speaker, as you have suggested the details can be discussed in the Committee Stage. I just want to reiterate what the hon. member for Simonstown has said, namely, that we are very pleased that the Minister has come forward with these amendments. We give the Bill our wholehearted support.

I just want to say that I honestly have not heard such nonsense as that we have had from the hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) when he stated …

Order! That point has already been made.

I have a slight addition to make, Sir, in this respect that the hon. member served on the select committee which drafted the original Act which this Bill is now amending. The hon. member will recall that the majority of the various amendments which were introduced, both by this hon. Minister and his predecessor, to the original Act, were in fact amendments moved by this side of the House. As the Minister will testify we have consistently supported the measure.

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

Sir, I wish to confine my remarks to Clause 4 of the Bill. That clause amends Section 35 of the original Act which deals with service in the commandos. As I read this particular clause it contains in the main the same principle as that contained in the original Act except for the new principle that where exemptions are granted those people will still be liable for service in a commando and the other principle that where an exemption is granted while a person is still serving in the Citizen Force he will have to complete the period of his training in a commando. I should like to get clarify from the hon. the Minister in respect of this entire redrafting of the original section. I raise this point for this reason: A statement was issued by the Minister on the 29th of last month. In that statement he indicated the number of bailotees who will in future be absorbed into the commandos as such. The Minister stated there that no new members—if the Press report is correct—would be admitted to the commandos unless they undertook to serve four years. The clause provides that any man whose name is not drawn in the ballot must be posted to a commando. The Minister has indicated in the White Paper that the strength of the commandos at the moment is something like 51,000 of which approximately 8,000 are ballotees. I should like to have some clarity from the hon. the Minister as to what the position will be if the House passes this clause. Is it intended to make up the entire commando system from men whose names have not been drawn in the ballot for service in the Citizen Force? Because this clause provides that they must be posted to a commando …

Not must be posted.

I stand corrected; that they are liable to be posted to a commando. And if they get posted to a commando they must serve for a period of four years. But the Minister said in the statement from which I quoted a moment ago that no man will be accepted in the commandos unless he undertakes to serve for a period of four years. Now the question arises: Is it the Minister’s intention that the strength of the Commandos will in future be made up entirely of ballotees? If that is so, then there is no question of any period of service because the clause makes it quite clear that they must serve for a period of four years.

The other point that arises from this is that we all know that the present commando strength is in the majority made up of volunteers, up to the age of 65. A ballotee who now serves in a commando, who is posted to a commando, in terms of the Act is subject to all disciplinary measures that any other ballotee is subject to in the A.C.F., subject only to the code applying to the commandos. But a volunteer is not subject to the periods of service; he is not subject to the same military discipline. It is quite clear that it is essential that we must build up our commando strength as a matter of internal security as part of the S.A. Defence Forces to the utmost capacity, and I think that it is very pertinent at this stage, in consideration of the measure that the hon. Minister has now brought before the House that he should make a clear statement of policy in respect as to how these ballotees in future will be absorbed in the commandos. Will they be liable and will they be posted if their names are not drawn in the ballot. We on this side of the House, Sir, have consistently maintained that whilst we may be training half of our manpower, there are thousands of South Africa’s young men who are escaping any form of military training whatsoever, even from the security angle. But the Act also provides that men may in time of emergency or war be taken from a commando and posted to a Citizen Force or Permanent Force unit and it seems to me that it would be a sensible policy to adopt that our commando strength should in the main (I do not say entirely) be taken from the bailotees, these men who have escaped the ballot and be posted for their four years training there. Why should there be any distinction drawn between the young men who should serve our country? It will make our commando system far more efficient, and what is more, it would at least increase the security factor in that we know that in any emergency, in time of war or any other emergency, there are at least a number of men who are potential recruits, who have had at least the rudiments of military training and can be more quickly absorbed in any active military unit. I think it is pertinent now in view of the statement that the hon. Minister made on 29 May that he should offer now complete clarity in this one respect of his defence policy as such, particularly as we are now faced with a request of the Minister to approve a clause of this nature in this Bill.

Then there is another point to which I would like to refer and that is Clause 9. The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has already made some reference to the matter, but I want to approach it from another angle. Sir, apart from the fact that if this clause is accepted as it is, if the principle is approved as it is, that there will be no compulsion on the Minister to post in the Gazettethe number of bailotees that he is determined should be drawn in any one year, there is the other fact of the voluntary aspect. I recall very well the discussions in the select committee. The provision was included in Section 67, as it reads at present, that the Minister may each year by notice in the Gazette, published not later than 15 April of that year, appoint the number of persons to be enrolled for training in the Citizen Force in the next ensuing training year. The reason why it was drafted like this by the select committee and embodied in the Act as it now stands, was because of Section 65. Section 65 refers to the voluntary enrolment for training on the part of citizens, and sub-section (3) of that section says this: That the Minister shall not later than 1 March in every year fix the maximum number of citizens and other persons who may during that year be accepted for training on application made in terms of sub-section (1). In other words, the position was clear. The Minister was able to tell the public and to tell the youth of South Africa, the businessmen: I am prepared to fix the number. I require for the Defence Forces this year say 10,000 men, but of those 10,000 men I am going to permit 1,000 to come forward as volunteers to serve in the Defence Forces. In other words it was then known that the Minister would only ballot 9,000. Now with the overall picture that is presented here, every man’s name is going into the ballot-box. He can subsequently apply for exemption. There are going to be numbers of men with long training traditions of military service, there are going to be young men who wish to serve in the forces. What is going to be the position if it is publicly not known what number the Minister is fixing?

You are over-stressing the point. I never get the number I allow. I give them 400 every year and I only get about 100.

Sir, I have dealt with cases myself of men whose names have not been drawn in the ballot and who wanted to serve, and I have had to make representations on their behalf and been a bit successful. I know of a particular case at the present moment. They are told that the volunteers are full. Probably the reason is that the Minister is fixing the number at such a low figure because he is relying entirely on the ballot-box. Now this position is also going to arise: If a man is going to register at 16 and he is not going to be drawn out of the ballot-box at the age of 17, if his name is not drawn, and he goes to the university— he wants to get that finished first, but has the idea to volunteer, what then? There are numbers of these young men who want to volunteer, but who consider themselves fortunate that their names have not been drawn out of the ballot-box, because they say: “I first want to go to the university and to complete my course.”

We never had the number for four consecutive years.

That is no reason for the Minister to say that he is not going to publish the number of men he requires for the forces. The Minister has an obligation in terms of Section 65. He must state the number of volunteers he is prepared to accept, and I say to the Minister that it is perfectly consistent therefore that the amendment he now proposes should have the same principle applied so that the public can know. Now the Minister says that he is prepared to say how many volunteers he wants but he is not prepared to say how many he is going to ballot for. It is not consistent. I say to the hon. the Minister that it is going to have a bad effect. There are other aspect of the matter. The Minister is well aware of statements that had been made by leading trade unionists, and statements that had been made by industry. There is already uncertainty as to the principle that will be applied by the Exemption Board in regard to the number of men who should be accepted for apprenticeship to meet the skilled manpower shortages of South Africa. We know from a previous policy statement of the hon. Minister that he does require a certain number of these technicians. We recognize that. But at least industry and commerce should know the number that will be available every year. What is going to be the Minister’s absorption of that new pool of manpower that is becoming available every year in order that they can make their own assessment. So I join with the plea made by the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) that the Minister should give further consideration to this question. I see no harm that this number should become public. It is not a heavy secret.

That was not the hon. member’s point.

That was as I understood it. There is no objection to the matter being made public and if the clause is left as it stands at the moment, I do not think it will be right. I listened most carefully to the introductory speech of the hon. Minister, but I did not hear any reason given by the hon. Minister as to why this section is being altered in this fashion. I am trying to be objective. We want to give our fullest support to the measure, because we think the measure by and large is a great improvement on the ballot system, but we are also concerned about the build-up of a satisfactory Defence Force, and what we are putting before him here tonight is with the only intent in mind to see that we do get the best for South Africa’s defences. I ask the hon. Minister to give closer consideration to the two points I have made.

The first point I wish to deal with is to draw the attention of the hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) to the fact that this Bill does not change the age in which trainees will do their training, which was the interjection I made whilst he was speaking. I said that this Bill did not change the age, to which the hon. member took such exception. I hope he will accept now that I was correct.

I wish to deal firstly with the question of the call-up procedure and exemption procedure which is being changed by this Bill. I put it to the hon. Minister that the procedure under the existing legislation is that a person who is due to be balloted in any particular year is sent a notification that he is due to be balloted and a form of application for exemption or deferment if he wishes to apply therefore. He then fills in that form if he wants an exemption, sends it in and he is notified before the ballot that he is either exempted or deferred, or that his application has been rejected and that he will be balloted for the forthcoming year. That is the present procedure, and the Minister agrees that that is correct. This Bill changes that procedure, and it provides that a person will be balloted, irrespective, and then will be notified that he has been balloted and will then after balloting have the opportunity to apply for exemption or deferment. Again the Minister agrees. What I take exception to is that I believe that the Minister’s Department has shown a contempt for Parliament, because before this Bill has been passed by this House members have been balloted under the new procedure apparently. The students to which the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) referred and to which the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) referred in the previous debate were not sent their notification that they were due to be balloted. They were not sent a form of application for exemption; they were notified that they had been balloted and instructed to report for medical examination. Now once this Bill is passed that will be the correct procedure.

You are wrong.

The Minister of Defence can say that, but unfortunately the Minister of Labour deals with these matters. The Minister of Labour is the person who deals with the Exemption Board, and he replied to questions by the hon. member for Pinelands, and it is quite clear, and the fact of the matter is, whatever the Minister may say, that these people to whom we are referring, who are in the middle of their studies, were not sent a notification, in terms of the existing legislation; they were merely notified that they would have to come up for training and instructed to report for medical examination.

How can they ask for exemption if they are not balloted for two or three years hence?

That is the point, they were not. Before this measure which we are now debating comes into force, a person who went to the university, three years ago, or two years ago, applied before the ballot for deferment —before he was balloted, and he was granted deferment for one year. The next year he got a new notification and he applied for his second year and the third year he got another notification that his year of deferment was up and he had now to apply for exemption. Then he applied again. That procedure has been changed, and it is quite clear that it has been changed to conform with what is now proposed in this legislation, and I think it is wrong that this Parliament should be treated with such contempt in that legislation not yet passed should start to be applied in administrative practice before this House has had an opportunity to debate it. I raise that as a matter of principle on which I feel very strongly.

I want to go one step further than the hon. member for Simonstown who referred to what I believe is a wastage of capacity and skill in our trainees. I believe that our trainees are not being utilized to the best available capacity, that their skills are not being utilized. Let me give the Minister an example which came to my notice about a week ago, of a matriculated student with four distinctions in matric, including mathematics and science, who went to do his nine months’ training in the Navy. He did one month’s training and then he was made a steward in the seamen’s mess and the rest of his eight months he spent as a steward, as a waiter—this lad who passed first-class matric with four distinctions, in mathematics and science amongst others, as a waiter in a seamen’s mess!

Why?

I do not know. I am asking the Minister. For eight months he was washing dishes and scrubbing floors.

Will you give me his name?

He came back this year for his week’s training and he was promoted. He was made a steward in the petty officers’ mess. That is the sort of wastage of abilities to which the hon. member for Simonstown referred, to which I referred in a previous debate, and I hope that the hon. Minister will take this opportunity to tell the House that this wastage of skills and abilities which is taking place, and the Minister knows it is taking place, will be stopped. He has not got the skilled instructors to train them properly, they are not being graded and sent to their proper occupations. I can tell him of a man who was training at the university as a doctor and who is doing ordinary training now on the square. I raised with him the question of the gymnasium students who have magnificent training, who come out far better qualified than any nine months’ boy. They are outstanding chaps, whether they come out of the Navy, the Air Force or the General Army. They come out with a high degree of training. But in the case of many of these lads we are referring to, their skills are wasted in that they are not being employed in the niche for which they are best suited. Their skills are not being employed as officers or potential officers.

Nobody objects, as we have often said, to the sacrifice which our youths are called upon to make, but we do feel that where our youths are called upon to make that sacrifice and where the system is now being changed, there is a responsibility upon the Minister to see that when deferments are made, that when exemptions are made, they are made not only to deal with specific emergency cases, but in the interest of the force as a whole, and that those that are balloted are used to the best possible advantage for the force and for South Africa. Technicians should be used as technicians, medical students at universities can do their training in medical units, engineers can do their training in engineering units. Again I put to the hon. the Minister the proposal that I made previously that there should be specialist units for specialists in the universities, where people can do military training whilst they are studying for specialist subjects. These are practical proposals which I believe can assist the Minister and can assist the Defence Force. I do not want to take it further. I hope the Minister will give us some assurance that the position will improve.

I now want to refer to Clause 5 which is included in this Bill to deal with the problem of specialists particularly who leave the force with specialist training, and can now be called up for 105 days during any period of five years instead of the previous shorter period of 30 days. This discloses a very serious state of affairs, Mr. Speaker. I put it to the Minister, for instance, and I do not think he will deny it, that considering electricians in the Navy, 33 per cent of the establishment posts for qualified electricians are filled and two-thirds of the specialists posts for qualified electricians in the Navy are vacant. I put it to the Minister that that is so and that he has had to call in a civilian firm to do electrical and electronic maintenance in the Navy. This measure now is to try and counter that by making available to him and to enable him to keep trained up-to-date from year to year those who have been trained and left the service. But this is closing the stable-door after the horse has bolted. This is to deal with the people who have already bolted. I hope the Minister can tell us that something can be done to keep that stable-door closed and not merely to bring them back for 105 days every five years, but to try and keep them in the force, because those are the people that we cannot afford to lose, the specialists with specialist training. In connection with that group I want to ask the hon. Minister whether he has given any consideration to the pay position of people who are now to be called up for a maximum of 30 days in any one year; people who would normally get two weeks’eave could take that leave, and for the rest they will be unpaid in regard to their normal occupation, particularly specialists on a daily rate or weekly rate—they will not be paid from their civilian source while they are in the army. Is there a provision that they will get a living wage, that their dependants will be able to be fed and clothed and housed whilst they are doing this training for which this clause provides?

Finally I want to refer to Clause 17 which provides a maximum sentence of 15 years for the offence of trespassing in certain military premises. The Minister has said that this is to bring it into line with the sabotage Act But what I draw his attention to is that there is no alternative here, that a person perfectly bona fides has got to be sent to gaol in terms of this. The Minister is not providing an alternative fine instead of the gaol: “Liable on conviction to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 15 years”. The magistrate has no option. He must send him to gaol. So the sailor coming home after a night on the tiles, having had a little bit too much Lieberstein, who wanders across a prohibited area, has got to be sent to gaol. I am sure that is not the Minister’s intention. I am sure it could not be considered a reasonable provision. What the Minister of Justice does is another matter. One does not always expect him to be reasonable in these matters in regard to punishments. This is a practical issue dealing with soldiers, sailors and airmen, and with civilians who may be visiting them and quite innocently may find themselves on a prohibited piece of ground—a fiancee coming to visit her boyfriend in camp, they look for a quiet spot to have a cup of tea from a thermos flask which she has brought with her or a cigarette, and there you have it: 15 years’ imprisonment.

No man!

Well, I ask the hon. Minister in any case to clear up that point and to make it quite clear that this is not compulsory imprisonment but that the courts are left a discretion in this regard. With those remarks I agree with those members who have said that we agree with the principles of this Bill.

I wish to thank the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) for the support he has given this Bill. He raised a number of points. He said we should try to train the young men who undergo training in the Defence Force in the direction in which they are talented. I may just say that that is the policy and we try to do that wherever possible. The hon. member for Simonstown raised another point and he said ’We must use as a cushion the surplus between the number that we are training every year and the actual number available.”

If the whole crop is 20,000 and we intend to train 10,000, we should use the remaining 10,000 as a cushion. I understood it in this way that we should select out of the whole lot enough men to train so that we can leave out of training certain categories of students, or young men.

I understood that that matter was dealt with by the Exemption Board.

That is a specific job for the Manpower Board that has now been constituted to exempt certain people or certain categories of people. That is a job for the Manpower Board. That is why the Board has been constituted.

That is before they apply for exemption, after having been balloted?

There will not be any opportunity now to apply before they are being balloted. The whole crop is being balloted at the beginning of their 17th year. They register when 16 and they are balloted at the beginning of their 17th year, but they are coming for their training at the beginning of their 18th year. So they have a whole year to ask for exemptions. That is why we are now registering them a year earlier, so as to give them that very opportunity.

Then the hon. member once again approached me in regard to the question of the conscientious objectors. I have no remedy for them, Sir. I am in the same position as the hon. member, but I can assure the hon. member that not one of them is kept in prison for ever. But we must make sure that they are conscientious objectors. So we detain them for a couple of weeks and let them out, we make sure that they are conscientious objectors, and then you never hear of them again. But we must make sure first. There are certain churches whose members are all conscientious objectors. But now others approach me, and they tell me that a few of their members are conscientious objectors. Now, really, we cannot take that into consideration. Everybody will be a conscientious objector who is a loafer. So we cannot allow that. We must make sure that they are conscientious objectors. After that, we do let them off.

Where you have one of these objectors who has once been sentenced and has served a term of imprisonment, will he not be prosecuted again and given a second term of imprisonment? In other words, then he goes free?

I believe we have called some of them up a second time, but I do not think more often than that.

*I now come to the hon. member for North East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst). He said we should not fix a date for this medical fund. That is very difficult. There will be people who will have to pay in large amounts, that is true, people who have retired years ago.

Is it not possible to draft the clause in such a way that they will have the choice between paying in or not? I realize the amounts will be large.

In that case we shall only be assisting the person who is well off. The person who is really in need, the small man who really cannot afford to get ill, will be the person who will not be able to afford to pay in any amount. That is the difficulty I foresee at the moment in this connection.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) had many objections. He asked me whether in future the commandos would only be filled with ballotees who are assigned to them? My reply is “no”. I have always had a very soft spot and a high regard for volunteers. Whether that volunteer is 30 or 40 or 45 years of age if he wants to serve in the commando and signs on for four years I think he is the type of person who should be given the opportunity of giving his services. I wish to advance another reason to the gentlemen who have asked that I should announce on 15 April which and how many volunteers will be given the opportunity. But the names of these volunteers are in any case not published in the Government Gazette. If you read Section 65 (3), Sir, you will see that not later than the first day of March of every year the Minister must determine the maximum number of citizens and other persons who can on application be taken in for training during the following year in terms of Sub-section (1). But that does not get published. I only have to determine it. The position is that I also have the highest regard for those young people who volunteer.

The hon. member for Turffontein sáid there was such a thing as military tradition and that there were people whose sons wanted to serve where their fathers did their military service. I know that is the position but the hon. gentleman exaggerates the position completely. During the first year I was Minister we left 500 vacancies for such cases and only 100 were filled. Since then I have been keeping 400 vacancies for volunteers each year and only 100 have volunteered. That position is being completely exaggerated. The other day a person came to my office. He was very annoyed and said: “My son has not been balloted and now I cannot get him into the Gymnasium either. How is my son to undergo training?” I told him it was easy and that he should volunteer. But that was the last I heard of that son. You see, Sir, the question of volunteers is being exaggerated. The position is that I have the highest regard for the volunteer and I give the assurance that there will also be room for volunteers but the question is why should we announce their names on a certain date. In the past we only took men in once a year and we then announced those names once a year, namely on 15 April. But we are now taking them in on any day of the year. Why should I determine at a certain date how many volunteers I shall allow? Supposing I find that the first quarter is entirely filled by youngsters who want to go to university and there is more room in the second quarter. Why should I not be allowed to announce that and fill the second quarter with them? There is no reason whatsoever why it should be determined on a certain specific date. Then the hon. member for Durban (Point) raised the point that we ought to announce how many people would be balloted every year so that the businessmen would know how many were left for them to choose from. That is precisely what I do not want to do because many of the businessmen are more than mean. I had a case to-day where a businessman did not take somebody on because he had to do military service. If those people knew how many were not to do military service they would discriminate against those who have to do military service when they take on employees. The position is precisely that they should not know. They will get them during the year but they need not know beforehand. That is one of the reasons why I do not want to announce the numbers. What is more it is not necessary for the world to know how many I am taking on every year.

May I ask a question? In regard to your remarks about the bailotees and the commandos, the White Paper says you have 8,000 at the present moment as against a total strength of 51,000. May I inquire whether you are going to assign more bailotees to the commandos or are you going to limit the number to 8,000?

My idea is to have many more than 8,000 in our commandos in future although I shall always prefer volunteers. I shall always keep room for a fairly high percentage of volunteers.

They are being encouraged?

Yes, the hon. member for Durban (Point) has asked what the exact position is. He says we want to bring in the people for 105 days over a period of five years because we cannot keep them in our service. He says we are closing the stable door after the steed has fled. We have increased the salaries; we have increased them considerably. We made the adaptation this week. We are building houses, we are providing certain amenities; we are introducing the medical scheme. We are doing our best to close the stable door before the steed gets out.

Then the hon. member asked what the position was in regard to those people who had to do military training for 105 in terms of the new Act or for 30 days in terms of the old Act? Those people are paid Permanent Force salaries when they come in.