When the debate adjourned yesterday afternoon I was referring to two points, one of which had been raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout tried to throw suspicions on the border industry development policy of the Government by associating it with certain words which, in my opinion, are being misinterpreted and which will throw suspicion on the good intentions of the Government not only in the minds of the non-Whites of this country, as well as the Whites, but also in the opinion of the outside world. The hon. member spoke about “economic imperialism” and the reason I want to react to that is because we know what bad connotations these words have in Africa as well as in the outside world. It is these words which have actually been used in order to throw suspicion upon any attempts made by the Western world to further the interests of countries which are gaining their independence. I want to tell the hon. member that I think it is unfortunate that he used these words and I also want to tell him that these words are untrue, that they are not applicable to border area development policy. What are the elements of economic colonialism which have made these words, such a disputed slogan in Africa? The first element is that within the home country itself, industrial and commercial undertakings—in other words, economic development—with or without exploitation were being maintained by people outside the home countries. The second element is that the local population was unable, economically and mentally, to help with or have a share in the development taking place in such a country. The third element is that no attempt was made to create a primary infrastructure in the development itself which was intended to guide those people, help them to develop and in fact find themselves in a position where they could participate in the development of their own country. I want to state at once that whatever this Government does in regard to the development of the border areas and in regard to the development of the Bantu areas themselves, these elements are always taken into consideration. The Government does not make the mistake of losing sight of the lessons which Africa has still to learn in this regard.

I also want to associate with this the attitude which the hon. member for Hillbrow adopted yesterday afternoon. The hon. member for Hillbrow raised quite a number of points here, but the important one which he raised yesterday afternoon was that industrialization and urbanization went together and that because industrialization and urbanization went together it entailed an economic law which made this policy of ours ineffective and unpractical. The hon. member then went on to mention quite a number of things. Some of those points were based on wrong premises and others were based on incorrect facts, but the gist of the hon. member’s whole statement was to throw suspicion on the action of the Government within the framework of this policy. The hon. member intimated that decentralization was being tackled for two reasons only. He said that the first reason was a strategic one. What he meant by that of course was military strategy. He said that the second reason for decentralization was sometimes an economic one. Now I want to make this statement. I want to say to the hon. member that not only South Africa but the entire Western world has over the past few years been moving along the lines on which South Africa is moving, and that the Western world is not only proceeding on this basis but that the economic basis of the Western world’s attitude is exactly the same as that of South Africa. I also want to tell the hon. member this: Those are not the only reasons; there are a good many reasons for decentralization. I shall tell him what the reasons are which are accepted by the Western countries.

The first reason for its being done is so as to obtain full and better utilization of economic resources. The second reason for its being done is so as to obtain a better distribution of the per capita income of the total population; not only a distribution amongst the people but also a distribution throughout the areas. In the third place it is being done for strategic reasons. But I want to add something. Where, in other countries, it is militarily strategic, in the Republic of South Africa it is just as important to see this matter in the light of a political strategy, because South Africa is engaged in the process of making nations live together and develop, which from our point of view may well be regarded as a strategic reason. But there are two other very important reasons which the hon. member forgot and which are to-day being put forward by all the authorities writing on this subject, which are being used in congresses dealing with this subject and which are also being used as motivation by governments which are applying it.

The one important reason is the impracticability of economic concentration, and in that regard I want to say the following. The hon. member is aware that economic concentration has in the past few generations increased throughout the world and in South Africa as well without any control being exercised over it, but that a stage is being reached where it is no longer economic to draw people to an area because the factors which are necessary to develop such an area have become so expensive that it is too expensive to bring additional people to that area to work there, This is as true in other parts of the world as it is true in South Africa. If I may explain, the hon. member will well understand when I tell him that if we arrive at a point in our development in Cape Town and Johannesburg where it subsequently becomes so expensive to supply transport, housing, water and other amenities that it is no longer economic to bring people to that area, then it is an economic law that it is cheaper to establish them in other places.

I want to tell the hon. member that this is not only true in our case, but also in other parts of the world and it is being proved by what is happening to-day. But I also want to tell the hon. member that when such a concentration occurs it is very difficult to draw precise comparisons, and I concede that point to the hon. member. But I want to tell the hon. member that a series of congresses were held in 1965. South Africa also participated in this series of five congresses at which Dr. P. S. Rautenbach was also present. It was a series of congresses of the European Association for Regional Science and they were held in Poland. On this occasion the following important hypothesis was accepted on behalf of all the nations present there, including South Africa (translation)—

That is precisely what I want to say now, i.e. that we in South Africa must now decentralize, not only for all those reasons which have already been mentioned in the House, but also because from now on the further large-scale settlement of non-White labourers in White metropolitan areas will become relatively more expensive than the investments which will have to be made in the border areas. Now I want to say that there are also negative measures in the decentralization attempts of other countries. We must remember that negative measures, as soon as they succeed and develop momentum, immediately become positive measures which are accepted by everybody. We know that in England to-day it is absolutely forbidden to build any factory or initiate any development whatsoever without a permit. We know that in France the erection of a block of flats is not allowed. We know that France, in order to establish decentralization, is engaged in creating quite a number of new cities in order to draw the centre of gravity away from Paris. In this way too we know that in Italy and in West Germany this is the course of events to-day. These are the negative measures which are being taken. But there are also the measures which have to be taken because the State, as implementer of a policy, must take the lead and set an example on its part. Because this is so it is the case not only here but also in other countries that the State must proceed to create an infrastructure upon which such development can take place. The hon. member has said: Of what avail is it to you? You have been dealing with these things for quite a number of years now and approximately R250 million has been invested and it is so expensive that we should rather have invested it in the urban areas. But it is not realistic to say that,If Mr. Oppenheimer were to erect a factory at Wit-bank for the manufacture of steel, and if after the third or fourth year he found that he was still only putting capital into the factory and had not even begun to develop the turn-over, surely it would be very unfair and unrealistic to say to him in the fifth year: You have already spent so much and look what you have got out of it? This is so because when one invests in an infrastructure, one’s initial costs are greater, but as it develops further the costs per unit decrease because the production becomes greater. That is why the observation the hon. member made is not a relevant one. When viewing this matter in its full perspective we must be fair with one another. Apart from these arguments which I have mentioned I also want to tell the hon. member that there are inducements, not only in South Africa but in other countries as well, which are being used in order to be able to implement the policy and to compel the public in that way to participate. I want to mention the example of Ireland. In Ireland an attempt was made to have a major development take place near the Shannon Airport. Listen to what incentives were applied to compel the Irish to develop there. There was exemption from taxation for a period of 18 years, and all raw materials for the industries were exempted from customs duties. Interest-free loans were made available to industrialists for the establishment of industries. Factory buildings and industrial units were made available at a nominal rent. All necessary services such as power, water, roads and housing were supplied. In the case of Italy as well inducements were created to encourage development in the South, just as we are trying to do to-day. In order to encourage industrial settlement in Milan they took the following steps. They gave 50 per cent of the capital as a donation and there was exemption from tax for a period of ten years. There was free transport and subsistent costs for half of the 400 workers to be trained in Milan, and for one year raw materials were exempted from import duties. All these inducements were established to make such a policy practicable. I therefore say that it is in fact the hon. member, who has alleged that we are not keeping pace with development, who is actually out of step, for this is being done not only in South Africa but throughout the world in the countries which are to-day going ahead on a planned economy, and they are doing so on the same basis and with the same motivation as we are, We have additional reasons as well. We have the additional reason that we are compelled, as a result of our situation, to make our distribution such that we can, in particular, make better use of our water resources. We have the additional reason, which is not the case in other countries, that we have a problem which is relatively speaking so much greater, which affects so many more people and which has to be solved in a shorter period of time—all this because we have so fewer water resources at our disposal. We in South Africa must therefore see it as an additional reason, not only for the safety of the White man, but for the continued and enduring good relationship and co-operation which must be shown to the various homelands which are going to be affected. I am talking about the nations which are included as part of our development programme. For these reasons I say that the hon. member is out of step. If, on a subsequent occasion, we debate this matter further, there will probably be an opportunity of dealing with various other remarks which the hon. member made. Naturally it is impossible to try and reply to a whole series of statements in 25 minutes. The hon. member had doubts about the effectiveness of certain of our policy applications in the border development programme. One objection which the hon. member had was when he made this unfair statement: Look, you have already spent so much and the results are not there yet, I have replied to that. In the second place the hon. member stated. If you set a border area development scheme in motion and the Bantu work outside their homelands, a few miles away, it means in fact that economic manpower and economic knowledge are being drawn away from the homelands which should have remained there in order to develop them. I want to tell the hon. member that he is quite wrong. The real facts of the matter are that all the homelands are really countries which are spiritually still so undeveloped that it is our task to help them along with such development. He must see that the development which will take place in the border areas is actually development which will afford them the opportunity of being able to live in their own areas, among their own people and of getting satisfaction there and also so that their social and economic requirements may be met. In the second place it will afford them the opportunity of developing their own people in the White areas so that they can remove to their own areas and continue their development there. Furthermore, it will entail the creation of opportunities within the homelands so as to be able to develop according to their own ability. It will also afford them all the opportunity of revealing their ability to be able to participate in the development of their own country. Because that is so I think that the hon. member is viewing the position in altogether the wrong light. It is not true that we are luring people with knowledge away, knowledge which can be used there, in order to utilize it on this side. I want to make the statement that there is no knowledge on that side. The knowledge must be supplied here by means of education and brought to the other side. The position is just reverse therefore. Their whole approach is wrong.

The hon. member also said that, in the development of the homelands themselves, we were spending too much on housing and agriculture. The whole essence of the development of the homelands is actually to create an infrastructure, and in the second place to guide the population inside those homelands to a point where they will themselves be able to participate in such a development. What is the most likely starting point for such a development? The mistake which is being made in Africa is to create ultrastructures, depart in haste and leave them in incompetent hands. The inhabitants they left behind did not know how to handle them. This is what is happening in the Congo now. One must, in fact, begin with the simplest things. The simplest thing is agriculture. Furthermore, it is essential to create an infrastructure in which housing plays a very prominent role. For these reasons I say that this is the correct starting point. The hon. the Deputy Minister was attacked across the floor of the House in connection with an allegation which he had supposedly made in regard to the Transkei. I do not want to reply on behalf of the Deputy Minister. Because I am a member of the Bantu Affairs Commission I have the necessary knowledge, and I am convinced that our homelands—I want to mention two as examples which I have more knowledge of, i.e. the Venda and the Shangaan homelands— have enormous agricultural resources. They are two homelands which, if just those sources alone could be developed, would be able to accommodate a very large part of their total population at that stage and for a long time to come without it being necessary to set in motion a very large infrastructure or major industrial development within the homelands. If the hon. member is casting reflections on agricultural and housing developments there, then the hon. member is by implication saying that we must put the cart before the horse, because if we do not do so with what must we begin? Must we begin with tremendously large factories and in the meantime neglect what is basic and primary? The wise thing to do is what the State is doing, which is to begin with something that is within the ability of the people there and which is primary. Last year the hon. the Minister said what had to be said here in this regard, and since then he has gone ahead and set the machinery in motion which is to activate the Bantu Authorities in all the homelands in such a way that they will gradually bear greater responsibility, will gradually share in the creation of this primary infrastructure, and will in fact be placed in a position where they will grow together with the growth of the homelands. They will not be expected to take over if they have not been properly prepared to do so. That fits into this broad pattern. In the development of the Bantu homelands a beginning must be made with what is primary, namely the settlement of the individual and the provision of accommodation for the individual in that way which suits him best and to which he will probably best be able to adapt himself. I want to mention the example of Vendaland. In Vendaland there is a potential which fits in very well with the entire South African economy and which will enable the Venda nation to plant tea on a tremendous scale, to plant fibres on a tremendous scale and to plant groundnuts on a tremendous scale. They have a potential at their disposal which, if that nation were to spend its time developing it, would not only enable them to create for themselves a very great future and much prosperity, but would also be an addition to the white economy. That is why I say the hon. member is viewing this in altogether the wrong light. He condemns the development of what ought to be developed first. Then there is the emphasizing of a vague understanding of major economic development. In addition his party is not prepared to say what free capital is. The hon. members on the other side stated and demanded that the homelands should be thrown open to free capital. Suppose such free capital would mean that it was uncontrolled capital, which could flow into the homelands on a very large scale.

According to the principles which I stated at the outset it would ultimately form the basis of economic colonialism.

Hon. members would be serving this House to better effect if they told us in a future debate precisely what they mean with the inflow of free capital. That would give us the opportunity of affording a better reply to that and it would afford the country the opportunity of knowing precisely what the hon. members’ intentions are. What seems very strange to me is the fact that hon. members on the one side want major industrialization in the white urban areas, or in the homelands, but that at the same time they try to throw suspicion on the border area development policy. The only conclusion I can arrive at is that the hon. members see their way clear to exploiting them in white areas and that they also see their way clear to exploiting them in the Bantu areas, but that they do not see their way clear to co-operating with them and helping them to achieve a development and a process of education which is going to form an essential part of the border area development policy. That is why it is a political sign that the hon. members are afraid of this part of the policy of the National Party. With regard to these two standpoints which were stated by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Hillbrow, I want to say that it seems to me that that is going to be the line of thought of hon. members on the opposite side, that in days to come they are going to tell us that there is no economic viability in the border areas development policy, but that they foresee a too rapid development and want to help in that connection within the Bantu areas, or that they want to retain it in the white areas. However, the hon. members do not want to do the sensible thing in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down is living in a world of fantasy particularly when he tries to attack what has been said in this House by the hon. member for Hillbrow. This hon. member gave us yesterday a solid down-to-earth economic talk. He told us about the economics of this matter but it is apparent that this was way above the head of the hon. member for Soutpansberg. I do not think that I need reply to him any further. The other points that he raised will be answered during the course of what I have to say. I want to return to the hon. Deputy Minister for Bantu Administration who, unfortunately, is not in his seat at the moment. I refer to the comments of the hon. the Deputy Minister for Bantu Development and I should like to say, in the short time that I have been in this House, the speech which we heard yesterday afternoon was by far the weakest that I have heard, so much so that I am not going to bother to refer to it. I want to proceed to the challenge made by the hon. the Deputy Minister for Bantu Administration when he asked us to find a chamber of industries that opposes the principle of border industries. That was his first challenge but as a result of an interjection he changed it and he said “to a policy of decentralization”. He then tried to show that the policy of decentralization is exactly the same as the policy of moving industries to the border areas as practised by this Government. I submit that this is completely false. The principle of border industries is based primarily on ideological grounds, that is the separation of the races. I am prepared, and I am going to repeat what has been said before, to state categorically that the principle of the movement of industries to border areas will fail. It will fail to implement this Government’s policy of separation of the races because it will merely shift the focus of integration in industry and in the economy of the country and move it from such areas as the Western Cape and the Vaal industrial complex to the so-called border areas. However, the application of this ideology of the Government stultifies and indeed nullifies the principle of decentralization as it limits the points to which industry may be centralized. Industry should be decentralized, not only to areas which are on the borders of these Bantu areas, but, if decentralization is necessary for economic and strategic reasons, it should be free to be decentralized to all small towns, particularly to depressed areas where it might be necessary for sociological reasons. But in terms of this Government’s policy that is not possible and they must be decentralized to these border areas. I want to say that this is not always economic. In fact the Federated Chamber of Industries claims that this does not constitute true decentralization and I want to quote from the 49th Annual Report, 1966, of the South African Federated Chamber of Industries wherein the director puts this question—

Now let us return once again to the challenge of the hon. the Deputy Minister that no chamber has not accepted the principle of decentralization to border areas. Implicity in his challenge was that this was accepted unconditionally and without duress. I want to quote again from this report of the director of the Federated Chamber of Industries under the heading “Decentralization and Economic Development Areas”—

1. (a) The general question of decentralization. Against a background of official statements on the need for speeding up the rate of decentralization of industry and the hints of compulsory measures, including industrial licensing, to secure this object, the chamber has examined afresh the whole question of decentralization in relation to industrial location. This study was also in response to an offer from certain Government quarters to consider formulae drafted by organized industry to achieve the objects of Government policy without resort to compulsion.
   The F.C.I. is at present examining the matter to see to what extent it can accommodate Government policy without jeopardizing the principles of private enterprise.

Mr. Speaker, it appears that like the farmers, as mentioned by the hon. member for Salt River yesterday, organized industry is just going to have to accept the policy of this Government. They are being compelled because of these threats. Let us deal with these threats. On the 28th August, 1966, the hon. the Deputy Minister in a radio talk dealing with this question said—

This is very nice and I know that industry accepted this statement by the Minister and hoped that he would stick to it. But what did we find happening in this House on the 12th October last year? In column 4103 of Hansard he said—

Here we had the hon. the Deputy Minister now wielding the big stick. There is no longer any question of co-operation. Now he is wielding the big stick: “You shall move to the border areas or else.” Is it any wonder that the Federated Chamber of Industries has had to reconsider its stand on this point? This is bread and butter to these people. This is of financial importance to the country. They have to reconsider the position and I throw back at the hon. the Deputy Minister this challenge: to prove to us that there is one chamber of industries which accepts the policy of moving industries to these border areas unconditionally.

However, Sir, the Federated Chamber of Industries went further in its statement and it actually issued warnings to the Government, warnings of what the effect was going to be and what the position was under this duress. It stated certain principles, which I quote—

I think hon. members should take particular note of the following principle, namely—

There we have the warnings from this body which represents all the chambers of industries in this country. From the following paragraph, which is the final paragraph in this particular section, it will be apparent that the F.C.I. has not accepted this policy. I quote again—

Yet we have the Deputy Minister telling us that all the chambers of industry in this country have accepted the Government’s policy.

The Deputy Minister went further in his speech and he quoted at length from a report of the Natal Chamber of Industries wherein he said that they had accepted border industrial development. I have here a copy of the presidential address delivered on the 13th December, 1966, by the President of the Natal Chamber of Industries at a dinner which was attended by the Deputy Minister. He was there, and he heard this—

There one has it again, Sir. This is acquiescence under duress, and that is the point I want to make. I want to put the challenge again to this Deputy Minister—I am very sorry that he is not here—and I ask him to prove to us that there is one chamber of industry which accepts this policy unconditionally. Is this not the reason for the change in attitude?

The President of the Natal Chamber of Industries goes on and issues warnings to this Government which they in their wisdom, so it appears, still choose to disregard. I quote again from the speech of the president—

Here we have warnings of further inflationary tendencies in this policy. There are also warnings of other dangers, but this Government chooses to disregard these warnings and to press on regardless with this ideological nonsense which they call apartheid. I want to remind the Government of the warning that was given way back in 1940 by the Rural Industries Commission about the very thing which we are facing now, 28 years after. I quote again—

—once again we have this inflationary tendency—

This warning was given to this hon. the Deputy Minister by the President of the Natal Chamber of Industries, but from his subsequent statements it appears that he chooses once again to ignore it. When the Deputy Minister was on his feet making his speech we saw once again a display of histrionics. But did we receive a single answer to our logical criticism of this Government’s policy? Not a single good answer did we get. We have pointed out repeatedly that economic development in South Africa depends on economic integration, but this Government will not face up to this point. The Deputy Minister admitted during the debate in October last year that border industries would still be dependent on Bantu labour. Is this not economic integration? Surely he must face the facts. Does it matter if there is economic integration in the border areas or anywhere else? We must accept economic integration and we must accept that we can get nowhere, industrially an economically, in this country without the assistance and co-operation of the Bantu people.

You want social integration as well.

Who said so? This remark is typical of the tactics of the Government. They try anything to try and deflect the direct attack on their policy. They try to deflect the attack and divert it along some other course.

On the 28th August this Deputy Minister went further and he made a statement that there were 41,000 Bantu employed in border industries. He repeated this on the 12th October. In reply to a question the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs told me there were 42,000 Bantu so employed. Yesterday we had the hon. member for Heilbron tell us that there were 53,500 so employed. Now, who is guessing? In terms of the Industrial Development Corporation’s annual report of March, 1966, the figure was only 17,800. [Interjection.] The Minister of Economic Affairs told me in reply to my question that this was only an estimated figure because no accurate figures were kept. There was no compulsory registration, and therefore it was only an estimate. Who is right? We have figures fluctuating between 17,000 and 53,000. Why is there this discrepancy, why is this figure going up astronomically every month? It is because this Government’s policy has failed. It is because these people are now trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the people of South Africa and trying to convince them that this policy has succeeded, because from this they start with their mathematics, in terms of the statement of the hon. the Deputy Minister, that for every one person employed in industry, two are employed with services, which adds another 80,000 to his figure of 40,000, so that there are 120,000 people employed in the border areas. Then, Sir, he goes further and bases his argument on the fact that every one of these workers is a paterfamilias, that every one is the father of a family and he takes a family unit of five. He then multiplies this figure by five and says that 600,000 people are being kept out of the white areas.

He then throws out his chest and says, “What big boys we are! Look how our policy is succeeding.” Sir, I pointed out to him during the last session the fallacy, the wrongness, of these figures. He has never once repudiated my argument. He knows that not everyone of those 40,000 people, if we accept his figure for a moment, is the father of a family. In fact, he knows that in most of the border areas the male workers are outnumbered two or three to one by females. He knows that fact because he has been there and has seen it. But he goes further, and in addressing a meeting in Johannesburg in November, as reported in the Sunday Express of the 20th November, he says that now there are 300,000 Africans employed in industry and services. That is how the figure jumped from October to November. Sir, this is merely an attempt to mislead the people of South Africa. It is nothing but an attempt to juggle with figures and to convince the people by means of those figures that this Government’s policy is succeeding. Sir, it is what we can expect from this Government, especially when we couple this to remarks made by other hon. members, including the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. They have repeatedly stated that they will bend or even break the economy of this country, if necessary, before the Government will waver in any degree from its impracticable and irresponsible ideological policies. For these reasons, Sir, I support the amendment.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) read out a long series of quotations concerning the question of border industries. At any rate, the mere fact that he tried to quote other people in order to substantiate his arguments shows that he himself is unable to advance any arguments in that regard. I should have thought that hon. members on the other side would have stated their alternative policy. [Interjections.] I am also inviting the hon. member for Transkei to state their alternative policy. Mr. Speaker, we are experiencing interesting things in this House nowadays. It is our experience at. present that we have an Opposition which criticizes the Government on its policy time and again, but have you ever seen an opposition party, which is the alternative government, which never comes forward with a policy of its own? I think it was Gladstone who said that a man without a policy was almost like a political mule, without pride in his ancestry and without hope of posterity. That is exactly the position in which the United Party finds itself to-day. The United Party will find itself in the same position as the man who caused the words “Prepare yourself to follow me” to be engraved on his tombstone. Somebody subsequently added the following words to that epitaph: “To follow you was my intent, but God alone knows where you went.” The United Party will also find itself in a similar position. Its own supporters, its own members in this House, do not know what course they are following.

They are only heading for ruin.

Mr. Speaker, in no country will one find an opposition party which claims to be the alternative government without at least stating its policy clearly to the electorate. I want to ask the hon. member for North Rand, for instance, whether he knows what his party’s policy of federation embraces, whether it is race federation or geographic federation. I challenge the hon. member for Newton Park to rise after me and to tell us what his party’s policy is. How does he think his party will come to power in this country without its having a policy?

Why are you so concerned?

In the twenty minutes I have at my disposal to-day, I want to analyse the United Party’s federation policy, be it race federation or geographic federation. In my arguments I shall point out the difference between the United Party’s policy of race federation and a policy of geographic federation. I want to analyse the United Party’s federation policy, and in the course of my speech I shall refer to the sixteen federations we have in the world to-day: the Argentine, America, Australia, Brazil, Mexico, Holland, Russia, Venezuela, and so forth.

You made the same speech here last year.

The hon. member should give me an opportunity to speak. Mr. Speaker, I should be pleased if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would give me his attention because I want to ask him a few questions. In the first place I want to explain to him how his parliament will function —how it will be constituted—what powers his parliament will have, and then I want to analyse his executive powers in that federal parliament of his and elaborate a little on the manner in which he will operate in a country such as South Africa. I want to make particular reference to the Constitution of America, in the first place, because they also have a colour problem there, but, in the second place, because America is considered at present to be a paragon of democracy and, in the third place, because the American chief of state is a president and because there will probably also be a president in this federation of the United Party. I do not think they will revert to a monarchy.

I just want to state the fundamental principles of a federation, and I want the hon. member for Hillbrow, who has also digested some political science, to tell me whether I am wrong. In the first place, one has various units in a federation. It does not matter how the United Party will constitute the various units in South Africa, but they will probably have a unit in the Transkei, another unit in the northern Bantu area, one in the white area, one for the Hereros, and so forth. What is important is that each of those units will have a separate head, be it an administrator, a governor or whatever. Each of those units will have a separate parliament, but there will also be a federal parliament. In the case of the former the United Party, if it intends to implement that policy of federation, will have to give those various units a great measure of self-government. They will have to be granted the usual powers of internal government, such as legislation on private law—civil and criminal—legislation in regard to the maintenance of order, legislation in regard to the establishment of local institutions, education, roads and health, and each unit will have to have a police force, and so forth.

Not the military forces?

No, not the military forces; I did not refer to the military forces. I shall come back specially to that aspect later. When each unit has to exercise those particular powers I mentioned a moment ago, it will have to be self-governing to a large extent. At any rate, before those units are to be granted those powers of self-government, the Transkei, for instance, will have to be developed politically. They will have to develop the various units in order that they may grant them powers of self-government. When they make the Bushmen a separate unit, they will have to grant the Bushmen those powers. Those various units will be granted the same powers as those which will be granted to the white parliament—if it is a separate unit. I do not want to elaborate on the question as to ’what will happen in the concoction in the white homeland, because it is already the policy of hon. members on the other side to regard the Bantu in the white homeland as an indispensable part of the white homeland. In other words, in the parliament of the white homeland, the Bantu, with its 6 million as against approximately 3½ million, will in any event have the majority. There is no doubt about that. But let us assume that the United Party will display a measure of level-headed-ness in that it will remove the Bantu from the present white homeland, and that one will have a white homeland with a white parliament. Then it will mean that there will be about ten or more different units in South Africa. One of these will be a white homeland and there will be various Bantu homelands which will have exactly the same powers in respect of their internal government. If this is a race federation, in other words, if the particular parliament of every race will only be able to make laws in respect of that race, one will find chaos because it will mean that in the Cape, for instance, where there is a mixture of races, the Transkeian unit may perhaps introduce a speed limit of 70 miles per hour, and the white unit may introduce a speed limit of 35 miles per hour in the same street, because this will be a mixed concoction, according to the policy of hon. members on the other side. If somebody exceeds the speed limit, one will have to ask first whether the offender is a Transkei Bantu or whether he is a white person. In respect of various white races they will have to be granted the same legislative powers over the same geographic unit. That is why I say that we must forget about race federation. But I want to accept that hon. members opposite will be more level-headed and I want to argue on the principle alone. At the head of each unit in this federation there will be a governor or an administrator. The state will have to have its own legislative, executive and judicial organs in each homeland. What will the parliaments be like? In the case of the Transkei it is obvious that it will have its own legislative assembly and its own executive committee, but what will the federal parliament look like?

In a federal state, and this applies to every federal state in the world, the various units are granted representation in the house of representatives in accordance with the numerical strength of their respective populations. That is why we find in Canada that the state Ontario has 85 members and the state of New Brunswick merely 15 members. In Australia the state of New South Wales has a population of 4 million and 26 representatives, whereas the state of Tasmania, with a population of 380,000, merely has four representatives. This means that the white unit in that federal parliament will in any event be outnumbered by far. In South Africa such a white unit will have approximately a quarter of the total representation in the house of representatives.

But what about the Senate? In every federal state representation in the Senate is divided equally among the various units. In America with its 50 states, each state has two senators. It does not matter whether New York has a population of 17 million and Alaska a population of 240,000; they nevertheless have equal representation in the Senate. That is also the position in every other federation in the world. This means that in a federation which has ten units and of which the white population forms one unit, we shall be entitled to one-tenth of the representatives in the Senate of the federal parliament. In other words, even in that body we shall be outnumbered by far.

What are the powers of the Federal Parliament? You must realize that we as Whites are out-numbered by far in the house of representatives, because representation is granted on a numerical basis. In the Senate we are also in the minority, since we are merely one state out of a total of ten or more.

What will the position be in respect of the federal government’s powers? In the United States—and this is the pattern which applies to all federations—the federal government has authority over all common matters, including military powers. Now I come back to the hon. member for Orange Grove. The federal parliament will have authority over inter-state trade, currency, weights and measures, posts, and all the machinery for the implementation thereof. That is the basis of all federations in the world. In other words, in the case of a federal parliament in South Africa, where the Whites will in any event be outnumbered by far, it will be a federal parliament in which, in respect of the real existence of this federation, the black states will have authority over the military forces. The safety of the country will rest with the majority in the country, namely the black masses.

Now, what happens when there is such a federal system and there are no explicit provisions as to the powers allocated to the federal parliament and the various units respectively? Most federations try to define these powers very explicitly, because it is always a matter in dispute. In the case of America it has not always been very explicit, and in such cases the courts were called in to give a ruling. I want to tell hon. members that it is in fact in such a federal system that the federal court plays a very big part and politics plays as big a part. Do you know what is happening in America?

I want to tell the hon. member for Orange Grove this, namely that even in America where colour is not a matter in dispute, the fact of the matter is that in 1953, after 22 years of Democratic rule, the federal court, their highest court of law, consisted of eight Democrats and one Republican. This proves that the federal system lends itself to political exploitation of the judiciary. For instance, owing to political reasons Jefferson decided in 1884 not to dismiss a certain judge. In 1872 Grant appointed two judges specifically for the purpose of annulling a previous judgment of the court. Who appoints the judges in a federal system? Who will appoint the judges who will have to give rulings in respect of the judicial aspects of the United Party federation? Judges are appointed by the executive, which is the State President in the case of America and which will therefore be a black president in the case of South Africa.

Who appoints the judges at the moment?

In America they are appointed by the President, who will probably be a black person in the United Party federation. For instance, let us assume that the white parliament, as we know it in South Africa to-day, introduces legislation with which the federal parliament is not content. Do you know what will happen? The federal court will be able to declare it invalid. That has happened. As an example of this I shall mention four cases in America. An Act passed by the state of Oregon was declared invalid. It was an Act which forced children to attend public schools. It was the case “The Governor of Oregon versus the Sisters of the Holy Name” in 1922. I want to mention another case. An Act which was passed by Minnesota and in terms of which a newspaper was banned was declared invalid. That was the case of “Near versus Minnesota” in 1931. A New York Act prohibiting church services in the street was declared invalid in the case “Kunz versus New York” in 1950. An Oregon Act forbidding a communist to hold a meeting was declared invalid by the Federal Court in the case “Dejonge versus Oregon” in 1937. That shows you, Sir, that this federal form of government which hon. members on the other side want to introduce in South Africa will be an absurdity.

What is the position of the state president in a federation? Who will elect the state president in a federation if such a thing were to befall us in South Africa? It can be done in two ways. Firstly, it can be done by way of a direct plebiscite. Let us suppose it happens that way. Who will be in the majority in this federation? The 3 million Whites or the approximately 15 million non-Whites? If it is done on that basis, the 15 million non-Whites will, of course, be able to elect the president. But suppose it is done according to the American system of an electoral college, where each state elects its own electoral college which, in turn, eventually elects the president. The white unit in that federation will merely be one of ten. In other words, as far as the electoral college is concerned, we shall be outnumbered by far in any event. Those hon. members are therefore holding out to us the prospect of a federation under which there will be a black state president in South Africa. There is no doubt as far as this is concerned. I challenge the hon. member for Orange Grove or the hon. member for Transkei to tell me on what other basis it can be done. I challenge them to refer to any of the 16 federations in the world in proving to me the opposite.

Tell us how the president is appointed in France.

The hon. member is well aware of the fact that there is no federal system in France. The important question is: What powers will the black president have under a federal system? In America he has certain administrative powers, such as appointing and dismissing officials, ambassadors, ministers, consuls, judges, and so forth. For instance, he will draw up the Budget. He has diplomatic rights. As Trueman said in 1948: “I make American foreign policy.” If the American example is followed, he will, with the consent of the senate, conclude treaties, be able to appoint and receive diplomats, and will consequently be able to grant recognition to other countries. He will have certain military powers. For instance, he will be the commander-in-chief of the army. He will be the commander-in-chief of the airforce and the navy. On what other basis can it be done? Who else can be the supreme commander of the navy and the army in a country with a federal system? In respect of the judiciary he will also have important powers. He will suspend sentences and grant acquittals. This pattern is being followed in all the federations in the world to-day. In respect of the legislature he will also have various important veto powers, because if one does not grant them to him, the federal system will simply not be able to work out.

Since the division of authority in a federation should satisfy everybody, it is hardly possible to achieve unity, because sharp conflicts may arise in a federation. I leave the hon. member for Orange Grove to guess what the subject will be of the majority of discussions in the federal parliament. It will be the colour problem in South Africa. The accent will always be placed on the differences among the various units. Racial feelings will be cut wide open and true unity will never be developed to the full under this system. The legislative programme will not be dealt with on merit but in the light of its constitutional implications. That is quite clear.

When we in South Africa do have the federation of the hon. members on the other side, shall we ever be able to secede from it again? It is an admitted fact in the federal system that, once a member is admitted, it cannot retire from that federation. Carter and Rolfing, who carried out a special investigation in regard to this matter, explicitly said—

Like the Rhodesian Federation.

No federation can be dissolved unless all the various units agree to it. In the case of Rhodesia all the units agreed to it. Does he think that that will be the case in South Africa? Does he think that if Mandela, for instance, is Prime Minister of one of those states, he will ever allow South Africa to secede? Even in America this matter was submitted to a court ruling, because the question of whether or not a state could secede had never been mentioned specifically in their Constitution. That was the case “Texas versus White” in 1869. It was stated very explicitly then that in a federal state no single unit of that state could ever secede, unless all the other units which were concerned in the matter granted such a state permission to do so. In other words, once the United Party has linked us up with this diabolical federation plan of theirs, we shall simply never be able to return. We shall have burnt our boats. That is why I say that the hon. member for Houghton’s political system in South Africa of one man, one vote, or of at least granting the Blacks in South Africa increasing representation here in this House, is less dangerous, because the moment the electorate of South Africa sees that that system will rob them of the Whites’ autonomy in South Africa, they can revert to their old policy at any stage. They can say: “No, now we are seeing things we never thought of; now we are experiencing problems we never anticipated.” But under the United Party’s federation, once we are in it, we can never revert to our old policy. That is why I say that the United Party’s federation plan for South Africa holds the greatest danger that can threaten any independent nation.

Now I ask: Why are hon. members on the other side hiding their federation plan so securely under the bushel? Why is it being hidden under the bushel so carefully? Is it because they realize the implications of this diabolical system they want to force upon South Africa, or is it because they do not know better? Is it on purpose because they know what its consequences will be, or is it out of ignorance? I cannot imagine that the hon. member for Hillbrow, for instance, cannot see its implications. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition may say that in their federation they are not prepared to accept the basis of the other federations in the world. But, Sir, in the federal system there are certain basic principles, such as those I have mentioned, which are incorporated in all the federations in the world, and the Leader of the Opposition will not be able to get away from the fact that, when his federation is put into operation, it will mean the death knell to the existence of the Whites in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to reply in any detail to the speech made by the hon. member for Middelland. He was dealing mainly with the diabolical plan of race federation, as he called it, of the United Party.

That is not the plan.

The hon. member says that that is not the plan and I will leave it to him to point out to the hon. member for Middelland where he was inaccurate. It devolves on me however to point out to him that he was inaccurate when he referred to the policy of my party as being a one man one vote policy. It is not in fact that; it is a qualified franchise policy which I do not in any case propose to deal with now.

But that is what it is going to lead to.

Well, possibly in the future after everybody has had compulsory education and a generation or so has passed one might get to the stage where all people will have qualified to vote. I do not wish to waste any more time on an argument over a policy which has already been set out and which anybody can read. I want instead to return to the main theme that has occupied this House during this debate, that is the question of the utilization of labour, the development of border industries and the question of the reduction of the use of African labour in the industries of the Western Cape in particular. It was broadened I understand by an interjection by the Minister of Bantu Education to include the rest of the country. I took this as being more a case of wishful thinking on his part than an actual policy at the present time. But certainly the impression was given that this is the direction in which the Government intends to proceed, that is to say, the reduction of the use of African labour in the urban areas and the industrial areas by a certain percentage every year. The question I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister— since it actually concerns the policy statement by him that apparently is now being implemented as if it were law—could he tell me in terms of what law this is in fact being implemented? I ask this because I have done a little research into the Bantu Labour Act and the Urban Areas Act in an attempt to discover under exactly which section of the Acts the hon. the Minister is now instructing his department to administer this policy.

It can only be applied to contract labour.

Precisely, it can only, says the hon. the Deputy Minister, apply to contract labour.

But I said that in my statement.

No, I am afraid the hon. the Deputy Minister did not. The Deputy Minister did not give the impression that it is only as far as contract labour is concerned that it is his intention to reduce the number of Africans employed, firstly in the Western Province, and later in the rest of the country, by the 5 per cent mentioned.

I wish I could apply it to all Bantu labour.

He says that he wishes he could apply it to all, but the point is that the Chief Bantu Commissioner of the Cape, for instance, tells us that as a direct result of the policy laid down by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, he is going to make an attempt to reduce the Native population of the Western Cape by 5 per cent within the next 7½ months. The hon. the Deputy Minister’s Chief Bantu Commissioner in the Cape is taking the Minister’s wishful thought to be, not only policy, but actually to be law, and he is implementing this wishful thinking of the hon. the Deputy Minister as if it were in fact law. As far as contract labour is concerned, as I read the law, and if I am wrong, I have no doubt that the hon. the Deputy Minister will not hesitate in what I would hardly call his coy manner, to tell me so, the State President has to issue a notice in the Gazette to that effect. He must make regulations determining the areas or classes of employment in which no Bantu may be recruited by an employer. This is in terms of section 28 (1) (e) of the Bantu Labour Act. But there is absolutely no other law on the Statute Book to-day to my knowledge whereby the hon. the Deputy Minister or the Minister of Bantu Administration may give directives which have the force of law.

Then the industries position is quite clear. All that they must then do is take me to court.

Yes, that is all that they have to do, but unfortunately they know that the minute they do that, back will come the hon. the Deputy Minister and amend the law retrospectively. If he happens to lose a case— and we have had experience of the hon. the Deputy Minister and his colleagues over and over again—where they have been shown to have been a jump ahead of the law, all they do is to make the law go two jumps backwards. Then of course they are covered.

So.

“So” he says. This is a very important point and not just a case of “so”. The Deputy Minister must not play ducks and drakes with the country. It is not within his power to make laws when they do not exist, without this Parliament having passed those laws. I accuse him of doing exactly this in the field of African labour, particularly in the Western Province. I say this because it is very important to note that, when we were discussing very hard and fiercely indeed the whole of the Bantu Urban Areas Act which was amended two or three years ago, the first explanatory memorandum which was issued in terms of the Bill which was first produced in this House and was later withdrawn after all the agitation had arisen as a result of it, contained this explanatory clause:

1. (1) consult the Ministers of Labour and Economic Affairs;
2. (2) consult the urban local authority, if any;
3. (3) take into consideration the availability of non-Bantu labour or the proportion which Bantu labour has to non-Bantu labour;
4. (4) give at least one month’s prior notice in the Gazette of his intention to make such a determination so that the public’s reaction may be obtained.

That was just over three years ago, in 1963, when the Government was intending in fact to introduce a law giving the Deputy Minister powers to do these things under very certain limiting conditions, a power that was in fact not given to him. Under that first Bill, he had to do a lot before he could say “no more Bantu labour in the Western Cape, no more Bantu labour on the Witwatersrand, no more Bantu labour in Pretoria or any other area for that matter”. He had to do a lot of things before he could reduce the quota of labour before he could make any changes in the labour pattern of the industrial areas of this country. He had to do a lot of things and I want to emphasize this because it is very important. He had to consult the Ministers of Labour and Economic Affairs. I see that the Minister of Finance, the ex-Minister of Economic Affairs, is in the House. I wonder whether he was consulted about this in any detail before the Deputy Minister issued his directives to his own Department who thereupon acted as if the Lord himself had spoken and immediately prevented industrialists throughout the Western Cape from taking on more African labour except in certain very specific categories which are certain essential services, and where Coloured labour is not available. One has to go through the most complicated processes to engage labour in the Western Cape. Did the hon. the Deputy Minister consult the Minister of Economic Affairs? I asked the Minister of Economic Affairs and he blinked at me rather owlishly but said neither yea nor nay. I will now again ask the hon. the Minister: Did his colleague consult him?

Of course.

He does not say it very loudly and he certainly does not say it very convincingly. I would say that he is just being very loyal. I would like to know whether he consulted the urban local authority and here the hon. the Deputy Minister is not likely to find such blind loyalty as we have just had from his colleague. I intend to check up on him so that he had better tell me the truth. I am certain that the Deputy Minister did not consult the urban local authorities.

They actually said I should do more.

I think they told you what you should do with yourself. Did the Deputy Minister take into consideration the availability of non-Bantu labour?

Yes.

I thought that he would say yes. In his opinion there is plenty of non-Bantu labour. Does the Deputy Minister know what the figures are for unemployment among Coloured people in the Western Cape? Has he the slightest idea of how impossible it is for employers to fill vacancies in the categories that he has determined should now be forbidden areas…

Did you read about the new legislation in The Cape Times this morning?

I read about it with horror—I did not read it in The Cape Times. I was looking at the actual Bill. My heart sank immediately, because I know exactly what that entails. But I will have enough opportunity to discuss that when that Bill comes before the House. If the Deputy Minister thinks that he can fill vacancies that were formerly filled by Africans, who have worked for years, who have acquired skill and who are valuable employees as far as their employers are concerned, by what are unemployable Coloured youths in many instances, then he is making a big mistake. For then the Deputy Minister does not have the slightest idea of the industrial setup in this country. He has no idea of the need for skilled and semi-skilled labour and for stable labour, represented by people who have been working at the same jobs over and over again. He does not know the meaning of mechanization. One cannot put a lot of untrained, useless people into jobs that they do not want to hold and think that they are going to make a decent job of it. It will not in any way improve the efficiency of our industrial setup. One just cannot do these things. One cannot wave a wand and immediately convert one type of labour force into another type of labour force and at the same time think that efficiency can be maintained. There is a certain relationship, between employer and employee which exists when a man has been working for somebody for a number of years, and that relationship takes a lot of building up. And believe me, Sir, that is a very valuable commodity in industry to-day. [Interjections.]

One can train all sorts of people. I am always saying that. Who says it more than I do in this House? I am always saying that non-White labour can be used, non-White labour can be trained, but providing training for people who are willing to be trained and who are going into higher jobs is quite different to making people compulsorily do jobs they do not want to do. It is also quite a different thing to take people out of jobs which they have held for many years satisfactorily as far as their employers are concerned, and shove them out into the rural areas, thinking that in that way the racial problem in this country will be solved. The fact that 12 million people are out of sight does not mean that they no longer exist. They are there, and they are there now smouldering with resentment against people who have taken them, good, solid, hard-working people, and pushed them out into the rural areas where there are no or very little facilities for jobs on any comparable basis as far as wage standards are concerned. This is my whole argument, namely that one cannot shift people around and give them no say as to the kind of jobs they have to do. One will not get decent work out of them, and, what is more, one will not have contented people either. And that is a very dangerous thing indeed.

The Deputy Minister is trying to distract me from this memorandum which I was bringing to his attention. I want to know from him whether he gave notice of one month in the Gazette of his determination to make a determination so that the public’s reaction may be obtained?

No, because it was not necessary.

Let me tell him that it was not necessary because that Bill was rejected. It was never brought before this House. There was such an outcry when this particular power was suggested by the Deputy Minister or his predecessor, that the House did not even consider that Bill. This power was never brought before us in the new amended Bill because there was such an outcry. Does the Deputy Minister seriously tell me that if there was an outcry at this provision with these limiting conditions then it was not necessary to bother about any limitations at all?

Why did I get the support of the Chamber of Industries?

You have not got the support of the Chamber of Industries. It is not true to say that. The Chamber of Industries unfortunately, like everybody else in this country, has got to the stage where they accept everything, they make their protest and then they ask themselves: “What is the good of it? No matter what we say, this is going to be forced down our throats.” So they try to come to terms as best they can with the situation. I challenge the Deputy Minister to show me one chamber of industry anywhere in this country which has wholeheartedly accepted this idea of the direction of labour from above without consultation, in the way in which it is being done, and has accepted this idea of mandatory sanctions as far as the use of Native labour in the urban areas is concerned, in order to divert industry to the border areas.

But it is not done without consultation.

The Minister’s interpretation of the word “consultation” and my interpretation of course differ very considerably. He and I differ over many things, particularly over what is meant by the word “consultation”. His idea of the word is “I have come to tell you what I am going to do”. That is his idea of consultation.

I have accepted many of their recommendations.

Every now and then the Minister accepts a minor recommendation whilst sticking to the basic policy which he has laid down, and then he turns around and tells us that he has been very reasonable. I say that what the Deputy Minister is now doing in fact is ultra vires. He does not have the power to direct his Bantu Commissioners to reduce labour by 5 per cent per annum in the Western Cape or anywhere else for that matter.

You are not the most famous judge that I have ever heard of.

No, I am not the most famous judge, but I just want the Deputy Minister to stand up, and I will sit down right now, if he will do so, and tell me exactly in terms of which section of either the Bantu Labour Act or the Urban Areas Act he has promulgated those directives.

I am not a lawyer, I am a statesman.

Well, well. If I may return the compliment, the Deputy Minister is not the most famous statesman that I have ever come across. I may not be the greatest judge, but believe me, he is not the greatest statesman. I say that what the Deputy Minister is doing is ultra vires. What he has done is to say that this is what he wants and, of course, as we all know, Big Chief Sitting Bull has spoken! Thereafter, what the Deputy Minister says he wants becomes law in this country. We have had other examples. There was the instance when some high dignitary proclaimed a certain line to be Government policy, and then even before any sort of regulations were gazetted in terms of the law, it became law, even before it was gazetted. We may all remember that this is what happened in regard to mixed entertainments, when the late Prime Minister stated a certain approach to be Government policy. At least then there was the power to gazette these things. But as far as this measure is concerned, I can find no trace of it in the law. In fact, as I say, when this whole idea was proposed subject to very limiting factors, four years ago, it was never brought to this House. Now the Deputy Minister. without even those limitations which were suggested, goes the whole hog. Labour in the Western Cape is to be reduced. I do not know whether the State President has promulgated regulations in regard to contract labour. I presume he has. Will the Deputy Minister tell me whether this has been done?

This has been discussed with our legal advisers and they are satisfied.

That still does not answer my question. The Deputy Minister ought to know the answer. Maybe his Minister knows the answer. I do not know why I should refer to the Deputy Minister—the Deputy Minister has a senior above him. Let us ask the senior Minister. Will he tell me whether the regulations have been promulgated? He is an elder statesman. I assume that the regulations have been promulgated. That is as far as contract labour is concerned. But this is only as far as contract labour is concerned. It certainly does not apply as far as domestic servants are concerned or all the other types of labour.

Domestic servants are contract labour in many cases.

In some cases they are, but not in every case.

If they are section 10 Bantu then we cannot touch them.

As far as the Deputy Minister is concerned, he will convert everybody into contract labour if he has the opportunity. Let me tell him that the way in which the Urban Areas Act is now being applied to women in the Western Cape is nothing short of scandalous. I say that without exaggeration —it is a scandal the way in which decent, law-abiding women in the Western Cape who have been working here for many years are suddely finding their whole future jeopardized in this country, because they did not register before June, 1952. If they did not register within 72 hours of the 26th June, 1952, they find that their pevious years of residence in the Cape is not recognized. I want to point out how unjust this is. There was no machinery for the registration of women in June, 1952, and in fact the only publicity that was given to the need for women to register came two or three years later. The hon. the Deputy Minister and the Minister—after all why should the Minister escape responsibility?— have now laid down the rule that the law is to be applied most strictly. What is happening is that women who did not register within 72 hours of the 26th June, 1952 upon entering Cape Town or the Western Province itself, are finding that they lose all their previous years of qualification, even if they came here in the thirties, and if they leave their jobs, then out they go.

That is just mischief-making.

It is not mischief-making; it is true. I have had case after case and I can prove it to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I will show him those cases if he does not believe me. I challenge him to come with me to the Bantu Commissioner’s courts to see the hundreds of cases that are being heard daily and the police raids that are taking place at Mowbray Station and at the stations in the townships. Law-abiding women— workers, not loafers—who have been in the urban areas for years are being arrested because they cannot prove that they registered in 1952. I am not talking about the section 1 (A) women who were born in the area; they are in a different category. I am not talking of the women who are the dependants of qualified men and who themselves—and this is hard enough to prove in all conscience— legally entered originally and who ordinarily reside with their husbands. Goodness only knows how you prove that. How long you have to live with your husband before you “ordinarily reside” with him, I simply would not know, but I do know that a man living in Langa and registered there may not by Christian rites marry a woman living in the township next door, Nyanga, and bring her to live with him in Langa even if she was born in Nyanga. Sir, what sort of law is this? Here you have adjoining townships; both persons could have been born in the same area but they may not get married and live together even if married by Christian rites. Sir, this is a scandalous situation, and the law is being applied down to the last letter. I say that African women in Cape Town particularly are going through absolute purgatory at the moment because an effort is being made to ferret out every possible woman who can be removed from Cape Town; and where are they sent? They are sent back to the reserves to relatives who in some cases have not seen them for 10, 15 or 20 years, who themselves are struggling to make ends meet, who have not got enough to keep their own families going, or they are sent to a wretched transit camp like Sada which is a disgrace to a civilized country [Interjections.] It is a transit camp.

Then you are a fool.

On a point of order, is the hon. the Minister entitled to say to the hon. member “You are a fool?”

I said “Then you are a fool”.

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw those words.

I shall withdraw the words, but I say Sada is not a “transit camp”.

The hon. the Minister himself answered a question put in this House the other day and he said that it was a camp where people were sent when they had no land in the reserves and they did net have people to go to…

I did not say that it was a transit camp.

No, the hon. the Minister did not say that but I understood him to mean that it was a transit camp.

You are now resiling from your own words.

Yes, I am describing it as a transit camp; if it is intended that those people should live there forever, then it is even more disgraceful. One can accept that transit camps have bad facilities and that they are uncomfortable places to live in, because the chances are that the people will be moved on from transit camps.

Are you talking about a place near Whittlesea?

I am talking about Sada.

Then what you say is absolutely untrue.

I have seen photographs of this place and it is a disgrace.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Deputy Minister need not think that he can distract me by making stupid remarks.

You never went there yourself.

I am only interested in his facing up to the actual implications to the people concerned, of the policy which he so blithely implements and a large part of which I contend is ultra vires. It is one thing to try to re-organize society—and I use this in its sociological context—in terms of Government policy; it is quite another thing when you have to cope with the individual people by whom the effects of this policy are felt. The hon. the Minister is in too high a position to know what is going on; he does not come into contact with the individual people. He comes into contact with obsequious officials, both African and White, but he does not come into contact with the wretched little people who feel the effects of this law; with the women j who come along and say, “I have worked here since 1937; I have a job and now I am thrown out. I do not qualify because I did not register in 1952”, when, as I say, there was not even proper machinery for registration. Sir, I think it is a disgrace…

Why do the United Party not launch such an attack? They are too scared.

Surely the hon. member for Houghton is as much United Party as they are.

Sir, I do not know how much time I have left. I should like finally to say one or two things to the hon. member for Zoutpansberg, who talked earlier this afternoon about the border industry policy. I will say this for him. It was the most reasoned speech I have heard on this subject in this House. He did at least try to analyse the economic implications of this policy. He did not try to represent it as some sort of Godsent policy which was going to solve all the problems of this country. But, Sir, all his arguments were based on the premise that South Africa was a fully industrialized country, and that is not the case. The Witwatersrand complex is not fully industrialized. Nor do his arguments apply to the rest of the country. This whole question of water resources, to which he referred, is used simply as a smokescreen to stop the further development of the Witwatersrand on the normal basis of locating industry. Sir, everybody knows that the difficulties which have been experienced in the Transvaal with water recently can be obviated in the future with proper planning, with the Tugela scheme, with the Oxbow scheme and with other water schemes. Water is not the limiting factor. We could stop the irrigation scheme at Vaalhartz to-morrow and industry will have all the water that is needed during a period of drought, so that is not the point. But we are not a fully industrialized country and what we should be doing is to make every effort to locate industry on the most economic basis so that we can compete favourably with other industrialized countries. Sir, there has been a great deal of talk in this House about the gold mining industry, about its parlous state, about how it is caught between the pressure of rising costs on the one side and a fixed price of gold on the other, and how we are going to find ourselves more and more dependent on manufacturing industry for our future. Of course, we are going to find ourselves more and more dependent on manufacturing industry. What we should be doing is not to make industry as uneconomic as possible by shifting it around, irrespective of the economic factors which ought to determine where it should be located; we should be planning industrial development in this country in such a way that we can keep up the standards of living, and irrespective of the decline of the gold mining industry, to plan so that we can look to other markets and market our goods on a reasonable, competitive basis. Uneconomic planning is simply going to be another factor which is going to make it more difficult for South Africa to compete in the outside world. I want to say finally that there is only one good thing I can say about border industries. Of course I am not against decentralization on an economic basis, but I oppose it where it operates on an ideological basis and as an attempt to solve the problem of multi-racialism and all that kind of nonsense. But there is one good thing about it, and that is that it does show that the Government and, I think, even the Deputy Minister here, are beginning to recognize the shortcomings of the migratory system.

May I ask a question? Cannot decentralization be feasible on the grounds of social considerations?

Everything is feasible up to a point, but not when this becomes a focal point of future industrial development. That is the trouble. We have a large African township just outside Johannesburg. Why is the Government frightened of it? What they should be much more frightened of is that the whole trend in that township is away from family life. That is what breeds crime and instability and danger to the nearby White population. If you have middle-class families settled on a proper basis and if they are stabilized, these people would not be the menace hon. members consider them to be. If the Government’s policy has a social object, that object is defeated. But in regard to border industries, at least the Government are beginning to think along the lines of disapproving of the migratory labour system. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Houghton has again indulged in some incitement to-day, and in creating the impression that this is a distatorial country. The allegations made by the hon. member are similar to those made in the world court, and that was why those allegations were withdrawn and why it was proved that they were false. [Interjection.] The hon. member may say I am talking nonsense, but I want to analyse the type of rubbish she has been talking.

Twice during this Session the hon. member said we were spending too much money on the defence of this country.

I never said that.

You will find it in Hansard. It was stated that this country had not developed to such an extent industrially that we needed such a Defence Force. She made that quite clear and said, furthermore, that we should rather spend more money on the African countries with a view to presenting a better image of South Africa, and she referred to Israel as an example of a small country which is doing so much in Africa. As far as defence is concerned, I want to state unequivocally that anyone with the slightest strain of patriotism will never react in such a way to the expansion of our Defence Force. It is only the mouthpiece of international liberalism that can produce such statements, that a defence force is not needed in this country. But I want to read the following to the hon. member for Houghton—

It was only natural for that British M.P. to say this, and it contains a great deal of truth, in the sense that South Africa has never built up a defence force with a view to attacking other countries, and there are not many other countries of which that can be said. Here we have proof that the expansion of our defence force is in the interests of the future of this nation, but the hon. member for Houghton does not like that. She would have us spend more money on the African states, as Israel is doing. But now I want to read to her what another British Member of Parliament said—

For her information I want to read what this Member of Parliament said, and he is a Conservative Member of Parliament and not a Labourite, like Mr. Paget—

That was not said by one of our people, but by a British Member of Parliament who paid a visit here. The hon. member for Houghton is always witch-hunting. I find it so tragic that the hon. member should act in that way. She acts in a way which is not conducive to the development of that in which the vast majority of people in this country believe, and this afternoon we saw that once again. Once again she launched an attack on border industries and on the Bantu homelands. If the hon. member would only go and look at the progress made in the homelands it would be a good thing, as long as she did not ask me to go with her, because I would certainly decline. In my constituency she would find a beautiful Bantu township and she would see the development made for the sake of the Bantu. But she cannot see beyond the slum areas, which she would not like to have cleared up. Her entire attitude is to keep the slum areas there and to suggest that nothing is done for the non-Whites. But there I shall leave the hon. member.

It is frequently said in this House that the official Opposition has no policy. I disagree completely. The official Opposition has a policy which is not aceptable to the vast majority of voters in the country. It has a policy of economic integration which will eventually result in social integration. The Opposition has come to realize that by broadcasting their policy they can make no progress whatsoever, because the Republic of South Africa refuses to accept their policy. Now they have changed their tactics completely by keeping quiet about their policy. Now it is their approach that they would like to see that the Government’s ideals and principles, in which we believe, are not implemented. That is why we have noticed that in this Session, which started only a few weeks ago, when they had to state their policy during the no-confidence debate, they concentrated on inflation, and when we reached the Part Appropriation Bill, which calls for a debate on financial matters, they suddenly launched an attack on border industry development. The Opposition should realize that they are dealing with a Government with a sense of responsibility and with Ministers who do not simply make decisions without thorough investigation. The time has come for us to realize that because of this attitude of theirs the sole motive of the Opposition is to exert pressure on the Government to take too stringent measures against inflation If the measures taken are too stringent, the logical consequence will be that the implementation of our policy will be retarded. That is the entire approach of the Opposition. Inflation has its hazards and the entire world is faced with this problem. But I believe that the fundamental reasons for the inflation with which we are faced are not the same as in the case of many overseas countries. I believe that the inflation facing us is largely under control as a result of fiscal and other measures which were taken by the hon. the Minister of Finance and also the Minister of Economic Affairs and which are succeeding to a large extent. The fundamental reasons for this inflation are that we spend more or less 20 per cent of our budget on defence, which is surely essential, and that the large-scale economic development taking place in our country has the result that the factories are not yet productive and that great capital expenditure is incurred to create facilities such as electricity, water, etc. We are living in an era in which we shall actually have to deal with inflation. The people who are hardest hit by inflation—and we must never forget that there are certain sections which always exploit inflation—are the workers of South Africa. Notwithstanding the index figure, which proves that the increase in salaries and wages is higher than the increase in the cost of living, I want to make a plea for those people this afternoon and ask why the ordinary man in the street is in financial difficulties and is to some extent financially embarrassed. I believe that one of the reasons is that the hire-purchase system is being abused and that certain businessmen, by exercising dishonest business acumen, are exploiting the hire-purchase system in such a way that it causes financial embarrassment to many workers. I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would investigate this matter in order to determine whether the hire-purchase system should not be taken into review. South Africa has found its own formula for a rosy future. I have the utmost confidence that in the course of years we shall find an economic and financial formula which will form an integral part of the ideological principles in which we believe, for without an ideal there is no future for this beautiful country. I believe that even if if demands temporary sacrifices, we shall continue expanding separate development and we shall spend the necessary capital on border industries, on border industry development and on Bantu homelands. I am convinced that in years to come the dividends will be of great interest, not only to the Republic of South Africa but also to the Bantu homelands adjoining those border industry areas.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to 18 Part Appropriation debates in this House but never have I found the Government benches so disconcerted as we have found in this debate. What makes it much worse is of course that this is the department which should have been able to stand up to a debate of this nature because it is better equipped with permanent officers than any other department. It has a Minister, two Deputy Ministers and then the Bantu Affairs Commissioners as well. One would have thought that they would have been able to face the charge which has been made here in the past few days. In the No-Confidence debate we dealt with the ineptitude of the Government and we accused them of not being able to control inflation. In this debate we have dealt with the effect on the economy of the country of the practical application of their policy. They have attempted to reply. I say that they have attempted because they started off by making an attempt to reply but they found themselves faced with facts. My Leader in introducing the debate relied solely on facts.

When they found that they were unable to meet these facts, they attempted to attack. They accused us of wanting these facts to become the state of the country. They made out that it was our policy that the White man should be undermined in this country and it is our policy that the Black man should take over the country because, as I say, they were unable to get away from the facts and unable to show in what way they were going to counter the facts. They threw up their hands and said this is the position and this is in fact how you want it. Then the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education found himself in the greatest difficulty because of statements made by him which were being attacked. He eventually turned to the personal abuse of certain members on this side of the House. At one stage he claimed, I think in order to give his followers some consolation and hope, that he had the intellect of Churchill. Well, they soon found when he got to the invective that it was not Churchillian at all. Certain other members have entered this debate, for instance the hon. member for Middelland. Nobody had dealt with the policy of race federation. Purely in order to try to draw a red herring and to get away from the attack on the Government, he drew up a constitution for the United Party of the federal state and then promptly proceeded to deal with it. I have never heard anything more innocuous in this House and anything more irrelevant to what was being discussed.

The hon. member for Soutpansberg attempted to justify the action of the Government in establishing border industries. He said that in Europe decentralization of industries was taking place because of the tremendous cost, not only of establishing the industry but because of transport and other facilities and all the other costs which go with the establishment of industry in a large town. He then went on to say that in respect of Cape Town and Johannesburg, coupled with ideological considerations, the same thing was happening. I challenge any member to tell me about one industry which would be cheaper to establish on the border of a reserve than in Cape Town or Johannesburg. That is of course leaving out such industries as the timber industry where the timber is on the spot. I challenge them to give me any other example.

It is cheaper to run them.

The hon. member for Heilbron really surprised me. He repeated a speech which was made by Mr. Frits Steyn when he was the member for Kempton Park in 1964.

He used the same figures, more or less. What happened to that speech by Mr. Fritz Steyn? He endeavoured to show that the percentage increase in production was higher than the percentage increase in labour. He also went on to say that there was a reduction of 4.4 per cent in the non-White labour employed in industry during the period 1951 to 1960. But he must remember—others will remember —that my colleague, the hon. member for Yeoville, replied to Mr. Fritz Steyn on that occasion. He pointed out the fallacy of that argument. To begin with, there is a fluctuation in the value of money, and therefore you could not compare the percentage increase in production between 1951 and 1960 with that in the period from 1946 to 1951. On the other hand he also pointed out that change was made in the compilation of statistics by the Census Bureau, and after 1954 the workshops, garages and other industries were not included in the general figure given for the employment of Bantu in independent industry. The figures which were being compared were not even based on the same calculations. As I said, that was all dealt with in 1964. The hon. member for Heilbron now has to bring it up again to try to justify the policy.

The Minister also of course took part in the debate. I want to ask him about a certain report which appeared in the Daily Mail. I do not know whether he has seen to-day’s Daily Mail. [Interjection.] I must read it because he gave an interview. According to the report the announcement by the Minister, Mr. Botha, that the number of Africans would be reduced by 5 per cent a year all over the country came only a week after a deputation from the Federated Chamber of Industries had met members of the Cabinet and had come away with the impression that the 5 per cent plan was to be scrapped. I should like to ask whether that is correct. Did they meet members of the Cabinet?

I met them.

Well, he apparently gave the impression that the 5 per cent plan was to be scrapped.

Absolute nonsense.

That is the impression they got. The Federated Chamber of Industries said—

An official said later—

The report states—

I believe that the Minister has now indicated —he can tell me if this is not correct—that he did not mean this to be mandatory when he replied that the 5 per cent was to be applied to the rest of the country. My colleague, the hon. member for Pinelands, put the question. He asked the Minister: Does this 5 per cent reduction apply to the entire country and not only to the Western Cape? We remember that the Minister without any hesitation said that the 5 per cent reduction was announced more specifically for the Western Cape but that it applied to the whole of South Africa.

Read on.

He said: “The hon. member knows that throughout South Africa we have indicated not only to industrialists but also to employers in commerce and agriculture that their numbers of Bantu workers to White workers must be brought within certain proportions.” He made it quite clear, Sir, that the 5 per cent was going to apply…

I do not know what you are reading from, but I said very clearly that it was not mandatory for the rest of South Africa, but it was something to strive for. I said it very clearly.

He wants it twisted.

The Minister did not say that in the House.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the hon. member for Klip-rivier entitled to say that the hon. member for Transkei wants it twisted?

I shall ask the hon. member to withdraw those words.

I withdraw.

The hon. member may proceed.

The industry and the country at large must get something definite now. We must know definitely: Is the 5 per cent going to apply or is it not? Is it now only something to strive for? [Interjections.]

Order! Will hon. members please allow the hon. member to make his speech unhindered.

Is it only an ideal to be strived for in the Cape?

It is an ideal to be strived for all over the country.

Is it not going to be mandatory in the Cape and is it not going to be enforced in the Cape? Can the Cape industrialists take it that it is not going to be enforced in the Cape and that it is only an ideal?

The Cape industrialists told me that they could do it themselves. I said that we would see at the end of the year whether they could; otherwise it would become mandatory.

Mr. Speaker, that is not what I asked the Deputy Minister. I asked: Is it going to be enforced in the Cape or is it only an ideal to strive for?

It is going to be enforced in the Cape if the industry cannot do what they promised they would do.

So it is going to be enforced in the Cape. I should then like to know from the Minister: If the ideal is not attained in the rest of the country, it is going to be enforced there too?

Time will tell.

I do not want that answer. This is the uncertainty of which industry complains. The whole country is living in a state of uncertainty. They do not know what the position is. [Interjections.]

Time

and experience will tell.

If the Minister does not know, I shall ask the Deputy Minister, who is responsible for this. Is it going to be applied to the rest of the country. Is it going to be enforced on them if they do not attempt to carry this out?

Time and experience will tell.

It is like the policy of “algehele apartheid”. It is an ideal. That is all it is. It is an ideal to be striven for but which will never be attained. I should like to point out to the Minister and the Deputy Minister what the industrialists in the Cape face. A big building contractor here is trying to carry out the policy of the Government. He is trying to employ Coloured labour. He said that in order to get an effective force of 20 Coloured men a day, he has to employ 48 on his payroll, because they are so unreliable. His costs are therefore naturally put up because he has 48 on his payroll instead of 20. Their average attendance is 20 a day. This is one of the problems which has to be faced by industrialists who try to carry out the Government’s policies. There is another thing I should like to point out. We have had interjections made by the hon. member for Houghton about the employment of Coloureds. She asked how many Coloureds were in employment. The way these Ministers speak one would think that the policy is that every Coloured man must be employed. While there is a Coloured man unemployed, Bantu men must not be employed. That is the policy. Surely they ought to know—if they were practical men they would know—that in no country in the world is 100 per cent of the population employable. No nation in the world has 100 per cent of its population employable. Amongst the Coloureds the figure of unemployed is not unreasonable. How are they going to get these Coloureds to do the work that they want to do in the building trade for instance?

Are they going to force them to do it? Are they going to compel them to do it? The Deputy Minister of Bantu Development asked who offloads the ships in Germany and England. This is not Germany or England. Germans and Englishmen offload the ships there. South Africans offload the ships here. The point is that we have not got the White South Africans to offload the ships. What is the use of saying that the White man must do this, if they know very well there are no White men to do the job? What is the good of talking like that? What is the good of saying that the White man must push the wheel-barrow for the building contractor and that White men must do all the other types of work which the Government now want the White man to do, when they know the White man does not do that type of work? If he had to do that kind of work there would be other jobs, jobs requiring more skill which would fall and remain vacant because there would not be sufficient manpower to fill those vacancies. Why do we find ourselves in this position of having a shortage of labour? It is because of the policy of this Government. They are solely responsible. After the end of the war when other countries were making the most of their opportunities regarding people who wanted to emigrate from the war-torn countries, the United Party, with a practical policy, foreseeing the development that was going to take place and foreseeing the shortage of skilled and other labour, embarked on a big immigration scheme.

The good and the bad.

For the good of South Africa—the Chief Whip is quite right, for the first time he has made a sensible interjection. [Interjections.] This Government cancelled the contract entered into by the Smuts Government. They virtually stopped all immigration and in fact more people left the country than were coming in. Why was it stopped? In the first instance they were “bang vir die onder-ploeging van die Afrikaner”.

Are you not afraid of it?

No, I am not scared about the “onderploeging van die Afrikaner”. Why are immigrants being brought in now? If there was any justification for that fear why are they now doing all they can to bring in immigrants? Why? What has happened to the danger now?

The other fear was that there would be no work for South Africans, that the immigrants take the work out of the hands of the White man, out of the hands of South Africans. What has happened? Other governments, for example in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, were not governments of timid, afraid little men. They faced the issue and brought immigrants into their countries. That is why their countries have grown to the extent that they have. Let us take the case of Australia. Because that country opened its arms and paid to get immigrants into the country, that country has flourished. The Deputy Minister asks who does the work in England and Germany. I ask him, what would happen to our gold mines if it were not for the Native labour? I was in Australia and I saw White miners doing the work there. Those gold mines are subsidized by the Australian government. Why? Because the White mine-worker has to be paid so much more than we have to pay our black labour out here. When they talk about the White man having to load the ships, the White man having to do all the other work that the African is at present doing, then they must not forget about the mines.

One of the reasons is that the Government are responsible that we are short of labour. It is their responsibility that we are compelled to rely, as we do have to rely now, on Bantu labour to keep our industries going. They are also responsible because they have made it impossible for the Bantu to make a living in the reserves.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? Does the hon. member expect us to supply black labour to industry and all other employers on demand?

No, we do not expect the Government to supply it on demand, just ad lib. But I should like to remind the Deputy Minister that he was a member of the United Party when we introduced influx control… [Interjections.] We never suggested that the towns should be overrun by Africans looking for work. We never proposed that, and the Deputy Minister knows very well that we are the people who controlled the influx. Regarding the question of supplying labour on demand, I want to tell the Deputy Minister that, despite what he says, there is a big demand for labour which cannot be obtained from anywhere else but the reserves. His Government has taken a step which no other government took and that was to allow farmers to go in their own trucks into the villages in the Transkei and stand in the streets and recruit their own labour. This Government established a recruiting office in the Transkei to recruit black labour for the Rallways and industries outside the Transkei. They know very well that they cannot do without that labour. Why their consciences are worrying them about sending unnecessary labour back to the reserves is because they have not taken steps to see that there is work for the African when he is sent back. The Government is responsible for the influx from the reserves. I am going to quote their own Commissioner-General, Mr. Hans Abraham, who certainly is not a supporter of the United Party. He said in Port Elizabeth the other day that the movement of Bantu from the homelands had occurred because of economic necessity and not because they specifically chose to do so. It was because of economic necessity that they have to leave the reserves. The Deputy Minister agrees with that. As an ex-United Party man. Sir, the Deputy Minister can show some “kragdadigheid” in the Cabinet. What steps is he going to take to see that there is better development in the reserves?

Plenty.

The Deputy Minister says plenty. It is only since he has become a Deputy Minister that we can hope for anything, I suppose. I want to say to the Deputy Minister that I was very disappointed to see him make a statement that the lavish amenities in the urban areas for the Bantu must be stopped because they attract the Bantu from the reserves.

Too luxurious amenities.

So the Deputy Minister now wants to deny the African living in the urban areas the amenities which have been built out of beer money.

That is nonsense, it is absolute tripe.

What else could it mean? He wants to make the reserves more attractive by giving the reserves better amenities. If the Minister said that he is going to give amenities in the Transkei and in the other reserves equal to what the Bantu can enjoy in the urban areas then I would say: “Hear, hear,” and stop. But what did he say? He did not say that. He put it in reverse.

I was referring to such ridiculous things as Olympic standard swimming baths and that type of nonsense [Interjections.]

Why should they not have Olympic standard swimming baths?

Order! The

hon. Deputy Minister must allow the hon. member to finish his speech.

The Commissioner-General, Mr. Abraham, also accused this Government of not doing sufficient in the reserves. He said that the agricultural potential in the Transkei, an area which he knows very well, represents one of the natural resources, and it will have to be exploited if success is to be achieved with the policy of separate development. He complained that not enough was being done to exploit the agricultural resources. He went on to say that immediate economic action is necessary. He suggested that the Government should appoint a commission to see how the recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission were being applied. If the Commissioner-General, who knows what he is talking about and who lives in the Transkei, was satisfied that this Government was taking the “kragdadige” steps that they should be taking and if they were carrying out the recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission as they say they are doing, why is it necessary to appoint a commission to go into the question as to whether or not the Government is carrying out the recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission.

The whole history of the development of the reserves is a sorry one. The Government relies on the fact that they are going to build border industries to look after the Natives in the reserves. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education also said that every Native worker should live with hi family in the reserves at night. I quite agree with that; that is also the point of view of the United Party. But in considering whether the Government’s policy of border industries is succeeding at all, I want to ask him and the Minister to give me one example of an industry established on the border and which enables a Transkeian Native labourer to stay with his family at night. I ask the hon. the Minister, who is so full of this question of the development of border industries, to answer my question. Zip! He cannot mention one example.

Until the Government tackles the problem of the Transkei how can they pretend to be facing up to the problem of the rest of the reserves? The Transkei is the most developed of the reserves; the Transkei is the showpiece; the Transkei is on the way to self-government, and surely if they are going to apply the policy of border industries, they should have started with the Transkei. Sir, it cannot be applied in the Transkei, and therefore we accuse them of neglecting the development of the Transkei by not following United Party policy, by not carrying out the recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission to allow white capital to go into the reserves to establish industries there. Sir, when I accuse the Government of doing nothing I can talk because we of the United Party did do something.

One of the last acts of the United Party Government was to establish the Goodhope textile industry near King William’s Town. We established Zwelitsha there, and to-day Zwelitsha is the Government’s show-place. How did we establish that industry? We allowed white capital to go in, not ad lib. as has been suggested. We arranged with a white company to put up a certain amount of the capital and the Industrial Development Corporation put up half the money. We gave them a long lease over the land; we did not give them the land, and the industry was established there. What did the late Prime Minister say about this industry? He was so upset at the success of this industry that he said that he was going to cut the factory out of the reserve. He never did so but he said that he was going to take that bit of land out of the reserve. Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration is responsible for the development of industries in the reserves. Let me ask him this: What is the difference between establishing an industry in the Transkei or getting a white company to establish an industry there, under certain conditions, and getting a company out from England to establish an industry in the veld near East London and then buying up white-owned land and declaring it to be a reserve in order to have the Native workers living in their homeland? How members opposite talk about the increasing number of Natives who are living in the border area villages, but the Minister and the Deputy Minister will agree that the population of Duncan Village has to be moved to Umdantsane, so the Africans who are living at Umdantsane now, are not new Africans who have been brought from white areas. Some were there, working in factories which are already established in East London. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Transkei has tried very hard to pick up a few scraps here, there and everywhere and make them into a whole. I listened to his speech and I must say that I really could not detect any definite purpose in what he was saying. I could not find out what he was aiming at. But after listening to what he did say and to what hon. members on the opposite side had said, I began to doubt whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had meant what he had said at Britstown, namely—

“A reasonable minimum.”

But practically every attempt on this side of the House to bring that about is opposed by that side of the House. Hon. members on that side sometimes talk confusedly; they sometimes contradict one another and if one analyses what they are saying, one finds that what they have actually said here in the House and what the hon. Leader of the Opposition said in Britstown differs as day does from night. The Government’s policy of separate development is aimed at preserving the White civilization in South Africa; that is its primary aim, and its secondary aim is to maintain the ratio between Whites and non-Whites. I want to make the assertion that if the State succeeds in doing so it would already have attained a major achievement. This is not generally known, but do you know, Sir, that the State has already succeeded in maintaining the ratio of White to non-White in South Africa during the past five years. I want to quote from the economic development programme which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to some time ago. I am quoting from page 27—

First 1.79 per cent per annum and then in the past five years at a rate of 2.37 per cent. That figure includes immigrants—

But what is the position in regard to the non-Whites? Between 1936 and 1960 the number of non-Whites increased at a rate of 2.4 per cent per year, but between 1960 and 1965, according to the calculations of the Bureau of Statistics, it is put at 2.34 per cent. These figures are based on an immigration rate of approximately 20,000 per year, and this applies to the future as well. This year, as hon. members know, the nett inflow of immigrants was more than 20,000. In other words, the non-Whites have since 1960 increased at a rate of 2.34 per cent per year, and it is also envisaged that the increase will take place at the same rate until 1971. The increase in the number of Whites was 2.37 per cent per year. Mr. Speaker, it is the first time in the history of South Africa that we have had a period of no less than five years in which the percentage increase of the Whites exceeded the percentage increase of the non-Whites. I think it is an achievement of which this country, of which the population of this country and of which this Government may be very proud.

On that basis you will have equal numbers in the year 20000.

Last year when we were discussing the question of border industries I came to the conclusion that we would make no progress. We can talk and we can quote and we can adduce proof until we are blue in the face but we will not make any impression on the Opposition. I thought at the time that it was a case of, “I have made up my mind; please don’t disturb me with the facts”. But I must say that I have more hope this year. There are various members representing Natal who are in favour of border area development and who have said to us: “Go ahead with the job,” and this year there has been a new addition, namely the hon. member for Hillbrow. If you do not believe me I will quote to you what he said. The United Party has always shied away from the words “border area development”. It has always been a term of abuse. They prefer to talk about industrial decentralization. Border area development is a dirty word to them. But we have made such progress that the hon. member for Hillbrow has scraped up the courage—and I thank him for doing so—to say the following—

What does that mean? They are not against it. If you are not against a thing then you must be for it.

Read on.

Yes, I shall read on—

That has nothing to do with the principle. The hon. member accepted, by implication, the principle of border area development. Is that correct? Well now, if it is correct, then we have made a lot of progress, because if one accepts the principle of border area development and if one accepts the principle of Bantu homelands development, then you have already accepted two very important cornerstones of the apartheid policy. They are two of the most important corner-stones of apartheid.

They did not know that the two things went together.

I want to tell you how we have progressed. In 1964 the then hon. member for Jeppe, who was the United Party’s main speaker on economic matters, said the following—

That is what he said. But since that former member for Jeppe left the House of Assembly he has taught me a great deal more. I want to read to you what he said inter alia about border area development in October, 1964, when he addressed the Institute of Race Relations. Dr. Cronje, to whom I have just referred, is to-day a leading businessman. Listen to what he says in regard to border area development. He made a speech on border development and I want to quote to you an extract from what he said—

He said that it had taken place on an economic basis. He then went on to say—

He then went on to say the following and this is important. He first argued on the strategic, the sociological and the economical aspects, and all three those aspects have already been accepted by the Opposition. Those are the three basic points in regard to border area development, but in recent times they have also emphasized the one aspect on which they have differed, and that is the political aspect. They say they cannot agree with it; it is their major objection. Where they at first rejected border area development completely, they are now saying no, they no longer reject it, they are accepting it on certain principles and they are only rejecting it on the principle of politics. I am mentioning Dr. Cronje in particular because he was a front-bencher on that side and now he is in business. He stated that he did not think it would bring about the results in the political sphere which the Government had thought it would, but he did not reject the principle. He stated that—

This side of the House has never said that it is the only way to solve that problem, but it is a very important method. Dr. Cronje said that he admitted it was a partial solution. If hon. members on the opposite side want to accept that then I say that we, as far as border area development is concerned, have made tremendous progress. I should like to make the point that hon. members on the opposite side are now calling the thing by its proper name; it is no longer decentralization, they are now talking about border area development. There are another few points to which I should like to reply. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated inter alia that it would cost R1,000 million per annum to stem the flow of Bantu to the cities and after that to reverse the process. Where the hon. Leader gets that from I do not know, but there is someone who tried to work out that problem, a Mr. Robert Stacey, who was also quoted by the hon. member for Hillbrow. He made a calculation which is very interesting. He said the following—

He referred to certain places, and then went on to say—

That was written in London by Robert Stacey and appeared in The South African Journal of Economics of 1966, and the amounts he mentioned are not R1,000 million per annum, the amounts he spoke about were R160 million plus a further R65 million. That brings the total up to R225 million. I do not know how the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made his mistake. He can read the article himself if he likes. He says the figure is four and a half times greater. I do not want to say I accept these figures of Stacey either. [Interjections.] The amounts are R165 million plus R65 million. How much is that? It is between R230 to R250 million. I say the figure given by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is an exaggeration of the worst kind. The hon. member for Hillbrow made one of the best speeches on this matter coming from that side of the House. He read this article, but he did not read it well enough. He connected the two concepts of higher productivity and industrial centralization. He said that it was no accident that the countries with the highest productivity were the countries which had the greatest concentration of industries. That is not correct. England, where one has the greatest concentration of industries, also happens to be the country where one finds the lowest industrial efficiency in the world.

That is because all their machinery is obsolete. They were not able to replace it during the war.

No, I shall tell you why the industrial efficiency in those countries is high. I want to recommend a book which he would do well to read, Economic Growth in the West, by Angus Maddison. He refers to the great gap existing between America and certain European countries, especially England, and what he says is this—

They call it “deepening of investment”. That is the most important reason. Nowhere will you find that the reasons for the lower productivity, or the reasons for the higher productivity in America are those which the hon. member for Hillbrow mentioned. It is not correct.

We also heard about the high cost structure. Give me one example where it is cheaper to establish a factory in a border area than in an urban area, it is said. Sir, I can mention many. I can mention my own factory. I have compared the cost of erecting a factory in Rustenburg and that of building a factory in Johannesburg.

What about Hammarsdale?

I am talking about things I have knowledge of and not about things I know nothing about, as so many of the hon. members opposite do. The position is that there is a considerable difference in the building costs alone. I am not saying that this is so in all border areas; I am mentioning a specific example. But if hon. members do not want to believe me I shall quote to them what their own people are saying. I shall mention again what Mr. Stacey said—

They spoke about the tremendous amounts. He states further—

This Dr. Cronje also said. He said—

I hope the hon. members will now begin to accept this, because I am now quoting what their own people have said. I also want to deal with the objections which have been raised to the idea of border area development. Mention has been made of economic fragmentation and the prejudicing of the existing areas. It is really interesting to see how there has been a reversal in the views of a person such as Dr. Cronje. I have already stated what he said three years ago, but what he is saying at present is this—

He is referring particularly to development near the urban areas—

Not a slowing down, but an acceleration. I hope the hon. members on that side will now abandon that argument, for it has no substance.

I still want to raise the point of white capital. It is one point which is being bandied across the floor of this House all day long as if it were a fact that the Government does not at this stage want to allow white capital in, as they see it, and as if it would entail a major delay in the development of the Bantu areas. I have already stated—and I said this in Pretoria at a conference—that I doubt that statement. I do not think it is true, and I now want to read something which hon. members will be interested in. It is what Stacey said on page 55 in regard to this matter—

The Government, in spite of those restrictions which we are aware of, is prepared to do everything possible, and is in fact doing so, to develop those areas. But if one does have undeveloped areas then one will find it throughout the history of the world. One does not put the cart before the horse, as that side of the House wants to do. One begins with the basic thing, and what is that? It is agricultural development. The basis of all undeveloped areas is agriculture, and the hon. the Minister and his Deputy Ministers can mention numerous things which they are doing to develop the Transkei and the other areas agriculturally. But they are going even further than that. They feel that although agriculture is the basis, measure of success can in fact be achieved if one begins at this stage already to lay the foundations of industrial development. If you know what work the Xhosa Development Corporation has already done to make a start with certain selected industries in the Transkei, in spite of the fact that agriculture is basic, then one will realize that a start has been made in a healthy way, and not in an over-hasty way, as that side of the House wants it done. Because then one can make mistakes; one is likely to make even greater mistakes. One is going to take two steps backwards instead of one forward by laying the foundation for the establishment of important industries. But, Mr. Speaker, let me add the following. If you were to read the speech made by the late the hon. Prime Minister you would see that it is not correct to say that white initiative is being excluded altogether. That is untrue. The Bantu Investment Corporation, the Xhosa Development Corporation—there we have white initiative. Let me say at once that I believe that those corporations can do more in their own way for the development of those areas than white capital can do because they are not looking for immediate profits. They can tackle long-term plans, whereas a private industry will for a considerable time have to look for profits. But there is another very important argument. The Government also said that it is prepared to develop those areas on an agency basis. Now, what does that mean? Hon. members probably know what an agency means.

Hon. members know what it means. But it includes white initiative, in the same way the Government is already doing in the field of the mining industry. That statement that white initiative being excluded altogether is totally untrue. The Government includes it. It applies its Corporations which it has established. But let me also add the following. Those areas are ultimately going to become independent. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is what many White industrialists are taking into consideration. They are asking the question, where is it safer to invest? The hon. member for Hillbrow asked what difference it made whether it was five miles this side of the border in the white area or five miles the other side of the border in the Bantu area. It may not make any difference to him. But let me tell him that it makes a very big difference as far as the industrialist is concerned. I have no doubt in my mind that for the White industrialist the border areas are far more attractive than the Bantu areas. The power of attraction is much greater.

Why?

I shall tell you why. It remains in our country. It is much safer. And it has been proved that we invest far more easily in South Africa than we invest in another country. One has easier control over it. That is obvious. I hope the hon. member has his reply.

He still does not understand.

Then he will never understand it. But, I just want to repeat the following. This side of the House is not excluding white initiative. And the Government is going to unfold its policy further in that connection. One cannot tackle everything at the same time. One cannot, it is simply impossible. It is physically impossible, humanly impossible and financially impossible. So it is necessary for one to begin at one level and work one’s way upwards. One lays one’s bricks layer upon layer. In this way the Government began to build on the agricultural level, and then built on the industrial level; then it used these corporations and subsequently the agencies as building materials. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with attention to the authoritative speech which we have just had from the hon. member for Florida. But, it was impossible to gain any information from that speech about the fundamental questions which we are discussing in this debate. The hon. member told us about the advantages of decentralization. Nobody is disputing them. We on this side of the House are all for decentralization. What we have been discussing is the fact that what this Government calls decentralization is something which is not true decentralization but a relocation of industry. They want to shift industries from the Western Cape, from Johannesburg, from Port Elizabeth, and they want to take them to other cities, such as Durban, East London, and the outskirts of Pretoria. But one hears very little of decentralization of industry to the rural areas, the white rural areas of South Africa. That would be true decentralization because it is there where the need exists. We had a long dissertation by the hon. member about the advantages he found as an industrialist in establishing his industry at Rustenburg. It is a pity he did not give us all the advantages. It is a pity he did not tell us how much less he is paying his workers at Rustenburg in comparison with what we are paying the same workers on the Witwatersrand or in Cape Town. One of the major inducements that the Government is offering industrialists, not to decentralize but to shift to the cities near the reserves, is that they will there be allowed to pay lower wages than we pay in Johannesburg or in Cape Town. What worries me is that not one of the speakers on the Government side has tried to answer what is to us the crux of the matter. This policy of relocating our industries, this policy of forcing lower standards upon the existing urban areas, is put to us as an attempt to solve the race problem, especially the Bantu or Native problem in South Africa. But, how can it solve the problem? That we were not told. We have been told from the opposite side on a thousand occasions that the greatest problem in South Africa, the greatest social and even biological evil in South Africa, is economic integration. I remember the eloquence of which the hon. member for Brits rid himself to tell us that we who accept the fact of economic integration must know that economic integration will be followed by political integration and that political integration will be followed by biological integration, whatever that may be.

Integration is dynamic.

And there the hon. member repeats it. But, what is this policy, this major aspect of Nationalist Party policy to shift the Black workers to the border industries, but an attempt to integrate Black labour with white industries in another place. [Interjections.] Can anybody tell me how in heaven’s name anyone can say that if you put an industry at Rosslyn, or in Pinetown or in East London and you make it completely dependent upon a mass of Black labour, that that is not integration, economic integration? And that, Sir, is the challenge that we have thrown to the members on the opposide side and not one at ministerial level or any other level has even attempted to answer. We of the United Party say that we speak the truth and we state a simple fact, whether we like it or not, that our industry is dependent upon Black labour in South Africa. And what is the Government trying to propose now? They want to take Black workers away from our cities and take them into the rural areas or to other cities. But, in which way do they change the population ratio in South Africa? In which way do they ease the pressure of this burgeoning Black population upon the economic resources and the economic facilities of South Africa? In which way do they make us as White people less dependent upon these Black hands to produce our wealth? I think we should look at one province which I have the honour to represent here to-day, namely the Transvaal. What is happening in the Transvaal? I have to thank Dr. J. A. Scheepers who recently presented a thesis to the University of South Africa on this issue. Dr. Scheepers pointed out the following facts. He said that nearly a fifth of the Transvaal total surface area is now Black. Fully Black. A fifth of the Transvaal surface is Black. That is not all. On the platteland to which the Black workers from the Witwatersrand must now go the Whites are outnumbered on an average by 10 to 1 and in 98.4 per cent of the total surface area of the province there are 19 Black people to every White person. The Whites outnumber the Africans in areas less than 0.1 per cent of the province, and those are urban areas. The remaining 1.56 per cent of the area of the province has a ratio of 1.1 Africans to every White. The best ratio is in the small, compact cities. But they are not satisfied. They want to take the Blacks back to where they already hopelessly outnumber the White people. I cannot, for the life of me, see the sense of this. The hon. member for Florida said that if you take the white industries to the borders of the reserves, at least you keep them in White South Africa. If you keep them in Johannesburg or in Cape Town, do you not keep them in White South Africa? But in both cases they will depend upon Black labour. That is the crux of the matter; and we are waiting for their answer. They can play on the racial chess board of South Africa and shift industries and human beings as they like, but the fact of the inter-dependence of the races is not affected. We wait in vain, Sir, for some intelligent answer to this, which is the crux of the matter. But in the meantime, we have to find that an area like the Western Cape has to be discriminated against in the pursuit of this ideology. Why should a 5 per cent decrease annually in the Black workers of the Western Province be mandatory, and in the rest of South Africa it remains a vague ideal, a pious hope? Why this emphasis on industry all the time? We hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister that industrialists support him and they will voluntarily decrease the Black workers in their industries in the Western Province by 5 per cent over an undefined period, but I presume it is in about a year or so. because the ideal is 5 per cent per annum. I have very little confidence that this will be achieved. It may be achieved in the first or second year, but to maintain a decrease of 5 per cent year after year is a different story, as the hon. the Minister will learn. What about the rest of the employers in the Western Province? It has been calculated that out of 130,000 Black workers in the Western Cape, only about 22,000 or 23,000 are in industry—only about 17 per cent and of that 17 per cent a large number have rights here. It has been calculated, I understand, that only about 12 per cent of the Blacks in industry here are contract labourers, who are dispensable, they claim. [Interjections.] Yes, in industry. The hon. the Minister must please listen to what I am saying. My point is that only 12 per cent of the Black people in the Western Cape are contract labourers in industry.

The 5 per cent does not apply to industry only, but to all contract labour.

But what has the hon. the Minister done to get the support of these people? Why through all this debate did he only talk about industry? What is happening in the services? What is happening in domestic employment? What is happening in transport? [Interjections.] I think we can leave this discussion now in the certain knowledge that the Nationalist Party, and particularly my dear old friend, the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, is playing the fool with one of the major problems of South Africa. They have no real answer to that problem. It is a problem of integration, of interdependence, economically of race upon race in South Africa. If ever that has been revealed beyond doubt, it has been revealed by the performance of the hon. members opposite.

You thought I was playing the fool with you in Vereeniging as well. [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker, that gibe I accept. I shall be the last one to argue that this Government has politically scored success after success. And I shall not be surprised if they score a few more successes, because they take the easy way of life. They exploit prejudice and fear. They have a negative approach based upon hatred. I say that the rest of South Africa cannot compete with them, but disillusionment will come to the nation. We on this side of the House are confident that this position will not remain so, this trick upon the people of South Africa will not succeed indefinitely. But I think we can leave that debate there with this exposure of the Government’s inability to give an answer to that question: How do we end the economic interdependence of the races? Or let me put it concretely: The Government’s inability to tell the hon. the Minister of Transport how he can run the Rallways with White workers only. It is as simple as that, Sir—until they can tell the hon. the Minister of Transport, or until he can tell us, how the Rallways can be run with only White workers, that interdependence remains as a fact. That is the crucial fact of the economic situation in South Africa. I think we can leave it at that. That is a fact. It stands “soos ’n paal bo water”.

Order!

Surely I am allowed to quote a proverb. I am allowed to quote from any language. It stands there like Emerson said: a hard, tangible fact, you can almost feel it is like a ball in your hand.

I think we can now discuss some other matters, and the matter which I want to raise to-day with the Government, very seriously, is the situation of South Africa in the sporting world. It is quite clear from what is happening in almost every division of sport in South Africa that the time has come for us to think again about our attitude towards our sporting organizations, who have done very great work in the past to organize sport for the health and the recreation of our people, and at the same time to bring glory to the name of South Africa. The name of the South African Springboks has stood high wherever they have been in the world. So I think we are proud on both sides of this House of the achievements of our South African sportsmen and of South African sport. In the past, when we really followed the traditional way of life of South Africa, and before the Government started interfering with things that were adjusting themselves normally, sport in South Africa played two important roles: It helped to emphasize the essential unity of the peoples of South Africa. Even if we participated in our sport separately, according to the conventions of South Africa, we shared a mutual pride in the achievements of South African sportsmen. And secondly, to which I have referred already: Sport did much to enhance the name and the reputation of South Africans. Wherever one goes in the world, South African sport is known. The South African cricketer, athlete, rugby player, soccer player and golfer have brought fame to South Africa. There was a time when Bobby Locke, there is a time now when Gary Player, is worth more to the good name of South Africa than every one of the 26 members of the present Cabinet. It is a fact which we have to acknowledge proudly.

What about Frankie Waring?

Frankie Waring, the sportsman, was worth much more to South Africa than Frankie Waring, the politician.

However, the situation has changed. Now we find that South Africa’s participation in international sport is becoming a constant source of embarrassment to South Africa. We also find that we are not permitted to play the important role in international sport we have become accustomed to. We find that the field in which we are permitted to participate in international sport is narrowing. Last year, when we looked forward with keen interest, as one of the greatest rugby playing nations in the world, to meeting the other great rugby playing nation of the world in test matches, the All Black tour of South Africa had to be cancelled because of a statement made at Cabinet level that the New Zealanders would not be allowed to come to South Africa if their team included a Maori or two. And so we were denied the privilege of rugby tests against New Zealand. We find that the visit in about 18 months’ time of a M.C.C. team to South Africa is in jeopardy because the Minister of the Interior did something which no politician should ever do, he answered a hypothetical question. He started to select the M.C.C. team before the M.C.C. had met about it. Now the M.C.C. tour of South Africa is in danger and the result may be that the present series of cricket tests, in which we are distinguishing ourselves so remarkably, may be the last series of cricket tests in South Africa for ten years. Heaven knows what will happen after those ten years, except that the prospects are very bright that the Government will no longer be in power.

We have had conventions in this country which we have observed for hundreds of years. We have never had this type of problem before. The question now arises why we are having this type of problem. I think there is a very simple answer, and we have to face it. I want to appeal to the Government especially to face it. We are facing these problems because we have had a Government in power in South Africa since 1948 which set about converting every convention, every working and every practical convention in South Africa, into a hard statute, supported by police forces and punishments and directives and mandatory rules which will allow of no exception, no human exception, ever.

We never in South Africa had a situation whereby a child of parents recognized as White suddenly had herself listed as a Coloured. I do not think that we will ever know the impact that something like that makes on the world outside. We have never had a situation where a man has been recognized as a White man in his adult years, has participated and distinguished himself in the boxing world, and then suddenly finds himself listed as a Coloured, and having his career and his life ruined as a result. We have never had things like that.

We never had cases of people, accustomed to watching and supporting White sport in South Africa, suddenly finding themselves denied access to the playing fields which they had attended, perhaps for a generation. Yes, at the last minute, when they had already gathered there in their thousands to watch White sport they were denied access.

All these things are making an impact upon thinking men in South Africa and elsewhere. These things are putting South Africa out of court. The time has come that we should reconsider our attitude to these things, unless the Government wants to accept the responsibility for being the cause of South Africa’s total ostracism in the world of sport, unless the Government wants to accept the responsibility for denying to the people of South Africa the opportunities to participate in contests against their traditional opponents in the sports they love. Let them say so then. Let them say that it is more important that Maoris should not play football in South Africa in an All Black team than for South Africa to be accepted as one of the sporting nations of the world. Let them say that it is more important that Basil D’Oliveira should not come to South Africa as a member of the M.C.C. team—not as a member of a South African team—than for South Africa to meet the M.C.C. team on the cricket fields.

Who tells you that he will come?

That question you should put to the Minister of the Interior, not to me. Is it more important that D’Oliveira should be excluded than it is for South Africa to participate in tests against our traditional cricket opponents? That is the question.

We on this side of the House want to make a serious appeal to the Government to reconsider the position and to return to the traditional way of life of South Africa. We make an appeal to this Government to allow the races of this country to attend sports meetings and to support one another, as they have always done in my memory and in the memory of hon. members sitting opposite. If it is so vitally important that there should be separate facilities for the people attending these sports stadia to witness our sport, then let there be separate facilities. Make that a condition.

I say that the time has come that the Government should not interfere in every detail of the life of every South African and that we should trust the bodies responsible for amateur sport in South Africa to make their own arrangements. There are sanctions which will apply, which will make it impossible for these sporting bodies to ignore the conventional way of life. They want to be successful and they want their sport to be successful. If they flagrantly ignore the conventions of South Africa they will lose support. Either their sport will lose support or else they will be outvoted as sporting administrators in South Africa. The sanction is there. It does not need a government in power to blemish the name of South Africa to bring about the observance of South African conventions. We want to plead with the Government to accept that it is not for the Government to determine what teams should be selected by bodies invited to play in South Africa, invited by responsible South African bodies. If we invite the All Blacks, let us leave it to the All Blacks to choose their team. If we want to invite the M.C.C., let us respect the right of the M.C.C. to choose their team. We ask them to respect our right to choose our team. If they were to insist that we should include non-Whites in our teams, we would resent it. If we expect them to respect our rights, we should also observe their rights. Otherwise, Sir, as I said before, the Government must accept the responsibility of excluding South Africa from participation in all international sport.

The sporting bodies concerned will know not to invite teams which will create an impossible racial situation in South Africa. Nobody who is responsible for the administration of sport in South Africa wants sport to be the cause and the occasion and the victim of race conflict. Let us trust our own South African sportsmen—let us trust our own South African citizens in this matter.

We also want to appeal to the Government to consider even a more difficult case. In the case of professional sport it should recognize, both nationally and internationally—and I use the next word deliberately—acceptable boards of control to organize these sports, as we have in the case of, for example, boxing. I think in boxing we have a statutory or semi-statutory body. Let us then leave it to them. But as long as the Government thinks that administratively, that under powers given to it by various Acts, it has to interfere, to determine, to say in advance that no M.C.C. team shall include so and so, no All Black team shall include so and so, then I say that not only is the Government damaging sport in South Africa but it is also damaging the good name and the sound image of the South African nation. They are doing it unnecessarily; they are doing it unwisely. And so, in the name of the people of South Africa who are concerned about this, and not only the Opposition, we on this side of the House appeal to the Government. When a newspaper editor like Mr. Dirk Richards of Dagbreek, editing a newspaper of which the Prime Minister of South Africa is the chairman, writes and exclaims in sorrow, “Why should a Maori or two stop us from playing rugby against New Zealand? It does not make sense.” If we find that sort of responsible people expressing these views, then surely we should think again.

I want to end by saying that the Government should face this fact: the onus is upon them. What happens to the future of sport in South Africa depends upon the Government. They can destroy the international sporting image of South Africa if they wish. But they will do it to our detriment, to our grief, and to the great harm of happy, healthy life in South Africa. In order to epitomize this appeal that we are making to the Government I wish to move the following amendment to the amendment—

1. (i) allowing all race groups to watch all organized sport, provided adequate facilities are available for Whites and non-Whites.
2. (ii) entrusting the control and administration of sport in the Republic to the recognized sporting bodies;
3. (iii) accepting the principle of noninterference in the realm of international sport and leaving the issuing of invitations and the selection of teams to the controlling bodies concerned; and
4. (iv) recognizing in the case of both national and international professional sport, acceptable boards of control representative of the sport concerned.”

I listened attentively to the great orator on the United Party side who can present matters so seriously and heart-rendingly, particularly the sorrows and sufferings of people and the United Party’s strong human feelings and love for South Africa. If the voting public of South Africa is of the opinion that the United Party is inspired with so much patriotism and is so concerned about what is in the best interests of our country and our population groups in general, then one wonders why the United Party is sitting on that side of the House and the National Party in the Government benches. Why are they not sitting on this side of the House? Mr. Speaker, the National Party Government and this side of the House accept the fullest responsibility for the preservation of the best traditions of our country and its people, and also of those traditions which we have up to now preserved and which have made safety and peace and happy co-existence possible, along with the preservation of the White man’s identity in South Africa in the future as well. We accept that responsibility. It is not the National Party Government which has willed it so that the composition of our population is what it is to-day. We know that continual developments and changes are taking place. The hon. member recently wrote in an article in one of the English-language Sunday newspapers, describing how he was raised in the old way on Steynsburg and the hon. the Prime Minister at Aliwal or wherever it may be. But that says nothing; I have also, as the hon. member did, blown the whistle for Coloured teams when I was at school in George and I played football. There is nothing wrong with that. It is still in line with our policy of to-day which is that we should help, instruct and lead them. We are teaching them how to come into their own in the financial, economic, educational and other fields; we are helping them to help themselves. But what did the hon. member for Yeoville come along and do here this afternoon? He said that we must not abandon our traditional way of life and policy. We must retain our traditional way of life, but how must we retain it? By integrating socially and in the realm of sport.

That is not what he said.

Of course that is what he said, because what were his words? He came forward here with a foolish argument and said that the policy of this Government was the cause of the good name of South Africa in the realm of sport, one in which our sportsmen had won fame and glory for South Africa at all levels, being brought into discredit in the outside world and in South Africa. Why? Precisely because it is our declared policy—the world knows it and everybody at home knows it—that we will not in this country allow competition between Whites and non-Whites on the playing fields. But that the hon. member does not want because if one continues to enforce that policy then one estranges the goodwill of the outside world; one ruins the prestige of our sportsmen and one destroys the fame which has been won by sportsmen of South Africa in the realm of sport. Now what does that mean if one analyses it? If the outside world says to you, “We prefer things to be done in this way, irregardless of what your problems and difficulties might be and irregardless of what your traditions might have been in the past”, and then one must do what the world expects of one if one wants to win fame and make a name for oneself, or be important and popular.

He is advocating surrender.

We have never yet tried to prescribe to other countries their policy.

We are master in our own house.

We simply do not want other countries to force us here to depart from our traditional point of view and policy, because we have just as much right to enforce our domestic policy in respect of sport as other countries have to enforce their policy. We have just as much right to select our teams as we see fit as they have to select their teams.

The hon. member referred to the case of the New Zealanders last year. My predecessor was accused of wanting to prescribe to the New Zealanders whom they could select to play in their rugby team. That accusation was made against my predecessor in the English-language Press and it was also the opinion and attitude of the Opposition, i.e. that we wanted to prescribe to New Zealand the way in which they should compile their team because we maintained that we did not in this country allow Whites and non-Whites to compete on the same playing field. They stated that we wanted to prescribe in advance to New Zealand what rugby players they were to select. The official standpoint was—and this is still our standpoint now—that New Zealand was at liberty to select whom they wanted; they could make up their team as they pleased, but that South Africa was also at liberty to say whom it would allow into this country and whom it would not allow into this country. That is our right. The hon. member for Yeoville has now come forward and stated that in reply to a hypothetical question I made a statement to the Press. I did not make any statement to the Press and I want to’ make it clear here in public. Mr. Alexander of the Sunday Express telephoned me at my residence at 10 o’clock on a Friday or Saturday nigh and asked me what I knew about D’Oliveira. My reply to him was that I knew very little about the man; that I knew almost nothing about him; that all I knew about him was that he had made application for a visa to visit South Africa and that it had been granted to him; that what I had heard about him was all favourable; that what I knew about him further was that he was an excellent cricket-player and that he was here in South Africa to make his services available here to his people, unlike in the case of so many other members of his race group who made good overseas and then refused on their return to South Africa to give thier own people the benefits of their abilities and knowledge. I said that I had no further information about him. He then came out with this hypothetical question whether he would be allowed to play or not.

Then he tripped you up.

My reply to him was: “Why do you want to drag this man, who is not coming here to harm South Africa—he has caused no disturbances as far as I know— into politics? Do you wish to serve his best interests or those of South Africa? Do you not know what our policy is? Our policy is well-known.” I never told him that we would not allow a British team to enter this country if they selected D’Oliveira; that is what he said. I want to say in public here that I do not know Mr. Alexander personally, but that as a result of that report which he, according to his own interpretation of a telephone conversation he had with me, placed in that way in the newspaper, he need never again come and ask me for an interview. I am very sorry now I did so. I had always assumed, from the little which I had had to do with him, mostly over the telephone, that he was a decent person. I still want to assume that he is a decent person, but he is not decent enough for me to grant him an interview again or speak to him again over the telephone. I now want to say this. It was a completely hypothetical question and the Minister of Sport replied to the question. Why should we now state our policy on D’Oliveira?

But then the hon. member for Yeoville dragged in the question of race classification. He was dealing with sport and then came forward with the question of Ronnie van der Walt, the boxer. He stated that that man had been a White man for years and that he had always boxed as a White man and that the moment when he became famous he was declared to be a Coloured. I want to tell the hon. member that we are accustomed by this time to him coming forward in the most irresponsible way with statements to strengthen his arguments for which he does not have the slightest proof. This Mr. Ronnie van der Walt, his parents and his three brothers had been classified as Coloured persons in 1951 in the population census. His birth entry indicates the race of both his parents as being “mixed”, in other words Coloured. He attended the Livingstone High School and the Rosmead Central School, and both are coloured schools. His identity card as a Coloured was posted to him as far back as 13th September, 1960. He then became aware of his classification as a Coloured, in 1960. The Act gives him 30 days, or if he obtains condonation from the Minister, a year, to object to his classification but he never did so. However, it was only on 29th June, 1966, that he applied to the regional representative in Cape Town, for the first time, to be classified as a White person. I have the report here of the regional representative, and he informs me that he is going to inquire into the matter and has obtained statements including one from a very prominent sportsman here in Cape Town, a doctor. I would not like to mention his name, but if anybody wants to know what it is I will mention it. This Ronnie worked for a fishing company which employs non-Whites. This sportsman is not a member or supporter of the National Party. He is a medical doctor and he went to make a medical inspection of the staff of the company. He states that he always accepted him as a White man because he saw him participating in sport, but when he came face to face with this Coloured he looked him up and down and said to him: “Ronnie, what are you doing here?” and then Ronnie himself told him he was a Coloured.

How many times did he box as a White person?

I ask you, how many people who are Coloureds and who admit it and want to be nothing else than Coloureds, have you unconsciously, because you have not asked them to produce their identity cards, treated like White persons? But does treatment also mean acceptance? It is just a trick. With this question the hon. member is trying to get away with something which we will not allow. When this man began boxing he was probably a promising boxer and nobody thought of asking him what his classification was. He slipped in, as so many Coloureds do; tried to pass for White and to build up associations. It is very clear that when he thought that the associations which he had built up with the Whites were strong enough, particularly in view of the liberal attitdue which is taking root in South Africa, he though that it was his chance to be registered as a White person. But he set about things in the wrong way. A third party could have objected on his behalf. Whether he asked them to do so, I do not know, for in my experience they do not do so by their own request, but by request of someone who knows that they cannot get there in any other way. We shall probably deal with those loopholes in the Act in due course. This Ronnie van der Walt lives in Philippi. He is married to a Coloured woman and his children are Coloured. He never was a White person and I do not think that he will ever be one either. But now he is the one we are being reproached with because we have laws to prevent miscegenation and to safeguard our white identity as far as possible. That is why we also have laws immorality and against mixed marriages. But the Opposition has promised the voters it will do away with all these laws if they come into power again. If we were to concede to the demands made by the hon. member for Yeoville, it would mean that we would simply be allowing the sporting authorities to do as they please without the Government taking any notice of them whatsoever and then Ronnie van der Walt will become a White person and will remain one. I wonder how many thousands of Ronnies one will then find in all kinds of different fields. But I want to put another question. I want to ask: Since we have, our racial composition and with our traditional policy, been successful in maintaining so much domestic goodwill, kindness and peaceful co-existence with the other non-White races in our midst, does he think we would achieve the same measure of success in regard to those matters if we were now to throw overboard that traditional policy and say that we can now mix and intermingle freely in the realm of sport? If there were ever something which I am convinced would cause racial friction in this country, then it would be to allow White teams here to participate in a sport against non-White teams. We would not only be wrecking in that way our policy of separate development, we would also be undermining the good relationships which other nations and other countries, no matter how repugnant they find our policy, actually envy. For in other countries of the world, in America for example, there are more racial disturbances (in those countries where integration is applied) than we have openly experienced in South Africa over all these years. We will never find ourselves in that position, because it remains a fact that among ethnical groups and certain races which do not belong together the most peaceful relationships and the best friendships are built up by keeping them apart instead of throwing them together.

[Inaudible.]

I knew that would come. I am surprised that the hon. member for Yeoville did not ask why we had not gone ahead and allowed the Cape Town and Stellenbosch students to go to Japan and participate in sports there. The hon. member for Durban (Point) has now asked the question. Are you aware that incidents occured… [Interjections.] It makes no difference where it was. The fact remains that it proves to you our country does not want it. I have seen the same thing in regard to rugby at Newlands, and there are separate facilities there. Surely you are aware that if people make application and where there are separate facilities, Whites are allowed to go and watch non-White sport and non-Whites are allowed to go and watch White sport. There is a standing permit here at Newlands, for example. There was a case in question this year where the sport union of a very popular type of sport, not as a result of other problems, nor because they were unwilling to do so, but as a result of municipal problems, did not create separate facilities.

Was it in Bloemfontein?

No, it was not in Bloemfontein. Even under those circumstances those authorities knew that without those facilities they would not get a permit to allow non-Whites in as spectators. That is what the regulations and the laws of the country are for. Must we sacrifice everything for sport, or is the survival and the good and the interests of South Africa and its future of more importance? The interests of the country and the nation must always have priority. Sport is a very important contributory factor to the building up of sound physical, as well as spiritual and moral development. I know that it is and we are all sportsmen and are fond of sport, but we dare not allow the enemies of South Africa and those who want to make it impossible for us to achieve success with our policy of separate development and to come out on top and triumph, to plough us under now in the realm of sport which they know is one which is very dear to our hearts and which is a difficult one to handle. The same applies to religion. That is why it is quite in line with the onslaught made in the late 60s by our enemies, where they not only attacked on a residential and biological level, but also singled out these social and these religious aspects by means of which one can appeal to the sentiments and the feelings of people, to see whether by so doing they could not make us give way. I am convinced in my mind that if we had not had a new Government under a new Prime Minister this particular emphasizing of South Africa’s policy in regard to sport would not have taken place this year. It is taking place because there are people in this country who are nothing else but lackeys to foreign interests and to world liberalism.

They are weighing and testing our present Prime Minister and his Government and subjecting them to pressure in order to see whether he would not perhaps be more flexible or make more concessions than the rock-like man we have lost. On the basis of principle I am prepared to give the House and the country the assurance that this Government will be just as unhesitant and just as certain and just as inflexible in respect of that principle. But we are not so foolish that within the framework of the preservation of our principle, we will not go out of our way to make the application of the policy and the principle such, in the most carefully considered manner, as to make of it the greatest possible success. But in the realm of sport the principle is to my way of thinking as important and worth as much as it is in any other sphere. That is why I believe, on behalf of the entire Government, that we will not sacrifice our principles in the sphere of sport…

In the diplomatic sphere?

… or in any other sphere for the sake of the desires of the United Party and the foreign world outside.

Mr. Speaker, as a very humble backbencher I say with diffidence that the hon. the Minister has come out of this debate very badly indeed. I want to say, firstly, that the Minister has completely begged the question put to him by the hon. member for Yeoville. The question put to him was whether the Government would take the responsibility for South Africa’s complete isolation in international sport. I must say that he ran away from that question very cleverly and spent almost all the time at his disposal talking about Van der Walt, the boxer. I want to say, too, that the hon. the Minister has tried to oversimplify this whole question of South Africa’s position in international sport. I want to say to him that he is in for a surprise, because I think that he is going to find out very shortly that the people of South Africa, and I include Nationalist Party supporters, are doing a lot of re-thinking about the whole question of South African sport. I want to say that the hon. the Minister came out very badly on the whole question of Basil D’Oliveira. His explanation is not acceptable. We had a responsible Minister who made a statement on a matter which was completely academic and because of that statement he has done nothing but aggravate the position. In the process he has stopped three South African cricketers from playing in a world eleven game. [Interjections.] That is what he has done with his wholly untimely statement to the Press. The whole question of Basil D’Oliveira was completely academic and I want to say that the enemies of South Africa threw out a bait and the hon. the Minister took that bait hook, line and sinker and made the matter very much worse. South Africa, with its very small white population, has built up a tremendous record in the field of international sport.

We know, too, that the achievements of our sportsmen and women in the tough field of international competition has brought a great deal of credit and prestige to South Africa over the years. I think I can say that the tradition of sending sporting teams overseas and the custom of acting as host to teams visiting us has become a part of the traditional way of South African life. It is not surprising then that the people of South Africa view with a sense of dismay the prospect of severing of international sporting ties which have been built up over a period of many years. I am quite certain, too, Sir, and this might surprise the Minister, that if a census were to be taken on this matter, you would find that the large majority of the people in South Africa would ask the Government to re-think its attitude completely on this whole question of international sport. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. Members should contain themselves.

I am personally convinced that much re-thinking is taking place to-day among the supporters of the Nationalist Party. I have here a letter which I have not taken from the English Press. I have taken it from Die Burger, which we know supports the Nationalist Party. I believe that the author of this letter is a very good supporter of the Nationalist Party. I should like to quote the letter. The letter is headed “Sport, nie-blankes: Tyd om weer te dink”. It reads as follows—

[Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I have heard the parrot-cry from the other side: Where does the letter come from? I have mentioned earlier that this letter is taken from Die Burger. The person in the letter admits that he supports the Nationalist policy of apartheid. I want to say that this person is in very good company. He is in the very good company of Mr. Dirk Richards, the editor-in-chief of Dagbreek. Mr. Richards says exactly the same thing. I find it a tragedy, too, that the Government, by its unbending policy in regard to South Africa’s position in international sport, has allowed the enemies of South Africa to take the initiative and drag this whole question of sport into the political arena. We know that during the past ten years the Afro-Asian and communist countries have mounted a very well organized campaign designed to isolate South Africa in international sport. We know, too, that their efforts up to the present time have been, to say the least, very successful. It is perfectly obvious that unless the Government is prepared to do something to assist sporting organizations in the Republic to counteract this growing movement, it will be only a matter of time before South Africa’s isolation in international sport is complete. Surely the Government must be aware of the fact that this attack on our sport is a blatant political move and forms part of the over-all plan to discredit South Africa in the eyes of the world. One would think that this whole question of South Africa’s position in international sport would receive the very urgent attention of the Government. It does seem strange, too, that whereas the Government spares no expense or effort in defending the Republic when we are attacked by these same enemies on other fronts, it does not seem to appreciate the necessity of defending South Africa on the equally important sporting front. Quite obviously, too, in the light of this apparent lack of concern by the Government, our enemies have been having it almost all their own way in the councils of world sport. The success of the campaign becomes apparent when we realize that to-day South African sportsmen cannot compete in the world’s premier sporting event, the Olympic Games, where in the past South Africans have won no fewer than 18 titles.

We know that South African table tennis has been completely isolated for many years. In regard to football, we know that both professional and amateur football is to-day completely isolated from world competition. What is most important of all, we know that the traditional rugby tests between South Africa and New Zealand have come to an end. There is no need for me to stress what this very sad development has meant to the people of South Africa. I believe that the Government will in due course hear about it. I might say, too, that this is not the end of the story. At this very moment efforts are being made to isolate tennis-players, swimmers, boxers, weight-lifters and wrestlers from all international sport. Although we still play the odd game of test cricket, we are no longer a member of the International Cricket Conference. You know what that means, Sir.

To end this very sombre picture as far as our future in international sport is concerned, I should like to quote a letter from London, written not by an enemy of South Africa but by someone who, on the contrary, I know has a very high regard for South Africa; someone who is a realist and can foresee what is going to happen to us if we do not do something. The person I am speaking of here is Mr. Bill McLaughlin, the manager of the Australian Rugby-Union team touring the British Isles at the present moment. In a newspaper article he warned South Africa that their policy of apartheid in sport could mean the end of tours to the Republic. To quote his own words—

Mr. McLaughlin concluded by reminding us of the question of Basil D’Oliveira, who played so successfully for England against the West Indies. He asks what will happen if the M.C.C. choose him for the next tour of the Republic? Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. The Minister has given us an answer to this one. One must assume that the Government is conscious of the important part, the tremendously important part, sport plays and will continue to play in the lives of our people, but one wonders whether they appreciate the tremendous effect in the field of international propaganda achieved by our sportsmen when competing on an international level. I ask these questions because it would seem that the Government is, on the face of it, perfectly content to sit back and do nothing to help the legislators of sport in South Africa who are trying so desperately to find a solution to the very difficult problem with which sport in South Africa is being faced to-day. I want to say to the Government that sport legislators in South Africa accept without reservation the fact that the Government has a definite policy in regard to multi-racial sport. I can go so far as to say that these legislators have time and again saved the Government considerable embarrassment through their strict adherence to the dictum that they are not politicians when administering sport and must abide by the policies of whatever Government is in power. Many of them have had to act as buffers for the Government by absorbing the attacks against our policies in sport. I want to say that it is perfectly obvious that the Government is passing the buck and hiding behind the sport legislators of South Africa.

I think the time has come for the Government to help sport legislators in this country. I feel our Ministers can do this by taking a completely new and fresh look at the sporting scene. They might, for instance, take a good look at the chaotic position obtaining in regard to the attendances of non-Whites at major sporting events, an issue which our enemies abroad are exploiting ruthlessly. For example, could one imagine anything calculated to do South Africa more harm than the recent incident at East London when Africans were prevented from watching the Australian cricketers play a South African eleven? And, what is more, can one blame the Africans for reacting as they did? A good example of this reaction is expressed in a newspaper article by one of the leading Africans in East London. Under the heading “Cricket ban angers Africans” the article pointed to the fact that Africans in East London have reacted strongly to a Government regulation prohibiting them from entering the Jan Smuts ground to see the South African invitation eleven versus Australia match. Then Dr. R. R. Mahlangeni, of Duncan village, is quoted as having said—

There is no need for me to remind the Government that this type of avoidable incident is seized upon and used very effectively by our enemies in the campaign to isolate our country. I can well remember, too, the occasion on which Sir Stanley Matthews—incidentally a good friend of South Africa—played in a special gala football match at the Wanderers in Johannesburg last year. Some months before that the then Minister of Community Development personally gave me the assurance that where a sporting event was of a special nature, and would not be repeated, permission would be freely given to non-Whites to attend.

Imagine then, Sir, the embarrassment for everybody concerned when we arrived at the Wanderers only to find thousands of Bantu, who had gone there to watch the match, having been denied entrance because some Government official had refused them a permit at the last moment! And how futile it was, because instead of having a few thousand non-Whites watching a clean game of football in seats which were reserved for them, we had thousands of non-Whites outside for the entire duration of the game. One can imagine the enormous amount of resentment which was built up through that. I want to say that this type of incident is absolutely unforgiveable and will certainly contribute in giving South Africa a worse name in certain respects than she already has. The hon. the Prime Minister recently made an appeal to all South Africans to assist him in order to present a truer picture of South Africa to the outside world. And, every patriotic South African would like to assist the hon. the Prime Minister to bring that about. But so long as incidents like those I have mentioned, continue to happen, we shall never succeed in improving the image South Africa has in the eyes of the outside world. I am certain, too, that everyone who is concerned with the future of South Africa in the field of international sport will have read with a great deal of interest the constructive and thought provoking article by Mr. Dirk Richards and I want to commend to the Government suggestions which he made and to ask them to give these suggestions their most serious consideration. I have said before that the Minister is trying to over simplify the issue but those of our people who are used to seeing cricket tests, rugby tests and to see our sportsmen going overseas, these people are not going to be satisfied to be completely isolated in the field of international sport and, what is more, the Government is going to hear from them at the right time.

There is one final suggestion I should like to make. I believe we have lost so much ground already and our relations in the field of international sport are already so critical that I feel that the Government, if it wants to be wise, should immediately call a meeting of all the top sport legislators in order to discuss with them the problems facing them. I am sure that from a meeting like that very good suggestions will come, suggestions to help the Government out of the dilemma in which it finds itself to-day. Indeed, in order to make up some of the ground already lost, I ftel the Government should give serious consideration to sending a sporting mission overseas. We are sending trade missions overseas, but I think the time has come for the Government also to send a sport mission overseas so that they can tell legislators overseas what our difficulties are and try to obtain their assistance.

One realized, of course, that when the hon. member for Yeoville, who is the most eloquent member on that side, got up to raise this issue, his object was to exploit for political ends as far as he could any sporting difficulty in which South Africa might find itself.

That is a scandalous statement to make.

It is not a scandalous statement. If it had come, say, from the Leader of the Opposition, or from the hon. member for Pinelands, or from the hon. member for Simonstown, I would have listened to them as I have listened to the hon. member for Johannesburg (North). But the hon. member for Yeoville! We know him in this House. We know that he is only trying to see how much capital and how many votes he can get for the United Party. We know it. The hon. member made the quip that I, Frank Waring, was a better sportsman than a politician. I have never tried being anything else in this House and as a member of the Cabinet in defending policies which I feel are the right ones for South Africa. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) says that the sports administrators have always maintained that they are not politicians. That hon. member himself not so long ago used to be an administrator of sport. But he must understand that now he is a politician and as such is accountable to this House for the things he says. I want to deal with him first. He talked about the enemies of South Africa, the Afro-Asians, dragging the sporting policies of South Africa into the international political field. In that he is quite right. But it has nothing to do with Government policy. It is a political tendency which is apparent all over the world to-day. As a matter of fact, you can see it in every direction. As a former sport administrator the hon. member knows it. I too have seen reports from the very people who associate with him. They indicate that these bodies are working to ostracize South Africa from the international political as well as the sporting fields. They are doing so with intent. Now I want to ask the hon. member whether, knowing the position and knowing what is taking place overseas, he does not feel that the attempt being made to exploit this issue by raising it in this debate is done with no other object than to bedevil, and not to help, the position?

No wonder they did not want to let you speak first!

Order! Is the hon. member reflecting on the Chair?

No, Sir.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that remark at once. I select the speakers in this House.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) made the statement that the Minister of the Interior, through what he said about D’Oliveira, was responsible for the cancellation of a tour overseas by three of our cricketers. You know, Sir, I am amazed at the hon. member, because even overseas Press people who are not favourably disposed to South Africa have said that the West Indies have taken an action which they could not justify when they cancelled the trip of the three South Africans concerned. But this hon. member, what does he say? He says that the hon. the Minister of the Interior is responsible. He says this hon. Minister is the man who stopped these three cricketers from going overseas. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I listened to hon. members opposite very quietly. Now I want them to take their poison. [Interjections.] I have listened to these sneers session after session. I have heard hon. members opposite laughing and sneering at this side of the House but the amazing thing is that every time there is an election, or a by-election, they sink lower and lower in the eyes of the people of South Africa. And that is not surprising because they seem to think they can get away with this sort of un-South African attitude. Let me return to the hon. member for Johannesburg (North). I want to ask him whether he did not even feel a spark of criticism against the West Indies when they cancelled the invitation to these three cricketers? No, Sir. The blame he says must lie with the hon. the Minister.

Why did the West Indies change their minds?

The hon. member also read a letter from Mr. McLaughlin, the Wallaby manager, a letter about apartheid in sport. But I want to ask the hon. member whether it is his party’s policy that we in South Africa must carry on that form of integrated sport in which Mr. McLaughlin and apparently Australia believe? [Interjections.] The hon. member wants us to take note of what Mr. McLaughlin says and if we do not listen we shall become more and more isolated, he says. But must we then follow the pattern which Mr. McLaughlin wants us to follow? You see, Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite will make these accusations but they will never back those accusations by taking a stand upon a policy. I want to ask the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) about D’Oliveira. When the question was put in this House the answer was that it was a hypothetical question. I know the hon. member for Houghton was quite annoyed with the reply. I want to ask the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) what his attitude and the attitude of his party will be if an M.C.C. team is picked to-day with D’Oliveira as one of the team?

We say, leave it to the sporting organizations themselves.

I want to come to the Maori question which was raised by the hon. member for Yeoville. South African teams have on many occasions been to New Zealand. I too have been to New Zealand and have met the Maoris.

And you have survived?

Order! The hon. member must give the hon. the Minister a chance to make his speech.

South African teams visiting New Zealand have played against New Zealand sides consisting of, shall we say, White New Zealanders and Maori New Zealanders. If anyone in our teams got the idea into his head of not wanting to play in such a match he would have been sent straight back to South Africa, because that is the custom and tradition in New Zealand. But not only that. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that even in New Zealand they have Maori sides, all-Maori sides? They too divide themselves up into Maoris on the one hand and ordinary New Zealanders on the other hand. And South Africans have played against all-Maori teams on numerous occasions and, as I have said, if there had ever been any suggestion by a player in a South African team of not being prepared to play against Maoris he would have been sent back to South Africa. Because those are the traditions of New Zealand which we honour.

Let us now come to the point which hon. members opposite seem to regard as the major issue, i.e. the point that one or two Maoris in a New Zealand side would make no difference. Sir, I have nothing against the Maoris. I have found them to be a very friendly and charming people. But in sport the tradition in South Africa is separate sport. We do not have mixed sport. Therefore we have always expected a country which sends a team to South Africa to respect the traditions of South Africa in the same way as we respect their traditions when we go to them. The hon. member says that we have brought this situation about. Of course we never brought this about. There has never been a Maori as far as I know in a team which has come to South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order! Can hon. members not give the hon. the Minister an opportunity to make his speech? Surely, he cannot reply to a multitude of interjections?

As far as I know a Maori has never yet been picked for a New Zealand side touring South Africa. That was done because it was accepted as being our traditional policy. But then the international politicians got hold of sport and started to exploit it. But the amazing thing is that certain administrators amongst whom were two Maoris came to South Africa before the tour. When it came to the clerics and the liberals in New Zealand, all these people who tried to bedevil sport in the world, they raised the cry that New Zealand must insist on having Maoris included in the team. And yet one of the Maoris who was out here himself said that New Zealand should send the traditional team to this country. This we have from a Maori and yet here in our own country hon. members try to make political capital out of it! I love rugby and should have been glad to paly against a mixed New Zealand or against an all-Maori side if ever I had had the chance in New Zealand. But at the same time I say that bringing Maoris over here would be wrong, not because of them but because of the exploitation to which they would be subjected here in South Africa—exploitation by the Press of the type just experienced by the hon. the Minister of the Interior. I say that if Maoris are included in a New Zealand side that fact would be exploited by the Press, incidents would be created and an atmosphere would be created which would make the lives of those Maoris intolerable. Hon. members know that that is what would happen. After all, they too are aware of the attitude of sections of the Press in South Africa. Don’t they know that the fact that Maoris are included in an All Black side, when it comes not only to participation in sport but also participation in receptions, would have been exploited to the utmost? The liberal wing of the Press in South Africa are out to break down this separate basis of our sporting traditions in South Africa. That is how they want to bring about mixed sport in South Africa. In the teams we pick here they should like to see Coloureds and Bantu included. They should like to see that we play against mixed teams. That is what a section of the world is calling for.

How can you say that that will be exploited in view of the fact that we have just had a visit from Chief Leabua Jonathan?

Let me point out to the hon. member that a visit from Chief Jonathan is quite different from a four months’ tour by a rugby team, a side which plays two or three times a week and has to attend receptions attended by large numbers of people in many centres. It ought to be obvious to anyone that you cannot compare a situation like that with a visit from Chief Jonathan. I should like to ask hon. members opposite to cut out the political exploitation of this issue and to handle it, if they can—and there I exclude the hon. member for Yeoville— with the patriotic feeling of what is good for South Africa and what is to the good of our relationship with those countries with which we have great sporting connections. If we approach this matter on that basis I say we would not have heard the type of speech we have had from the hon. member for Yeoville and we would not have had a formal amendment like this one moved—that is if it had not been done for the sole object which this hon. member had in mind, namely how much political capital could be made out of this sports issue.

The hon. the Minister who has just sat down attacked the hon. member for Yeoville and accused him of exploiting any sporting difficulty for political ends. But I want to tell the hon. the Minister why the hon. member for Yeoville raised this issue here. He raised it because if something is not done soon South African sport will die. That is why he raised it. and not for political gain or political ends. My two colleagues have put up an unanswerable case upon this issue. On the other hand, not one of these two hon. Ministers has given us a single valid reason why the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville should not be accepted. But let us have a closer look at what the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation has just said. He attacked the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) for mentioning the attacks of the Afro-Asian group as a factor in this debate and said it had nothing to do with Government policy. But of course it has something to do with Government policy because this Government lays itself open to these attacks in everything it does and in every dealing it has with South African sport.