I move—

As usual, it is necessary to ask the House for an advance to cover Government expenditure during the first few months of the new year before the usual Appropriation Bill is passed. It is estimated that for the three months April, May and June an amount of R210,000,000 will be required, R176,000,000 for revenue services, R6,000,000 for Bantu education and R28,000,000 for loan services. Hon. members will know that only those services which have been approved of by Parliament will be covered by this measure. Any new services envisaged must wait until the Appropriation Bill is passed. In my Budget speech, which I intend delivering on Wednesday, 21 March, I shall review the financial position for the current financial year, as well as the prospects for the coming year. I do not intend anticipating my Budget speech but I should like to make use of this opportunity to mention a few matters of general interest.

Towards the end of the last session of Parliament, our economic position with regard to the outside world was definitely difficult. The Reserve Bank’s gold and foreign currency had sunk to the low level of R142,000,000 and we were compelled, inter alia, to institute control over the repatriation of the income from shares sold in South Africa by non-residents. This and other measures adopted by the Government were immediately effective. Furthermore, the Government, soon after the end of the session, was successful in obtaining loan facilities, the so-called “stand-by credit”, to an amount of $75,000,000 or R54,000,000 from the International Monetary Fund, which did much to create confidence in our ability to surmount our difficulties. Later on in the year the reserves were strengthened by certain overseas loans obtained by the Reserve Bank and certain private undertakings. When I attended the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund and of the World Bank in Vienna in September last year, our position had already improved considerably. I was therefore able to have discussions with various overseas bankers in an atmosphere of confidence. As the result of these consultations, various new foreign loans were arranged. Firstly, a loan of $10,000,000 or R7.1 million was obtained from an important Italian bank, the Banca Commerciala Italiana. The loan was for a period of three years at a rate of interest of 51 per cent. Shortly thereafter a loan was obtained from a prominent German bank, the Deutsche Bank. The amount was 40,000,000 German marks, or R7.1 million, the rate of interest was 5½ per cent and the term two years, but it can be extended for a third year. These two loans are very important because they are the first loans the Government has obtained in Italy and Germany, and I am particularly gratified that we were able to open these new sources of finance. In both cases other banks, apart from those through which the loan was arranged, also participated in the loan, so that we have now initiated broad financial relations with important institutions in both those countries. We also obtained two loans from the World Bank—$11,000,000 (R7.9 million) for railway development and $14,000,000 (R10,000,000) for the Electricity Supply Commission for the development of power under a Government guarantee. Both loans are repayable over a period of ten years and the rate of interest is the rate presently being charged by the Bank on all its loans, namely 5¾ per cent. Hitherto we have not drawn on these two loans. Finally, we have succeeded in renewing our revolving credit of $40,000,000 (R28.6 million) with a group of American banks for a further period of two years from 23 January. This loan has now been continuing for at least ten years. At first it was $20,000,000, but two years ago it was increased to $40,000,000, and it has always regularly been renewed when the period expired. We have now again renewed it for a further period of two years from 23 January. The rate of interest remains unchanged at 5⅜ per cent. The Reserve Bank repaid $10,000,000 of this loan in December last year, so that only $30,000,000 is at present outstanding in foreign exchange. In other words, there is still $10,000,000 which we can draw if necessary.

The improvement in our foreign reserves—which of course can only to a slight degree be ascribed to these loans—still continues and last Friday the gold and foreign exchange of the Reserve Bank stood at R314,000,000, i.e. R172,000,000 or 121 per cent higher than it was less than eight months ago. The Reserve Bank has already repaid the short-term foreign loans it obtained when our position was difficult, and I think the time has arrived for the Government to reduce its short-term foreign obligations. At the end of 1960 and the beginning of 1961 we drew R27,000,000 in foreign exchange from the International Monetary Fund—the so-called gold-tranche. We shall repay this amount within the next few weeks.

In July 1961 we obtained the right to draw a further R54,000,000 from the Fund—the so-called “stand-by” for the first and second credit-tranches. We did not make use of this right, and we are now going to inform the Fund that we are relinquishing our right in respect of half of that amount. We still reserve the right in respect of the first credit-tranche, viz. R.27,000,000. But we are now informing them that we are now relinquishing the second credit-tranche.

The fact that our position has improved so rapidly that we are able to take these steps is significant proof to the outside world, as well as to our own people, of the inherent power and stability of our economy.

During the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund in September last, the problem of international liquidity received much attention. Practically all the discussions in the meeting of the Fund were concerned with that. Suggestions were considered for a system of additional credits which would then be provided by some of the countries which were in a very favourable position to do so, countries like France, Germany, Italy, Holland, etc. Suggestions were considered for a system of additional credits, apart from the normal fund credits which the more important industrial countries give each other in times of emergency, and these suggestions have since been incorporated in a formal agreement. I expressed the opinion, and I abide by it, that all these schemes are merely patchwork and that the only fundamental solution is to increase the price of gold. All these measures being adopted may perhaps bring about a better distribution of international liquidity, but they cannot result in an increase in the globular amount of international liquidity. Possibly because this opinion was not really discussed at that meeting it did not receive much support there, but still there were certain prominent economists who supported our view. The fact that many people abroad believe that an increase in the price of gold is eventually inevitable is also proved by the increased demand for gold coinage for purposes of hoarding.

The Government has now been approached, also by financial circles abroad, to agree to South African gold coins also being sold overseas. I do not know whether it will be possible to build up a large trade in these coins, but I think it is worth while testing the market. I have consequently agreed in principle that a small consignment of South African gold coins, namely R2 pieces, should be exported. If the experiment is successful—and I sincerely hope it will be—larger amounts can be sold abroad later. We have the necessary minting facilities in South Africa to do it on a much bigger scale than this experimental consignment. One thing is sure—and here we also have the proof of it—namely, that the ordinary man in Brussels or in Beirut or Bombay still has greater confidence in gold than in any other currency, had I believe that his confidence will not be misplaced.

Normally the main emphasis in a debate like this would fall on financial matters, but I do not think that it will be taken amiss if the Opposition on this occasion concentrate on an issue before the people of South Africa, which far transcends in importance any of the financial suggestions or plans which the hon. the Minister of Finance may make at the moment. I was of course pleased, all of us were pleased, to hear about the strong position in which South Africa finds herself as far as foreign reserves are concerned; but we should not forget, and the Minister should not forget, that the problem with which we have to deal here is a problem of confidence in South Africa. As long as South African shares are quoted on the foreign exchanges at a price below that which obtains at the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, something is amiss. As long as it is necessary for the Government to prohibit the repatriation of shares, after all the assurances that have come from this Government and from previous governments that such a ban would never be necessary, we South Africans must take stock of ourselves and ask what is wrong. We must ask why there is not the confidence in this country which it so richly deserves in every respect except in respect of the Government which controls it at the moment. Sir, I believe, and I think all of us share the belief, that the lack of confidence in South Africa is directly due to the difficulties that we have in this country in solving our race problems. The Government has recently through the Prime Minister announced a new plan which they hope will contribute to the solution of our race problems, the plan which was discussed less than a fortnight ago but which could not then be completely examined in the time available to us.

There is something massively tragic in the approach of the Government to this question, in the belief of the Government that they can ignore the facts as they exist in South Africa and create a world of their own in a vacuum and apply solutions to actual problems in theory completely unrelated to the facts as they exist in this country. Indeed, they remind one in many ways of Napoleon when he entered Moscow and believed that at last he was on the eve of the final conquest of all Europe; how little did he realize then that in his immediate future there lay the retreat from Moscow, more than the decimation of his army, Elba and the death of an exile on St. Helena. One is reminded of Hitler, whom you will recall danced a jig before Paris, believing that at last the conquest of Britain was assured and that his thousand years empire could not fail. But perhaps more poignantly and more tragically and perhaps even more aptly one is reminded of the famous words of Mr. Churchill, who on one famous occasion said that he had not been elected to become Prime Minister of Great Britain to preside over the dissolution of the British Empire. Only a few years later his Government was restored to power after an eclipse of five years, and indeed and in fact had to preside over the dissolution of the British Empire. Sir, it is because we believe a similar tragedy threatens South Africa under the present Government, with the same lack of appreciation of reality, that we would like to move the following amendment—

It is a crime.

What the Government is seeking to achieve with this new plan is partly a solution of our internal race problem, a race problem which, of course, is very difficult because it is bedevilled by so many factors beyond our control, chief of which is the emergence to the rank of a first-rate power of communist Russia, the fact that China and half of Europe have become communist and that they play a tremendous part in the determination of the foreign and colonial policies of all the nations of the world. Our problem is not only a problem of finding a modus vivendi between people of different races, it is also a problem of urgently re-adjusting the relationship between peoples who in the past were cast in the role of the ruler race or the dominant race, and of the subject race, the conquered race. Our friends opposite believe that they have all the time in the world slowly and gradually to evolve a solution on the lines of what they call apartheid. Indeed many of us can recall the late Dr. Malan, the then leader of that party, who was Prime Minister at the time, telling us in this House that territorial separation was nothing more than an ideal which was impracticable and that no government would try to achieve it, but an idea according to which they could test whatever action they were undertaking in relation to the problem of the moment. Now suddenly it is no longer an ideal; suddenly it has become a matter of urgent practical importance for the present Government to attempt territorial separation immediately. There are only two reasons for that, and one is that in the present Prime Minister we have found a political leader who believes that it is possible. I will say no more. But it has also become urgent for another reason. I believe that other reason can only be an urgent need, of which the Government has become conscious, to appease world opinion. We have reason to believe that the announcement by the Prime Minister on Tuesday was not only an attempt to find a solution for our race problems in South Africa but something much more; it was also a kite flown on the South West African issue. It was to determine what international reaction would be to a Transkei plan in order to transfer that plan to South West Africa and to set about the partitioning of South West Africa by taking away Ovamboland and giving it to the Ovambos in the hope that part of South West Africa would then become secure and safe for the Republic of South Africa.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

But what happened? The matter of real interest in the announcement made by the Prime Minister on the first Tuesday of this Session was: What would the international reaction be to that plan? I think it is now long enough to form some judgment, and I think the judgment of every impartial South African must be that the plan fell completely flat, that it was an utter flop as far as the world was concerned. Sir, I do not rejoice in that; nobody rejoices in that. Any South African who has the interests of this country at heart would like to see an improved image of South Africa in the outside world. We know that a great deal of money was spent on buying space in the overseas Press to announce this plan; we know of all the elaborate preparations made to give it an unprecedented publicity start in the world, but they have all failed. We must ask ourselves why they failed. Surely it had some elements in it which were imaginative, which were bold, which should have seized the imagination of people interested in this problem anywhere in the world. Why then did it fall flat? There is only one answer possible. It fell flat because it was defeated by a blast of counter-propaganda from Government agencies and from Government supporters in the Republic of South Africa. I want to give a few examples lest hon. members opposite should doubt this. I am thinking of the counter-propaganda that arose from the refusal of Government supporters in the Municipality of Pretoria to allow Japanese swimmers, who are officially recognized as White people, to swim in the Hillcrest Swimming Bath. I think of the blast of counter-propaganda that has been coming for some time, out of the heresy trial of Prof. Albert Geyser in Pretoria, a trial which is not concerned with heresy; it is a trial concerned with race relations in the first instance. I think thirdly of the tremendous counterpropaganda against the Prime Minister that arose from the arrest on a charge of immorality of Mr. and Mrs. Singh, a properly married couple. We may argue that those two people knew what the law was when they went to another territory to get married; that they should not have come back; that they knew what their position would be. But we should also realize that as far as the outside world is concerned, they were legally married. In the sight of God they were married. But they were arrested and they have been tried on this charge at a time when the Prime Minister was making a supreme effort to improve the image of South Africa throughout the world. All I can say is that the Prime Minister has our sympathy and our pity for the followers he has in South Africa.

That brings us to a definition of the real problem that faces South Africa. It is not a problem of a hostile foreign or English Press; it is not a problem of rebellious aborigines in this country; nor is it a problem of a Government faced by blind enmity based on some racial consideration. All these apologies have come from Nationalist Party supporters in the past. No, fundamentally it is a problem that arises from the past encouragement of hatred and prejudice and fear by the propaganda of the present Government Party for its own political ends. They are not succeeding in re-educating their followers in the Pretoria Municipality or in the Department of Justice fast enough to appreciate the winds of change which are tearing like a hurricane through the ranks of the Cabinet. That is the problem, and until they have the courage to stand up before the people of South Africa and to set an example of contrition by saying, “I have sinned, forgive me; let us adopt new attitudes in South Africa”, the Prime Minister is wasting the money of the taxpayer by buying space in London newspapers for policy announcements in the face of the things that happen behind his back amongst his own followers.

The Government’s plan of giving the Transkei self-government will not succeed because the Prime Minister, even in that plan is making concessions to that prejudice and that fear of which he is one of the chief authors in South Africa. The Transkei plan is not an attempt to solve the race problem in South Africa by tackling it at its roots, which is the poverty of the majority of the people in this country. It is not a plan to develop these people and to create a situation for them where they too will feel they have a stake in the security and in the safety and in the progress of the South African state. It is still a plan to attempt a form of separation. But what form of separation? There was a time when we were told that there would be apartheid “op elke gebied in die Suid-Afrikaanse lewe” (that there would be separation at every level of South African life); that there would be physical separation, that there would be economic separation. What has now happened is that at last the Government is realizing that type of separation is impossible, that there cannot be economic separation, that there is in fact what they have denied so eloquently and so vehemently in the past, namely, economic integration in South Africa, and now they attempt the last and the most futile bluff of all—to create political separation, although there is integration in every other respect in the life of South Africa. With the best will in the world, with the greatest determination, which the Prime Minister does not show, with the greatest will to make sacrifices, a will which has never existed in the Nationalist Party, it will still be impossible truly to separate the Black people and the White people in this country.

Look at the problem that faces us. It has been examined for us and for the Government by the Government’s own experts. We know, for example, that before you can rehabilitate the Transkei and make it a viable unit on its own, it is necessary to remove urgently 2,000,000 people from agriculture in that area.

There are only 1,500,000.

From the Native reserves over the hole of South Africa—I am sorry—to make them viable units. Employment must be found for 300,000 breadwinners, heads of families, in activities which are not known in that area at present; inactivities which we have been told should be created in the form of industrial development on the borders of the reserves. What progress has been made with this? The Leader of the Opposition told us the other day of ten industries which have been appproved in principle; I would be surprised if they gave employment to 1,000 Natives. Although the Deputy Minister and the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development took part in the previous debate, we waited in vain for revelations about the spectacular development necessary in the development of border industries. We were not told a single thing. Nothing more seems to be happening. But supposing the Government could be successful, which they are not, in spectacularly changing and diverting the economic development of South Africa from the present industrial areas to the borders of the Native territories, think of the problems that would remain for those people who remain in these territories. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration told us proudly—and he should be proud because it is a great achievement—that, through Government education and Government stimulation, grain production in the reserves has increased by 25 per cent under the administration of this Government, and we, on this side, say congratulations. But does the Minister realize the size of the problem he is dealing with? if the Transkei had to feed itself, it would have to double its agricultural production, and if we were to take half the population of the Transkei away from agriculture and put them in secondary and tertiary activities, it means that each farmer in the Transkei would have quadrupled his production of food. And after eight years the Minister is able to announce an increase of only 25 per cent. Sir, it is a tremendous problem. What we have at the moment is an attempt by the Government to salve its conscience, and, as I have said, to create a different image in the world by allowing political developments in these areas, especially in the Transkei, to outstrip the economic development and so to escape from the responsibility which is squarely on the shoulders of this Government. We have been told at last, eight years after the report of the Tomlinson Commission, about the five-year plan for the development of these areas; that R114,000,000 will be spent in five years. It sounds good, but I want to say at once that if you look at that R114,000,000 against the background of the problems the Government have set themselves, namely to divert population increases from the existing White areas of South Africa and encourage those increases in the Native reserves, then I say it is a paltry sum, especially if you take into consideration the fact that of the R114,000,000 no less than R75,949,500 will be spent on housing alone, to build 90,150 houses in 33 villages. Excellent, Sir, and it will create employment in the building industry, but what happens when the people occupy those houses? What are they going to do to earn a living? They cannot go on building houses forever. Or is the Minister running the risk at the present rate of development, at the present rate of capital investment, of building slums at the rate of R79,000,000 every five years?

Stanley Uys is apparently writing your speeches now.

Sir, if you look at the Transkei this sum becomes even more paltry. Of this R114,000,000 a mere R18,900,000 in five years will go to the Transkei and R14,100,000 to the Ciskei. How many new occupations will be created for the Native people in those areas as a result of this pitifully small investment? Sir, if we look at the experience to which my Leader referred, the experience of the Venoni plan in Italy, you find it is true that in a development area you first have to provide certain essential basic services like housing, roads, irrigation and transport. But then you also have to accept, Sir, that they found in Italy that, for the first five years or so, you do not create new permanent jobs, and that the only jobs you create arise out of the implementation of the plan, and not out of the fruits of the plan, which means that, according to this five-year plan, new industrial and new tertiary and secondary activities will not be created in that area for several years. It will be laying the foundations, I hope, for future development. Now we should ask ourselves: Have we the time, have we the time with this pitifully small investment, at this tardy rate to tackle this problem, this ideal of the hon. the Prime Minister, of separate development—at this slow walking pace?

Will you have enough time for your alternative policy?

What we immediately need in South Africa is not a minimum investment to further an impossible ideal of separation of the races. The need in South Africa is for massive investment in creative activity all over South Africa, and. Sir, investment in those areas where it will be most effective and have the quickest results. What we need in South Africa to-day is not apartheid in the sense of the Nationalist Party. We need human progress. What we need is a declaration of war against poverty, against human misery. If we could only get half the determination which the hon. the Prime Minister evinces for this impossible ideological scheme, for the practical need of improving the livelihood of our people by developing South Africa all over, we could achieve something.

What have the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government announced? Some 90 per cent of the available investment capital in South Africa under the Prime Minister’s plan will still be invested in what is known as the “White area of South Africa” and most of the employment will be created in the White areas of South Africa, and there will be an insatiable demand, in terms of the Prime Minister’s thinking, for more labour in the White areas of South Africa. We shall have to let them come—because we will not get the immigration we would like to see—from the Bantu areas, from the Transkei and the Ciskei and from Zululand and Vendaland, wherever labour is available. Now we talk of apartheid and the hon. the Prime Minister creates political institutions for non-existing separate races in South Africa. But the development of South Africa will still be concentrated in the White areas, and more and more Black labour will be needed in the White areas. If the hon. the Prime Minister shakes his head, he will have an opportunity in this debate to do a simple thing which will convince all of us, and that is to prove that in the next five years instead of investing R114,000,000 in the Native areas, we will invest more capital in the Native areas than in the White areas and so ensure that more opportunities for employment and for development will be created in those areas, so that they will be able to support more of the Native population of South Africa than the White areas of South Africa. Otherwise he cannot overcome the final and decisive criticism of all these schemes that for selfish reasons they are not prepared to make the sacrifices which a true policy of apartheid will demand, and that for selfish reasons they will continue to pour the investment capital available into the White areas of South Africa, even if it means a demand, which will be inescapable, for Black labour in the White areas of South Africa That is the problem the Prime Minister faces. That is the answer he must give us if we want to believe that he means to achieve something apart from the figment of political separation in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, apart from the fact that there was no favourable reaction in the world, to speak of. to this plan, it is also significant that there was no favourable reaction anywhere in South Africa from the Natives who have no vested interest in the government of separate areas. Not a single detribalized Native in South Africa had a word to say in favour of the plan. It was condemned. Is not the other weakness in the suggestion of the Prime Minister the fact that it ignores that more than half of the Native people of South Africa are not living in the Transkei, or in any other Bantu area? They are living in the White areas because we want them there and we need them there and we cannot dispense with them there. What is their future to be? Strange that the hon. the Prime Minister, very superficially and I think very half-heartedly without perhaps realizing what he was doing, also had to come to the conclusion, that for them some federal device is necessary, because I see in the last issue of the Cape Argus—I do not know whether it is completely official—a publication of the proposed constitution for the Transkei, and there I see that the chiefs, that is to say the appointed members of the Transkeian legislative authority, will be far in the majority; there will be 27 elected by universal franchise; and then on a federal basis almost, there will be a fixed number of Natives in the Bantu Authority to represent the detribalized or urbanized Natives of the Transkei—which is as near as the federal concept will find favour with the hon. the Prime Minister. But there is this difference that they will exercise their political rights in the Transkei where they have no interests whatsoever, except perhaps an interest to create agitation there, trying to use the forum and the platform of the Transkeian Legislative body in order to agitate for the amelioration of their lot here in the White area where their interests are and where their destiny lies.

The difficulty experienced by the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government is that they look upon themselves as the Government of a colonial power. That is the analogy that is at the root of their thinking: A White Government in South Africa which is the Government of a colonial power with a colonial problem, and that they can divest themselves of that problem by giving to the colonies self-government, on the precedent of Britain and France and Holland. But what they forget is that if they are a colonial power, they are the only colonial power in the world rooted in their own colonies. Because whether they like it or not, we White people are in South Africa and we have to live together with non-White people for all eternity.

No applause!

Mr. Speaker, our problem, even if we establish these areas, will remain impossible because of the millions of Natives that will remain in the Republic of South Africa, and we shall find, Sir, that to get the goodwill of these independent Bantustans will probably be impossible as long as there is a feeling amongst the Africans living in South Africa that their own people are subject to injustices outside the reserves. Look at the problems Great Britain has at the moment! There is a country setting an example in the emancipation of its colonial peoples. But because it still shares part of the responsibilities of certain areas, like the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland their entire relationship with all the other territories is being bedevilled. The United Kingdom still has to seek a solution against the will of most White Rhodesians for the problems in Rhodesia because the problem of the Black people in that territory is affecting its relations with the Black people in other areas. How does the hon. the Prime Minister think he will escape that position? If he emancipates the Transkei and Zululand, and that is about all he could emancipate, the problem remains of the detribalized Natives working in our factories, in our industries, in our mines, on our farms. Does he think that he has found a solution for the problems as long as those people have not defined political rights which will assist them in the area where they have their being, where they live, where they earn their living? Sir, unless we symbolize the interdependence of the races in South Africa by accepting the fact that there will have to be a link between us at the top, in the same Parliament, we shall never find a solution—not in South Africa, where we are so interdependent that separation has become finally impossible. If the hon. the Prime Minister would only realize that, if he would only accept this inescapable fact, he might still go down in history as the man who saved South Africa at a time of real crisis in its existence. But if he does not accept that, if he continues on the path he has embarked upon, we will find that he, or succeeding Prime Ministers will be in a South Africa surrounded by a number of small states who, although they should be our friends theoretically, will be in fact hostile to the Republic of South Africa. They will be hostile because firstly they will be poor, and they will constantly be reminded of their poverty by the contrast in the Republic of South Africa, where there will be wealth which their own people, represented in their own Parliament, will still as migrant labourers be helping to create for the Republic of South Africa. And, secondly, because in the nature of things they will be concerned about the fate of those workers outside their own areas, their own subjects, working in the White areas, but who according to the Nationalist Government will never, never enjoy any rights whatsoever in the Republic of South Africa. Thirdly, because they will, immediately they become independent, also become subject to influences which will be hostile to the Republic of South Africa, influences such as militant African nationalism to which the hon. the Prime Minister is giving special outlets in the future South Africa. There is the further danger that they will fall under the influence of the communist agitators of this world. I can remember when we debated the Bill for the Suppression of Communism in this House. I can remember that I gave several quotations from the speeches of Stalin and other communist leaders where they laid it down as one of the fundamental methods of Communism that Communism should seek to achieve its objects by exploiting the aspirations and the grievances of under-privileged people under colonial powers Under the hon. the Prime Minister’s policy, unless he puts the horse before the cart, and tackles the economic problems before the political problem, he will create the ideal situation for communist exploitation of the grievances and aspirations of the Natives in the Transkei and in the other Bantustans surrounding South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the choice is the Prime Minister’s. On the course he has set South Africa, he will be remembered in the history of South Africa—if anything is remembered about South Africa—as the man who liquidated the Republic which he helped to establish. Having established the Republic of South Africa, he forthwith set about destroying it for all time. And he will be remembered as the man who broke down and destroyed in South Africa the very principles, the very hopes upon which civilized Western living for the people of this country can be based.

I second.

Listening to the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), one thing emerged quite clearly, namely that as far as his speech is concerned he is not only opposed to all forms of apartheid, all forms of separation, all forms of differentiation because he condemns them all, but by implication we must also accept that quite the reverse is now the policy of his party. There is only one alternative. He does not talk about degrees now, but all attempts ever made by this Government to differentiate in any way are opposed by him, and by implication he now opposes the whole principle.

Then he goes further, and now his great argument is this, that the Transkeian Territory, which is now on its way towards self-government, cannot possibly obtain that self-rule because the Transkei has not developed far enough economically to be viable. Therefore we cannot give it to the Transkei now. Now I want to put this question to him: What about the 25 countries in Africa which have received their independence within the last three or four years? How many of them are economically viable or independent? But that has never been regarded as a reason for not giving them self-rule. If Britain does it, then it is perfectly all right. I want to ask the hon. member what the position of Basutoland is? Is Basutoland more economically viable than the Transkei? What is the position of Bechuanaland? What is the position of Togoland and of the Cameroons? So one can mention them one after another.

What do you know about Togoland?

More than that hon. member knows, and in any case I know as much about Basutoland as he does. But the hon. member for Yeoville has said that we are dealing with a serious problem here; the most serious problem of the hon. member for South Coast is whether he should march again. Practically none of the African States which have obtained their political freedom, and complete political freedom, with a few exceptions, are economically self-supporting or viable. All of them must receive assistance from outside. But in regard to all those countries which gave them their freedom, not a single one paused to say. We cannot give it to them because economically they are not yet strong enough. They were given their political self-government, and thereafter attempts have to be made to make these countries economically independent.

In Africa, and here in the Republic of South Africa, there are only two alternatives, and we must choose one of those alternatives. It is whether we are eventually to have either a White government or a Black government. History has proved that a mixed government is impossible. It is not necessary to go into the reasons for that. History has proved it. The French tried to have a mixed government in Indo-China, the British tried it in India and Ceylon, and the Hollanders tried it in the East. But we need not go so far afield. We need only look beyond our own borders to see what has happened in Africa, in Ghana, and in Nigeria. Now it will perhaps be said that these were predominantly Black countries, or completely Black. But that was not the case in Kenya and in Tanganyika, and it is not the case in Rhodesia, and we already see the direction in which those countries have gone or are going, and it is evident that government by Black and by White are irreconcileable. One must choose one or the other, and South Africa will have to choose one or the other, whether it should have a Black or a White government. But we shall never have a mixed government here, because history has shown us that it cannot be done in Africa. It simply does not work.

What is now the alternative suggested by the Opposition? Their alternative is something about which they have had a lot to say—White leadership.

With justice.

White leadership with justice, and to that is now coupled partnership. I do not know whether they themselves still believe in White leadership. History in the rest of Africa and in the East has proved that these people do not want White leadership. They themselves want to be the leaders in those countries. If one now looks at partnership, which they suggest, “partnership with White leadership”, what do we find? They want to give the Bantu in our areas a say in the government of the country. They want to give them representation in our Parliament. Is their idea acceptable to the non-Whites? Is it acceptable to them to be the junior partner, whereas numerically they are the majority shareholder? That is not acceptable to them. It was not acceptable to the rest of Africa. Was it acceptable in Kenya? Is it acceptable in Rhodesia? No. It is not so much that they want partnership with the non-Whites. What the Opposition is really looking for is a sort of appeasement, a concession, and by means of that concession we are supposed to get peace. A policy of appeasement! A policy whereby every time the wolves come too near to the sled, one of the horses is cut loose and given to the wolves in order to satisfy them.

Is the Transkei such a horse?

No, that is not the horse, it is the concession of giving them representation in this House. That is the horse. That is the first horse given to them, the nine representatives suggested by the Opposition, and with every concession one makes, one weakens oneself and strengthens one’s opponent. That is the policy of the Opposition. They concede the principle, and once having conceded the principle, the conflict is no longer over the principle but only in terms of numbers, and then it will be impossible for the Whites to say, as they suggest: We give you a certain number of members and limit you to that number, and that number will never be increased. You can no longer do so because you have now conceded the principle. Now the conflict will no longer be over the principle of non-White representation in this House, but only over the numbers of non-Whites, and where you have conceded the principle that they can rule together with us, pressure will be exerted upon us to make more and more concessions. The policy of making concessions is a slippery road, and having once embarked on that road one finds that it becomes increasingly slippery, and every concession one makes weakens one’s position and strengthens that of the people to whom one is making the concession and their demands become increasingly greater. Do. hon. members want to tell us that the Bantu in the Republic of South Africa will be satisfied with the proposal of the Opposition to give them nine representatives? Of course not. They will say: We have broken down the dam wall, we have broken down the principle, and the principle has now been recognized that we should have representation in this House. And then they will make more and more demands because their position has already been strengthened, and further concessions will increasingly have to be made. I visited Kenya in 1950 and hten the British officials and the White Members of Parliament told us with great self-satisfaction that there were now four non-White Members of Parliament, two Natives, one Indian and one Arab, and then they said that the non-Whites in Kenya would now be satisfied. They said that they would retain White leadership and work in partnership with them, because their legitimate claims had been complied with—White leadership with justice. That was ten years ago, and when that break-through had been made there were demands for increasingly more non-White representation in that Parliament because they said that if the principle was correct that they should have representation, then they should have representation in proportion to their numbers. And in ten years’ time the Government of Kenya changed from a White government to a Black government after that principle had been conceded. Now the Opposition wants to concede that principle; they want to give representation to the Bantu in this Parliament, and once that principle is conceded the conflict will just be in regard to numbers, and the demands of the non-Whites will become irresistible and nobody will be able to withstand them. The only solution is that South Africa should be divided in such a way that on the one side we will have parts of South Africa which are governed by the Whites, and on the other side parts governed by the Blacks. One cannot let them govern together. It is no use saying we can. Then it becomes a parrot-cry. Then one shuts one’s eyes to what is happening in the rest of Africa. If one scrutinizes it carefully, one sees how impossible it is to have partnership and joint government. If this concession is made in South Africa, the road we will follow will be precisely the same road followed by the White man in Kenya and which he is now following in Northern Rhodesia and other parts of Africa. The United Party knows it but have not the courage to admit it. They know that the concessions they propose to make must inevitably bring us to that road. There is no other possibility. The only alternative by which the White man can maintain his position in South Africa in future is to do what this Government is doing, namely to say that in certain areas the Black man can govern alone, but in the rest of South Africa the White man will rule and rule alone. They cannot rule together. Once one begins to make concessions one has to make them increasingly. The only way is to have separation and to do so now whilst there is still time to do it. and to try to implement it honestly, and not to make speeches here which incite the rest of the world against South Africa, the type of speech which to-morrow will be quoted against South Africa at UN. They know that we shall have to follow to the end the course we have now adopted: we cannot turn back. All the fuss made by them will not assist in taking South Africa back along that road again. We have now chosen that road once and for all. There is only one way in which South Africa can be forced from the standpoint it has now adopted, not by the present Opposition, because if they come into power to-morrow they will have to continue carrying out the policy we have now laid down; but the only way in which it can be done is through military intervention from outside. There are people who want to do that. Speeches like the one the hon. member has just made encourage those people who want to persuade other countries to use military force against South Africa. Therefore I say that the speech made by the hon. member is a speech made in a lost cause in so far as politics in South Africa is concerned. But in his lost cause he is prepared, just like Hitler, to see the whole country destroyed because he cannot get his own way.

Mr. Speaker, there was a time when the hon. the Minister of Lands was a disciple of the late Dr. Malan, Dr. Malan who said at one time when he was talking to the Canadian Prime Minister, I think, that the future of the Native in South Africa would lie in the development of the reserves on certain lines and end up probably on a federal basis. In those days, Sir, we looked upon the hon. the Minister of Lands as a chip of the old block. I regret to say that he seems to have chipped off the old block completely and he is now simply a chip of the granite wall and he repeated in this House this afternoon the fundamental mistake which is made by the Nationalist Party every day. There is only one alternative to Government policy, according to hon. members on the Government benches, and that is “one man one vote”. That is what is being drummed into the voters of this country. Not so long ago the Minister of Lands vaguely had other ideas but they did not last very long and he is now one of the most outspoken exponents or apostles of this idea that it is either “one man one vote” or else the policy of the present Prime Minister. I think not only is he wrong there, but he is also wrong in quoting so many other parts of the world as proving that close co-operation between White and non-White is impossible. I think the fallacy of his argument lies in the fact that in every case that he quoted, the objection on the part of the non-Whites was not so much to co-operate with the Whites as to co-operate with the foreigners. In other words, the controlling power was a foreign power and that basically was their objection to co-operating with them. Here the position is different, Mr. Speaker. The Native does not look upon us as a foreign power—not yet anyway; he may in a few years in the Transkei, but for the present moment he does not. He regards us as part and parcel of southern Africa. And I do not concede for one moment that close co-operation between White and Black is impossible, quite apart from being desirable. A few years ago in discussing the Tomlinson Commission’s report, the hon. the Minister of Finance remarked that we must try apartheid and that if it did not work we could try something else. He cannot say that to-day, Sir. The Minister of Lands has trumpeted out the fact that there was no turning back from the path on which South Africa has been set by this Government. Because in his opinion there is no turning back everyone of us is supposed to toe the line and fall in behind the Government and say “what a marvellous scheme this is”. We cannot accept that and we won’t accept it.

Before I go on to support this amendment I should just like to say a word to the Minister of Finance. As my hon. friend said this is primarily intended to be a financial debate and I think that is the reason why this amendment is justified. The hon. the Minister of Finance made one or two interesting points in his statement but he failed to make one or two other points in which we would have been still more interested. He told us that the time had now arrived to reduce the short-term foreign loan position abroad. We are very glad to hear that. We have been pointing out for years that short-term borrowing for long-term financing is not desirable if it can be avoided. The hon. the Minister said that the time had come to reduce some of the short-term borrowings …

Overseas.

Overseas, of course.

You have always attacked long-term borrowing.

No, I have never done so. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) is quite wrong. I never did that. Short-term borrowing overseas, carried to excess, is unsound. Whereas it is true that we have repaid R27,500,000 to the International Monetary Fund, we must remember that half of that represents the loans from the German and Italian banks. So the position is not quite as good as it appears on the face of it, but we are glad to see that it has been repaid all the same. The hon. the Minister also referred to his proposal to manufacture a few two-rand gold pieces for export. I am not quite clear what there is to be gained by minting a smaller or larger number of two-rand gold pieces, except as collectors’ pieces of course. I speak subject to correction, of course, and I shall be glad if the Minister, when he replies, would elaborate a little further because if the experiment is a success—and I do not know what he will regard as a success—he said he might expand it. I should like to know what the advantage is to be gained from minting two-rand gold pieces and shipping them abroad as compared with shipping gold in bar form. And, Sir, if we were capable of doing that and if we could afford to do that for other countries, would the Minister consider starting at home? If we are going to set an example to the rest of the world as to some advantage of gold coinage, I would suggest that the place to start would be South Africa. I am sure we will all rejoice seeing a golden coin again which we can carry about instead of these horrible notes with which we have been loaded for so many years.

One point that the hon. the Minister did not refer to is this. He referred to the satisfactory way in which our foreign reserves had risen from R142,000,000 to R314,000,000 and I think it is reasonable to suppose that the position will continue to improve. But what we want to know is how long has the country got to remain in the strait-jacket to allow the exchange reserves to go on increasing. At what stage is the Minister going to let up on the capital restrictions and on import control? Because, of course, we have reached the position through taking the most drastic measures last year, as the Minister himself said. We have actually for the past eight months been living on a siege economy with the greatest restrictions on our financial transactions. Nobody, certainly not the hon. the Minister, would like to have that position from choice. With the improvement that has taken place and is taking place, I think the time is very near when the hon. the Minister should give us some indication as to how he can start relaxing these controls which quite obviously when they are relaxed, will have to be relaxed with the greatest care and with great prudence because there is a heaped-up log of import requirements and there is also a heaped-up log of selling orders which, the moment he relaxes these restrictions, will tend to be put into force. I can see that the Minister has a problem therefore, but at the same time it is one which he will have to face in the near future, the problem of relaxing these controls in order to bring us back to normal once again in our currency arrangements and in our import arrangements as well.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) has moved an amendment. I have hopes that the present member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) will get to his feet and support the hon. member for Yeoville before this debate is over.

Do I look that sort of man?

No perhaps the hon. member does not look that kind of man. But I think any member of normal intelligence will have been impressed by the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville and I am not without hope that he may get support from the other side of the House, if not to-day, then in time to come. Sir, this amendment is opportune because the financial aspect of it is so important. There is no more important aspect in my opinion of this colonial development policy than the financial one. The hon. Minister of Lands referred to Basutoland but it is quite clear from the statements that have been made, that the relationship between the Transkei and the State President is going to be exactly the same as the relationship between the Queen and the High Commission Territories. In other words, if that is not colonialism, I just do not know what is. So we are not exaggerating when we say that this is a colonial development policy of the Prime Minister. It is important, Sir, to discuss this question because we have so often appealed to the hon. the Minister of Finance in recent years for some light, some information, some indication as to where the financial implications of the Government’s Bantustan policy were going to lead us. We have appealed in vain. He has either ignored our appeals or fobbed them off. He reminds me, Sir, of an ex-colleague of ours in Parliament who was asked one day why he did not make sure of his facts before he talked. The gentleman said “What, spoil a good story by worrying about the facts! Not bloody likely”. He was quoting Bernard Shaw, Mr. Speaker. The hon. the Minister obviously did not want to spoil the good story which the hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of Bantu Development had worked out. But surely at this stage the Minister of Finance should be in a position to give us some indication of what is involved in this plan. Our amendment talks about the “liquidation of the Republic”. And that is a very serious charge to make. “Liquidation” means the disposal of your assets, going out of business, getting rid of your assets, movable or immovable. The point is that this Government, the Prime Minister in particular, is not threatening to liquidate his own assets or to go out of business on his own—if he were doing that, of course, he would have had the full support of this side of the House—but it is the people’s assets that he is threatening to liquidate. The Republic inherited from the Union a going concern, a well-knit unit, on which we have built for 50/60 years a growing, sound, strong economy. And in the plans produced by the Prime Minister that unit is to be destroyed. The Government’s primary object is to train Africans in civilized ways, to help the African to develop the land that has been reserved for him in every way. That is the immediate task of which everybody in this House approves, Sir. We all approve of it. But as to how it is to be done, there we differ and we differ quite fundamentally; and as far as I can see, irreconcilably. These immediate political proposals that we have had before us for the last week or two, affect the Transkei immediately. But if you want to take an objective view of the position, you must take the whole scheme into consideration because very heavy expenditure is going to be incurred in other parts of the country concurrently with what is envisaged as far as the Transkei is concerned. The Government’s plan involves, as we know, the creation of certain independent Bantu states which are to be financed from capital account and from current account too, largely by the White taxpayer. If you look at it objectively it is a colossal task bearing in mind and having regard to the means that are at our disposal. The other day the Minister of Finance talked about the possibility of obtaining a loan from the I.D.A. Whatever much he gets from the I.D.A. or anybody else, it is the White taxpayer who will have to repay it. So it does not seem to me that it matters very much where he gets the money, because it does not matter whom we have to repay, it has to be repaid. Especially since this Government is specifically excluding private capital and private enterprise from these reserves and particularly when you realize that what is envisaged so far is a socialized state, a State-owned State, run by a large bureaucracy. The statements that have been made as to the draft constitution and the set-up which is envisaged, have shocked me, Sir, from the point of view of the enormous number of staff which is clearly envisaged that will be required to run it. Indeed, a very large proportion of the cost of this particular plan will be devoted to paying public servants in large numbers, Black and White, those public servants who will be trying to put this plan into force. But, of course, that is something which you always find when you start dabbling in state socialism to any extent. The Government is proposing a five-year capital expenditure of R114,000,000, of which the Transkei and the Ciskei will only get, I think, R24,000,000 or a little more. The question is what is that going to achieve in a country like the Transkei over five years bearing in mind, as my hon. friend said, that the majority of that money is going to be spent on housing? The hon. the Minister, when he interjected the other day, talked about the building of roads. As I read his figures, his revised figures, he proposes to build 2.671 miles of road at a cost of some R1,200 per mile. I do not know how you can build a road at that cost, unless you build it with slave labour, which is quite possible of course, but even then …

Aren’t you ashamed of yourself.

If the hon. the Minister of Defence could tell me how you could build a road at a cost of R1,200 per mile and pay an economic wage, I should be very glad.

I never thought you could sink as low as that.

I hope I shall never sink so low as to have to travel on a road that cost R1,200 per mile to build. I only mentioned it to indicate the necessity for the hon. the Minister of Finance to have the most careful scrutiny at these estimates that have been put up with great enthusiasm, with great sincerity by these Government Departments. He has got to find the money for this five-year capital plan just for the capital items mentioned in the scheme by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration. He has also got to find annual subsidies. The hon. the Prime Minister talked about a million or two for the Transkei, but do not forget there are six or seven other territories that will also require subsidies as they get a little further along, to the same extent presumably. We are going to pay the cost of the whole public service of the Transkei according to reports which I gather are official, including education, for the present time until the resources of the Transkei can be established. I think we can establish pretty well what they are at the present moment, Mr. Speaker. In fact it means that for an indefinite period we are going to have to pay, in addition to the capital expenditure, in addition to the annual subsidies, the cost of the whole of the Public Service. I should like to know who is going to decide on the size of that Public Service? There is going to be a Public Service Commission, presumably of Black and White combined, or else Black with a White adviser. I think it is a very dangerous undertaking on the part of the Minister of Finance to say that he is prepared to foot the bill for the Public Service of the Transkei for an indefinite period without having made a very close investigation as to what it is going to involve, we know what our own Public Service costs us to-day compared with ten or 20 years ago.

You can reduce expenditure if you use slaves.

Here is quite a new item from the Government benches, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

How is the Department of Information going to get rid of that?

You suggested it.

I did not suggest slave labour. I said that I did not see how they could build roads for R1,200 a mile unless they used slave labour. However, I seem to be getting support from the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee). I thought I might before long. In addition to these costs, Sir, we have the cost of the present Bantu departments, the hon. Minister for Bantu Administration and Development and the Minister of Bantu Education. In addition we have the costs of the Native Trust and of the land which is still to be bought and we have had no estimates before us as to what all this is going to cost the White taxpayer of this country. So, Sir, in addition to this vast and unknown cost, this leap in the dark, this step which according to the Minister of Lands, is going to ensure the future of South Africa, what assets are going to be disposed of in dividing up the country in pursuit of this plan? In the first place large portions of territory, of course, most valuable and capable of enormous development, if they are developed in the right way and if the right people are given an opportunity to take part in that development. Large sums of capital will be involved, the spending of which will be controlled in due course by foreign governments—not by this House. There will be control of our labour supply. Mr. Speaker how can anybody contemplate the control of our labour supply falling into the hands of foreign governments? It just beats me that anybody can think of such a thing, but that is what is going to happen. Also in this liquidation we will dispose of a great asset, namely our strategic position; the advantage of having one country to defend. The question will arise whether it will be possible to defend the South African Republic? Because if you are going to have a Department of Defence and a Minister of Defence you must postulate that it is possible or conceivable that the defence forces of this country will be required for defence purposes. That being so, when you think of the enormous land boundaries that we are going to create for ourselves it seems that we are sacrificing a comparatively strong defensive position by undertaking this carving up of the country and we are sacrificing a very precious asset. You have this further point, of course, Sir: Will the non-White majority who will still be living in the Republic not become Fifth Columnists acting on behalf of foreign countries on our borders? Goodwill is another asset which is largely being sacrificed already of course and as long as this Government maintains the line that the non-Whites in the Republic are not going to have political rights in any circumstances, that goodwill will never be restored to us.

We are being called upon to dispose of vital assets of our country, and the question arises what is there to put on the credit side? Having done all this, where shall we be? Surely, Sir, we shall simply be a smaller multi-racial country with the non-White majority in it, denuded of priceless assets which we are being asked to hand over in pursuit of the Government’s policy, faced with precisely the same problems that we have now in regard to race relations, problems that will be infinitely accentuated by having these new states on our borders, states that will inevitably fight for further rights for the non-Whites inside the Republic. They must; and nothing will stop them. If you look at the position in which we are in to-day, Sir, if you look at the problems which we are facing, if you look at the proposals which the Government puts forward, you must come to the conclusion that the schemes of the Government, all this grandiose scheming, all this elaborate window-dressing for overseas consumption, are no solution at all. If they did offer a solution, if they did offer a smaller White South Africa, if they did offer the resumption of normal relations with the rest of the world, if they did offer the White man in South Africa a secure, prosperous and happy future, there would be a great deal to be said for them. But, Sir, as they stand to-day before us—and of course the great danger is that once you start off on this path goodness knows where it is going to lead you and how difficult it will be to retract—I am afraid there is nothing to be said for them. When you look at the position to-day, the solution which the Government is offering, and you realize that, having carried out all their plans, and having made all the sacrifices that the country is asked to make, and having faced all the problems which will arise, the exact position we are in to-day will be facing us still, and nothing will have been solved. That being so, I believe this amendment is thoroughly justified, and I have pleasure in supporting it.

The hon. member for Constantia has excelled himself to-day. In this House he is one of the people who always poses as a great South African, but, in fact, he is the leader of the fifth column in this country.

Order! The hon. member cannot say that the hon. member is the leader of the fifth column.

I withdraw it, but he creates the impression that there is a fifth column in this country, and he lends a semblance of truth to that impression by the speech he has just made. I say that for this reason. He creates the impression that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration is prepared to use slave labour whilst making roads. I ask whether he is not ashamed of himself, because he knows, and we know, and we know he knows, that those words of his will still be quoted to-day at UN by our enemies, by Ethiopia, Liberia and Ghana, who would like to hear those things to say them also; and why does he say it? He says it just because he has a terrific hatred for the National Party and the course it is now adopting, because he now sees that the bottom is falling out of the United Party. That has been evident to us for a long time, because we know the United Party has just existed as an anti-Republican party, and now that they can no longer do so, he starts this type of agitation in order to keep it going in that way. We, on this side, will remember it, and we shall tell the people outside that the hon. member for Constantia said that this party was prepared to make use of slave labour in the Transkei.

He did not say so.

He did. He said: “I can quite imagine that he will do so.” I heard it clearly, and my ears did not deceive me. Those words of the hon. member for Constantia will echo right throughout South Africa for a long time to come. To think that we. on this side, who have done nothing else for the Black people than to try to uplift them and to put them on the road to civilization with the assistance of what they have and what we can give them—to think that he should come here in this the greatest forum in the country, and that he should tell the world that this is what we have done, is a scandal, whilst he is one of the White people who are supposed to have assisted in doing so.

Then the hon. member accused the hon. the Minister of Lands of having changed his ideas and his basis every time—he shifts his ground. But the hon. member for Constantia is the last one to do so. You will remember, Sir, that at that conference in Bloemfontein there were a number of progressives who objected to the motion moved by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) that they should purchase no more land for the Bantu, and the men who issued the statement included the hon. member for Constantia, who was the leader of that group. He was the senior man to have drafted that objection, but what did he do? He shifted his ground. He abandoned his friends and left the then hon. member for Maitland and other hon. members in the lurch. But now he says that the Minister of Lands is inconsistent and changes his point of view every time.

I am rather sorry for the hon. member for Constantia. He tried to remedy a bad case good, but only succeeded in making it still worse. If only he had confined himself to finances, I would have liked to reply to him, but when I see how half-heartedly and with how much hesitation he tried to discuss finances, I just want to say two things.

If we borrow money abroad, whether it is a short-term or long-term loan, it depends on the effective rate of interest whether it is economic or not. If the hon. member says that the rate of interest is too high, we can argue about it. If he argues that import control should be lifted and that the Minister of Finance should consider doing so, we can discuss it on its merits. But I want to do what he has done. I do not want to discuss finances. I want to discuss this matter of the Transkei. In any case it is something near to the hearts of all of us.

The hon. member for Constantia, and also the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) make the most extravagant statements. They talk about liquidating the Republic and handing over the whole Government to the Black people there. He frightens us with many predictions of what will happen. He is the modern Cassandra in this country. He asks what assets will be divided.

Mr. Speaker, is he not being rather precipitate? Would it not be better for him to pose those questions when we come to deal with those points? Would it not be better and more fruitful for him to ask whether this thing can work or not? You will have noted that the Opposition, both in the motion of censure and again to-day, are not discussing the merits of the Government’s plan, but simply say it will not work, and then they recount all kinds of impossible evils which will befall us. Why should we not face the facts? I also want to tell him that we will not spoil a good story by failing to have regard to the facts. But that is what the United Party does. They are making a bad story still worse by not facing the facts.

What are the facts? The facts are these, and I do not think anyone will quarrel with this. The hon. members for Yeoville and Constantia also said so. The facts are that we are all concerned about the future of South Africa in the light of modern world opinion and the demands made of us by our own people and by people abroad; and when I say “our own people”, I mean everybody living in this country. The basic problem which we all recognize is to find a system of government which will give us order, peace and good government, for those of us who are Whites, as well as those who are not. When I speak about the non-Whites I mean the Brown people, the Yellow people and the Blacks. The hon. member for Constantia knows that this is the crucial problem, but he avoids it during his entire speech. I would like to know to whom he proposes to leave it. But when we have that particular problem and we can solve it in such a way that we have order and peace and good government, we can have every confidence that the outside world will assist us to solve our problems by providing the finances and the help. We should not try first to obtain the finance and then think that we can buy peace and order and good Government. Order comes from within, from the people themselves, and not from without. If they think that we intend buying it in such a manner, they should not think that we are like the United Party which continually puts the cart before the horse. Mr. Speaker, forgive me for again stressing the obvious, namely that we have four types of people in one political entity, and that we must ensure peace, order and good government.

But those four types of people are not all the same. They are of different races. They have different standards of value and their behaviour is conditioned by their values. When we put them all together in one Parliament, it means that, in the usual way that a Parliament functions, we will have to argue with people and convince people who have no common ground with us. We shall have to try to get agreement between the various cultures which cannot and have no wish to mingle, and even when perhaps they can mingle, they do so only with the greatest difficulty I am referring to ourselves and to the Coloureds.

Listening to the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Constantia and remembering the debates we had in the past, I agree with the hon. the Minister of Lands who said that there are only two courses. We must either have a mixture or races in this House, or else we must arrange things in such a way that there is no mixture. The Minister of Lands said that there were good reasons why a mixed Parliament would not work. He said he did not want to discuss those reasons, but I think it is very necessary for us to do so, because I think the public and the country ought to know why we are adopting this course; and if our thinking is right in principle and we act accordingly there can also be nothing wrong with the result, taking into consideration the variations in human reactions. If we should go in the direction of having a multi-racial Parliament such as the United Party eventually envisages and the Progressive Party envisages in the near future, we would be steering towards a revolution because the conditions requisite for the proper functioning of Parliament as we know it will be absent. I want to state those conditions here because they are important, because if the conditions requisite for the success of that Parliament are not present it simply means that this Parliament qua Parliament cannot function, and I think it is necessary that we should face these facts.

I want to put the first condition to the hon. member for Constantia and I hope he will ponder and digest it. The first is that there must be a particular link, a particular unity, between those who are ruled and those who rule. This link or unity must be based on a similarity of outlook and interests, in a common belief in those things which are important. That is the first requirement. I cannot put it better than a British statesman did. He said that for a Parliament to function properly and successfully, “there must be that kind of unity which allows the people or the Members of Parliament to bicker”. There must be such unity that people can differ with impunity. That means that one can argue about various points of view, but at the back of one’s mind one knows that there is a fundamental factor which will not allow one of the disputing parties to go so far as to upset the apple-cart and cause an irrevocable break. We have had it in this Parliament. We have had here both Afrikaans and English-speaking people, and sometimes we have argued I am sorry the hon. member for South Coast is not here now, but since I have been in this House I have seen him at least five times mentally packing his bags and leaving the country. We still know how we wanted to march and how he wanted Natal to split off, and there are many people like him, but it never happened, and it speaks volumes for their community of outlook with us and their common interests with us and the set of values we have in common. Because they did not endanger the Union; they merely threatened to do so. I can go into this matter still more deeply, but I will leave it to history to explain it. The first prerequisite is that there must be an inherent unity of conviction and of values and interests. That is the simple truth. The community sticks together because it knows that there are always other interests more vital than the one about which it is quarrelling. When we look at South Africa we find that this unity does not exist. It so happens that we have been thrown to-together in this political unit, but we are not the same people. The Whites themselves are not homogeneous. The Blacks are homogeneous only as far as their colour is concerned. Then we still have the Indians. We often think they are homogeneous, but they are a group speaking five languages. The Coloureds speak two languages. And then there are the values. Let us be under no delusions. We know that we have one set of values, but we also know that our non-White citizens—and here I refer to all three of the other groups—do not have the same set of values. I do not want to be misunderstood. I say we do not subscribe to the same values. I do not want it to sound complicated. If we just look at the precepts existing for the Whites in regard to how they should treat their women, and what disapproval is expressed by the White community if one of us disobeys those precepts, and compare it with the precepts existing for the Bantu in regard to how he should treat his women, then I do not want to say that he treats them badly or well, but he treats them different, in terms of his convictions. If we treat our women like the Bantu treats his we will be blamed.

I can mention something more personal. I can mention the way in which the White people treat their possessions, their immovable property. Just consider the way in which we Whites care for our property. I am not thinking of the soil, but of an urban property. Remember what Sophiatown looked like whilst it was in the hands of people who had other ideas. They did not mind renting a small space the size of a blanket every night to somebody who wanted to sleep there. That was their way of life. If we look at other parts of Africa we find precisely the same thing. It is a question of values. I could expatiate on this point further, but I think I have illustrated what I mean.

The second prerequisite for the proper functioning of a Parliament is that Parliament should have a certain background. In that state there should be a sort of equality between the people who are governed, equality in the sense that they should be able to compete with each other in the open market, in life. If I may put it even more simply for the benefit of the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk), I want to say that there should be such a state of affairs that m theory there is equality between the people who compete in the open market. If in respect of this prerequisite we look at what exists in our own country, we find that we have many under-privileged people. If we were to allow them to compete in the open market we shall have a large, poor group who are not able to do so. We see that every day. Some of our Bantu who have risen in the world and who have attended university tried to compete in this community, and just see what deadly competition they had from the Whites. We find under-developed people who are not able to compete in the free market. I say that a Parliament can only function properly when one has the situation in the country that the people living there can freely compete with each other in the open market for the benefits which are available, more or less on an equal footing. We know that this is impossible, because the development is lacking, and also the economic status of these people. It just so happens that this is the position, but it is a fact which we should face, and which the Opposition refuses to face.

The third prerequisite for the proper functioning of a Parliament is that the political activities should centre around the individual. He must be the pivot, his person and his interests, around which the whole Government revolves. If you want a big word for it, it must be an atomistic community. These are the only three prerequisites for the proper functioning of a Parliament, and where they were lacking such a Parliament has always failed. As soon as the individual and his interests are no longer the axis around which Government turns, other elements come to the fore, and if that element happens to be one of race, the whole State is built on sand, because other considerations come into play when any matter is being argued. In this country to a large extent we have that very situation. We have various racial groups and if we allow them to send their representatives to Parliament, as is evidently being suggested, we will find that in that Parliament the members of this racial group will stand together, and every measure under discussion will be judged in the light not of how it will affect the individual and his interests, but how it will affect the racial group. When that happens it means that the racial group, because blood is thicker than water, judges this measure in the light of how it will affect that group. Then questions of self-preservation come to the fore, and when that happens it is the only thing which counts, and it is for that group itself to decide what is important and what is not. In such a situation we simply cannot think that we will ever have a successful multi-racial Parliament, because we do not have the unity necessary for it; we do not have that all-embracing community of interests, and what we have is really the racial groups which do not become parliamentary parties but racial parties.

We have had this in this Parliament. Although we all have the same culture and we all belong to the same race, the language groups crystallized out, and there was a time when they said that the National Party was the party for the Afrikaners, and from this side we said that the United Party was just the party for the English-speaking people. But because we have greater common interests and the same traditions and history, we did succeed in making reasonable progress, even though it was in fits and starts. But when there are other additional elements it will be quite a different matter. Therefore the National Party puts it this way: Let there be parts of the country ruled by the Black people. Then at least there will be a certain homogeneity, and we will at least have the prerequisite which is necessary for that area to develop peace, order and good government for itself. Whether this is done by the Blacks or by the Whites makes no difference, as long as one has peace, order and good government. It is on this point that I should like to see the Opposition meeting us, but what do they do? They revile us for being nothing else but colonialists, and what proof do they adduce for it? The proof they adduce is that the State President will, vis-à-vis the Bantu Government, be in precisely the same position as the Queen was vis-à-vis the Union when it was still a colony.

Nobody has said that.

The hon. member was not here when the hon. member for Constantia spoke, or if he was he must have been asleep. The advantage of the Government’s plan is that it will protect also the hon. member for Yeoville and our English-speaking friends because they also happen to be White.

I do not know whether they really know what their position is in this country. If I were English-speaking, the future would cause met great concern, not because the National Party or the Afrikaners will oppress them, but just because the numbers are what they are. I do not know whether the Opposition realizes that when we count the Afrikaans-speaking people in the country—and then I include the Coloureds, because they speak Afrikaans—20 per cent of the population is Afrikaans-speaking. But does the hon. member for Yeoville know what the next biggest group is? Not the English-speaking people. The Xhosas are the next language group, with 19.6 per cent. The Afrikaans language group is the largest, and then come the Xhosas, and does the hon. member for Yeoville know what is the next biggest group? Then come the Zulu group with 17 per cent, and only then the English-speaking group. They comprise only 9 per cent of the total population, and then I include the English-speaking Coloureds and Bantu also in that group. When analysing the home language statistics and counting the people whose home language is English, White, Black, Brown and Yellow, they constitute only 9 per cent of the population. Therefore they have an opportunity in this way to survive, because the Afrikaans-speaking group grants them all the equality they want.

But there is still another significant fact. We know that a mixture such as suggested by the Progressive Party and the United Party will be a failure, and therefore we want to avoid it. If we avoid it in the way proposed by us, we have one great advantage which the hon. member for Yeoville has never considered yet, because he is in any case backward in his thinking. I will tell hon. members what we will have. We will have a more spontaneous obedience to the law, because the rules made then will be made by that group for itself, and not by one group for another group.

It is one of the inherent defects in the South African set-up that the White group makes the laws for the Black group, and the Black group and the Yellow group and the Brown group must simply conform, whether they want to or not. But when we arrange matters so that they do it for themselves, it is obvious that there will be a more spontaneous regard for the law.

There is another thing also. In this House we had group representation of Natives. That was something evolved by our former statesmen with the best will in the world and probably with the greatest good faith. But there has never been a greater failure than this type of representation for Natives. Why? Because the responsibility for government could never in this situation have landed on their shoulders. And that is my great objection to the federation plan of hon. members opposite. They simply will not be able to place the responsibility where it belongs. What is the result of that? One of the Natives’ representatives could make all kinds of promises here. She could promise that the ewes would all have triplets this year and she would never have to implement that promise. She could promise that the cows would grow golden horns in a certain year, without giving effect to it. One can make the wildest statements, but one will never be given the responsibility of making them facts. If we have a situation where the Whites will always set the pace, whether in terms of a policy of apartheid or in terms of the policy of leadership with differentiation and justice, we cannot carry on unless we place the responsibility on the person who makes wild statements to do what he says. That is essential. We see no chance of doing it here because we know that if we place the responsibility in the hands of the non-Whites, within a very short time there will be nothing left for the Whites, and then we will be in the same position, that as a minority group we will become nothing else but a group of agitators. But when we draw the line, as the hon. the Prime Minister now suggests, we place the responsibility where it ought to be, and if the hon. member for Yeoville now starts ridiculing how great this responsibility will be and what its scope will be, he must just continue to do so, but the point is that we shall give as much as it is possible for them to accept at the time. That is the crucial point. The crucial point is not the goodwill or the capital of this country, but the capacity of the non-Whites of the Transkei to make use of the opportunities we provide for them.

I now come to another point and I would like hon. members opposite to reply to it. When we come to the administration of justice, what difficulties have we there? We are being reviled for applying our “White man’s justice”. If one reads the overseas newspapers, one sees that the Opposition is being quoted as the people who want to create the impression that the White man’s justice is being applied in South Africa. In a certain sense that is correct; it is correct. It is true that is so because it is the White policeman who arrests the criminal, it is a White prosecutor who prosecutes him, it is a White magistrate or Judge who tries the case and gives judgment, and it is a White constable who takes the prisoner back to the cells and it is a White warder who receives him, and the prison in which he serves his sentence is under White management. The White man is treated the same way.

But when we have such a situation I can well imagine the people who fall under it having objections to it, and if I were to say that this is the White man’s justice it can be objected to. But when we have the situation, as we will now have in the Transkei, where it is a Black man who arrests the criminal, a Black man who prosecutes him and a Black man who sentences him and a Black man who looks after him when he serves his sentence, that reproach cannot be made.

Will that apply in the White cities also for the Natives there?

The hon. member for Yeoville always reminds me of a mad bee in a reed, because he makes his own “zoom-zoom-zoom”. I should very much like to reply to that question when one day the point arises, and I am quite prepared to reply to it, but I do not intend allowing myself to be diverted. The administration of justice will be put in a much better perspective and there will be much more appreciation on the part of the people who must live under it and for whom it is designed.

The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) was very concerned about the finances. This is again an instance where he makes a certain prognosis, a certain prediction, as to what will happen, and then he says, “Oh, but that will be wrong”, and then he wants to know what we are going to do. Let us first hear what the people of the Transkei want; let us first find out how much they think they can cope with. I would be the last person to ignore the defects in connection with this very point, but I can give the hon. member a point about which he has not thought yet. It is an inherent defect in any system of government if the people who spend the money do not find it for themselves. We are compelled to face that problem. But remember that it will not be a constitutional relationship but an international relationship which we will have. If they are afraid that the Transkei will become an independent state, well, we are not afraid of it. If the Transkei thinks it can do it, let them try. If they think they cannot, then their relationship with us is based on an agreement. If hon. members of the Opposition want to say that the Bantu will not honour an agreement, they are free to do so. I am prepared to accept that if we make an agreement with the Transkei in regard to certain matters, that agreement will be kept. But supposing it does not happen, then we still do not have a constitutional relationship. If there is then agitation, that agitation will be in that foreign country, but if it is a constitutional relationship the agitation is in one own’s country and then it means that one has a pressure group in one own’s country which wants to compel one to do things one does not wish to do. There is a very great difference between the two. Shall I repeat it for the edification of the hon. member for Constantia, or does he understand it?

He understands it very well.

Very well, I am glad, because this is a fundamental point, namely that the relationship is an international one.

The hon. member for Constantia to-day excelled himself in the wrong direction. We shall always remember his reference to slave labour. I have told hon. members that this multi-racial Parliament which is being recommended will not work. I have told hon. members that the federal concept favoured by the Opposition is one which presupposes a kind of agreement which does not exist. I have stated the prerequisites for the proper functioning of a Parliament. Those prerequisites are absent and therefore a multi-racial Parliament will fail. I have stated the principle adopted by us, and I hope that hon. members of the Opposition will attack me or reply on this principle.

This is the first time in the last 30 years that I have seen the Minister of Lands really get into a panic. It was the most pathetic performance. He simply got up and tried to stir the emotions amongst his back-benchers. The usual twist was given to speeches from this side of the House.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “twist”.

I did not say that he was twisting; I said that there was the usual twist, but I withdraw it. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) said that he was against this dangerous policy of splitting up the Republic.

On a point of order, must the hon. member not withdraw the word “twist”?

I have withdrawn it. What more does the hon. member want? Because the hon. member for Yeoville is against splitting up the Republic into these various parts, the hon. the Minister of Lands now suggests that the hon. member for Yeoville stands for complete intermingling, socially, economically and politically, which, of course, is quite untrue. Then he says that the only two courses open are complete integration, socially, politically and economically, or to chase the various races into their separate kraals. He knows that there is a third way, and that is our policy of a race federation. He knows that for some centuries Blacks, Coloureds, Whites and Malays lived in the old Cape Colony where there was a natural separation and very little social intermingling and very little inter-marriage over something like 200 years. Sir, I will deal later on in my speech with his remarks about the irrevocability of the Government’s policy. First of all I would just like to say this about the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze). The hon. member can never make a speech without being personal. To hide his weak case he tries to introduce a red herring. He referred to what the hon. member for Constantia had said. Sir, I listened very carefully to the hon. member for Constantia. He never said that slave labour would be used. He said that the roads could not be built for £600 a mile except by slave labour. In other words, he made it quite clear … [Interjections.] Sir, I am making the speech now.

On a point of personal explanation …

Sir, the hon. member is wasting my time now. The hon. member for Constantia said clearly that roads could not be built for that price. In other words, he was telling the Government that what they were saying was untrue; that it could not be done for that price if ordinary wages were paid.

Why are you so untruthful?

The hon. member for Standerton has now told the world that such a thing was said and therefore he is responsible now for spreading it to the world.

He did say it. I will bet you for a fiver he said it.

I want to come back to the amendment which I support. Tuesday, 23 January 1962, will go in our history as the turning point in the destiny of our White civilization and Western civilization here, unless the people (in their wisdom) can in time put this Government out of power, and reverse the policy of turning this country into one multiracial Republic and seven Bantu states, which states will eventually turn against the Republic once they achieve full independence and have made their alliances with communists and other countries hostile to us. That is what will happen unless there is a reversal of policy. The whole of the Republic will be split up, and the seven Bantustans will in the end become hostile to us—and I will prove that before I sit down. I want to place on record my views and prognostications as to what the policy of this Government will lead to. I want the future generation to know that this side of the House again and again warned the Government of the outcome of their policy of expediency. Sir, I say “a policy of expendiency” advisedly, because the whole apartheid policy was started in the first instance simply and selfishly to gain power and not from conviction, not from any high principles or ideals. There is no easier way to beat the emotional drum than to work on colour prejudice, and so the “swart gevaar” cry was raised and became their political slogan. It served its dishonest purpose; and they gained power in 1948. But, as in a revolution, it is difficult later to get rid of the false cries or slogans, or the dubious friends who helped the winner to power. When Dr. Malan and Mr. Havenga, realizing the danger that apartheid could bring about if pushed too far, tried to back-pedal a bit, the wild young men behind them discarded and jettisoned the two elderly leaders. The Nationalist Party having been driven into a corner by their own propaganda and policies, the present Prime Minister thought that he could buy time and stave off world criticism for 50-odd years by this Bantustan bluff. In the poker player’s parlance, his opponent has asked to see his hand; his bluff has been called. He had miscalculated the tempo of the times, and within a couple, instead of 50 years, his never-never theories suddenly became an immediate issue and he could not put the genie, which he had so thoughtlessly released, back into the bottle which he, with a cynical disregard for facts, had uncorked. Anybody who has read the Arabian Nights knows that the sailor released the genie out of pity, but this has been done entirely for political expediency, and now it cannot be put back into the bottle. Sir, I used the word “bluff” in no way frivolously because we have had a former Secretary for Native Affairs, Dr. Eiselen, telling the world that there was no question of ever giving these Bantustans independence. The same has been said by several Nationalist speakers during the last general election. And yet the Prime Minister has used the word “commonwealth” in connection with these Bantustans. Sir, what does “commonwealth” connote? It is accepted to mean one thing only under the Balfour Declaration of 1926, which was put into the Statute of Westminster, and that is that “all are equal in status, none subordinate to the other”. In other words, the Prime Minister has told the world that in this “commonwealth” the Bantustans are to be equal in status to the Republic (as the Dominions were to Britain), none subordinate to the other. He went further and talked about full sovereign independence; whilst the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development waxed eloquently over what was to be given to the Bantustans; they were going to have their own police and their own Public Service and heaven knows what not. He zoomed into the stratosphere of improbabilities on the same subject, to such an extent that no one could follow him or even take him seriously But the Cape Times of 1 February delivered a cold douche, because it reported that—I quote—

Here we have the head of the Department telling us that there is going to be no full independence for this territory, and yet the Prime Minister has told us that there is going to be a commonwealth: that the Bantustans are going to have sovereign independence, and that they are all going to be equal in status.

Sir, that is the background of the position which we are now faced with, and I want to put on record what I foresee will happen. Quite possibly all will go fairly smoothly for a few years whilst Government-supporting Bantu Chiefs, Headmen and other leaders of these areas hold power; for it means position, power, influence and income to them whilst the situation holds. But sooner or later the appetite for power and income will spread to others; and once there is universal suffrage in, say, the Transkei, the demagogue, as my hon. friend here has warned us, will rise. The Bantu is a great orator and rabble-rouser and he will realize that his only hope of gaining the plums of office and getting those privileges and that income is by ousting the Chiefs and Headmen who support the Government. In other words, he will start agitating against his own privileged class, the Chiefs and the Headmen; he will look upon them as stooges. That can only be achieved if he can beat the drums of race-hatred of Whites and class-hatred of the Bantu Chiefs, leaders and privileged classes. He will follow the example of all African leaders north of the Limpopo and will rouse the emotions of the Black proletariate by (1) appealing to the anti-White sentiments against the treatment of the Bantu in the White area; (2) against rule by tribal Chiefs and a privileged class of Bantu who support the Government at the present moment; in fact he will act just as the working class in Britain did firstly after the Reform Bill became law and later against the powers and privileges of the House of Lords; (3) he will demand to have control of Defence, Justice, Foreign Affairs at present held by the Republic. Obviously the ultimate ruler of the Bantustans will be the demagogue and agitator who promises the African the world. He will open the door to financial help from Communist countries, as against any help he might get from the Republic. To him public enemy No. I will be the Republic of South Africa. He will not be our friend, because he cannot stir up the emotions of the people if he is our friend. Sir, more powerful nations than we are will be able to outbid us in financial help for the development of these territories, and once they have done that, those territories will fall under the influence of those outside powers, particularly the Communist. The Transkei will try and join up with Basutoland, which will soon be self-governing, for it will bring them closer to a liberal-minded Britain and Commonwealth, and at the same time Basutoland will thereby get an outlet to the sea, and no longer be a completely surrounded enclaved, dominated economically by the Republic. We know that as Basutoland is at the present moment, we could strangle her economically if we wanted to; but if she joins up with the Transkei she will have an outlet to the sea. Sir, nothing that we can do will be right, for it will not be in the demagogue’s interest to admit that anything we do is in the interest of the Transkei or its rights. If we were the angel Gabriel himself we would not be able to do anything right, just as the Nationalists of the old Union days also used the cry that nothing Britain could do was right. Britain had given South Africa her independence but everything she did was wrong. They, the Nationalists, said they were suppressed and dominated by the very country that had made them a self-governing state. In short, the Bantu politician, take a leaf out of the Nationalist Party book, will agitate against the Republic just as the Nationalist Party organized and agitated against Britain and the Commonwealth connection. You will remember, Sir, that for years and years our position was likened to that of a baboon tied to a pole; we were told that we had sovereign independence but that we—the Union—were still a baboon tied to a pole—Britain. In other words, the Bantu politician will act towards our Republic as the Nationalist Party did towards Britain, using the same arguments of being oppressed, as the Nationalists did up to 1948. But there will be this great difference in an appeal to the world. Prior to 1940/45 colonies and colonial powers were still respectable and fashionable. They were said to be leading their Black brethren to great civilization progress and Christianity—possible by way of the garden path. To-day, however, colonialism, the hon. member for Yeoville has said, is completely out of fashion. It is worse: it is now regarded as reactionary, evil and decadent; and it has become a swear-word. Just as Communism became a swear-word to hon. gentlemen opposite. What is more: colonialism today is repudiated by the very great powers that owned most of the colonies only five years ago. But with this knowledge the present Government is attempting to create colonies (subject to them) on our very borders. Whereas the metropolitan colonial powers were at least separated by thousands of miles of sea. If these colonies of ours become a mess such as the Congo, then we will have them right on our borders, as my two colleagues have mentioned earlier on this afternoon. Sir, mighty world powers like France and Britain, or smaller powers like Belgium and Holland, have admitted that they cannot hold the position in the face of world anti-colonialism; yet our Government of all the talents—blind to history, and deaf to what is going on around them at the moment in the outside world—are starting to create colonies at this late stage when the entire world is anti-colonial. It really is pathetic. Now let us take it at its possible best. Let us try to see what the position will be like if the very best happened. If the Secretary for Native Affairs is right, then these Bantustans are never going to have independence. Suppose these seven Bantustan colonies on our borders accept our rule and our friendship after they have self-government. What must happen? With all the goodwill in the world and the wish to rehabilitate the reserves, all previous governments and this Government have failed to do so. With all the skill of a dedicated Department of Native Affairs and with all the know-how, the economic wealth and the money poured into it, we have failed to make the Bantu a lover or protector of the land on which he lives. By nature, he is a nomad; he comes in, grazes the land and then wants to move on. History has shown that he has never really been a lover of the land. He is not like the Chinaman or the Indian who revere the land and who can keep a family going on half an acre. It is not in the Bantu’s nature to protect his land. Wherever he has been he has overstocked in and caused erosion, and to a large extent destroyed the land. Yet the Government proposes to hand over the management of land and agriculture to Bantu control without White supervision; the Whites are to be there only as advisors; they will really be the civil servants of the Black Government. They will not have the power to carry out decisions arrived at by them. What are now the reserves may well be deserts in 20 years’ time. The areas will be more overcrowded than ever by natural increase, and yet more and more people are to be pushed in into them. We find that Xhosas from all over the country are being sent back to the reserves, together with their women. Many of these Zhosas have never been in the reserves before. I know from my own experience of many people who have been sent there, people who were not born there and whose ancestors never lived there. The result will be that we will have seven over-populated, poverty-stricken, extremely vociferous colonies on our borders clamouring for more rights, working up grievances about the treatment of the Bantus in the White Republic, and being safely able to do so from a forum in their own areas. They will be speaking as Transkeian people in the Transkei and will be able to say what they like, with a world hostile to us, as their audience. They will not have to put up wireless stations to broadcast; they will have the wireless networks of the world doing all the broadcasting for them, and they will have the Press of the whole world on their side. The people they will be agitating about will not be republican subjects, but citizens of free Bantu nations living on our borders. They will be discussing the rights and disabilities of their—not our—subjects, because the Bantu living in our areas are, according to the Prime Minister, to be Transkeian subjects; I am talking now about the Xhosa.

As has been pointed out earlier in this Session, many wars have been started by aggressors claiming that the minorities of their people were being ill-used by the governments of the countries in which they have to live. Sudeten-land in 1939 will suffice as one example. Mighty Germany went in there and risked a world war to protect, as she claimed, her citizens living under the Czechoslovakian government, although the Czechoslovakian government in the last 15 years before the war had done all they could to try to meet the wishes of the Sudeten Germans. Germany’s real reason was, however, merely to raise race prejudice. Another example was Servia in 1914 which triggered off a world war. One could go on indefinitely giving examples, but with this great difference, and it is a difference which I want to emphasize: The Bantu will not have to attempt to succour their brethren, the Transkeian citizens, living in the Republic. UNO and the world outside will take up the challenge for them; as they are doing to-day against us with all this unfair criticism of South Africa that we see to-day. Let the Government realize two things now. This move for Bantustan will not gain the goodwill of the world. The fact is, as the hon. member for Yeoville put it very clearly, that with all its news value, it has scarcely been reported abroad. Twice as much publicity has been given to the case of Mrs. Singh, a White woman, who married an Indian, as that given to the whole of the great announcement of the creation of a self-governing Bantustan. Nor will it get the friendship and goodwill of the Bantu. The reverse will be the outcome. Let me give an example: Britain after her unjust and unprovoked attack on the two republics in 1899, tried to do all she could to gain the goodwill and the friendship of the people she had defeated.

Lord Haw-Haw is still alive.

Mr. Speaker, I warned the hon. member last Session that it is a great mistake to hark back to the indiscretions of your youth by reminding us of his female acquaintances of those days. It is not only biological, it is pathological. The hon. member should see a psychiatrist. It is bordering on senility when he continues to hark back to his misspent youth.

Sir, that was the position. Britain did all she could to try and gain the goodwill of those two republics which she had unprovokedly and unjustly attacked; and her own people (the common men in the street) revolted against the government and threw them out, and a Liberal Party came into power. It poured money into the country and in a very short while gave the Republics back their independence and made them a sovereign independent state. Their generals became the rulers of the Union. I ask the House whether that healed the wounds, whether that in any way softened the resentment? No; the bitterness and hate increased with the passing of the years: the Boer War is still being fought to-day by the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. The Government by its handling of the Bantu as a person has created a resentment that will be remembered for centuries to come. I will just give one example of what I mean when I speak of personal treatment. It is a case I happen to know about personally. There was a Xhosa girl born in Kimberley, whose father and grandfather and great-grandfather had always been in the White area, never in a reserve. She came down to work as a servant on a farm next to mine. She was 14; and at the age of 18 she got married to a Bantu who had been born and had been living legally in the Cape. He was working there. When she had three children and was pregnant again, she was told to go to the Transkei where she had never been, where her ancestors had never been and where she has not got a friend or knew anybody. What was the result? She even had to go there and be separated from her husband or otherwise her husband had to chuck his job and go and live in the Transkei. This is a typical case of present Government policy. Will the Bantu ever forget or forgive it? Sir, Britain with her great power then was negotiating (with the two republics that she had beaten) from strength. Our Government to-day is negotiating from weakness, due to world pressure brought on the Government. Sir, it is on record that I begged the hon. the Prime Minister years ago to negotiate whilst he could negotiate from strength and not from weakness, the very thing which is happening to-day as a result of world pressure. But what irritates me is that my country, which I am so extremely proud of, is being made ridiculous in the eyes of the world by the present Prime Minister.

Your country?

Yes, very much more than yours. You should go and vote in Germany whom you backed during the war. The hon. the Prime Minister says that the Xhosas living in the White area, in the Republic, will be allowed to vote in the Transkei as in the Republic he is just a temporary visitor. When challenged on this, he said: Just as the Italian seasonal worker who goes and works in France, has not got a vote in France but has to go back to Italy if he wants to vote, so the Xhosa living in the White area will be merely a temporary sojourner. In other words, the Transkei is his homeland. Now the obvious question I want to ask and which the world is going to ask: Was that Italian born in France? Was his father, his grandfather, his great-grandfather born in France? If so, would he not have been a French citizen even though from Italian stock? Would he not have a vote in France? He would not have become naturalized as an Italian if he wished to vote in Italy. And if the Transkei has control over external affairs, the Transkeian Government will say to the Xhosa born in the White area: Yau can’t come and vote here, you must be naturalized here first before you can become a citizen of the Transkei. I want to ask this question: What if the Xhosa who, say, is born in Kimberley, whose ancestors for generations have never been in a reserve, much less in the Transkei? How can the Transkei be his homeland? Will the hon. the Prime Minister tell me of any country in the world where a man can be declared a foreigner in the land of his birth? How can a Xhosa who is born in Kimberley be declared a foreigner in the Republic? He cannot even be deported out of this country. Sir, it is just blatant, unmitigated, arrant nonsense; it is just damn silly. I regret that the Prime Minister of my country is making us all the laughing stock of the world. The point is: Will the Bantu swallow this? Will any single person, outside an inmate of a lunatic asylum, in the outside world (that the Prime Minister is so anxious to impress) accept this Alice-in-Wonderland theory or statement? The whole thing is childish. To say that a man is a foreigner in the land in which he was born and if he wants to vote, he has to go to another country where he has never been, is the height of absurdity. What to me is so deplorable is that the hon. the Prime Minister having finally decided to carry out this mad-hatter tea party-scheme in theory, called a general election two-and-a-half years before it was due and that he made no attempt to take the people into his confidence as to the issues at stake, or told them what they were voting for. It is true he made vague references to Bantustans which were going to be created, and so on, and so forth, but the public were never told “This is the issue you vote on”. Sir, he wanted the full five years to put into practice what was merely a vague theory before the public then, so that the decision and action would at the end of five years be irrevocable; and the omelette which he had mixed could never be unscrambled. That the hon. the Minister of Lands made quite clear this afternoon was the intention. He said “Now you can never go back on that”. But the Prime Minister wanted a full five years to make it absolutely irrevocable, and that is why he went to the country but did not tell the public that he was going to the country for that purpose.

You told the people.

Yes, and we were told that we were lying, that we were talking nonsense. Ministers and one member after the other opposite said that there was no question of taking such a step. They denied it all the time. The fact is that the whole thing was little better than a political confidence trick played on a trusting people who were under the impression that the hon. the Prime Minister wanted a vote of confidence in respect of his declaration of a republic, and a vote of confidence on having taken us out of the Commonwealth. Everybody thought that the hon. the Prime Minister had forced the election to make the people answer this question: “Are you satisfied with a republic and my actions in taking the country out of the Commonwealth?” And thousands of English-speaking people, who were not Nationalists, voted for that because they said the Prime Minister had no other course open to him after what had happened at the Imperial Conference but to withdraw his application to remain in the Commonwealth. Surely it would have been more politically honest to have taken the public fully into his confidence; and my contention is fully borne out by the hon. the Minister of Lands. He has made it clear that there was a sort of conspiracy, that this thing was done to get five years so as to make this step irrevocable and so that no government, who came into power, could change it. Surrounded by what were largely professional politicians—I am not using that term in a derogatory sense at all—and a submissive party, the Prime Minister has forced an irrevocable policy through, which commits South Africa to a course much more far-reaching than the declaration of a republic. Because, if the people wish, they can (without too great an upset) go back to a monarchy, but, as my hon. friend pointed out here, if once this Bantustan theory is put through, you can only go back either by force of arms or by a war of conquest. There is no going back on it once you have given Bantustans their freedom. Yet, the lesser decision, the declaration of a republic, was submitted to a referendum to test public opinion. But to embark on an irrevocable step without consulting the people, I say was a betrayal by the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government of South Africa and its people.

Order! The hon. member should withdraw the word “betrayal”.

I withdraw it. For the sake of political expediency and to gain time before the world showdown against his form of apartheid has brought us to our knees, he has jeopardized the very existence of our Western civilization. It is on record that during the last six years I have said that the party sitting opposite was the greatest enemy of Western civilization, and that is proving to be true to-day. If ever South Africa, our Western civilization (or our White South Africa) is destroyed, they will be the Government responsible for it.

In conclusion, let me say that it makes me sad to see so many Afrikaners opposite, many of them bearing great names, whose forebears played a great and noble role in our history and our country; ancestors who spoke their minds and who preferred poverty and hardship and even death to surrendering their principles and their right to speak their minds, or their right to independence; ancestors who showed an admiring world at the turn of the century that they would fight to the last ditch for their independence—it makes me sad to see the descendants of those men sitting here, and not one of them prepared to stand up against the Prime Minister and fight for the right of South Africa. That to me is very sad. Sir, we are not a spiteful or a vengeful party on this side of the House. We will be able to forgive them, but our children and their children and their children’s children and the history of South Africa will never forgive them for being accomplices; and not daring to risk their job or a seat, or ministership, because they fear to oppose the Prime Minister. They have not got the guts to stand up and say that this is going to destroy South Africa and risk the consequences. That is what the country will never forgive them for.

Mr. Speaker, allow me, on a point of personal explanation à propos of the remark of the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) about slave labour, to point out that he said—

Then there was a pause, and after waiting a little he said—

Order! I should like to know what this personal explanation has to do with the debate.

Sir, you were not in the Chair. I alleged that he had said it, and then he denied it, and then I repeated it, and then, not he, but the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) denied it.

No.

I was the one who denied that the hon. member for Constantia had said it.

The hon. member who has just sat down (Maj. van der Byl) touched on a few matters which I would briefly like to deal with before coming to the ideas I want to propound. In the first place, the hon. member referred to the detribalized Xhosa born in Kimberley, who is so detribalized that he no longer has any contact of any kind with his homeland. I want to tell the hon. member that it is a pity from the point of view of the Afrikaner people that he is so detribalized that he no longer has any contact with his own people. I do not believe the Xhosas are as detribalized as the hon. member is. Then the hon. member made personal attacks and he will forgive me if I attack him personally too. He spoke with great pride about the forefathers of Government members who fought to their last drop of blood for the freedom of South Africa, and then he said that not a single member on this side has the courage to fight and to oppose the hon. the Prime Minister. Now I want to ask the hon. member whether he or his forefathers fought for this country in that war to which he referred, the 1899 War? Did the hon. member then fight for the freedom of our country?

I was too young.

There is another matter I want to put right. The hon. member alleged that the Government or the Prime Minister deliberately misled the public outside in respect of the fact that we never really wanted to develop the Bantu homelands or make them separate states, and that we kept the people in the dark in that regard. I just want to refer the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell), who sits on the same side of the House as that hon. member and who complained here a few days ago that the Prime Minister in fact repeatedly referred to it, but that the people did not believe the Prime Minister. But he (Mr. Mitchell) believed the Prime Minister all these years. That is in direct conflict with what the hon. member for Green Point now says, that the people were never informed.

There is another point I want to clear up. The hon. member spoke about a difference which is alleged to exist between the Secretary for Bantu Administration, Mr. Young, and the standpoint of the hon. the Prime Minister. He quoted Mr. Young as having said that full independence would not be given to the Transkei, and that the Prime Minister spoke here as if the Transkei would become fully independent. Cannot the hon. member understand that there is a process of development and that it takes time, and that they will not immediately be given full independence in all respects. Mr. Young was quite correct there, that the Prime Minister was equally correct when he said that South Africa could eventually become a Commonwealth of Nations, like Britain, and that if they eventually obtained their independence we could create such a Commonwealth. There is no contradiction between these two gentlemen. It is just a disparity of time. I hope the hon. member’s mind has now been set at rest in regard to these matters.

Mr. Speaker, the dominant phenomenon in world politics to-day is the deterioration in the position of power of the White man. I we look at the world as it was 500 years ago, we find that in the year 1400 the Western European was practically fenced in in Western Europe and controlled only about one-tenth of the surface of the earth. At that stage the White man was surrounded by unchartered seas and was not in a position where he could hold a position of power in the world, but could only govern himself. But as the result of his energy and initiative and perseverance, his intellectual and reasoning ability, the White man evolved various means which assisted him to develop, such as the compass, gunpowder, etc., and as the result of these inventions the White man in the years which followed spread his wings wide in all directions and conquered one continent after the other. In the next 500 years we had the extension of the authority of the White man throughout the world, a development which was bigger than during the previous 4,000 years. One country after the other was discovered and colonized, and in every one of these territories the White man hoisted his flag and assumed control, and if we look at the world as it was in 1900 we find the White man controlling nine-tenths of the world. There was phenomenal growth and expansion, and the position remained like that for a number of years. And everywhere the White man went he came into contact with the Natives of the particular country where he settled. The Natives of the various countries and continents differed from each other, but they were all undeveloped nations which at that time did not know civilization and did not have the perseverance and the energy revealed by the Whites. The contact with the Whites and their civilization did not only uplift the Native races one after another, but also increasingly civilized them, in the sense that eventually they took an interest in the same things in which the White people were interested. The various White nations in the various countries acted differently. In certain of these areas the White man cruelly exterminated the Black man or the Native on a large scale. In other countries the White man, as the result of his own philosophy of life, treated these people differently and gave them an opportunity to develop, and in that way the White man strengthened his position in the world and extended his power.

But in recent years there was a change in this sphere and. as I said in the beginning, the predominant phenomenon in international politics to-day is that the White man is being forced to retreat from his position of power to an inferior position in the world. In the first place the non-Whites in the various countries gradually began to develop and awaken and make demands, because as the result of the development of industries, etc., they also became economically stronger in their own countries and eventually reached such an economic level that they began making further demands in the economic sphere, and also in the social sphere started making higher demands for themselves and for their race. Eventually the non-Whites in the various countries began asking for political rights of self-government and to decide their own fate. It is this last standpoint particularly which to-day dominates world politics and gives it a clear form. For many years, not only in South Africa but in all the colonies, the non-Whites stood, cap in hand, and asked what the will of their master was, whether it was the American or the Australian or the Hollander in Indonesia. He was the master and the non-White had to bow to his will. In all those countries there were doors with the inscription. “No Admittance to Non-Whites”. In all those countries there were spheres from which they were debarred. Discrimination was applied everywhere on the basis of race or colour. During recent years the position has changed to such an extent that the Whites gradually had to get out of those countries and return to Western Europe, where they stemmed from 500 years ago. In every case the Whites had to get out, it happened under conditions where they tried to establish a multi-racial state together with the non-Whites, with a multi-racial Parliament, to rule jointly. In Indonesia, to begin with, there were 500 Whites and 1,500,000 halfbreeds or people of mixed blood, and thirdly, there were 40,000,000 members of the indigenous races. The ratio in Indonesia between Whites and non-Whites was much worse than it is here. Nevertheless this 500,000 Whites in Indonesia could form a stable Government there for more than 300 years and bring economic development to the country, and there was food for all and a living standard on which they could all make a living. This position continued until there was interference by the Dutch Government, which had continued to rule Indonesia as a colony, and the Dutch Government decided to pass legislation in order to give the non-Whites there the vote together with the Whites. Therefore a multiracial state worked well for centuries when the Whites alone ruled, but the moment this multi-racial state was converted into a state with a multi-racial Parliament Indonesia also had its problems. The next step was that the non-Whites obtained the majority in Parliament and Sukarno became President, and immediately thereafter he assumed the attitude adopted by all non-White races, as I shall prove in a moment, that he did not want to rule in co-operation with the Whites, but alone. The result was that the Hollanders had to return to Holland by sea and by air. Fortunately for them they had a fatherland to which they could return and the Dutch Queen welcomed them back to Holland. But that was the course which was clearly followed in Indonesia also. The moment a multi-racial Parliament was established, the Whites had to get out. The same course was followed in various other countries which I will not enumerate.

Gradually the Whites were ousted from all the countries in which they were entrenched. One can mention India. Indo-China and even Ghana, and eventually we can come to Kenya and the Congo. We are faced at the moment with the question as to what is going to happen in Kenya and in the Federation just north of us. It seems as if the White man, who for years made progress and took that part of the world under his wings, is being ousted and will have to go back to Western Europe from where he came originally.

May I put a question? Is it not true that in those countries the Whites were colonists instead of permanent inhabitants of their own fatherland?

If the hon. member will have the patience to wait for the second part of my speech, I will contrast colonialism with the position we have here. It also appears very clearly from the attitude of world statesmen to-day. I briefly want to quote Chester Bowles, who at the moment occupies a fairly important position in the American Government and who said—

That is undoubtedly the position we find in world politics to-day.

Now I specifically want to come back to South Africa and its problems, and I want to analyse the position here carefully and then deal with the solution we are trying to find, as embodied in the policies of the various parties. I want to say at once that in South Africa three things must be stated and accepted as facts. The first fact I want to state is that the Black man (I am now talking of the area known as the Republic of South Africa south of the Limpopo) who lives in this area is here permanently and will remain here, and also regards this as his only fatherland, that he has nowhere else to go, and that we should not think that he will leave here to-morrow. We must accept the fact that they are here and will remain here. Together with that we must accept that he is inspired and encouraged by something he has in common with every other nation, viz., a feeling of nationalism and a national awakening which makes the Black man, like any other, want to be the master of his own fate. He wants to rule his own affairs and will use all his energy to get to the stage where he can do so. We must further accept that this nationalism burns like a flame in the hearts of every nation, and that it drives them to action and deeds, and that unless those ambitions are satisfied by evolution they will be satisfied by revolution. I want to use the metaphor of a boiler under which there is a fire, and unless there is an escape valve by means of which these people can give expression to their feelings, that boiler will burst. Nobody can by means of discrimination or in any other way try to keep countries or nations down by means of artificial legislation. But I want to state a second standpoint. The first is that the Black man is and will remain here.

My second standpoint is that the White man is in South Africa and, in spite of world opinion and what might happen outside, he will remain here.

You mean in spite of the Government?

In spite of all the attempts which are made by the Opposition. If one has a quick look at these territories, and I want to do so in this part of my speech, with the picture I have sketched of world powers which have spread their wings across the world, one sees that they settled themselves in and colonized various areas.

I come now to the matter referred to by the hon. member a moment ago in his question. They colonized various territories and lived there. Certain of these territories were accepted by the world as White man’s country, in spite of the earlier colonization. The U.S.A. is to-day regarded by the whole world as a White man’s country. Nobody who talks about Americans and says “America for the Americans” means America for the Redskins who were the original inhabitants there. The second area so accepted is Australia. Nobody to-day speaks about “Australia for the Australians”, meaning thereby the original inhabitants. Nobody talks about “New Zealand for the New Zealanders” while thinking of the Maoris. But when they speak about “Africa for the Africans”, they mean the Black man, and the White man is immediately eliminated. Sir, my standpoint is very clear, that America, Australia and New Zealand in the eyes of the world, although they are colonized areas just like the Republic of South Africa, are regarded as White countries and as the permanent home of White people. But South Africa is measured with a different yardstick. We are measured by the same yardstick as the colonies in Africa, in India and the East Indian islands. We are regarded as being colonial territory, and therefore they regard the Whites here not as permanent inhabitants but as sojourners who came here to make money, who came to seek their fortunes here and who now have to leave Africa.

That is wrong.

The sooner the hon. member helps us to convert the world from that conception, the better it will be, and the sooner our troubles will be solved. Because the hon. member does not agree with the world, but he is not prepared to support our standpoint and to protect South Africa.

Your standpoint is wrong.

No, our standpoint is right.

As usual, the Opposition is again differing amongst themselves and I do not want to be diverted by that. Sir, I want to come to my third standpoint, that the White man is here and the Black man also, and both are here permanently. Now I state my third standpoint. It is that the world outside with the pressure it exerts as if its conscience worries it as the result of its centuries of oppression—the world outside, UN and the Black man—demand the franchise and self-rule for the Black man also in the Republic of South Africa. Let us recognize this fact. In other words, the world demands one man, one vote, irrespective of race or colour. We have had the experience in the Congo and various other places that when they do so they are prepared to enforce it even by force of arms. Therefore I say we are faced with a situation in South Africa, the simple situation that there are Whites here as well as Blacks, and the world demands one man, one vote. If we are to concede to the demand for one man, one vote, we can do so in two ways. Either we can make concessions to world opinion and thereby relieve the pressure on South Africa to a certain extent, and work out our own destiny better if we give it to them separately in their own areas, or we can grant one man, one vote in the whole area jointly and thereby be directly faced with one thing only, viz. the domination of the Black man over the White man, and then we will be following precisely the same course that was adopted in Indonesia, the Congo and all the other places. Then world opinion said South Africa is a colony, and if the Blacks are in the majority the Whites must bow to them. It is quite clear that the Blacks do not want to govern in co-operation or partnership with the Whites. That is quite clear and last year already I used the quotation here, and I want to use it again because evidently it made no impression then. I again want to quote what Dr. Nkrumah said. He is generally known or accepted as the spokesman for Black nationalism in Africa, Black nationalism which has really developed into Black imperialism, because they do not want only what is their own but also what is the other man’s. I want to quote what Dr. Nkrumah said when opening the PanAfrican Conference in Accra in December 1959. He said—

And just see what rights he demands for himself!—

I want to repeat that because it is underlined—

And then he still has the brutality to say—

And therefore the whole of his Opposition is in prison to-day. Now, Mr. Speaker, the spokesman for those nations says that the Black man has the right to rule and to rule alone. It is not only Nkrumah who says it. I want to come to the next spokesman for Black nationalism, who adopted precisely the same standpoint. He is Tom Mboya of Kenya, who said—

Then he refers specifically to us and says—

He goes further and says—

That is precisely the ideas which concern the point put to me a moment ago by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw)—

Then he states very clearly that the theories expressed at the moment, of partnership and multi-racialism—

I now want to deal particularly with the standpoint of hon. members opposite in regard to race federation, but that has already been covered by the arguments I have advanced. The United Party’s federation policy was propounded after the date of this statement, but if on that date the announcement had already been made that they had a racial federation in mind, then I am sure that Tom Mboya would have added it to his list as another one of the theories which are only intended to deflect them from their final object, namely to govern Africa in their own way.

Mr. Speaker, in the light of all these facts, I want to contrast the choices facing the Republic of South Africa and the White man here; in the light of the fact that there are Black people here and that they will always be here, that there are Whites and that they will always be here, that the conscience of the outside world is pricking it and making it demand that the Black man in the world should not be uplifted and be given the same rights as the Whites. I say it is quite probably because their consciences are pricking them because throughout the centuries they exploited the Black man for their own advantage. But in any case, these demands are now being made. How can we comply with them? Let me begin by discussing the federation policy of the United Party as we now understand it or as we infer what it is from all the vague statements made. I particularly have in mind the statement made in that regard by the Leader of the Opposition in reply to the speech of the Prime Minister in the motion of censure debate. I am thinking of the United Party policy as expounded at that stage. Now I immediately want to set out from the standpoint that the United Party also now adopts the attitude that the Bantu homelands should be developed as the homelands of the Black man. I do not think that is being denied any longer. The year before last it was still being denied, but it is now also their policy that those areas should be developed as the homelands of the Black man, that the Black man should also have a say there in his own government, and that they are also prepared to give a Parliament to the Black man there on a federal basis, as it will develop through the years, with a Black government, a Black cabinet and whichever Black government they choose. I think it is clear if I state it this way. If it is not, I would like hon. members opposite to deny it immediately.

Their next standpoint is that after all these Black states have been established and the various policies have been implemented there, they will be Black self-governing states in their own areas, precisely what we now want to give them. Then we come to the question of what we want to retain as White South Africa, where we want to give the say only to the White man because we are fully justified in doing so, because we demand for the Whites precisely what we are prepared to give to the Blacks in their own area. I say that what we regard here as White South Africa and what we want to rule as a White Government is called by them a multi-racial South Africa in which they once again want to give all the inhabitants representation on this same basis, namely to the urbanized Native, to the Coloured and to the Indian, and also for the White man. In other words, one has the seven—I do not know precisely how many—Black parliaments and one has a mixed multi-racial parliament for this area we call the White area and which they call the multi-racial area.

In the first place I want to deal with the mixed area and I want to ask the United Party at once if they stand by the idea of no discrimination. They must bear in mind that they may not discriminate on the grounds of race or colour, because their intention is also to satisfy world opinion to such an extent that they will improve South Africa’s name—the so-called “image”. In order to create this new “image” only one thing is demanded and that is that there should be no discrimination on grounds of race or colour; and if they want to create this new “image” they will have to put it in this way. If I remember correctly, that is how they put it through the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The Coloureds are to be represented in Parliament by Whites at this stage, but their representatives may also be Coloureds; there is no objection to that according to United Party policy. I accept that the Indians will be represented on the same basis after they have been consulted. As far as the Bantu are concerned the Leader of the Opposition states quite clearly that at this stage they will have the vote on a separate roll and will be represented here by Whites. I want to put it clearly to hon. members by coming back to the analogy of the steam kettle which I used just now. The Black man’s National feeling says to him, “I want to have control”. That is the fire burning underneath the steam kettle. As soon as this fire of demands made by the Bantu becomes strong enough, then Sir de Viliers Graaff and his party say the lid must be lifted and a little steam let out, and then it is put back again. At this stage, as the result of pressure, they are given a few White representatives in Parliament. But the steam kettle is still standing on the same fire. It is still just as hot and it is boiling and within a few minutes or moments or, in politics, within a few months or years, the gauge will again move to danger point. The Black man is not going to be satisfied with four representatives or eight, whatever the number may be. He will at once say, “You are discriminating against me on the ground of colour; I am going to call in the world organizations: I am going to call upon the United Nations Organization to help me. There is no ‘new image’ because you are discriminating on the grounds of race and colour; you are just as inhuman as the National Party, because there are 3,000,000 Whites and 6,000,000 Bantu, and you are allowing me eight representatives in Parliament as against 160 for the Whites.” That is discrimination! Immediately the lid will be lifted once more and a second little bit of steam will have to be let out. The number will increase or double to the extent that the Black man makes his demands, in order to avoid economic boycotts or strikes, or calls for help from outside. Then the next stage will arrive and he will say, “Why must I be represented by Whites? Is that not also discrimination on the grounds of race and colour? Why can the Whites be represented by their own people? They say that the Coloureds are going to be represented by their own people; why cannot I, as a Bantu, also be represented by my own people?” And then once more the kettle will be at bursting point; a little steam will have to be let out, otherwise the whole situation will explode. If this does not come about by evolution, then we will have a revolution and an explosion. The next question which then arises immediately is this: All right, pressure has been exterted and there are now Black representatives in Parliament instead of Whites. And as far as the mixed area is concerned in the end, this system of the United Party’s must inevitably result in a Black majority in this Parliament because of their superiority in numbers. I want hon. members on the other side to deny this when they rise to speak again and to prove that is not so. Having arrived at this result, I come to the next question and to the United Party’s federal policy and to this super-Parliament. We will have five or six Black Parliaments; we will have a multi-racial Parliament here in which the Black man will eventually have a majority, and then there will be a super-body above all these Parliaments, the federal Parliament which will have to guard the Republic of South Africa and in this federal Parliament each of the little Parliaments will have a few members, as well as a few members in the multi-racial Parliament.

What federal parliament are you talking about?

I am talking about the federal parliament of the United Party. With regard to this super-parliament, I once again wish to ask whether the Transkei and those places will send White representatives? What Whites will they send here? We will arrive at the stage where we shall have this federal, this all overshadowing federal parliament to government the Republic of South Africa and in it the Black man will not only have a tremendous say, but will also eventually have a majority. The following questions arise involuntarily: In all the other states in Africa in which the Black man will eventually have a majority and in every country where a multiracial state has been created with a multi-racial parliament to govern it, the moment he obtains a majority, he rules alone. As Nkrumah said, “We want to rule and rule alone”. That is the demand they are now making in Rhodesia: that is the demand which they did make in Kenya, in the Congo and in Indonesia. Why would all these countries drive out the White man in this way, but why would it not happen in South Africa under a United Party Government? Or perhaps I should say United Party Opposition, because the Black man will be in the majority. Is the Opposition so naive as to believe that things in South Africa will be different from what is happening in other countries? I want to deal with the second question. All these scare-stories which were brought up here this afternoon by the hon. member for Yeoville, the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) and other members, that these states will be able to come into contact with communist countries, that they will obtain communist capital, that they will link up with Basutoland, that they will link up with Ghana, and all the treaties mentioned to us which the Transkei will be able to enter into if they obtain self-government—all these things and a hundredfold more will occur if this super-parliament falls into the hands of the Blacks, and the whole of the Republic of South Africa will be exposed to those demands and dangers, and not only the Transkei. In other words, the difference is that the worst that can happen under our policy is that we will have a hostile neighbour. But what must happen under their policy in the normal course of events is that we shall have an adder in our bosom.

Why is it not happening now?

It is not happening in South Africa now because there is a National Government. Let me put it quite plainly: Because the White man still has full control of the situation in South Africa at the present juncture, and because the Government intends permanently to keep power in the hands of the White man in the White area, it is not exposed to the dangers to which the hon. members on the other side intend exposing it.

You want to give South Africa away.

No, Mr. Speaker, the people will not allow us to give South Africa away. The electorate will return us at every election to maintain our policy in the interests of the safety of the Whites. The hon. member need not worry about that. I want to put it clearly. I say that the United Party with its policy that the Black man should attain his ideals in the White Parliament, in the White areas—let me rather put it this way: The Black man wants to have control and to achieve his aspirations; he wants political rights. We say: Very well; we recognize that wish; we recognize that inborn ideal in every man and in every nation and we say to the Black man, “We are creating these opportunities for you in your own area.” The Opposition says, “We are creating these opportunities in their own areas for these people”. But for those living in our areas, they are in fact creating the opportunities and channels for them to obtain and exercise political rights in this area. In other words, they inspire that man and give him all the power and support in his own area to become stronger and stronger and eventually to achieve his aspirations here to the full. In the way they are putting it they are encouraging him to take over South Africa and to rule it himself. I wish to put it quite plainly, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to put it this way: I challenge the hon. Opposition and any hon. member of the Opposition to name one multi-racial country in the world, which is being governed multi-racially, where there is peace and order. There is not one. The situation is quite clear. There are many multi-racial countries, but once you have a multi-racial government, you find one group dominating the other, and eventually the minority group must yield or leave … [Interjections.] I say that the United Party by propagating this policy and by starting with concessions in order to give the Black man an opening in the White man’s area and the White man’s Parliament and by allowing him to live a full political life among the Whites, is creating for itself a ladder which it will have to climb step by step. It will be forced up that ladder step by step. The first step will not be dangerous. It will be a few White representatives for the Blacks. That will not be dangerous. But it will never be able to turn around and descend the ladder. It will have to climb right to the top where, in a democratic state, the Black man by virtue of his majority will inevitably form the government, with a Black parliament and a Black prime minister and a Black state; and the highest position which a White man will be able to attain will be that of Leader of the Opposition of a minority group in a multi-racial parliament.

Mr. Speaker, in the few moments which I still have at my disposal, I wish to state our policy. It has been explained clearly by the hon. the Prime Minister so that it is not necessary for me to deal with it at length. But I want to apply the same tests to our policy. We recognize that there are White people and Black people in South Africa and that the Black man wants to govern himself. We say that we recognize this constellation and we share South Africa; instead of a horizontal line, where we give people above the line the vote and thus encourage them to achieve their aspirations in our own area, we draw a vertical line. We divide South Africa into two parts—rather a divided South Africa where the Whites have control over a part of it than an undivided South Africa that we hand over to the Black man in a bloodless war. We divide South Africa vertically if it is necessary, also territorially if necessary; and we meet the demands of the world and the ideals and the aims of the Black man and we say to him: “You can achieve your aspirations, you can rule completely; your nationalism can awaken fully and grow in your area which is your fatherland.” With a policy such as this, I am prepared to appear before any court in the world and say that it is fair. And I say to the Whites in White South Africa that they can demand for themselves precisely what they grant to others. Therefore, I demand that the Black man should have no political rights at all in this area, because this is the White man’s country and here he alone will rule. When that is the position, I feel that we will arrive at a stage where South Africa with her unique problems and unique position will be able to hold up her head politically and that the Whites on this Continent will have a foothold here. Because history will show, Mr. Speaker, that in spite of the fact that the Western powers are courting the Black states in order to keep them away from the communists, the Republic of South Africa will in the end be the only reliable ally of and will provide the only foothold for the Western nations in the whole of Africa when the rest have turned communist.

Mr. Speaker, may I thank you for the opportunity of allowing me to break parliamentary ice and in doing so, possibly to cool down the heat that has been generated in this House during the last few hours. In doing so, I also want to take advantake of the opportunity of bringing to the attention of this House and of the hon. the Ministers, a matter which is of direct and immediate concern to my constituents and possibly, Sir, one of the main reasons, if not the only reason, why they deemed it advisable to send me to this House to make representations on their behalf. I refer to the position that has arisen on the East Rand as a result of the marginal mines that are situated in our area, and the resultant effect that they are likely to have on the population in that area. I think it is necessary that we should all accept joint responsibility for the position that has arisen, to realize the gravity with which that area now has to face its future. I feel that it would be wrong of me if I had to run away from my responsibility in this regard and not discuss these matters quite frankly and openly with the hon. the Prime Minister and his Minister, because to close the stable door after the horse has bolted is of very little use to us and of very little use, if any, to the country as a whole.

It is estimated that every White worker in industry requires expenditure of at least £10,000 in capital equipment to keep him in his job. This amount is made up of his house, lights, water, streets and the other amenities that are provided such as hospitals, schools and so on. On the East Rand that money has already been expended and represents the cumulative capital of decades of work by the ordinary man in the street, the working man whose welfare all of us, I am sure, have very much at heart. It was gold, and gold alone, that brought the people to the Witwatersrand—and as the gold diminishes so the general level of prosperity in that area, and throughout the country, will be threatened. Not only, as I say, the prosperity of that area, but also the prosperity of the whole country, because as we all know, gold is an export industry and South Africa will be forced to replace it with other export industries in the future. On the East Rand we have all the facilities available, and there are all the weighty advantages for the establishment of a substantial industrial development. But, Sir, a dangerous position has been allowed to develop. I do not put any blame on anybody’s shoulders in this regard. As I said before, we all have to accept joint responsibility for the situation that has developed, but we must realize that something has to be done in the immediate future in order to provide for the huge population that will be affected. In our area at the moment, in the towns on the East Rand, there are approximately 600,000 to 700,000 persons. Over £700,00,000 have been invested in commercial buildings, industry, housing, electricity, water supplies, sewerage and so on. in order to build up what we have on the East Rand at the moment. My question to the hon. the Prime Minister and the Ministers concerned, is, what is to be the fate of this huge capital investment? In the mines at Springs there are approximately 5,500 Europeans in employment and approximately 46,000 Bantu with a total annual wage bill of roughly R19,000,000. Industry on the other hand, employs approximately 3,300 Whites and 9,500 Bantu with a total wage bill of R9,500,000. It will, therefore, be seen that industry only contributes approximately one half of what the mines bring in, in wages. I think it will also be interesting for this House to know that in the area from Boksburg to Nigel 41 per cent of the people gainfully employed in that area—and I emphasize “gainfully employed”—are working in the gold mines in that area. Forty-one per cent of the persons gainfully employed in that area are to-day working in the gold mines, and we owe them a responsibility to give them a substitute when the marginal mines in that area close down. An examination of the position shows that the whole area is heavily dependent on gold mining. Whilst I appreciate that some of those areas have been fortunate enough to make provision for a fairly substantial pro rata proportion of their mining population to be employed in industry, I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs to the fact that as the mines close down, the industries which are to-day giving employment to those people in that area, will find themselves badly penalized, in that they themselves—that is the industries—are dependent on the mines which are now in existence. I refer to such industries as the heavy engineering industry and its complementary industries. As the mines have to close down, so these industries find themselves badly placed and prejudiced, and they have to suffer. If it is asked of me what can be done in this matter, to get some practical reactions, I want to say firstly, that every assistance has to be given to those areas in order to enable them to establish further industrial townships. Here I feel the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration can assist us considerably in facilitating the early establishment of these industrial areas by not insisting, as has been the practice in the past, that three acres for Native housing should be available whenever one acre of industrial ground is established. We find that the position in our areas is that we cannot find such a substantial area of land for Bantu location purposes to enable us to establish industrial townships. I feel the Minister of Bantu Administration can possibly assist considerably in that regard, by alleviating the position to a considerable extent.

In April 1958 a round-table conference which was convened by the then Minister of Mines in order to go into this question, and which conference consisted of representatives of the Gold Producers’ Committee, the trade unions concerned and the Government, made certain very valuable suggestions. I feel that amongst those suggestions was something of great value to the marginal mines in our area, and although nearly three years have elapsed since that time, we would like to suggest that some of those recommendations of that round-table conference should now become applicable to the marginal mines. It is suggested by this conference that the marginal mines could be given relief amounting to a saving of about 2s. 3d. a ton milled in an average working cost of 30s. 8d. a ton—in other words, a saving of approximately 7½ per cent per ton milled. It then went on to suggest that when a mine reaches the marginal stage it should apply to the Government to go into a “classified” list, when it becomes eligible for relief. When a mine should be so classified, or for how long it should remain so, would be determined by the Government Mining Engineer in consultation with the mine-owners and the other people concerned. The report which was drawn up by this conference, then goes on to point out that farmers receive special relief in times of drought, and suggests that the same principle might be applied to the marginal mines. I sincerely, but earnestly, commend this recommendation for the consideration of the Minister and of the House, because a precedent has already been established in this regard, that where relief is required by the farming community, the Government has made it available. We feel that relief is certainly required for our industry at the moment. It can be done, and I suggest there is another precedent in this regard in England, where they have been confronted with similar problems in regard to coal-mining, and they have declared certain areas to be “betterment areas” and special concessions were made to them. I feel that we can with justification do the same in regard to the position that has now arisen on the East Rand, where urgent action is justified.

What other practical measures can we take? Reference has been made to the fact that our country is now going over to the production of small arms and ammunition for defence purposes. May I suggest to the hon. the Minister of Defence that he can assist us considerably on the East Rand, by giving consideration to the establishment of such an ammunition factory there, with the consequent employment it can create for many skilled people there. The hon. the Minister of Mines, on 27 July 1958, made the following comment when replying to the hon. member for Geduld, and here I would like to pay tribute to the work the hon. member for Geduld has done in his constituency—which overflows into mine—in regard to industrial development and the conscientious and thorough manner in which he has tried to assist the position in that area. But in reply the Minister said—

We very much appreciate those comments of the Minister, and feel sure that he will do everything he can to assist us in that regard. But I would like to ask him to apply these remarks of his where he says that he wants to establish industries like iron, petrol and oil. and to assist us in that regard and to consider the establishment of a third “Iscor” in the hinterland of the Far East Transvaal. Furthermore to take his suggestion in regard to petrol a stage further. Cannot a second “Sasol” be established on the Far East Rand? Because there you have unlimited supplies of cheap coal, and it lends itself ideally to the establishment of a new petrol factory. It is also in close proximity to Lourenco Marques and Witbank and there are no bottle-necks which will impede rail, or even road, traffic.

Then may I also ask whether the hon. the Minister of Transport will not play his role by immediately proceeding with the establishment of the suggested Welgedacht Railway Workshops which was on the Estimates some years ago, and which for reasons unknown to us, and which I must say has caused very much concern on the East Rand, has been held in abeyance and may not be proceeded with. The Railway workshops would bring considerable employment to skilled artisans. A further extension of the marshalling yards at Welgedacht will also assist us and it will bring a great deal of optimism to that area. We were privileged a few days ago to witness a very fine exhibition of films by the hon. the Minister of Information, which were certainly a credit to his Department and which I feel will be a credit to South Africa if viewed overseas. May I suggest to him that he give consideration to the possibility of getting a sound film made in colour of the East Rand and its potentialities, and have that exhibited overseas and also in this country, where I think the people should be enlightened as to the facilities available on the East Rand in order to assist us in attracting industries to that area.

With these brief comments at this particular stage I feel, however, that I would be lacking in my responsibility and not prepared to face the important issue which is one of the greatest handicaps to our area, if I did not make reference to the fact that industrialists are very much perturbed at the competition that they are likely to have in the industries which are going to be established in the border area. Whilst knowing the position and appreciating the need for decentralization—an aspect I do not want to go into at this stage—I do, however, want to make suggestions to the hon. the Prime Minister and the members of his Cabinet that if an unfavourable position is going to arise on the East Rand, as some people believe it will, that inducements similar to those now being made available to industrialists wishing to establish themselves in the border areas, should be made available to industrialists to establish themselves on the East Rand. If you make available only six out of the ten inducements and concessions which are made available to industrialists in the borders areas, you will overcome the problem of establishing industries on the East Rand. The worrying thought at the moment—and I say it with all due responsibility—is where are these new industries going to be established? In Brakpan, Boksburg, in Benoni or in the Bundu? Whilst not considering myself, even in my weaker moments, to be a pessimist, I do feel that this is one of the matters where the Prime Minister and the members of his Cabinet can assist us. Whilst I have made reference to this one worrying aspect facing the East Rand at the moment, I feel I had to do so, because not to do so, would be like trying to play Hamlet without the prince. We hope to find a Prince Charming in the person of the hon. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet who in the same determined and bold manner in which he has applied himself recently to another national emergency could help us to bring optimism and a ray of hope to the East Rand.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to convey my hearty congratulations to the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) on his maiden speech but I must say at once that while he was speaking and I realized that my turn was approaching, I felt as though my senses had ceased to function and I could not properly follow everything that he said, but superficially it sounded like a very good speech to me and I wish to congratulate him and express the hope that his contributions in this House in the future will always be fruitful.

I wish to refer to a matter about which considerable concern has been expressed recently and that is the demographic position of the White man in the Cape. In recent times it has been pointed out repeatedly that as far as the numerical strength of the White man is concerned, his position in this part of the Republic is not a very happy one. It has been pointed out that during the period 1911-1960 the number of Whites in the Cape did not even double whereas it trebled in the Transvaal during the same period. Attention has also been drawn to the fact that as far as the density of population in the rural areas of the Cape is concerned the position of the Whites has been deteriorating to a disturbing extent. In 1911 the position in the Cape was that the density was about one person per square mile. This position deteriorated until in 1950 it was only .8 of a person per square mile. During the same period it increased in the Transvaal from 1.6 to 2.1 persons per square mile. It has also been pointed out that here in the heart of the Western Cape, one of our most important industrial areas, the White man finds that as far as the general composition of the population is concerned, his position is deteriorating to a disturbing extent. It has been pointed out that according to the latest census there is not a single town in the Cape where the Whites are still in the majority. All our towns, without exception, are becoming either Black or Brown. All those who are concerned about the future pattern in this province have been thinking deeply and seriously about this position in recent times. Analyses have been made to determine the cause of this phenomenon. Profound and far-reaching discussions have been held to ascertain what we can do to alleviate the situation. In this important debate the hon. the Minister of Lands, among others, made one important observation. In a moment of great wisdom he observed that in this part of the Republic the White man has never learned to ask for enough. In other words, much of the stagnation with which we have to cope is really due to one of the commendable characteristics of the Whites in this part of the country.

I should like to ask for something here today. I want to forget that independent spirit, that fine quality of our people, and I want to ask for something. I do it humbly but nevertheless with great expectations. I want to give my attention more specifically to the development of our West Coast. I want to ask for something on behalf of a certain complex along our West Coast, that is, the areas around Langebaan, Saldanha and Vredenburg, as far as Elands Bay and a little deeper into the interior of the country. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask impartially for five things to which I want the Government to give its immediate attention because if the five things for which I ask are given the energetic attention of the Government, I have no doubt that White initiative and numbers will be given a fresh impetus in those areas.

I should like to start at once with the first thing for which I want to ask and that is the extension of the West Coast road from Melkbosstrand to Saldanha Bay. The activities along the West Coast, beginning at Cape Town, have never terminated at Melkbos. On the contrary, the most important activities along the West Coast are to be found in this very complex that I have mentioned and from the point of view of defence it is absolutely essential that this road should be completed as soon as possible. I want to express the hope that the Government will bring pressure to bear upon the Provincial Administration to complete this road.

But it is not primarily because of its importance from the point of view of defence that I raise this matter. I feel that if this West Coast road can be completed it will give a fresh impetus to our very important tourist traffic in this vicinity, which in turn could give a new stimulus to this area. You may ask me, Mr. Speaker, what there is to interest a tourist on this colourless West Coast? I would point out that one of the most beautiful sea lakes in our country is to be found on the West Coast near Langebaan. This can be a stimulus as well as a challenge. It is a new paradise in developing our new water sports. But at the moment there is very little activity on this beautiful part of the coast. The only activity is that oyster shells are being removed from an old seabed to be ground up for poultry food. The tourist can also come and see one of the only two whaling stations in our country, where about 1,500 whales are processed annually. Here you can come and see how up to two tons of oil are sometimes extracted from the head of one whale. In this area one can come and see the beautiful buildings of the military academy and the Naval Gymnasium erected by my honoured predecessor in 1951. In that year this institution began with about 44 trainees. This year the number that can be accommodated there is no less than 600. One can go there and see the harvest that the sea produces each year. Last year more than 532,000 tons of fish were processed in this area. The tourist can come and see the beautiful vista of flowers in this vicinity. With all due respect to my colleague from Namaqualand, people drive hundreds of miles every year to Namaqualand over bad roads to see the flowers. There are beautiful flowers there, but the most beautiful flowers imaginable are to be seen between Vredenburg and Elands Bay. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) has had a motion placed on the Order Paper dealing with the extermination of the seal. I do not know whether that motion of his will be accepted, but I would like to invite him to this region and derive pleasure from seeing thousands of glistening seals disporting themselves like children in the water. It is a beautiful sight, something to be seen by the tourist, and I would like to ask the Government, therefore, to exert pressure to bring about the completion of this West Coast road as rapidly as possible.

The second thing I ask for is the extension and development of the Saldanha harbour. It is an historical fact that if in the early years there had been water in the vicinity of Saldanha, Cape Town would never have developed at the foot of Table Mountain, the settlement would have developed at Saldanha, one of the best and most natural harbours on our coast. But is it not tragic that this gift of nature lies there comparatively unproductive? I would ask the Government in all modesty, therefore, to carry out further investigations into the further development of this natural harbour immediately. However. I admit at once that it can be argued that there is insufficient water for further development. That brings me to my next point, the third thing that I want to ask for and that is the further development of the Berg River in this area. It is a fact that every year thousands of gallons of water run through this region into the sea from the Berg River, and it is precisely because of this characteristic of not asking for enough that the Berg River’s potential has never been fully developed. Accordingly I ask that the preliminary investigations which have already been carried out in connection with the building of a dam at Misverstand should be followed up and that this dam should be completed at this strategic place, which is indeed the only place where the water of the Berg River can be put to productive use. I predict that if the water can be dammed here a new industrial area can develop here. All the potentialities are there but it will have to be developed, and developed primarily with an eye to further industrial development in this area and not principally as an agricultural project.

Fourthly, I wish to ask that the old problem of the silting up of the mouth of the Berg River should receive earnest attention. This causes great inconvenience to the progressive fishing communities of Velddrift and Laaiplek, because of the new, bigger fishing boats which are being used and the fact that the river is subject to seasonal changes and tidal fluctuations which push the water 46 miles up the river. The University of Stellenbosch is at present engaged in investigating possible solutions of this problem. At the moment assistance is also being rendered by one of the French scientists. I simply want to ask that, if it can be proved that this river mouth can indeed be opened, the Government for its part will give every possible financial assistance.

Fifthly, I want to ask for further scientific and technical assistance for our fishing industry on the West Coast, the life artery of this area. It is a fact that the fishing industry is an important force in our economy and this force can assert itself even more strongly in the future. But on the other hand it is just as true that the possibility exists that this important industry will in the near future no longer be able to make its presence felt. If we think of what happened to the sardine shoals of California and of the appearance of Russian fishing boats in our fishing waters, if we think of the possible appearance of Ghanaian boats in our waters, and if we bear in mind that the much-discussed 12-mile limit is not necessarily a solution, because particularly the biggest shoals of fish are not necessarily to be found within the 12-mile limit but mostly beyond it, then this cannot to be looked to as the solution. Moreover, when we think that these foreign boats can fish throughout the year in these waters and that seasonal limits do not help us in this respect it seems that there is just one solution open to us and that is greater and better modernization of our fishing industry. There is unlimited scope in this respect. Therefore I ask the Government to give us greater technical and scientific assistance in order to modernize our fishing industry. I readily admit that since 1944, with the establishment of the Fisheries Development Corporation, the State has done a very great deal to assist our fishing industry, but the new challenges that face us make it essential that we devote fresh attention to our fishing industry in this region.

Having put forward these five requests, I leave it at that. I have not even come to the important diamond industry a little higher up the West Coast, but if the Government gives its sympathetic attention and also its active attention to the five things I have asked for, namely, the building of the West Coast road and its completion, the further extention of this, the most natural harbour on our coast, the building of a storage dam at Misverstand, the opening of the mouth of the Berg River and better and more extensive scientific assistance to our fishing industry, I maintain that it will give White initiative and White numbers in this area new vitality and fresh impetus.

Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps a little incongruous that one so young in parliamentary speaking as I am, should have the honour to congratulate the last two hon. members who spoke in this debate on their maiden speeches. Bearing in mind the trepidation which was no doubt apparent when I made my maiden speech, one cannot but admire the calm detachment, the happy choice of phrase, and the depth of intellect shown in the maiden speeches of those two hon. members. I think all hon. members will agree that they have set a high standard for those who follow them and that this hon. House will be blessed in its proceedings if the remainder of the maiden speeches achieve the high standard set by those two hon. members.

Sir, I have listened with great interest to a number of speeches made on the subject of the establishment of separate Bantu states which was outlined in the speech earlier by the hon. the Prime Minister. They were delivered with an air of detachment, they were delivered after a great deal of thought, but hon. members will forgive me if I speak on this subject with rather more feeling and considerably less detachment than has been exhibited so far by hon. members opposite. Because, Mr. Speaker, I represent Zululand. I come from Zululand. My forebears come from Zululand. Have hon. members opposite ever looked at a map which shows the position in Zululand and indeed in Natal of the Black and White areas? Have hon. members opposite ever given a moment’s thought as to what, in terms of humanity, effect the implementation of the Prime Minister’s policy will have on the people living there? It is all very well for those who are remote from the scene of those events, for those whose families will not be touched by the implementation of this policy, to stand up and argue from lofty motives and with great sincerity, how this is a solution to the problems which beset us. But, Mr. Speaker, before we accept that argument, let us analyse closely the practical effect it will have on the people I represent and compare the disruptions which will affect their lives and which will attend them as a result of this policy with what it will achieve in the sense of righting our troubles at the present time. Most hon. members opposite come from farming stock. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) who has just interrupted is probably a farmer himself. I have no doubt that his roots are deep in the soil of this country, as were those of his forbears. I hope he has the same respect for a well-developed farm and for good farming folk that I have. How many hon. members opposite have ever been to Zululand? How many hon. members opposite have ever left the tarred road if they have ever been to Zululand? How many hon. members opposite realize that the greater part of Zululand was developed within a generation? I know of an old gentleman in Zululand—and there are a number of them—who something over 40 years ago went up there with an ox wagon and not much else by way of capital. He only had the oxen, the wagon and his own enterprise. And what happened? He was given a bare piece of land and to-day that bare piece of land is a flourishing farm with fine crops of sugar, with fat cattle, with a fine homestead, with nicely laid-out gardens; all built up by the enterprise of one man in Zululand within living memory during the last generation. Do hon. members opposite realize what it took to achieve that end in terms of ordinary human living? Do hon. members opposite realize that to achieve that end the person I speak of went through floods, droughts, locusts … [Interjections.] The hon. member says they have all been through it, but as has so rightly been pointed out, the hon. member is not going to have his whole future disrupted by these events. The gentleman to whom I have just referred happens to be my father. Do hon. members opposite realize why I speak with something less than detachment on this subject?

Now. Sir, what is the practical effect going to be of what the hon. the Prime Minister proposes? Has it struck hon. members that those who are to be displaced, those who are to have their land realized, those who are to be the subject of negotiations with some future government of the Bantu State for the purpose of consolidating it into economic units, are the people who are living on the eastern seaboard of this country and who consist almost exclusively of persons who do not support the policies of this Government? What has not been apparent in any speech so far made in this House by hon. members opposite, is that they appreciate the effect this will have, in terms of common humanity, on the people involved, both Black and White. Do hon. members realize that this realignment will affect not only Zululand, which is a constituency in which I am particularly interested, but virtually the whole of Natal? It is said that the actual realignment of the land is to be left for the future; that there is to be negotiations with the governments concerned as to what the actual boundaries will be and that things will remain as they are to-day and that the reserves will become independent states, but with their existing boundaries, until such time as the changes can be made. That presupposes, Sir, that there is no set plan at the present time. I do not believe it, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe that there is no set plan at the present time. It is quite inconsistent with what I have seen and read of the hon. the Prime Minister, that sort of thing should be left to chance. I am quite convinced that there is a plan at the present time, a blue print, which will indicate who is going to be displaced and who is not going to be displaced in Natal and the Eastern Province, but it will not be made public.

Why not?

Because there will be an absolute outcry, not merely from the Blacks and Whites in Natal and in Zululand but from many of the Government’s own supporters of the present time. Hon. members opposite dispute that. Let us look at the facts for a moment. I see the hon. the Minister of Lands is in the House at the present time. Why are we building a dam at Pongola costing some R25,000,000 or more if we do not know whether it is going to be in a Black or White area? Why have we built a Zulu university at Felixtown, right down in the southernmost part of Zululand, on the edge of a White area, if we do not know whether it is going to be in a Black State or a White State? Mind you, Sir, if the great bulk of the country’s inhabitants can live outside it, I suppose there is no reason as to why its principal seat of learning should also be in a foreign country. Why, Sir, are we building a dam at Hluhluwe at a cost of some R600,000 if we do not know whether it is going to be in a Black or White area? No Government—and I credit this Government with that much foresight—will embark on public expenditure in a place such as Zululand which is a patch-work quilt of Black and White areas, unless it has a pretty shrewd idea of where the Black parts are going to be and where the White parts are going to be. Why are we not told these things, Sir? Why are the people of this country, and the people of those parts of the country in particular, not taken into the confidence of this Government so that they can order their affairs in advance? Is it thought for a moment that in Umtata in the Transkei the present White owners of land are going to be adequately compensated for what they have had up till now? The only utterance we had in that regard since I have been in this House, came from the hon. the Minister of Transport who said “that will be adequately catered for.” But, Sir, who is going to buy land in Umtata to-day? Those values have already started to decline. That must be so in the ordinary event of things. Those values have already started to decline and when compensation is paid, do not tell me it is going to be anti-dated as far as values are concerned to the time immediately preceding the Prime Minister’s speech. That is one small centre; what price the bulk of the farming community in Natal and Zululand? What price their farms? Who is going to indulge in wholesale economic development when one does not know, according to the hon. the Prime Minister, whether one’s land was going to be one’s own in ten years’ time, whether the farm one has at present one is able to develop for the sake of one’s children? Mr. Speaker, it is time these things were brought down to the level of the human being who is going to be affected. Let us not have so much of this airiness about this; let us not have so much of this argument as to whether or not this system will work; let us appreciate the fact that there are people in this country, good people, good South Africans, with their roots in the soil as strongly as hon. members opposite, who are going to be pushed about like pawns on a chessboard as a result of this scheme. It cannot be implemented otherwise and that is implicit in everything that has so far been said by hon. members opposite.

I have tried to give the House some indication of the strength of feeling which emanates from those of us who are very intimately affected by this. There are others. There is the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) whose family has been established there in farming as long as mine has at the other end of Natal. There are a great many other people who feel as strongly about this as I do. But now, is it all worth while? I am inclined to say to hon. members opposite: Very well, one section of the community can be asked to make this sacrifice if it is going to solve the problem. You can ask your fellow-compatriots to make sacrifices if you believe it is going to solve the problem. No matter how bad it may be, even if it is only one section of the population which is going to be asked to make that sacrifice, it is worth it if it will solve the difficulties we presently labour under. But Mr. Speaker, let us analyse for one moment this fantastic conception which is to the effect that you will satisfy absolutely the majority of non-Whites who are still going to live in South Africa by giving them votes in the Transkei. There are going to be elections, I take it. The detribalized non-Whites in South Africa are going to elect nine representatives to the parliament in the Transkei. There is going to be an election campaign. The candidates standing for those seats are going to campaign in Sophiatown, in Nyanga, in Langa and in those other places to be elected to the parliament in the Transkei. What do hon. members opposite imagine they are going to talk about? Are they going to talk about the cost of buying wives at Umtata; are they going to talk about land tenure in the Transkei? Are they going to talk about the building of roads in the Transkei? They are going to talk about the disability under which the people in White South Africa suffer, otherwise they will not get a vote.

Whom are you talking about now?

The nine people who will be elected in White South Africa to represent the detribalized Natives in the Parliament of the Transkei will be the men who are able to persuade the Transkeian government to bring pressure to bear to improve the lot of those who are here, those who are here and who are voting for those people and deciding who are to sit in the parliament in the Transkei. [Interjections.] How does that solve any problems? One of the things that is going to be raised at question time at the meetings these people are going to hold, will be this: They will say to the candidate: “Are you prepared to raise the question of job reservation in the parliament of the Transkei?” “Will you get the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Transkei to raise with the hon. Minister, who sits in this House, the question of job reservation?”

What alternative do you suggest?

The hon. the Prime Minister realizes that fact, and that is quite apparent in the constitution that has been drafted because they are given only nine elected representatives in a House consisting of 150. He realizes the danger which those people will be towards his tribal hierarchy in the Transkei. What do hon. members think those people are going to do vis-a-vis their tribal chiefs in the Transkei? There is going to be a division of opinion between the elected representatives from the towns, the townees, that is, the sophisticated, the emancipated non-European, and the nominated tribal chiefs nominated by hon. members opposite. And the nine representatives representing the detribalized Natives will not be satisfied until they have the majority in the Transkeian Parliament. And having achieved the majority in that parliament they will then bring pressure to bear on the situation in this country. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the serious and sincere arguments advanced by the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder), who is unfortunately not here at the moment. He argued quite frankly and with evident sincerity from a rather lofty standpoint—he can do so because he is not intimately affected—on how this was a solution to our problems. He said—and his phrase was quite a telling one in regard to the other parts of the world where there has been this inter-play between Black and White—“die witman is uitgeskakel.” That is a telling phrase because that is exactly what is going to be done to the “witman” in Zululand and Natal. Every argument my learned friend used to support the motion that they had been unfairly done by is valid as far as my constituency is concerned. But he went on and he made a great point of the fact that there had always been this conflict in the parliamentary field between Black and White, and he dealt with most of the colonial nations and their dependencies and he said that no non-European would be satisfied until he had the majority in the domestic Parliament and that being so you could not keep control. There is one factor he overlooked and it is an argument we can now use against hon. members opposite because they have used it for so long against our critics from overseas. The argument is this: No other country in the world is like South Africa; no other country in the world has a permanent established White population; no other country in the world which is faced with this problem has a White population which is sufficiently strong to stand up for itself, which has been associated so long with the non-European and, apart from a few agitators, by and large has the respect of the non-European; no other country in the world is faced with the situation where you have a White population having the respect of its non-Europeans, who can take the non-Europeans with it provided they are treated properly. That, Sir, is the big difference between South Africa and the various states which the hon. member has mentioned. We are still in control of this country; the Government opposite controls the affairs in this country. This country has been controlled by the White man for 300 years. We have always had a majority of non-Europeans. Why this constant preoccupation with votes such as the Progressive Party has? Why limit your attention, so far as devising a solution is concerned, merely to the question of votes? Do hon. members opposite imagine that when the 30,000 non-Europeans marched on this House last year, if the Prime Minister had stood up and said: “I will give you votes in the Transkei” they would have said “three cheers for the Nationalist Party”? The reason why those people marched was partly as a result of political agitation. I think most of us will concede that. But that agitation had the effect that they were able to be led by the person who did it, because they were not satisfied in the field of jobs, housing, transport, having their families living with them. [Interjections.] Most of the hon. members opposite are either employers of labour in the industrial sphere or on their farms. When hon. members opposite have problems with their non-European labourers, is it because they want votes? No, it is because some domestic issue which affects them intimately needs to be put right. And hon. members solve that problem by dealing with that domestic issue as a father does with his family. Do hon. members opposite not realize that it is those issues that require to be solved and it is the solving of those issues that will enable us to continue in control in this country as we have always been. Hon. members opposite are going the same way as the Progressive Party are going in that they place such a great emphasis on the vote. But that gets nobody anywhere.

Mr. Speaker, I began by saying that this policy would be worth while if it solved the problems which beset us. It is no good hon. members getting up and saying that black is white. No matter how sincere the argument may be, no matter how vigorous they be in their arguments, if the thing can be demonstrated to be patently unworkable, if it is quite patently no answer at all, no matter how often they repeat it, it won’t help. And that is why the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech has had the damp reaction overseas it has had at the present time. May I say this, that I think that when hon. members opposite go back to their constituencies and raise this issue on its merits, as those of us on this side of the House did at the election—which, of course, they will not believe—they will find that the reaction amongst a great many of their supporters will be as damp as that accorded the Prime Minister’s speech abroad.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I cannot follow the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) in this serious and important debate. Instead of doing that, I want to take you to the calm plains of South West Africa, where we are now so badly stricken by pests. When I was faced with the choice of standing for election to this House or remaining in the Legislative Assembly, there was one decisive factor, and that is that no matter how important the work of the Legislative Assembly there is, the future of South West Africa will in the last instance be decided by this Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. And irrespective of the political and international aspect of South West Africa’s relationship with the Republic, there is the other factor that, except in certain instances, South West Africa is entirely dependent on South Africa in many respects, for example in the case of forestry, defence, the police force, aviation, etc., to mention but a few, and also veterinary services. I want to avail mayself of this opportunity to thank the Government for the valuable services rendered by Onderstepoort when we had the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in South West Africa. Especially do I want to thank the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services for his personal endeavours in this connection.

I want to testify personally that not only the Whites, but also the non-Whites, except for a very small number, do realize the value of the connection with South Africa. Since I am now speaking here for the first time as the representative of a South West constituency, I should not like to confine myself to local matters only. I should like to deal with the position of South West Africa in relation to the United Nations Organization, but for understandable reasons I cannot do so. As you know, a case has been brought against South Africa in the International Court, and no matter what people here or outside this country may do, I intend to observe the sub judice rule. This rule is acknowledged by the courts of all civilized countries and it is observed by the Press; people in public life also abide by it in their public speeches. Consequently I do not want to deal with that aspect. From Press reports in connection with the recent session of UNO it appears, however, that nowithstanding protests by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, members of the Afro-Asiatic countries in their speeches still dealt specifically with these matters which constitute the dispute between ourselves and Liberia and Ethiopia and in connection with which we have been taken to the International Court In connection with UNO I also want to express thanks to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, on behalf of South West Africa, and to assure him that we in South West appreciate it very much that he stated our case so strongly at the United Nations. We also want to thank the hon. the Prime Minister for this assurance that he will not leave South West Africa in the lurch. I also want to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the hon. the Prime Minister for appointing a Deputy Minister for South West Africa Affairs. That gives us direct access to the Cabinet. Then, Mr. Speaker, I want to put forward this request to members of this hon. House that in all their deliberations, especially where South West Africa is concerned, they should consider the population of South West Africa as their fellow-South Africans, fellow-South Africans whose interests and aspirations are to co-operate in future with the Government of the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my hearty congratulations to the hon. member for Omaruru (Mr. Frank) on his maiden speech. He made a constructive contribution, and the House therefore listened to him with great attention. Since the Omaruru constituency wanted to elect a Nationalist, I may as well congratulate the constituency also on the fact that they elected him.

When the hon. the Prime Minister spoke last week in the opening debate of this Session, he made certain statements with which one can either agree or disagree, but in respect of which nobody can remain cold and indifferent. I myself, Mr. Speaker, have been on the floor of this House for 12 years, and I also sat in the Press gallery for a few years. During this period I have seen every Prime Minister in action, with the exception of Gen. Botha, and I must say that in various respects the speech which the hon. the Prime Minister made last Tuesday is one of the most remarkable that I have ever heard. Its remarkableness does not lie, however, in the announcement as to what is going to happen to the Transkei, because the Transkei, as long as I can remember, has always had a distinctive political personality. The remarkableness of this speech lies in the words and the propositions with which the Prime Minister sought to justify his announcement. If what he said, and if what the President said in his speech in opening Parliament, a speech which the hon. the Prime Minister asked us to to read in conjunction with his speech on Tuesday, is to be regarded and accepted according to the true meaning of words, then in actual fact the hon. the Prime Minister on Tuesday last announced more far-reaching policy changes for his party than those announced by any Prime Minister over a long period of years, as far as I can remember. I mean that in a friendly sense, of course, because I have always believed that the further and the sooner the Prime Minister can get away from the old attitudes adopted by his party and the Government in the past, the better it will be for South Africa and for all of us. Firstly, according to the Prime Minister’s words, we have now at last reached the position where the Government openly admits that White domination has become untenable and must be rejected as a slogan, as a policy and as a principle. For years members of the Government party thumped on election tables and preached raw White domination. As a member of the Government party at that time I always strongly opposed it, and members on the other side will recall what dire trouble I had with the party leadership because I urged the rejection of the principle of White domination and its substitution by a policy of striving for White survival, which is at least permissible and can be justified on moral grounds.

I can only say that I am thankful that at last we have come to the turning point, although for the greater part it is still just a promise, the complete fulfilment of which probably still lies quite a long way ahead. Secondly the hon. the Prime Minister has now accepted that discrimination on the ground of race or colour only is no longer defensible and that we must get away from it. As to the method by which it is to be done, there is still a great difference of opinion, but these differences in method are not of primary importance; what is of primary importance is the fact that if one atrributes their usual meaning to his words, he now admits that discrimination on the ground of race or colour only has become untenable and irreconcilable with the principle of Western Government. And let the hon. the Prime Minister have no doubt on this score that he will be required, in season and out of season, to implement what he has now started to preach.

There has been a further shifting of emphasis and of policy on the part of the Prime Minister. Last year he started to paint pictures for the Coloureds and Indians of different States within the same State, and in an incomprehensible way he started talking about full political rights for these people, just as full as for the Whites, in separate Parliaments which would operate, the one with the other, in the same area. The hon. the Prime Minister must have noticed that his colleagues in the Cabinet, his newspapers and his candidates shied away from this during the election; nobody was anxious to propagate this message and to explain away the inexplicable part of it. That is why the hon. the Prime Minister, quite courageously, has now abandoned the idea of doing away with the representatives of the Coloureds, as he did in 1959 with the Natives’ representatives. Mr. Speaker, his intention to abolish them was never in doubt. His speeches in this House on 10 and 11 April of last year left no doubt as to his line of thinking, and even as recently as after the election in October last year, he stated pertinently that this Parliament must be representative of Whites only. I am not interested in making a debating point out of this. The fact is that on Tuesday the Prime Minister promised that this Parliament would continue to remain representative of the Coloureds also as long as he had anything to do with it. In other words this Parliament remains the Parliament of the Coloureds, just as it is the Parliament of the Whites, and clearly the myth that this Parliament is the White man’s Parliament now falls away. The White man and the Coloured rule together here and exercise joint control, each through his own representation, however unsatisfactory the nature of that representation may be to the Coloureds at the moment. The apex of the Coloured’s political pyramid is and remains in this Parliament therefore, and because this fact can no longer be argued away, the hon. the Prime Minister, when he spoke on Tuesday, did not repeat the pretence of full political rights and control for the Coloureds and Indians in states and Parliaments at the same level as this Parliament. Outside this Parliament they will now only get what he described on Tuesday as “maximum opportunities of self-government”, that is to say, as much self-government as may be possible in the limited local sphere.

In the last instance, the hon. the Prime Minister has now also admitted candidly in word and in deed that South Africa’s position in the community of nations has become so critical that we can no longer continue on the old political paths. The old challenging attitude has disappeared. The Prime Minister now concedes that although no country can allow itself to be dictated to from outside, sensible government does require that world opinion and world revolutions, particularly those affecting human relationships cannot be ignored with impunity. But there is one thing that must be clear to this Government and that is that the Prime Minister and his Government must bear the main responsibility for the critical position in which South Africa finds herself internationally. For example, it is becoming clearer every day what a disaster our expulsion from the Commonwealth was. It was a disaster not because the Commonwealth is such an indispensible organization but as a result of the implication that it contained, and that is that even an old and comparatively conservative alliance such as the Commonwealth was no longer prepared to have the political company of this Government of ours, and, as we predicted, the Commonwealth’s example is now being followed relentlessly and systematically by one international organization after another. Just a week or two ago the doors to the International Tele-Communications meeting in Dakar were barred to our delegation, and knowing what lay in store for it at the forthcoming meeting of the C.C.T.A., the Government timeously decided to follow the energetic policy of staying at home. Mr. Speaker, our complete compulsion from the world community has now clearly become just a matter of time under the present Government. This country is paying for the Government it has and it is paying dearly.

The hon. the Prime Minister does his best to try to create the impression that the difficulty really is that we have to contend with one inexorable demand made upon us on all sides and by everybody, and that is to concede the principle of “one man one vote”. As a matter of fact, this has become the main theme of the Prime Minister’s internal propaganda nowadays, but it is irreconcilable with facts. The simple truth is that there are really few countries in the world where the principle of “one man one vote” is fully observed. I do not deny that there are leaders who deliberately make the most impossible demands. In politics one will always get this sort of strategy, but at the time of our expulsion from the Commonwealth and thereafter, no such demand was made upon us by Britain; no such demand was made upon us by New Zealand; no such demand was made upon us by Australia, and Canada made no such demand upon us. Canada’s Prime Minister said, “Give the Natives four representatives in your Parliament and I shall be satisfied.” America has not demand this; France has made no demand of “one man one vote”. The leaders of the West have never demanded that South Africa should follow the system of “one man one vote”. And, after all, it is the friendship of these people that we are seeking, not in the first place the friendship of Russia and of the Afro-Asian states. But even amongst them we had the case of Malaya whose Prime Minister openly admitted that in his own country he did not have the system of “one man one vote”, and that if we in South Africa gave only ten representatives of the non-Whites a seat in Parliament, he would be satisfied with our continued membership of the Commonwealth. As a matter of fact, I know of no public statement in which anyone of the other countries of the Commonwealth has made such a demand upon us as the only price for our continued membership. No, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister’s propaganda is in conflict with the actual facts. The principle of “the full vote for every person” has never been put forward as an inexorable demand by the democracies, and every reasonable person admits that in the existing circumstances South Africa cannot accept such a thing. But a country can be governed by the elite and still bear a democratic character if that elite acts in such a way and administers the country in such a way that there is a proper recognition of the interests and wishes and feelings of the rest of the population. And, Mr. Speaker, it is in this connection unfortunately that this Government failed and did the harm to our country that brought us to the brink of the precipice. Aggressive White domination was loudly proclaimed from the roof-tops. For years all the emphasis was placed on White interests only. The small degree of joint control that the non-Whites had, in quite an indirect way, in the administration of this country, was gradually and systematically curtailed and destroyed. One vested right after another was unilaterally and unnecessarily removed. And to crown everything one injustice after another was perpetrated in the name of apartheid against the non-Whites. To the detriment of all of us, the Government always refused to realize that if you humiliate a person and discriminate against him with punitive measures, purely on the ground of his colour, you hurt the dignity of every person of colour in the world. In other words, discrimination of this nature could never remain a domestic matter because it affects every person in the world and the whole of mankind.

Did you not join me in defending these apartheid measures?

There is one thing that we must realize immediately and that is that even if the Transkei were to get its full independence to-morrow, even as a sovereign independent state, it would not improve our position in the world by one iota, for this reason that the gravamen of the charge against this Government is that our Statute Book is strewn with laws which unnecessarily humiliate people and unnecessarily hinder them purely because they have a dark skin.

May I put a question to you?

My time is limited, but I shall reply to the hon. member’s question, because I know what his question is. The charge is often made against me that I supported many of these apartheid measures. No one denies that the Government’s programme of apartheid also had and still has its positive aspects, and those I naturally supported. But as far as the negative and ugly aspects of apartheid is concerned, I accepted as most according to the way in which the parliamentary system works, those measures which I as an individual had no power to prevent or change. My enthusiasm in the sphere of separate development was always confined to one thing only, and that is the imaginative development of the Bantu areas in accordance with the recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission …

And what did you do in connection with …

Order! The hon. member for Karas (Mr. von Moltke) must give the hon. member an opportunity to proceed.

Although I ceasely advocated that policy, I received very little support in my time neither from the caucus of the National Party or from the hon. member over there. In any event, I always said that apartheid should not be viewed as a principle but as a method, a method which should be changed as and when it became necessary and as the circumstances made that course desirable. The hon. the Minister of Finance underlined this and described the policy of apartheid as nothing more than an experiment; and an experiment is something which may or may not succeed and which should continually be revised in the light of experience. But unfortunately the Government’s party made almost a sacred principle out of apartheid; they introduced it in season and out of season and tried to maintain it at every possible and impossible level of human relationships. The result of that is that we are experiencing one international crisis after another, as we have again experienced now as a result of the stupidity of the leaders of the National Party in the City Council of Pretoria in regard to the Japanese swimmers and as a result of the harmful decision made every now and then by the Minister of Community Development in regard to golf tournaments. It is in this field of policy that the Prime Minister’s greatest test is going to lie—not in connection with the Transkei, but in this field of policy. Because in point of fact the kernel of our troubles, internally and abroad, lies in all these unnecessary apartheid laws and in all the harmful practices associated with it and the bad relationships that it causes in our every-day life. The Government tries to create the impression that its limited action in the Transkei will ward off the danger in which we find ourselves, and I think it is necessary that the public should be disillusioned in that regard as soon as possible. The positive steps that we shall have to take go much further than the 1,250,000 Xhosas of the Transkei. Well, it is quite a fair request on the part of the Government that those who criticize should also be prepared to state their own positive attitude, and as one who has criticized and who strongly criticizes the Government, I am prepared to do so.

First of all I believe that all apartheid legislation and regulations should be thoroughly revised, and I believe that this can best be done by a commission consisting of members of both Houses of Parliament. This, and not the question of franchise, should receive preference over everything else. The object of it should be to remove from the Statute Book as soon as possible those measures which are unjust, which are humiliating to the non-Whites, which cause them hardships on the ground of colour and which only poison race relationships without solving a single problem. I concede that our circumstances are not such that we can do everything fully overnight, but the ideal should be stated and recognized that compulsory legal State discrimination in everyday relationships, compulsory legal discrimination on the ground of colour—not on the ground of merit or on the ground of education or health or anything else, but on the ground of colour alone—should disappear as soon as possible. I do not say that because I have supposedly swung to the Left. I raised this matter in this House last year already. Throughout the election campaign I enunciated the same view, when organized gangs did not prevent me from speaking. I said everywhere, and I repeat it here this evening, that compulsory apartheid here in South Africa causes the same trouble that is caused by compulsory integration in the South of America. It is the element of legal, State compulsion and the accompanying criminal penalties which cause all the hatred and tension here, just as they cause hatred and tension in the South of America. I believe that the policy that we ought to follow is to reject both, namely compulsory apartheid and compulsory integration. The trend that we should follow is one of natural human relationships. Race relationships should as far as possible be governed by custom, by individual preference and natural conduct. Compulsory apartheid as a means of regulating human relationships is simply not a success. The problem is not how to live separately but how to live together. To mention just one example, surely there is no merit or logic in the proposition that the place of entry into a Government building should be determined according to the colour of a person’s skin. If he wants to buy a stamp, the non-White has to enter here and the White man there, but if he wants to buy clothing, if he wants to buy clothing at a shop belonging to a Nationalist Member of Parliament, then there are not two different entrances, one for him and one for the White man. There are Members of Parliament over there who have shops and who do not follow the policy of their own Government by seeing to it that they have different entrances for Whites and non-Whites.

Mention one.

There are two members over there from South West Africa, and one of them already has one foot in the Cabinet. Mr. Speaker, this Government is the only Government in Southern Africa which forces this humiliating practice upon people, to mention just one of many examples. There is a multitude of other unnecessary things that we ought to get rid of. The furthest that the State ought to go in regulating race relationships, is to allow facilities to people and to groups of people to follow their conventional way of living. Just as the individual ought to be free to follow his own way of living in his home and in his circle of friends, so a group of people, any association or any corporation of people, ought to be free to arrange their facilities according to their own taste and their own way of living. For example, a sports corporation controlling a swimming bath should be free to reserve it for Whites if it wishes to do so, just as it ought to be free to reserve it for non-Whites if it wishes to do so. The same should apply to school associations controlling the education of children, and to housing corporations controlling estates and residential areas. Everyone should be free to reserve what is his, either for Whites or for non-Whites; and I believe that this is the pattern according to which race relationships will have to be regulated in South Africa in the future if we want peace and quiet here and if we are to have any hope of living together on a decent basis with the nations of the rest of the world: No compulsory apartheid and no compulsory integration. I believe that the State should stop interfering in private relationships between people. Civil organizations will more and more have to take the place of State organizations, the State acting only as advisor and as the body which grants financial assistance.

The hon. the Prime Minister has ventured to subscribe to the ideal that discrimination on the ground of race or colour alone should be done away with. We all welcome this great forward step, but until such time as it becomes clear that the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government are striving to achieve this everywhere, and with expedition and sincerity, no confidence can be placed in this Government.

I have mentioned the first step in the direction of positive policy which I think should receive priority if we want to restore our position in the world. The second is an honest review of the position of the Coloured and Indian minorities in our country, and especially that of the Coloureds. Mr. Speaker, if the Government Party sincerely believe in the feasibility of its policy for the Bantu, if it sincerely believes that it will be able to carry out its policy for the Bantu in such a way that the Natives are satisfied politically without affecting the political position of the White man, if it really believes that it will be able to carry it out in this way, then the hon. the Prime Minister has reduced the whole problem of political relations in South Africa to a matter of 3,000,000 Whites as against two minority groups, that is, 1,500,000 Coloureds and 500,000 Indians. Mr. Speaker, as compared with the Whites, the Coloureds and South Africans of Indian descent remain positive minorities, not majorities, and there can be no question of their being a threat therefore, fore. One can argue that the numerically superior Bantu are a political threat, but one cannot say that a minority of 1,500,000 Coloureds represents a threat to the position and the survival of the White man. The Government should tell us now whether it believes in its policy. Does it believe that it will satisfy the Bantu politically on a separate basis? I think it believes that it will. Then the Whites who number 3,000,000 will only have against them two small minorities, a Coloured minority and a minority consisting of South African Indians. A denial of reasonable rights to them therefore can be based only on unreasonable prejudice and aversion to colour and on a desire to dominate, all of which it should be possible to surmount in a civilized community if the State wishes to provide leadership. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister pertinently: Is he going to treat the Coloureds who are so close to the White man and many of whom are descendants of the White man, who have leaders of high quality, and who are a minority group and are accordingly no threat to the survival of the White man and who as far as numbers are concerned are not even half as strong as the White man, is he going to treat them more badly and offer them less than he is offering the tribal Bantu of the Transkei? Is he going to be so unreasonable, so unfair and is he going to deviate so much morally? Is he going to show less courage in respect of the Coloureds than in respect of the problem of the Bantu? Mr. Speaker, in South Africa, there is room only for big thinking and fearless action. The Coloureds cannot obtain a separate territory, nor a separate Parliament and therefore cannot have separate freedom. The realization of their highest political aspirations will have to take place within the framework of this parliamentary machinery, and we now wait for the hon. the Prime Minister to show great courage and to abandon any idea of political puppetry for the Coloureds, which will not stand the test of time, and to grant them direct representation in Parliament by their own people.

If the hon. the Prime Minister can sit down with Coloureds in another place across the road and consult there with them about political affairs, then they might just as well sit here with him, and with us all, and consult with us here about political affairs. There is no difference in principle. There is no difference in principle whether a part of Parliament sits with the Council for Coloured Affairs or whether a part of the Council sits here. Why cannot there be direct Coloured Representation here? If the hon. the Prime Minister is not prepared to do this, then no value can be attached to his verbal rejection of White supremacy. As a second positive step, therefore I ask for full political association of the Coloured minority with the White majority.

Lastly, the White man’s dilemma in South Africa is that he really wants to be fair to the Bantu, but that he is scared to death, and perhaps has reason to be afraid that his political rights will be engulfed by the numerically superior Bantu. Because we must accept that as time goes by, we shall have an ever-increasing class of civilized Bantu from whom political rights cannot be withheld in the long run; and it is obvious that if we can find a way by which the whole or a large part of the Bantu majority can be politically satisfied in a manner which will not affect the political position of the Whites, that way will have to be followed with all the risks which may be attached to it. For there is simply no policy that can be devised which from the White’s point of view is not laden with risks, whatever one may call it. It is for this reason that I have followed the SABRA direction from the time of my entry into Parliament, that I have accepted the salient features of the Tomlinson report and continually pleaded for the speedy and largescale social, economic and constitutional development of the existing Bantu areas, in other words, for the natural development of a system which had already started with Rhodes.

The hon. the Prime Minister has now proposed a step which is in this direction and builds on it and which will have a twofold effect, and that is to grant political advancement to a part of the Bantu majority in the country, a part consisting of 1,250,000, without directly affecting the political position of the White man, and in this way to open for a part of the Bantu the necessary avenues for political training; and secondly, to lessen the political pressure of the Bantu on the White man to some extent. The overall problem is not solved by this, or even nearly solved, but I admit that it is being relieved and diminished. I cannot, therefore, oppose the general outline of the plan for the Transkei. I cannot oppose what I have propagated for a long time. I do not bind myself regarding the details of the Transkeian plan. One will have to see it in its entirety and study it when it has been put before us in writing. In any case, one would first of all have to take note of the wishes, desires and aspirations of the Xhosas in the Transkei. As far as the ultimate object of full independence and the Prime Minister’s idea of a premiers’ conference as the only political link between us and those areas, are concerned, these are things which cannot come overnight and for this reason I do not wish to make it the main feature of the debate. Personally I have always propagated the development of a confederation of states and communities in which the emphasis will fall on co-operation as regards common economic factors and other matters of common interest such as security, but below that, a degree of sovereignity for the co-operating units that will not result in pushing out the White man and making him politically powerless as far as his own people are concerned. I still think that this is the direction which should be followed and which should be encouraged in respect of the Transkei. The federal direction is the most flexible system. It has a wide variety of possibilities. Every federation in the world is different from the others, and it is interesting that even Dr. Malan had the federal direction in mind and said so positively in a letter which he wrote to the Reverend Piersma in America regarding his policy. Anyway, I believe that it is not the Prime Minister, but the success or otherwise which will be achieved by the first steps towards self government which will determine the ultimate pattern.

One of the most important implications of the Prime Minister’s proposals is that he and his party now recognize and accept the South African Native who is on the bottom rung of the ladder, as worthy of political rights and as politically mature. The Government has always been very critical of the granting of self-government to Africans and African states before they are ripe for it. Its willingness and hastiness to grant democratic self-government to the Natives of the reserves clearly implies that it now regards the South African Native as politically mature. This is a definite advance as far as the Government is concerned. But the result of this is going to be that from now on and immediately there will be tremendous pressure from all non-Whites who are more developed for the granting of political rights to them, and the Prime Minister will have no moral argument with which to oppose it; and it will come especially from the Coloureds and the Indians and those Bantu who were born and grew up outside the reserves and who are settled here permanently.

Generaly speaking, I approve of the first steps which are contemplated for the Transkei. The real test for us here and overseas will not lie in the handling of the reserves, will not lie in the Transkei or any of the other reserves. The real test for us will lie in the handling of the population groups outside the Bantu areas and the compatibility of our legislation dealing with human relationships. That is the field in which we shall have to make adjustments and in which we shall have to make sacrifices if there are to be sacrifices. In a country such as South Africa with all its enormous problems there is no place for small thinking or for small solutions. We shall have to think big and take big chances and have less fear for the future if we want to get anywhere, and because there are so very few signs to me that the Government is prepared to think big and act big in the field in which our real problems lie. I propose, when the House divides, whatever the terms of the amendment may be, to declare my explicit lack of confidence in the Government.

I think there is only one person in this House who can be congratulated and that is the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), because the hon. member for Houghton is also making an experiment, she is experimenting with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson). Hitherto the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has made an experimental existence in politics. In the past he experimented with the United Party, then he thought it would be wise to return to the National Party and to experiment there, then he wanted to become a prophet but the prophet of those days misread the signs of the times; he read the signs of the time to mean that we had reached a turning point, that South Africa was about to divert from the direction as indicated by the National Party and that he would be the first person to come forward as the new leader along the new road. He then made another experiment and that experiment was in the direction of the United Party and now he tells us that he is experimenting back to Rhodes. He is back with Rhodes to-day and will conduct his experiment towards the Progressive Party from that point. It is clear, therefore, that the only person who can pat herself on the back this evening is the absent hon. member for Houghton.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout who has just sat down presented us with a very wonderful policy, a Utopian policy, the old Smuts policy of laisser-faire. That is the policy under which you govern a country without legislation. No legislation to bring about apartheid, nor any legislation to bring about segregation. That is the Utopian land that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout holds out to us. I do not think the House is very interested in the weight which that hon. member carries in the political life of our country to-day. I do not know whether he himself knows what his political weight is, but it is only a matter of time before he goes over to the Progressive Party as prominent members of his party have already done. Hon. members opposite have reason to regret that they have allowed themselves during the recent election to be taken by the arm by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

So far not a single word has been said in this debate about economic issues. I do not want to go against the trend of the debate by talking about financial matters because we may still have one or two speeches on that subject. In passing, however, I just want to point out that there was a good message as far as confidence in South Africa is concerned, in the message of the hon. the Minister of Finance. The fact did not pass unnoticed that this country has strong foreign exchange reserves in spite of all the predictions from that side of the House, and more countries are prepared to-day to lend money to South Africa and that there are even foreigners today who want to own Republican gold sovereigns. But it is interesting to note that those hon. members opposite who have spoken so far are only interested in those gold sovereigns.

This debate has been coupled to the important speech which the hon. the Prime Minister made in this House a few days ago. On that occasion the hon. the Prime Minister stated that we were living in very serious times and that difficult problems were besetting us. He added that whatever we wanted to do during this period, we would have to follow a difficult road and that we would also encounter administrative and other difficulties along that road. He said, however, that the solving of those problems was a challenge to us. It was in that spirit that he presented the problem to us to-day as he saw it. He said that in these times we should take note of world tendencies and also that whatever we wanted to do, we would have to do hurriedly. We should bear in mind the fact that since the last war we have been confronted with a new demand, that was a political demand and not a demand for the upliftment of the smaller countries in the economic field. This is the political demand to which the Prime Minister coupled his speech. I am sorry that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) had to carry on with the debate to-day. He spoke in a superficial manner which is not worthy of this House and in present-day times, definitely not worthy of South Africa. He made the remark that the hon. the Prime Minister had been forced to “appease world opinion”. He also referred sneeringly to the attempts that the Government was trying to make these days to present South Africa’s case in the best possible light to the world outside considering the times in which we were living. This spirit of defeatism which this hon. member revealed to-day is really based on an acceptance of the inevitable. You ask yourself why hon. members opposite argue the way they have argued to-day and you look for a motive. I think the motive should be sought in the fact that they no longer have any faith in themselves and that they no longer believe that anything can happen to save South Africa. Their defeatism rests on the inevitable—nothing that can be done will save us. I make bold to say that they no longer voice the opinion of their constituents. Last year the voters had an opportunity of giving judgment. Nor do they talk with a view to the interests of South Africa, but they talk with a view to the world outside. They are hoping that things will turn against us and that they will be able to step forward and say that they have been the champions against the Government and that they have already cleared the road for themselves. I accuse them of this that their attitude is one of defeatism, or that they no longer have any faith and that they do not want to do anything to help this side of the House to govern the country. We take exception to that because by doing that they do an injustice to South Africa.

These remarks by the hon. member and his attempt to belittle everything that the Government intends doing, reveal to me the direction all their speeches will take in future debates—this belittling of the steps announced by the Government to develop the Transkei. It is interesting to note that it was that side of the House that told us in the past ad nauseum that this Government did not intend spending what the Tomlinson Commission recommended in its report should be spent. How often were we not told that it was not the Government’s intention to spend the R200,000,000 which the Tomlinson Commission recommended? And when it appeared from the plans of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development that it was intended to spend R114,000,000 over the next five years, what happened then? Then the hon. member for Yeoville belittled it. And what does the hon. member for Constantia do—I am tempted to say the Jeremiah of Constantia? He immediately complains and asks: “How can you spend that seeing that the White people of this country have to pay for it?” We must not lose sight of this fact, Mr. Speaker, that the money to be spent in the Bantu areas will have a cumulative effect. Anybody who knows anything about economic and financial matters, knows that when you spend R10 that is not the end of the story, but that the R10 you have spent acts as a snowball and creates more money. The amount of R114,000,000 that is proposed to be spent on the Bantu homelands is not the only thing that this Government is going to do. That is simply an instalment. It is also obvious that when you spend money on such an undeveloped area like the Transkei, you cannot spend faster than the absorptive capacity of that area. You cannot pour endless amounts of money into such an area without taking into account the fact that there must be a structure—an infra-structure, a basic structure—to regulate and organize the community. Once you have that the necessary production factors have to be present before further investment will be possible. When hon. members opposite come forward and refer sneeringly to the R114,000,000, they do not realize to what extent capital investment in under-developed areas initiates further economic activity.

Hon. members launched a further attack on the plan of the Government. They said that many Bantu were to-day living in White areas and not in the Bantu areas and that they have, therefore, severed all ties with their homelands. In the first place we deny this suggestion that all the Bantu who live outside the Bantu areas to-day are detribalized people, people who have no contact with those areas or who have no desire to return to them. I maintain that the majority of those Bantu whom hon. members opposite describe as detribalized, are not detribalized. I admit that a very small percentage of them may perhaps be detribalized Bantu but the majority of them recognize their tribal ties, are proud of them and maintain them.

The hon. member for Yeoville has referred to Rhodesia as an example of what will happen if the Government implemented its plans. He held out Rhodesia as an example of what could happen if the Government’s policy were implemented. But what is being done in Rhodesia, Mr. Speaker, is United Party policy and not National Party policy. But they have a federation there, an attempt to create a political unit, just as the United Party is trying to create in South Africa; a federation that has failed. The legislation that hon. members opposite want to have repealed does not exist in Rhodesia—with pitiful consequences to the White man. Do they not read their newspapers and do they not know what is happening there? Do they not know that the White people in Rhodesia are terrified today and are counting the years that they will still be allowed to live there? Surely that is not National Party policy? Surely that is not a policy whereby the White people live on one side enjoying their rights, and the Bantu on the other side enjoying their rights. Can we quote a better example than precisely the Federation of Rhodesia to prove that the policy of hon. members is proving to be a failure?

The hon. member for Yeoville also objected to the fact that we wanted to give the Bantu political rights. By doing so the hon. member has proved that he has made a quick change of course because hon. members opposite were the people who told us in the past that they did not want to be socially uplifted or that they did not want assistance in the economic field, but the vote. Hon. members told us ad nauseum that nothing we did would help, because we did not want to give political rights to the non-Whites. Do they deny that they said that? Do they deny that in the past their strongest attack against us was that we did not want to make political concessions to the non-Whites. But now that the Government gives political rights to the Bantu but in their own areas and not in the White area, it is no longer any good. The hon. member for Yeoville now tells us that what the Bantu really needs is to be socially uplifted. He continued and mentioned a number of problems all of an administrative nature, problems that could be replied to had time permitted it.

The hon. member for Zululand as well.

The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) must not think that he is the only member who represents a constituency in which there are black spots or where decisions will have to be made. I probably have more Bantu in my constituency than he has in his.

What reference was there to the northern Transvaal?

It is not an insurmountable problem. The danger lies in this that when anything is done administratively in the execution of our policy, hon. members opposite make such a political hullabaloo that it becomes practically impossible to do it administratively without a great fuss.

They bedevil it.

That is precisely what they do.

What about your farm?

I may tell the hon. member that my farm is one of the places over which there is a question mark. I am, therefore, speaking with more knowledge of the matter than that hon. member. When you think of your pocket, Mr. Speaker, you lose all perspective as regards the future.

Then you become the member for Zululand.

Yes, then you become the member for Zululand. And if you have no perspective, you cannot see a problem in its entirety and you try to argue as hon. members have argued hitherto. I want to tell the hon. member that he need not worry. We know that it is a difficult road. The Prime Minister admitted that. We know that it is a road that will create administrative difficulties—he also admitted that. It is, however, not impossible to travel along that road. I may tell hon. members that one fool can ask more questions than two wise men can answer in ten years. If hon. members opposite allege that this demand is not a political demand, they are making a very big mistake. Do they not know that the word “Uhuru” is already echoing throughout the whole world? And do they not know that “Uhuru” does not mean minor political rights, but the political vote? We want to give him that vote; we want to give every person his vote but in his own areas.

Another hon. member has in the meantime also raised his voice, namely, the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson). He wanted to know what would happen if the Bantu in the Bantu areas had their own army. But surely what his party wants is one big conglomeration; they want everybody to sit together in one big federal Parliament. Hon. members must admit that it has always been part of their policy to develop the Bantu areas. That has always been part of their programme or do they deny it to-day?

Naturally that has always been our policy.

Well, if it is so natural to-day, can he tell us what their attitude will be if the Bantu want their own army in the federation? Are they going to refuse to allow the Bantu in their federal army? Are they going to refuse to allow the Bantu not only to belong to his party but to become a member of their party’s executive committees and a member of the federal Parliament? When the Bantu has been admitted to the federal army, are they going to refuse to allow him to become an officer? Are they going to allow him to become a member of the general staff? Are they going to refuse to allow him to become Commander-General?

They are going to make him Minister of Defence.

That too, but it is not so much a question as to what they are going to make of him but that he will become that in their race federation. I want to ask the hon. member for Durban (Point) how safe he would feel with a Black man as Commander-General and with all the keys of the magazines in his hands? Can he tell me what they are going to do with the Bantu in their proposed federation as far as these things are concerned? The hon. member for Constantia objects to the White man having to develop the Bantu areas. If that is their attitude, I want to ask them: this “How sincere have you been all these years?” They could not have been sincere all these years when they talked about the development of the Bantu areas with us. However, only this afternoon the hon. member for Yeoville adopted an attitude which conflicted with that adopted by the hon. member for Constantia. The hon. member for Constantia objected while the hon. member for Yeoville complained that too little was being done. We know that those two hon. members both hope to become members of their federal Cabinet if their party should ever come into power again—it is still a shadow cabinet, although it is more shadow than cabinet. If it should happen that the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Constantia sit together, it would probably be the hon. member for Constantia who would refuse to provide the capital for the development of the Bantu areas.

The Government’s plan to give independence to the Transkei is not a new one. I am also saying this to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. It is not a new plan, it is already an old plan. It will not avail hon. members to say much about it this evening because the voters of this country have already given judgment on that.

Why did you not tell them what your plans were in respect of the Transkei?

This plan to develop the Bantu areas is an old plan, it is a logical plan and forms part of the policy of this Government. The mistake that hon. members opposite make, however, is that they do not listen when the hon. the Prime Minister talks.

They cannot understand.

Nor did they listen when the hon. the Prime Minister said that we would become a Republic. The hon. member for Yeoville asked the Prime Minister whether we were to become a Republic and the Prime Minister replied “yes, and when I say we will become it soon, it will be soon”. The same thing happened in the case of the Bantu areas. Had they paid more attention they would have realized that was not a new statement of policy but an old policy and that the announcement was simply a question of timing. The voters of the country have already decided on that as part of the broad programme of the National Party. The voters are acquainted with this plan; it is a logical plan and the voters of the country, and the Bantu and the world outside knew that it was coming. The difficulty is this, however, Mr. Speaker, that the party opposite does not relish the fact that the majority of the Bantu, excluding the small group of agitators with whom that party is in touch, accept it.

If it were the policy of the Government to grant self-government to the Transkei, why did they not announce it before the last election?

That is a typical question you can expect from that side, Sir, especially from the hon. member who has just asked it. It was not necessary for the Government to tell the voters that would come about, because it was part of the whole programme. It is, of course, nothing new.

My consituents do not approve of it.

You frightened the voters with it.

They printed maps to show what the country would look like and they distributed those maps amongst their voters. And now?

But you denied it.

Mr. Speaker, the important fact is that what the hon. the Prime Minister announced here, is not a new policy; it is an old policy and a logical consequence of what we want to do and what we shall do. The Transkei is the first but not the last. It is not my intention to make an announcement but it follows logically. In due course we shall judge as things develop administratively. What has been announced, is not only in conformity with the policy of our party, but also with the judgment given by the voters. Most important of all, however, is that it is in conformity with what the Bantu himself wants and with the moral standpoint that the world outside expects, and if hon. members opposite say that they do not know that, we shall know that they have always been living in a fool’s paradise, and that they will never see the light. This cry of Africa, this cry of “one man, one vote” is to-day being granted and carried out. Moreover, it is this Government that is carrying it out with this difference that the vote is being given to the man who is entitled to it in his own area, instead of converting the whole South Africa into a federal state, as that party wishes to do. Hon. members opposite are also incapable of reading the signs of the times. They can neither take the Federation of Rhodesia as an example, nor the rest of Africa. Fortunately the voters of South Africa are much better informed than hon. members opposite. The voters know what all this is about and as long as the National Party carries out its policy as announced, so long will it remain in power and hon. members opposite should realize to-day already that they are doomed to sit in the opposition benches until they are old.

Mr. Speaker, as a new member of this House I appreciate the opportunity to take part in this debate. I want to express a few thoughts in connection with the amount of R6,000,000 which appears in the Part Appropriation for Bantu education. It is certainly possible to conduct a very interesting debate on the way in which this money is to be spent, for example, or on the nature of the education provided for the Bantu, etc. As a new member, however, it will be more proper for me to start with a statement with which this house will agree to a large extent. The proposition I want to put forward is this: Judging by the statistic available in connection with Bantu education, it is clear that the Bantu children certainly have a strong desire to obtain education, even under the most difficult circumstances. As long ago as 1940 there were 464,000 Bantu children at school. During the course of the next ten years, i.e. until 1950, this number increased to 757,000—an increase therefore of almost 61 per cent during a period of ten years. The position is, even more interesting as regards the next ten years. The percentage increase did not remain constant, but almost doubled itself. According to the latest information made available by the Department of Bantu Education there were 1,608,000 Bantu children at school in March 1961. This represents an increase of approximately 120 per cent. This progress in the field of Bantu education is reflected equally convincingly in the expenditure on this item. In 1940 for example this expenditure was R2,000,000; 20 years later it was more than R20,000,000. In addition the number of schools doubled from 3,800 in 1940 to 7,700 in 1960. These figures are ample proof to me that the Bantu child is most anxious to obtain education, so anxious in fact that the Department of Bantu Education is finding it very difficult to keep ahead with the provision of education facilities.

I am one of those people who believe that this phenomenon, this growth, should not be feared by the Whites but should rather be welcomed. After all education is the basis on which civilization rests, and we as Whites—the so-called bearers of Western civilization—should be grateful that it is possible for us to bring civilization to the Bantu in this way. There is also another aspect of this matter, however, and that is that the Whites feel obliged, on account of their peculiar position in our country, to compare the progress in the field of education by the Bantu with the progress of their own people in that field—not in a spirit of apprehension, but rather to use such a comparison as a stimulus as an incentive to them to prepare themselves to reach the highest level in the educational sphere. What we must not forget is that the Whites are in this peculiar position, a position which demands the utmost from them in all spheres of life, including the educational sphere, if they want to safeguard their position in our country. I believe—and I may be wrong—that we cannot safeguard our position by means of protective laws. Even colour policies cannot in the long run ensure that safety for us. It may be possible to safeguard our position through the quality of the guidance that we give the non-Whites.

When I look at the education figures in respect of the Whites, I doubt whether in the field of education we are preparing ourselves in such a manner that we will be able to give that guidance, and, what is more important, whether the quality of that guidance will be worthy of emulation, To me it is a disquieting fact that 27 per cent of our youth does not go further than std. VI or VII and that they leave school at the age of 16-17 years without any compulsion and in many cases without any desire to study further. The question that occurs to me is whether these people—more than one quarter of our future population—are capable of taking their place in society, a society which we know is daily becoming more and more complex and organized. Are they capable of forming an opinion or to come to final decisions with regard to our complex social, economic and political problems?

Let me quote some further figures. The Department of Education informs me that the 51,000 who were in Std. VI in 1956 only 20,000 passed the matriculation examination, i.e. only 39 per cent. It may be said that this compares favourably with other Western countries. I am the first to admit that and to say that I am pleased that is so. Nevertheless it is my firm belief that the Whites in South Africa cannot compare their position with that of other Western countries; their responsibility is so much greater and the problem which they have to solve is so much more difficult. Others may say that if 39 per cent of our youths matriculate and some of them obtain university degrees, we should be able to keep our nation on the right road. I believe that the strength of the nation lies in the strength of the individual, and unless we as Whites succeed in getting a greater percentage of our youth to obtain higher education, I do not think that in the long run we shall be able to discharge our responsibility.

I remember that Dr. G. D. Scholtz, who I think is known to all in this House published a book called “Gevaar uit die Ooste” (Danger from the East). In the preface to this book he states that he wrote it with the sole object of trying to rid the South African nation of the fatal blight of self-complacency into which it had fallen. I believe that this self-complacency may be one of the reasons why we as Whites do not make better progress in the field of education. If in fact the reason why we are not making the necessary progress is self-complacency, I do not think that the Whites of our country need have any doubt as to their ultimate end. Dr. Scholtz says very clearly in this book that if the historian of the future is asked to write about the South African nation (if that nation is to disappear) that historian’s task will not be difficult at all; he will only have to record that the South African nation disappeared because it had no knowledge of the world in which it lived. That knowledge and the power which it will bring, are available in our schools and our universities, and whether the fate referred to by Dr. Scholtz will befall us, will depend, I think, firstly on the earnestness with which we view the question of education, and secondly whether we as a nation, whilst doing our duty to the Bantu, recognize our duty to ourselves in the first place and secondly whether we discharge that duty.

While I have the privilege of congratulating the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) on his maiden speech in this House this evening, I want to say to him in the first place that the quality of his speech earned the respectful attention of every member of this House. I can assure the hon. member that the subject which he proached here, the education of the child, is one which is certainly close to the heart of every sincere South African, and if the hon. member continues to deliver speeches of the quality which he made here this evening and continues to plead for the education of our children, I can assure him that he will go very far in this House.

When I rose here this evening, knowing that as a newcomer and as a back-bencher I would have to make my maiden speech, I was gripped by the realization that the whole House was sinking into silence to listen with a very critical ear to the first speech of the member for Brakpan. Although I have had a good deal of advice from members here in recent days and even from you, Mr. Speaker, when you spoke to me about this maiden speech of mine, I have to disappoint you unfortunately, because you said to me in your office, “the best thing to do is to talk about the subject which is nearest to your heart.” Well, if I were to speak this evening on the subject which is nearest to my heart, you would most certainly rule me out of order. Even one of the reporters said to me, “You are a backbencher, but would you not like to make frontpage news?” My reply was, “My friend, that is the desire of every politician.” He then said to me, “My advice to you is this: “The moment the Leader of the Opposition sits down after his speech on his motion of censure, get up and let Mr. Speaker see you.” But I have even disappointed him, and I am going to follow the golden rule of steering clear of politics this evening.

It is a great honour for me to represent the Brakpan constituency, because Brakpan is one of those towns which has certainly produced most members of Parliament. In this House we have persons who started their political career in Brakpan. We have the Minister of Labour, Mr. Trollip, and the Minister of Justice, Adv. Vorster. In 1948 these two members were still at each other’s throats; they then belonged to different parties but to-day the Minister of Labour sits only two benches away from the Minister of Justice but on the same side of the House. We also have here the Deputy Minister of Labour, who also began his political career in Brakpan. Similarly we have the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) and, last but not least, the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman), who also began his political career in Brakpan. Mr. Speaker, although Brakpan is rich in members of Parliament, it has been equally rich and progressive over the past 60 years. Sixty years ago the East Rand was a sparsely populated area where we still found the wildbok, the crane, the bustard and even the stately secretary-bird, together with the peaceful calm of the flats. That has now made room for the din of the never-ending city noises. Within the past 40 years no less than 20 of the biggest gold mines on the East Rand have sprung up overnight in this area of more than 400 square miles. Four of the most prosperous and progressive towns, Benoni, Brakpan, Springs and Nigel, with a population of more than a quarter of a million people, have sprung up around these gold mines. At one stage the gold mines of the East Rand produced no less than three-quarters of the annual profits of the Transvaal. You will realize therefore, Mr. Speaker, that the East Rand has made its contribution over and over again to the development and progress of South Africa. And to-day, after having sacrificed everything for 60 years for the progress of South Africa, after this enormous boom in the growth and the progress of the East Rand after the establishment of these beautiful cities there, we get the disturbing news from the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs that in the year 1970 no less than 13 of these mines will no longer be producing gold. I personally am very pleased and grateful that the Deputy Minister has told us in very clear terms what the position is going to be on the East Rand. He did not come along with honeyed words to reassure us but he very pertinently brought to the notice of the authorities the problem that will face the East Rand. The closing of these mines is nobody’s fault. It is not the Government’s fault, nor is it the fault of the mine magnates or of the local authorities. What is happening is something which is perfectly natural. There is no more gold which can be mined on a remunerative basis. We were all fully aware of that fact. We knew that this time would arrive but we did not know precisely when. That means that in the year 1970 employment will have to be found at least 6,900 Whites and about 56,000 non-Whites, and we on the East Rand will have to make ends meet without an annual income of almost R40,000,000. At the moment these mines are still producing one-tenth of the annual total yield of our gold mines in South Africa, and that means too that the national income from gold will be reduced by one-tenth. We realize that a large number of these 6,900 Whites will be able to work in other mines, but I want to put forward a plead here this evening particularly for that large number of mineworkers who will not be able to find other employment. Sixty per cent or more of these mine-workers have already given more than ten to 20 years of the best part of their lives to those mines. All those who are familiar with the mining industry know that when a mine-worker has worked underground and is no longer able to work there because he suffers from a chest complaint or some associated disease, he is always given employment above ground. Almost 60 per cent of these 6,900 people will now be deprived of employment. These are people who were responsible citizens of this country and who discharged their obligations. They bought houses for themselves and they were respected citizens of our towns, but what do we find now? They will no longer be able to get the employment which they formerly obtained above ground and they will become nothing but poor Whites, whereas formerly they were respected people. Here I want to put forward a plead to the Prime Minister and to the members of the Cabinet. I do not want to urge that these mines should be kept going for a longer period, because I do not believe in keeping something going artificially, but I do urge that the time has arrived when local authorities should realize their responsibilities. They knew that this time would come and they did everything in their power to cope with this great problem, which can be described as a unique problem in the history of South Africa, because never before in the history of South Africa have we been told so suddenly that so many mines are to be closed and that it will affect so many people. I would therefore urge, since these people are going to be unemployed, since they cannot obtain employment in another field, and since they have made their contribution to the progress of this country, that the Government, within the framework of the policy of the National Party, should immediately take steps to see that there is employment for them eventually. Although the town councils of the East Rand are endeavouring in their own individual way to solve this problem by attracting industries to their towns, and although they are doing everything in their power, I find that this problem is so great that time is running against them and that they will not be able to solve this problem timeously. I would suggest therefore that the Government, in co-operation with the provincial administration and the local authorities of the East Rand and private initiative, should see to it that a large tract of land is released for industrial development and that individual town councils should not continue to try to solve this problem in their own way, but that joint action should be taken and that the Government should lay down a quota of White workers as against non-White workers who can enter that area; that we give relief to those people within the pattern and the framework of the policy of the National Party.

I want to say this here this evening. A very dark and sombre cloud hangs over the constituents of Brakpan. But I am as convinced as I am of the fact that I am standing here this evening that this Government will not leave those people in the lurch, because when the picture has looked at their worst it has always come to the aid of the workers who stood by it loyally. I would urge that the time has come to help those people of the East Rand, because when they were in a position to do so they helped South Africa and made the sacrifices that they were called upon to make.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to congratulate the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout), who has just made his maiden speech, on a most welcome and outstanding contribution to this debate. I am sure that with defenders such as the hon. members for Brakpan and Springs (Mr. Taurog), whom we heard earlier this afternoon, the East Rand is well represented and protected in this House and that its interests will be well cared for, and that it will be proud of the contributions of their members. I may mention, with some feeling of sympathy, that viewed topographically, the hon. member who has just spoken is well on the way towards following the space occupied by his predecessor, the former member for Brakpan, and I wish him well in his years in this House.

I would also like to congratulate the hon. member for Maitland on his maiden contribution, and I am sure that, as in the case of the member who has just sat down, the House will agree that we have just listened to two maiden speeches which promise well for the future of the debates in this House.

What a pity, though, that some of the speeches from the other side of the House should have been on the side of the demolition squad which is busy breaking up this country of ours! We have seen the red herring dragged over the trail over and over tonight. What struck me was the tragic gullibility which has led people to fall for this nonsense of the philosophy of extremes, the philosophy that something must be either all black or all white, nothing half-way, that there is nothing in between the two extremes of policy, between total separation and one man, one vote. Man after man has stood up and indicated that he has swallowed that bait—not really bait but something which has been indoctrinated into the people of South Africa year after year. We were asked by the hon. member for Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha) what we would do if the Bantu in the reserves, as we develop them economically and socially, made demands on the Government for one man, one vote. I will give him the answer. The answer, Sir, is that we on this side, as a Government, will do what is in the interest of South Africa and will not bow and scrape before the demands of every irresponsible political agitator. Because all we have had tonight and for the last two weeks is a surrender by the Government before the demands of extremist agitators. We have been told that South Africa must be dismembered, fragmented, broken up and destroyed, because if we do not do it we will not satisfy the Bantu political agitators. I want to say loudly and clearly that we on this side are not interested in political agitators. We have seen the activities of White political agitators in the past. We have seen the effect they had when this country was brought to the point of civil war through White political agitation, but this side of the House knew its duty. It did not panic and hold up its hands in despair because there was trouble to be faced. So, again, if Black political agitation should bring difficulties, this side of the House will have the courage to face them.

But what we have had from the Government is surrender to the demands of extremism, “die hendsop-beleid”, the policy of the white flag, inability to stand up to the problems which the life of this country forces a responsible Government to face up to. The hon. member for Soutpansberg asked what would happen if a Bantu under the race federation plan of the United Party should rise to the top and become chief of staff and even Minister of Defence? Does he not realize that what he is doing is to create seven armies with seven Ministers of Defence and seven chiefs of staff, but what he is doing beyond that is to enable those Ministers of Defence and those chiefs of staff to negotiate with states hostile to South Africa in order to provide them with the weapons and the arms and the training which can be used for the destruction of the last remnants of civilization which this Government is prepared to leave in this country. They are prepared to give to these potentially hostile bases from which any enemy of South Africa could operate virtually the whole of our Eastern sea-board, control of the major port of South Africa, control of our whole northern and north-western boundary, and then that Minister is concerned that we might have a Black chief of staff! We have said clearly and unequivocally that the policy of the United Party is that the leadership of the civilized, responsible group in South Africa, the White group, shall be maintained for as far as we can see ahead. That has been said clearly and without any attempt at evasion. But this hon. member stands for a policy which is prepared to place that leadership in jeopardy, and his only answer is: Yes, but your policy is more dangerous. And his only reason for that is that we have not dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s of the final, ultimate, long-term details of our plan. I think I have a fair authority dealing with the problem of race relations in South Africa, dealing with the issue of the relationship between White and non-White and harmonious relations between the various groups. Only two years ago we had a new vision, a nightmare in our political life, but it was headed: “Nuwe visie in kleurbeleid”. We were told then—

Not only is it not possible, but it is undesirable at this stage to try to give the exact pattern of what will happen in a generation or in 50 years. That was three years ago and the very thing that this Government warned about, the impossibility of dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s, the thing they said should not be done, to try to sketch the pattern of the long-term future, is what the Prime Minister did exactly three years later. I should like to know what has happened in the three years since that announcement of the new vision was made, this new vision which could not be taken to its logical conclusion, and the statement made in this House two weeks ago. Has the situation within South Africa changed so much? Yes, Sir, what has happened is that the Government has realized its complete inability to deal with the problems facing it and so, in their panic, they have had to try to create some new vision to distract the attention of the people from their own failures. What has happened is that through indoctrination in the Press, which has swallowed this philosophy that a thing must be either one extreme or the other, the Government hopes that it has created an electorate whose reaction to the announcement of Bantu independence will be one of complete shellshock. What they did not realize is that although the immediate reaction is one of shellshock, and people have not yet started to realize the implications of this scheme, slowly it will come through to the thinking of all the people of South Africa that this plan announced in this House two weeks ago means the destruction of everything we have struggled to build up in this country. It means the destruction of the peace and the stability which it should be the object of this Government to build up, and of the progress; but what is more, it is the destruction of the very civilized standards which this Government claims it wants to protect. The Government is gambling all these fundamental issues in the one hope that it has so indoctrinated the people of South Africa that they will be so shocked by this announcement that they will not be able to realize its true and complete implications; that they will not realize that it is a camouflage for the failure of this Government to govern a multi-racial state in peace. [Interjections.] The hon. member who makes so much noise should perhaps go and talk to the little Yellow men with whom the Government is so friendly these days and ask them to give his Government some help in formulating a plan for decent race relations. They are the friends. Let them go and take some tips of how to get harmonious race relations. But I want to congratulate the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker). Last Session he knew only three words, “Mau Mau”, “Haw-Haw” and “Lumumba”. This year he has learned a new word. I congratulate him and hope his vocabulary will still grow.

Despite the propaganda and Radio South Africa trying to put the last nails into the coffin of free and independent thought in South Africa, it will become increasingly clear that this Government has put up the white flag. This announcement is a clear admission that it cannot and is not even prepared to try to govern the whole of South Africa and therefore it must surrender whole sections of the country to the rule of foreign, independent states. But I do not believe that the people of South Africa have so little faith in their ability as this Government has. The people of this country will still succeed in creating a pattern for harmonious co-existence without destroying either civilized standards, as the Progressive Party wishes to do, or the whole Republic of South Africa, as the Government wishes to do.

I want to deal this evening with the reasons why, looking from the other side of the fence, this will become obvious to the people of South Africa. What does this plan mean in practice? Fortunately I do not need to generalize. We have clear standards to go by, but I want to give just one indication of what it means, one indication of the complete reversal of policy and the complete panic and the complete overturning of the whole thinking of the Nationalist Party which is involved in this plan. This Minister’s own Secretary for Bantu Affairs said, according to the Burger—

That was said by Dr. Eiselen, Secretary for Bantu Administration, in 1959. The Secretary said himself that these states would not develop to full independence, but now the Government says they will develop to full independence. Just to illustrate, I wanted to quote from the Transkeian Territorial Authority, which has a photo of the first Bantu Parliament, and when I showed this to a Nationalist audience, the book was ripped from my hands, torn up and trampled on, and it was called “vuil Sap-propaganda”. Our Government was never going to do this, but it is this Government which through the Prime Minister has announced that it is handing over control of the Transkei. I have taken the trouble to analyse the debates over the last three years since its inception, from its first session, of the Transkeian Territorial Authority, and this is what I find.

In its first session in 1959 I want to quote the issues and the attitude displayed by that authority towards governmental responsibility in South Africa. I start at the beginning. The first resolution on the agenda was a demand to extend the dipping interval. The second was that members of stock sale committees should be paid for attending committee meetings. The next was to remove the restriction concerning the introduction of cattle into the district. The next was to relax the restrictive regulations regarding the importation of slaughter stock; to relax the regulation governing the control of East Coast fever; to extend the dipping interval; to relax the law relating to stock limitation; to refrain from prosecuting stock owners for failure to produce spleens; that livestock officers should be requested not to castrate bull calves, and finally one positive resolution that all stock should be kraaled at night. So it goes on, page after page. On Page 2 there is a demand for the annexation of adjoining land to the Transkei; that the Glen Grey district be incorporated in the Transkei; that traders and mission stations be limited to one acre; to get rid of the holdings of the White settlers; that the land be re-allocated …

What is your point?

My point is that every resolution which this authority passed aimed at either removing a necessary restriction or at getting rid of the White man, or paying more to the chief and headmen in control of this authority. I can go on. Let us look under Bantu self-government. They demand full self-government. Resolution 88 demands more money, 89 more money, all for the chiefs; 99, more power, 91, more power, 92, more money, 81, more money, 82, no auditing of their accounts, 85, more money, 86, wants control of money, 84, refers to the title of Bantu authorities, and 86 is the control of money. That was their first session, but go on to the next session and you have the same pattern: Removal of restrictions and controls, getting rid of the White man, replacing the White man in all Government departments; getting rid of White drivers on the transport buses and White inspectors, and as soon as you get to administration, more money for the chiefs, more power for them, and for three years running, arms to the chiefs to protect themselves; and each year, running like a pattern through these resolutions, there are three basic issues, the demand for more power, the removal of White authority and control, the handing over of control to the Bantu, and right throughout, more privileges, more rights and more powers to the chiefs and also the demand for powers to protect themselves through the issue of arms. If you study this for last year, the resolutions are these: 88, the supply of firearms to chiefs; 89, increased wages; 90, supply of firearms to Native constables; 92, the improvement of scales and salaries for chiefs; 93, the payment of subsistence and transport allowance, and so it goes on—the control of money, power, arms, and the removal of White control. If one wants to read the minutes, and they are verbatim, and we find that throughout there is a condemnation of the Bantu authorities system by the chiefs.

That is not so.

My friend says it is not so, but he should check up. He will not become an Excellency, the Commissioner-General. I am reading now No. 58: “But when we return home we find it difficult to go round and explain to the people what took place here, because it is the opinion of the general public that we have come here in order to make laws which are going to be an oppression to the people.”

At 10.25 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned until 6 February.