I move—

I make no excuse for coming back to deal with the Government’s policy of “Apartheid” and “Partition” in the concluding stages of this Part Appropriation Bill. “Apartheid”—this policy of despair—is the greatest single cause of our miseries and dissensions, as well as many of our financial problems. It is because of the stubborn and inflexible ferocity with which this policy is implemented that South Africa has been led to the brink of the precipice. There may yet be time to call a halt and in the hope of bringing that about I will put before the House to-day, my particular point of view.

Mr. Speaker, it seems that all parties in this Parliament are now agreed on certain inevasible facts. To the Nationalists these facts may be ineluctable, but they have reluctantly accepted them. We agree, first of all, Sir, that we live in a multi-racial State and that our peoples are integrated into one social economy. We agree that we are all dependent each upon the other for our daily existence. And now, at last, it seems we all admit that, in such a society, political rights cannot be permanently withheld from all or any of the race groups of South Africa.

The Nationalists naturally do not like this state of affairs. Their dogma is that a Whiteskinned man is inherently superior to one who may have a skin that is Brown or Black. They are determined to separate the races and to keep them apart, if necessary by force. Their policy, put simply, amounts to this; they intend to remove all of the non-Whites from any continuity of contact with the superior White people—except in the capacity of servants to masters. Now, in pursuance of this policy and in order to know who is White and who is Coloured and who is Black, so as to separate them more effectively, they must first of all classify, label and docket all the individuals of different races. Just as Hitler classified and separated the Jews so South Africa must classify and segregate the White, the Black, the Coloured and the Asiatic citizens of our country. Each man must be given his indelible badge of superiority or be stamped with his particular stigma of inferiority. Appearance, of course, is no final criterion. So we must have a human “stud-book” we must carry registration cards to show who is of what colour.

Our system of government is called a democracy. Of course, it is not. It is, at best, a democracy for the White people only. (And even for the Whites liberty is rapidly becoming freedom to do what Dr. Verwoerd permits.) “The White man”, say the Nationalists, “must be boss.” He must control the destiny of this multi-racial country without any reference whatsoever to, and quite unimpeded by, Black or Brown or Coloured thought. The majority of the citizens of this country will, according to their policy, remain voteless, and practically voiceless in this Parliament, for ever and a day.

But the Nationalist is a religious man. He may not be a statesman, but he is a Godfearing politician. Therefore he seeks for a moral basis for his unusual plans. To justify the policy of “apartheid”, he has devised the master plan of partition, the plan of Bantustan. In this way he will do more than merely condition his conscience. He hopes also to pacify a truculent world. Mr. Speaker, we are, according to the plan of the hon. the Prime Minister, to divide South Africa up into several, independent Black states. The Prime Minister asserts that, if he gives the Black man a small country in which he will eventually be his own boss, he, the Prime Minister, can look the world in the eyes and say: “I am a Christian democrat; I give independence now, and I promise eventual sovereignty, to the Bantu in seven Bantustans; I give away 17 per cent of the area of my land to 70 per cent of the Black people; people with whom I do not wish to mix in any way whatsoever. That entitles me to wreak my will on the greater number of their Black brothers who must remain permanently in what we call ‘White’ South Africa.” His followers throughout this country, these loud interjecters opposite me, repeat the parrot-cry, “if we give independence to the Bantustans we can do what we like with the Black men in White South Africa; if they do not like it they can get out regardless of whether or not they have any place to go”.

Of course, Sir, partition, fairly carried out, is not immoral. It has been achieved in the past in some countries with success. But partition is worse than immoral when it is carried on on the basis of: “I divide and I choose.”

The present partition of South Africa is carried out on that basis. It cannot be justified on moral grounds. In any case the whole morality of “apartheid” goes by the board, breaks down completely, if one considers it in relation to our Coloured and Indian populations. There is no part of South Africa which the Nationalists intend to cut off and divide with them. Nor do they intend to set them up in independent “Stans” of their own. Although we cannot deny that they are ripe for further political rights they are to be kept voteless and practically voiceless, permanently. But I must get back to the Prime Minister’s master plan of Bantustan.

Here is the skeleton of “apartheid”, dragged out of the Prime Minister’s cupboard. South Africa is to be partitioned, first of all, into one “White” state which will be multiracial. That “White” state will contain some 3,500,000 Whites, 1,500,000 Coloureds, 500,000 Asiatics and 6,000,000 Bantu. In this “White ” state the small minority of White men will be in complete political control for ever. The non-White citizens cannot ever share in government. Thus we have one “White” multiracial state and it is to be sub-divided yet further into one Coloured state within this state and one Indian state within this “Whit” state, secondly we must add to this strange conception, this unusual conglomeration, seven distinct and independent Black Bantustans. Here the least advanced of our African population, the least sophisticated section of our people, are to be given their own political institutions, and will advance to complete sovereignty. The White man must either retreat from these areas, or stay in them on terms laid down for him by the Bantu. The White man has that option. In order to create these Bantustans, the Prime Minister intends to make boundaries at some time in the future. Eventually he will drive barbed wire fences of division through the heart of South Africa. Mr. Speaker, this is his ludicrous Bantustan scheme. This is the bare outline, the naked absurdity of his wonderful scheme which is to save South Africa and keep it whiter and purer, forever. Let us examine some of the consequences of this larger lunacy. What is the result of this immolation? There will be no change whatsoever in the racial proportions and complexities of White South Africa’s heterogeneous population. Our truncated White South Africa will have exactly the same race problems, only intensified and potentially much more threatening. By carving up and giving away valuable parts of South Africa, the Prime Minister gains nothing in the direction of “apartheid” at all. He does not even succeed in pacifying an antagonistic world, or salving the conscience, if the truth were known, of many of his followers. What remains of our country will still be multiracial. There will be just as great a preponderance of non-Whites in our factories, on our farms and in our homes. The Bantustans cannot attract any significant number of Bantu out of our “White” areas. The main part of the master plan is based on the theory, the assumption, that 5,000,000 to 6,000,000 Blacks will eventually leave us about the year 2,000 A.D. to return to their homelands, leaving us a purer, even if a poorer, nation. Neither the Tomlinson Commission, that Nationalist-appointed Commission that finally killed “apartheid”, nor the Fagan Commission, agree that it practicable or possible. Let me quote from the Fagan Commission: “It will be utterly impossible to put the Native population, which is now outside the reserves back into the reserves, or keep the whole of the increase there in future …” Even the most vigorous implementation of “apartheid”, Sir, does not save South Africa from the need to plan for a steadily increasing permanent African population in so-called “White” South Africa, to whom it would be impossible, unjust and immoral to deny for ever the rights of citizenship. I believe that many thinking Nationalists have come round to the view expressed by the Stallard Commission as far back as 1921, when they said that if the Natives in our towns do not depart—I quote —“There can be no justification for excluding them from the franchise on the simple ground of colour”. And we know they will not depart; they cannot depart. Mr. Speaker, I am sadly convinced that an eruption of disquieting dimensions must finally occur if, in our integrated economy, in our multi-racial society, we try to keep political rights away from the overwhelming majority of our people.

Sir, speakers in previous debates on this Part Appropriation Bill have laid bare many of the tragic consequences which are inherent in this new partition plan. They have dealt with the danger of one or more of these Bantustans serving as a possible springboard for foreign intervention. They have shown how UNO may interfere if the Prime Minister’s newly-created Colonies become dissatisfied with the speed of their transition to full sovereignty, or if the Bantustans seek to protect, with foreign aid, the position of their people who will form the majority group in “White” South Africa. Economists have dealt with the risky future of border industries and have indicated that internal competition from our own Colonies might affect our industries if the present Common Market arrangement we have in South Africa breaks down. Members representing Zululand and the Transkei have pointed out that the great but uncalled-for sacrifices made by their White constituents, may be made in vain. In this transition we must not forget the White people of the Transkei and Zululand. Many of us may remember the Prime Minister’s just indignation when, in this Parliament, the Prime Minister of Britain said that in Africa the White man was “expendable.” He must have had every sympathy for the South Africans, as well as the British settlers who had gone to Kenya and Tanganyika and who were being told that they were “expendable.” And yet he now says himself “just as the White man must get out of Nairobi, so the White man will eventually have to go from Umtata.” Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the White settlers of Kenya fall into a different category entirely from our people who live in Umtata. They emigrated from a faraway land to a strange and to them wondrous African country; they knew they were taking a risk for the future; they settled, with open eyes, in a foreign country. But it was different with our people who set themselves up in Umtata. They chose this part of their own country, in their own town, under their own Government, to build up a future and make homes for themselves. And now they are told by this Prime Minister that they are “expendable.” They are told that one day they must get out. As I see it, there is one thing on which we must insist. They must be compensated. I hope the Minister of Finance will get up in this debate and admit that it is the Government’s responsibility to see that every White or Coloured citizen affected by this transition will be absolutely adequately compensated.

Before I deal with some important issues which arise from the reply of the hon. the Minister of Finance to the second reading debate, I think it essential to refer once more, (and for reasons which I think will become soon apparent to him) to the unfortunate remarks made by the hon. the Minister of Lands in a previous debate. I bring up this matter now because I feel it is my duty to do so and because I think the Minister should take advantage of this debate either to recant what he said or to explain that he did not mean what his words appear to mean. If he does not do so, I fear that the consequences may be serious for our foreign relations. Now, from Hansard it is apparent that this is what the hon. gentleman said—

Now, I want to be quite fair. Yet I believe that there is only one interpretation to be placed on that statement. I should mention that at a subsequent stage in the debate the hon. the Minister was given the opportunity by the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) to get up and explain what he really meant. Speaking in English he said—

And these are the important words—

Now, Mr. Minister, look again at the original Hansard, and I am sure you will agree, when you re-examine it, that your explanation added no light of clear understanding to what you said, whatever you may have meant. In the original Hansard, as you will admit, the words were “The only way in which South Africa can be forced to change its policy …”. In his explanation he said, “The only way in which South Africa would be able to change its policy …”. Sir, the change in wording is significant. Then also the original phrasing in Hansard said “through military intervention from outside”. In the Minister’s later explanation of what he said he left out the words “from outside”. He alleged that he only said “through military intervention”. I think it is most important to mark the very notable addition and to notice the very significant omission. His original words must be read in a sense which I think very ominous. His explanation is unsatisfactory. The Minister will see that he should deny more authoritatively what he said, or must take steps to see that the world understands it in a different way. I ask the new Minister for Propaganda whether something should not be done to clear up this matter. I really do not want the Burger to be the only apologist for the Minister of Lands … [Interjections.]

Order! I do not think we have a Minister of Propaganda.

No, Sir, we have a Minister of most impropaganda. It is called “Information”. The Minister of Lands must realize that it is important to set this matter right. I am sure that certain overseas observers and people who nurse resentment or animosity towards us might easily read the original meaning into the Minister’s statement, in spite of his explanation. They might read it to mean, as it seems to me to mean, that the road to separate development on the basis of “apartheid” is now such an established fact that not even the Opposition can do anything about it and that the only thing that can change it is military intervention from outside. This is a dangerous statement and therefore it must be corrected authoritatively. I ask the Minister to do so in this debate. We all realize that it is a serious thing if the outside world regards this statement as a defiant declaration of inflexible policy based on race discrimination. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Lands must remember the fact that all of its policies of “apartheid” are applied with equal vigour to the mandated territory of South West Africa. They must know that we are involved in a case pending before the International Court of Justice, the outcome of which we all fear. Yet, in advance of that judgment, a senior Minister has made a provocative and challenging statement. I ask him to correct it. He must know that UNO voted unanimously to send a Committee to South West Africa, which will apply for admission shortly. Surely in these circumstances and at this juncture, and with this knowledge in mind, the Minister should have shown a greater degree of responsibility. I hope that he realizes what his duty is to South Africa and that he will take advantage of this debate to get up and explain his inconsistencies and to make it clear to the world that his meaning was not intended to be a challenge. He must renounce any suggestion that he was casting a defiant gauntlet in the face of our ill-wishers and enemies abroad, or that he was doing something calculated to embarrass the last few friends we have in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I come to that other master of inconsistencies, the hon. the Minister of Finance. He attempted to shrug off many of our criticisms by showing some petty inconsistencies which he saw in some of the speeches coming from this side of the House. Yet he himself was guilty of the grossest inconsistency of all. Does he not remember saying at Worcester two years ago that “apartheid” is an experiment and should it fail it could be reversed? That “apartheid” could be changed? But now, inconsistency personified, he says with glee and with triumph: “You have been forced on to a road which you cannot leave.” He says: “Apartheid is onherroeplik. Julle moet die onvermydelike beleid van apartheid aanvaar.”

The Minister of Finance referred to our Common Market and said that this newly-conceived Bantustan policy would bring economic unity with separate political units “in the same way as the six member states of the Common Market were striving to create economic unity with separate political units”. Sir, he should know that he is completely wrong about the Common Market in Europe. Its aim is the very reverse of the Bantustan policy. There the Europeans aim at having economic unity with eventual political integration. That is their declared policy. Here we now have a Common Market with political unity and economic unity, and the Prime Minister is breaking it up. Let me quote, in case he does not believe my words, the words of Mr. Norman H. Strous, the great American merchandiser, and specialist in common market activities. He says this—

Does this Minister seek that?—

We have a common currency—

We are dividing ours—

Does this Minister seek a common South African Government? How can he make an analogy between South Africa and the Common Market on those lines? His Bantustan policy is the very reverse of the policy of the Common Market.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance also attempted to tell us that all of the money, the hundreds of millions needed for the development of these Bantustans, will be found in South Africa; and that we will underwrite any loans from a foreign agency. Now let me say outright that I am in favour of giving foreign aid to undeveloped countries and I agree with the Minister when he says it may be cheaper to absorb the annual increase of Bantu labour and population in the Bantustans than in South Africa. All the facilities they need, such as housing and transport and water, may be more cheaply provided in Bantustan than in “White” South Africa. But the Minister should be honest with this House and with his followers. Do they realize that in future every single rand raised by way of taxation loan which we underwrite; every cent which is spent in that new independent Bantustan country, every single bit of money we vote in this House, for Transkeian development, will not be an investment in our own country, in an integral part of our country? It will be a foreign loan. It will be foreign aid to a country which we are making foreign. I am not against foreign aid to what was once a part of South Africa. But I hope his followers outside realize what they are doing and those inside this House realize that when they vote supplies in future for Bantustan development they are voting foreign aid to a foreign country. I believe myself that the correct course that should have been taken was not partition into Bantustans. I believe that we should have followed the policy which would have been introduced if we had not been thrown out of power in 1948. We had intended to give the Native Representative Council greater law-making powers, increased taxing powers and larger executive powers. We approve of the sensible extension of political responsibility to our African citizens, and we hope they know, whether they are inside or outside our borders, whether they are cut off or not by Nationalist policy, that they will have our goodwill and help in so far as we can give it to them. We wish them to gain democratic experience and develop eventually for themselves a constitutional arrangement which will work harmoniously. It is our aim, Sir, if only this process of truncation and separation does not go too far, to draw them within the orbit of our federal plan and to give them a share in our Federal Government.

My time, Sir, is at an end. Let me in a few final words reiterate that I believe that this Government misgoverns. I believe that their rule is misrule. It is my fervent hope that some change may take place in the hearts and heads of all South African voters and that they will not allow this ill-omened, ill-planned, ill-fated, ill-thought-out Bantustan partition policy to come to eventual fruition.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite a few years since I had the opportunity of addressing you in this House. I feel that under the present circumstances, without any preparation for my reply, it Is a privilege and a duty on me as an English-speaking South African to reply to the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell). I have stated on previous occasions in this House when I sat on the Conservative Party benches and the hon. member turned his vindictiveness against the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker). I told the hon. member then that he is fast going in this House towards earning himself the reputation of being a “Boerehater”. This afternoon we heard the hon. member adopting a line that still makes him so. He puts himself and his party on a pedestal. He says that a man’s colour should not be the criterion. He would make us think that his party relies on such a policy. He intimates that they are the only ones who are just and fair towards South Africa and the rest of the world. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should look to the beam in his own eye and in the eyes of his colleagues. Let me just read a few quotations from those hon. members who, sitting behind him, applaud his efforts this afternoon. I want to speak about the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell), a dour fighter, who is not afraid to stand up to debate. But if a man’s colour should not be the criterion, how is it that the hon. member for South Coast can make this statement, which I quote from an English newspaper, in Durban—

Is that the language of people who put themselves on a pedestal? I see the hon. member for South Coast is not here, but I see the hon. member for Sea Point (Capt. J. A. L. Basson) s here, and he was reported in the Press as saying this. This is the report—

Capt. J. A. L. BASSON: On a point of personal explanation, I did not say that.

The hon. member for Wynberg says to this side of the House that it is their religious background or conscience which makes them want to have an excuse for treating the Natives so badly in the Republic. Sir, the hon. member is a known Progressive. He is one of the men, together with another front-bencher, the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), who were party to a declaration published in the Press, in which they condemned the United Party under the leadership of their present leader, for whom I have the greatest regard…. [Interjections.] He and the hon. member for Constantia manoeuvred the position in which a large number of members of the United Party also signed their names to this statement in the Press, in which they objected to the actions of the hon. member for South Coast.

That is quite untrue.

That is what happened.

That is quite untrue, and you know it.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Yes, I withdraw it. He obviously does not know it. but it is still untrue.

I know the hon. member; he “tjanks”. He, of course, can talk about a Minister of Propaganda and a Minister of Impropaganda and. of course, everybody must accept it. The moral justification for that statement is that it comes from that side of the House and therefore it is above criticism. But he was a party to that statement which was issued in the Press. And what happened?

It is untrue.

Two members, the hon. members for Constantia and Wynberg. explained their position to the Leader of the Opposition.

It is quite untrue.

If it is so untrue, why are those two members sitting there and not outside the House with the Progressives? You see, Sir, whenever the hon. member does something, then there is something moral about it; then it is above the criticism of ordinary members of Parliament, and therefore his conduct is excusable. That is why hon. members on that side of the House are losing ground in the country all along the line. After all, I did not say that they were going to win the election; I said they were going to lose the election. But what did they say? Let me read this out—

And with all this big talk, what was the outcome? They came back to this House weakened. They are even weaker in the country now than they were before the general election. As far as the hon. member for Wynberg is concerned, a little while ago he addressed a ladies’ gathering—

No, I did not say that; the hon. member said that—

But listen to this, Mr. Speaker—and this comes from the man who tells this side of the House that our policy is so wrong—

Sir, did you ever think that a confession of this nature would come at this stage from a front-bencher of the United Party?

Will you read on what I said?

As usual, there is a very long report in the Cape Times, and no purpose would be served in reading on.

You dare not read it.

Obviously I am not going to read out the hon. member’s speech as reported. I have read the part in which he was so adamant that their policy of federation, in respect of which they still have to re-think their plans and the details of which they still have to work out, is the answer to our critics outside this country.

Will the Minister please give us the detailed plans for the constitution of the Transkei?

Of course, one realizes that their Whip must try to get them out of their difficulties. I was a junior whip in my day and I know the tactics that whips follow. I may have been a junior whip, but I think I could have handled the situation better than the Whips over there.

I want to come now to the main issue, this issue which has been described by the Opposition as partition. They are throwing up their hands in horror at the terrible thought that we should be partitioning South Africa.

Are you not doing so?

Of course, hon. members on the other side have nothing to say about the Protectorates which are partitioning South Africa.

What an ignorant Minister of Information you are.

They had nothing to say about the Native Reserves in which there has always been partitioning, because no White man has been able to buy land there. I have never heard hon. members opposite say that the protection of the Blackman’s land in these reserves is a positive way of handling the affairs of the Black man. I have never heard one of them defend that policy, and we know that but for that policy the Black man would not have had an inch of land to-day in the reserves; it would have been bought up by the White people. If there is any policy for which South Africa can claim a moral basis, it is this policy that the Native must have certain areas of land which are his and which the White man can never take away from him. The position has now gone a stage further where the Native is to be given a system of self-government. The decision with regard to the Transkei was not made because of a sudden moral conscience. The fact that the Natives have held this land for years is due to the moral conscience of the whole of South Africa. It is the basis on which we have arranged our affairs in this country. But what has been happening in Africa? I do not want to quote Native leaders in South Africa. I want to quote the language of Native leaders in territories adjoining South Africa. I want to read to you an extract from the Cape Times of 12 October.

What about giving us some of your own words?

Sir, this is a funny business.

You’re telling us!

If you quote anything which favours the policy of South Africa, then they want to ridicule it. I said that I was going to quote the words of Native leaders outside of South Africa, but to them it is simply a chance to score a debating point and an occasion for raucous laughter. They are not concerned with the benefit which South Africa may derive from it; to them it is simply an occasion for laughter on a matter which is a major issue in this country. Let me quote this report from Blantyre—

What has that got to do with partitioning?

Let the hon. member listen. Sir, when we were having our trouble with the Conservative Party, it was the hon. member who has just interrupted me who said, “we are all on the Progressive line in the United Party; you chaps are Conservative and you have to take the consequences of your action.” Those were the days when they were all Progressives. Now, of course, the position has changed and they are all Conservatives, including the hon. member who interjected—

What is happening in Africa? It is not a question sharing the vote on a qualified basis as my friends in the Progressive Party think. It is not a question of treating the White man fairly and justly. That is clear from what is happening in Kenya. It is a question of human dignity as they see it under the United Nations Charter; it is a question of majority rule; the Black man must rule this country. They are in the majority and they must rule. That is their definition of human dignity. It has nothing to do with sitting together with Whites in bioscopes. Dr. Hastings Banda who is a cultured man says that is simply a belt. He says—that the majority must rule this country and the majority are Blacks. What has been said further? The White man is here on sufferance. Sir, what does the hon. the Minister of Lands say? He says that we are not going to give up our position as Whites in this country even if it means the intervention of arms. Of course, hon. members opposite will try to place their own interpretation on that, but basically the hon. the Minister was indicating that our position as White people in South Africa would be intolerable if we had to bow down to the international concept of human dignity. That is what he was conveying. Let me say this to hon. members opposite: they may try to cause a split here and there, but basically the Government of this country is sound and solid, and the Government is growing from strength to strength. I know it: I can see it. I am not ashamed to sit on this side of the House.

Yes, we can see that.

I am very happy to sit on this side, and I want my hon. friends on the other side to know that in the long run sneers will not help them in South Africa. Whether they sneer at me or whether they sneer at the Prime Minister, it is not going to help them in South Africa. There is strong and ever-growing support behind this Government. What do people who come down from Kenya say? They say, “thank heavens there is a strong Government in this country; thank heavens in this country alone they are facing to the realities of Africa.” You can go to the White people of Tanganyika, the White people of Kenya, and ask them what they think. It is true that hon. members opposite have political influence over a large number of people. That is shown by the number of seats they have in Parliament, but that influence is becoming less and less. They are being forced more and more into a situation which one could never have imagined in the days of General Smuts. They are being forced into the urban areas. Whereas formerly they had a number of seats in the platteland, to-day they have not got one. They have even lost Queenstown. More and more their influence is confined to the English-speaking section of the population.

Sir, I have mentioned to you that this is the feeling in Africa. During the election campaign the former member for Maitland (Dr. Zac de Beer) also endeavoured to answer questions that were put to him as to whether South Africa could possibly carry on under a qualified vote. The following question was put to him by Mrs. Taylor—

That question was put to him by a United Party supporter, not by me. This was Dr. de Beer’s reply—

Which showed that he had a doubt in his mind—

I want to put this now to hon. members opposite: The issue in Africa is not the question of a qualified vote. It is not a question of a so-called Federation in which the White man represents the Black man. The issue is “one man one vote” and the majority must rule. That is the issue throughout the whole of Africa. Sir, do not let us draw any red-herrings across the trail. Basically the problem is a majority problem; it is not a minority problem, whether that minority be Coloureds or Indians. Everybody in Africa knows that is the real problem, because one need not look very far to see what is happening; one need only look next door; one need only look at the trouble experienced by Southern Rhodesia in trying to arrive at a constitution that will satisfy the Black people. For the rest, wherever one looks in Africa, one sees nothing but chaos and the misery of the Congo. What is the basis of our attitude on this side? The hon. member says that our whole object is to say to the Bantu, “if you do not like the harsh, vicious treatment that you are getting in the Republic, go back to your Bantustan.” That, of course, is a complete distortion. Our attitude is that in a certain part of the Republic the White man is going to rule, and that in the Bantustans the Black man will rule, on a basis of “one man, one vote” if that is his wish.

Are you not going to create Congos there?

As far as the economic development of the Republic is concerned, we want to see a continuation of the situation which exists to-day under which the Bantu gets far higher wages and far better treatment than anywhere else in Africa. What right has the hon. member then to suggest that this is purely a policy of holding the Black man by the scruff of the neck, and if he does not like it here, he can starve in the reserves? It is this sort of propaganda that admittedly makes it difficult for me to do my job. What makes my task difficult is the sort of propaganda that we have from the hon. member for Constantia who, knowing what accusations are being made against us. at UNO, talks about slave labour in South Africa. The hon. member knows that these talks are taking place; he knows that they are even accusing us of genocide in South West Africa, but when we prove, on oath, that the population in South West Africa has doubled itself under the present régime then the hon. member says, “that is what I mean by ‘genocide’; the population could have been much bigger if it had not been for the present policy.” Sir, these things have happened, and that is why I say that these extravagant statements by the hon. members for Constantia and Wynberg about slave labour and Nazism in South Africa, do this country so much harm. Quite frankly, I do not think that the hon. member for Constantia intended to convey what he did convey by using the word “slave”, but nevertheless that word was used and his statement appears in Hansard, and the next thing that will happen is that our Minister of External Affairs will have to face that quotation at UNO.

We have many problems in this country, but I can assure hon. members that the solution of those problems does not lie in their hands, because they have shown no willingness to try to face up to the position. They always use platitudes and profess moral indignation and put themselves far above the ordinary mortal in South Africa. They have always tried to create the impression that they are the veneer of South Africa and that everybody else is someone to be looked down upon. As long as they continue to adopt that attitude and as long as the hon. member for Wynberg carries on in the way he carried on here to-day, you can be sure that this side of the House will continue to govern.

If there is one thing about which I am pleased it is the fact that it is not necessary for me to congratulate the hon. member on a maiden speech. Luckily it is not a maiden speech, and I would definitely have had to violate my conscience if I had had to congratulate him on such a speech. Mr. Speaker, if ever there was a crime against South Africa, it was the hon. the Prime Minister’s action in appointing the hon. member as Minister of Information. The hon. the Minister got up and said. “This is an unprepared speech and he then quoted from at least eight cuttings which he had there. If it was an unprepared speech, where did those cuttings come from? The hon. the Minister had more cuttings than the hon. the Minister of External Affairs, and his cuttings had less bearing on the matter than those of the hon. the Minister of External Affairs. What did the hon. the Minister of Information say? I wrote down some of his words. This is the man who has to “sell” South Africa abroad.

No, not sell.

This is the man who has to give the information which will make us more popular abroad. What kind of language did he use? He spoke of “boere-hater”; he said that a member on this side whined (“tjank”). As to his facts, he did not have one single fact correct. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members should give the hon. member a chance to deliver her speech.

He accused the hon. member for Wynberg of having been one of the signatories to that manifesto at the time of the congress in Bloemfontein.

He was.

He does not even know what the facts are; he does not even know that the hon. member for Wynberg did not have anything to do with it. [Laughter.] The Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration laughs. Why does he not, like his colleague the Minister of Information, look at newspaper cuttings? [Laughter.]

Order! Hon. members must stop laughing at one another so that the hon. member can proceed with her speech.

The hon. the Minister made the pathetic suggestion that by this time the Native areas should already have been independent areas because in the past it has been impossible for the White man to go into those areas and to buy land there. But the suggestion to crown it all is that they are going to get a system of “one man, one vote” under the policy of the Prime Minister.

They want it.

The hon. the Minister does not even know that it will be a case, as an hon. member said here, of “one chief, one vote According to the constitution which was submitted to the Transkei, it is not by any manner of means going to be a case of “one man, one vote”. The last point the hon. the Minister made, was that we were going to create wonderful circumstances in the White area of South Africa, the remaining area. I do not call it a White area: it is not going to be a White area. He said that circumstances would be so wonderful there, that the wages would be so much better and that the conditions under which they work would be so wonderful that all those non-Whites would prefer to stay in South Africa.

But that is so to-day.

If that is true, then why are they creating these non-White areas? What then is the purpose of the creation of non-White areas, and what does this talk of “apartheid” mean then? How is the influx of Natives into the White areas going to be stopped? Because the conditions in White South Africa are going to be so good that none of the Natives here would ever want to go back, either to the Transkei or to any of the other areas. I just want to say that it is a pity that a person like the hon. the Minister who has just spoken, has to supply the outside world with information on South Africa. It is a great pity that a man who knows so little about the circumstances in and the facts about South Africa, should give any information whatsoever to the outside world.

But like other members I make no excuse for coming back …

To you senses.

… to the façade of “apartheid” as represented to the people by the National Party. I still remember that in 1948 and shortly afterwards the cry was “apartheid”: the Native in his place and the Asiatic out of the country.

They said, “The coolie out of the country”.

Yes. of course, they said, “The Kaffir in his place and the coolie out of the country”.

Vause Raw said that.

This deception of the people went on throughout the years until just before the election. We on this side suggest that the people of South Africa did not know what this election was about and did not know about this plan of the Government’s. I repeat that the people of South Africa were not told what the hon. the Prime Minister proposed to do after the election. He did not tell the people of South Africa that the Transkei would become independent. I can prove that. I quote from the Burger of 2 August 1961, when the election was announced—

Then the Prime Minister says—

You see, I am quoting what the Prime Minister himself said.

What have you just quoted in regard to Bantu homelands?

I stated that the electorate did not know that the Transkei would receive its independence, and I said that at the time of the election the people did not know what was going on, and that members of the Nationalist Party denied that something of this nature would take place. They said it was scaremongering.

May I put a question? The hon. member says that the people were not informed about it. Did she not say at Pongola that the land won by her forefathers was being given back to the Kaffirs?

I said so. and the hon. member over there denied that it was so, and I shall repeat it in a moment and hon. members will again deny it. I say that this was misleading the people. What I said at Pongola I say again, viz. that the policy of the present Government leads to the sacrifice of everything we hold dear in South Africa. I say it will lead to the doom of the White man in South Africa. And now I want to state very clearly that this slogan of the Nationalists that they are fighting for White South Africa is just as misleading to the people outside as the slogan of apartheid was in the past. When we say that it is dangerous to create these states, we are told that Britain gave Kenya and the other territories independence. But the difference is that Britain is thousands of miles away from the countries to which they grant independence, whereas here we will be surrounded by those countries. We will be in between the new states which are being created, and those states will be created out of what is now White South Africa, that South Africa which is beloved by all of us and which was made safe by our forefathers under such difficult circumstances. The hon. member says that I stated at Pongola that we would have to sacrifice what our forefathers fought for. I repeat it to-day. The hon. member did not say here that I was addressing the farmers of Pongola and he has forgotten that he tried to have a motion of no-confidence passed against me but that he did not succeed. I think the farmers of Pongola realized what was happening. and realized how the policy of the Government will land them in trouble in the near future in regard to their labour. Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that the most satisfied section of our Native population are those living on the farms and that they are the people who are least likely to take part in incitement? In future we will have the position that whereas a large section of the population of the Transkei will have the franchise they will live in parts of our country, perhaps on the farms in the Cape Province. So in future the other areas which are to be given their independence will be in a much more difficult position. It is obvious that other areas must also be given independence in future. It cannot be otherwise. In those areas the position will also be that our farmers will be dealing with persons who work for them but who have the franchise in another area. And in so far as the farmers are concerned, the hon. the Prime Minister comes along with this announcement of the independence of portion of our country at a time when the farmer in the Peninsula has to plough in his cabbages because prices on the market are so low; they come along with this announcement at a time when the prices for dairy products have fallen, when a dairy farmer had to empty out his milk on Church Square. Pretoria, at a time when the meat producer is receiving a minimum price and sheep and cattle are piling up in the abattoirs, when lorries with pigs have had to turn back home, when we have a large surplus of maize in the country and the present surplus will be increased still further by the maize now standing on the lands. It happens at a time when there is a surplus of bananas and when, according to a report, farmers have to feed 30 per cent of their crops to their cattle, when our sugar growers have a larger production than in the past whilst their markets are shrinking, when citrus experienced a bad year in 1960-1, although it was a little better last year, but whilst thousands of new trees are beginning to bear fruit, new markets must be sought. It comes at a time when there Is no market for potatoes and an export market has to be found for butter and cheese, at a time when agricultural unions are making every attempt to find new markets and every person realizes that there is a vast potential new market for us amongst our non-Whites, But now the hon. the Minister at this time announces a policy which I believe will result in an impoverished Transkei. and he announces something which will create impoverished areas in our country. Sir, without the initiative of the White man and his “know-how” and capital, it is impossible for those areas to make progress.

In the second reading debate the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) said that this Government stands for peace, good order and sound government. These are the three thing which he says are so necessary in South Africa —peace, order and good government. And the hon. member made a long speech about racia interests which, as he says, always triumph.

Peace in South Africa, when we are goin to give full independence to seven or eigh non-White states? Peace in South Africa, when those states lie in the shape of a horse-shoe around the neck of White South Africa? Peace, whilst in White South Africa there will still be 6,000,000 Natives, apart from the Coloureds and Asiatics? Peace in South Africa, when we know that they will make further demands? Peace, when we know that the independence which will be given to these non-White states will result in the Coloured and the Asiatic also demanding the same thing?

Will it be different in terms of your proposals?

Peace in a country, where political emotions have been incited by this Prime Minister?

By the United Party.

The hon. member should really go back to his sheep. Peace in South Africa, where such deep emotions are being stirred up by the Prime Minister, political emotions which can become a devastating and uncontrollable flood? Amongst those who make demands I have mentioned the other non-White parts of South Africa, those areas to which the Prime Minister has already promised independence. Because he has promised it. I say that if we think of peace in South Africa under this Nationalist Government, we can see that instead of peace we will have the greatest unrest we have ever had.

The second point mentioned by the hon. member for Standerton is order. Order in South Africa, when there is murder and assault? Order, when no woman is safe on a farm any longer? Order, when no woman is safe in the streets of Cape Town? Order, when the police are incapable of maintaining order in our country? Order? I remember that at the National Party Congress there was talk of order and that they spoke about the control of the Bantu areas. I read in the Oosterlig of 13 September 1961, how delegates from the border areas adjoining Basutoland spoke about a powder-keg, and of a feeling of revenge in the hearts of the border farmers. They said that trouble would ensue. According to these farmers, there is trouble between Basutoland and the Republic. What will be the position between these independent states and the Republic? Because these independent states will continually have people who come from the White areas of South Africa, and vice versa.

You should hold a meeting at Danskraal and make a similar speech.

The hon. member knows so little about the history of South Africa that he does not know that Danskraal is an honoured name in the history of our people. He does not know of the covenant made at Danskraal. He does not know about the relief which came after Danskraal. That shows how unnational the National Party is. They cannot even hide their ignorance.

I spoke about order. Order, whilst the present Government cannot maintain order now? But the hon. the Prime Minister thoroughly realizes it.

Tell us more about Danskraal.

On a point of order, cannot those hon. members give the hon. lady a chance to make her speech?

The hon. the Prime Minister realizes that there will be no order in the country, because this is what he says—

The hon. the Prime Minister said that before he started surrendering. There is one hon. member over there who says “Hear, hear!”. He has not yet discovered that the Prime Minister has begun to yield. That was also before the Japanese were declared to be White. But the Prime Minister says that he would rather defend himself to the last. I do not intend defending myself to the last. I want to defend the life of South Africa, not the end of it. You see, that is the difference between the members of the Nationalist Party and members of this side. We live for a living South Africa; they live for the death of South Africa.

The hon. member for Standerton spoke about good government. A good Government, a Government which at one time stood as the granite Government which would not submit to the Afro-Asian states? A Government which took us out of the Commonwealth because they would not submit to the Afro-Asian states? And now the Prime Minister says that he is buying freedom for the White man. Is he buying it? That is now the good Government we have, a Government which runs away from the outside world. One can hear it very clearly from the speeches of hon. members opposite, from the speech of the Minister of Lands and the speech made by the Minister of Defence outside this House. A good Government, when the tremendous potential of South Africa lies untouched? A good Government, which prevented us from getting immigrants to South Africa to strengthen the White man? If there is one thing I will never forgive this Government for, it is for having wrecked the immigration plan of the United Party and not having strengthened the White man here. I accuse the Prime Minister of all these things, because the member sitting behind him did not know all this. I want to say here that the Prime Minister did not even consult his Cabinet in regard to this plan for granting independence to the Transkei. I say that he did not even consult his caucus. I have good reason for saying so, because on the same day that the policy of independence for the Transkei was announced by the hon. the Prime Minister, Schalk Pienaar wrote the following in the Burger—

Remember, it was only the day before yesterday that the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said that they would achieve full independence. Now the Prime Minister speaks about speedy independence. Schalk Pienaar continues—

Schalk Pienaar says he is forcing it through, come what may. And then the Minister of Finance gets up and says that the whole of the caucus and the Cabinet stood behind the Prime Minister. He only said it in the hope that it would perhaps deceive somebody. It will take a long time for South Africa to regain her good name and before we will be rid of the effects of what this Government has done to South Africa. It will be a long time before we will be able to survive the detrimental effects of this policy of apartheid and this word “apartheid”.

When the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) started speaking, I could not help thinking of a parody by A. G. Visser—

The hon. member started with a terrible tirade against the Minister of Information, but that tirade began even while the hon. Minister was speaking. This reaction was not at all strange to us. We have been waiting for it for a long time. We have been sitting here waiting for an outburst to come against the hon. the Minister of Information and against the hon. the Minister of Labour. Why? Simply because they are English-speaking persons who have publicly dared to join the National Party. Sir, you heard what attacks were made upon him while the Minister was speaking. And who led the attack? The attack was led, you will have noticed, by men like the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross), the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell), the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes), whom we know in this House from their speeches as people who are not very found of the Afrikaans-speaking section in our country. They reveal that fact throughout their conduct. They are the people who launched this attack upon the hon. the Minister of Information because he had dared to become a member of the National Party. And they used an Afrikaans-speaking member on their side to reply to the Minister. But these are their old tactics. That is how we know them.

The hon. member for Drakensberg has painted a sombre picture here as to what we can expect now that the National Party’s apartheid policy is being implemented. She painted this picture of a great Black danger to us. She painted this picture of a great Black danger arising from the fact that the Bantu States, all of which, she alleges, will gradually be given their independence, will surround the White area and create an enormous danger for the Whites in South Africa. She also talked about the tremendous dangers in the White area itself, about women who will no longer be safe in the streets, etc. She visualized all sorts of dangers. But what is the solution offered by hon. members on the other side to meet these dangers? Their solution is that these people must remain here and must be given the vote, that they should be allowed to come into the White area in greater numbers; that we should make conditions as pleasant as possible for them here so that more and more of them will come in, and then we will be so much safer here! That is their solution! In the course of the debate which has been conducted on the Part Appropriation Bill during the past few days, the United Party has not succeeded in concealing its inability to offer resistance to, or to make any suggestions as to how it can check, the National Party in its forward march along the road that it has been following. In all the speeches made on the other side the United Party has demonstrated its inability to check its own retrogression; it has shown its inability to conceal to what extent it is retrogressing. There is one fact which was as plain as a pikestaff throughout all their speeches, a fact which they did not even try to deny, a fact which was mentioned by all the speakers on this side as an accusation against the alternative policy of the United Party, and that is that eventually their policy of race federation must culminate in Black domination in this country. Not one of them tried to deny that. Not one of them tried to refute it. They have to admit it tacitly. I believe that their leaders and those members on the other side who make a study of these things realize that is so. They know that eventually that must come about under their race federation plan. But they dare not admit it at this stage. At this stage they dare not even argue because there are still too many members in their own party whom they cannot take along with them on this road; people who still think as we on this side of the House do about the colour problem, people who still think for themselves, people who cannot be taken in tow on this road which leads straight to the road followed by the Progressive Party to-day. Because those hon. members must remember that their party was responsible for the birth of the Progressive Party. The Progressive Party and the Liberal Party originated from the United Party. They must be careful therefore. They dare not admit these things, because they have to take along with them on this road as many of their members as possible, and as quickly as possible, this road which leads straight to the one which is already being followed by the Progressive Party to-day. If ever there was a speech which proved the truth of the statement that the liberalists feel just as at home in the United Party as they can possibly be in the Progressive Party, it was certainly the speech made by the hon. member for Wynberg to-day. He is perfectly happy in the United Party, and his language, not only this afternoon, but in all his speeches, clearly shows that he is an out-and-out Progressive, a full-fledged Progressive. But he is perfectly happy in the United Party. Why? Because he knows that the race federation policy of the United Party will bring him exactly where the Progressive Party will bring him and bring him there sooner. All he says is that they must proceed slowly. I am convinced that if we hold an election in this country again, the National Party will not have to fight the election against the United Party but against the united front of the liberalists in South Africa. By that time the United Party will have dissolved completely and perhaps the Progressive Party will have dissolved and there will be a new combination of liberalists opposing the National Party. All the signs indicate that is going to be so. The utterances of leaders of the Opposition clearly indicate that is going to be the position. As the hon. member for Wynberg has said, the Progressive Party has simply been over-hasty. We have the speeches of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), we have the statement made by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) at their National Congress in Bloemfontein in August last year. They stated clearly that we must not give the non-White too much too soon. The emphasis was on the words “too soon”. Members on the other side have hinted repeatedly that they believe that the eventual goal towards which they are moving is precisely the goal to which the Progressive Party would like to lead them.

One of the basic arguments advanced by hon. members in this debate against the granting of self-government to the Transkei is that the rights of the urban Bantu are not recognized here; that they are given no political rights here and that the political rights which the urban Bantu are going to get in their own homelands will be entirely worthless. They say that the granting of a measure of independence to the Transkei, this continuation of the apartheid policy, is no solution of the problem at all because, they say, the Bantu in the urban areas are detribalized and that if the detribalized Native is not given political rights in this area in which he resides, it will not solve this problem at all. But is that so, Mr. Speaker? Is it true that the Bantu living in the White areas are detribalized? Anybody who makes that allegation does not know the Bantu at all. The Bantu living in the White area, whether he be a Xhosa, a Zulu or a Basuto, still maintains the traditions of his tribe and of his homeland. He still believes in the cultural possessions of his own people; he still observes their traditions. Who are the detribalized Bantu? It is true that there is a group of Bantu who have become detribalized, and they are the agitator types who are the henchmen of the pro-Left organizations as well as of proLeft Whites in this country. Those are the detribalized non-Whites. Those are the people to whom those hon. members want to give political rights in the White areas under their new race federation policy. Those are the people who will eventually come and sit in this House. After all. we had proof of that when Whites represented the non-Whites in this House. It was the Lee-Wardens and the Stanfords who represented them here—people who were simply out to disturb the relations between White and non-White. They were people who did not look after the interests of the non-Whites. The Government and the Departments concerned have always had to do that in any event. Mr. Speaker, once those people have the vote, if the policy of the United Party is to be implemented, then I agree with them that you will have a detribalized Bantu group in White South Africa; you will then be severing them completely from their tribal connections; you will be linking them to the White man’s political institutions and you will be detribalizing the Bantu and really doing a great injustice to them.

I believe that the United Party leaders are aware of these things. They realize that is the position. But it is because that is so that they are preparing their people so as to be able to take them along with them. Some of them still contend that the Bantu will not be represented in this House by his own people. But what are the facts? I want to quote here from a speech which the hon. member for Yeoville made in Pretoria on 13 July 1960, when he addressed the Pretoria Women’s Council of the United Party. On that occasion he said this, amongst other things—

That is only one bit of evidence that I want to tender but there is further evidence. Sir, you will have seen that one of the main architects of the race federation scheme, Dr. Silk, used the following words—

Then he goes on to say—

And then—

Mr. Speaker, this is not a politician but it is certainly a person of whom hon. members on the other side take some notice. Surely they would not want to repudiate the words of this strong supporter of theirs. There is also another very prominent leader in the United Party who made a similar statement. The hon. the Minister of Information has quoted from the same speech made by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). I also want to quote the speech which the hon. member made last year on 20 September at Doonside, when he said—

Those are the words used by the hon. member for South Coast. But only last week the younger lights of the United Party made a similar statement. The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) said at Greenside last Tuesday—

The hon. member is in his seat and perhaps he will be able to state his case much more clearly in this House. I doubt whether he will be allowed to do so. But to my mind there is further, very revealing evidence that the United Party is moving, and moving rapidly, along the road of the Progressive Party. We know that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke about this matter at a meeting at Mowbray on 3 October last year, and there he said—

At that time he still thought he was going to win the election.

Mr. Speaker, does this not prove beyond any doubt that the United Party is gradually conditioning its members in Parliament and its members outside so as to be able to take them along on this road of integration, this road of multi-racialism in this Parliament as well? But there is further indisputable proof that I want to quote, and here again that proof was given by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I refer to a speech which he made during the election campaign in Wolmaransstad on 23 September, when he said—

Mr. Speaker, to me it is significant that the Leader of the United Party says that Basutoland and the other Protectorates must be incorporated in the Republic of South Africa if the policy of race federation is put into operation here. We see what the position is to-day; we see that Basutoland is agitating and fighting hard for full independence. It will probably get it in the near future. We notice that Swaziland is beginning to ask for it; we notice that Bechuanaland is on the road to full independence. It is perfectly clear that those Protectorates, once they have been given full independence, will not, without imposing conditions, allow themselves to be incorporated in South Africa’s race federation. After all, they would not come here and sacrifice their independence and willingly come and serve under White control and White leadership.

And it is everlasting White leadership!

Yes, to come and serve here under everlasting White leadership. Those Protectorates would only come into South Africa’s race federation on one condition and that is that they and their brethren in South Africa will become co-rulers of the whole of South Africa.

Was incorporation not your policy also?

We have no time for nonsense now. It is perfectly clear that the United Party is conditioning its people to be prepared not only to sit here eventually together with the Black man but to serve under him under their policy of race federation. But, Mr. Speaker, there is a very interesting phenomenon to which I should like to refer. I want to adduce further evidence in support of my proposition that the United Party is conditioning its people for this state of affairs which is developing and which they know is unavoidable under their policy. On 16 August last the United Party held what they called a national congress at Bloemfontein, and there they had two agendas. They had the ordinary agenda which all party congresses have, but they also had a secret agenda. What was in that secret agenda? The mere fact that there was a secret agenda and that points for discussion which had been submitted by constituencies and which clearly showed a liberalistic trend, were incorporated in the secret agenda, clearly proves, in my opinion, that this was a further attempt at conditioning. It was an attempt to condition all those people who had been brought together at the conference from all over the country so as to be able to take them along, and to take them along as soon as possible and in the greatest possible numbers, on this multi-racial road. What happened there, and what were the items on the agenda? We find that no less than three constituencies asked that the Bantu would be given direct representation in Parliament. Which three constituencies were they? Mr. Speaker, this alone is very revealing in my opinion. They were the constituencies of Constantia and Wynberg and the Humansdorp branch of the United Party, where those two members of the United Party had probably held meetings. There were eight constituencies which asked on the secret agenda that the non-White groups should be given representation in Parliament. I notice that the hon. member for Rissik (Mr. de Kock) is not here, but his constituency asked that the Asiatics should have representation in the Federal Parliament. Knowing what the race federation policy of the United Party is in respect of the Indians, the hon. member for Rissik could have said to them: “Look here, we want to consult the Indians; we must not simply pass resolutions here; we must first go and ask the Indians whether they want the franchise and how they want it.” But I believe that the hon. member read out a report from a conference held in Durban on 22 July of last year. It was a conference of 384 delegates, who represented 134 political, educational, religious and ratepayers’ organizations of Indians and which included, amongst others, observers from the Progressive Party. What conclusion was arrived at by that representative meeting of Indian organizations? They decided that they wanted to have nothing to do with the policies of the United Party and the Progressive Party. They wanted one thing only and that was complete equality. Surely the hon. member could have told his constituency that before they drafted that item for discussion. After all, they wanted to consult the Indians, and there they have the opinion of the Indians.

On this secret agenda there appeared items for discussion from two other constituencies which asked for a national convention. I do not know whether they consulted the hon. member for Wynberg because he is an expert on this convention idea. What is this convention business? We have some experience of a mixed convention which was demanded last year. We know about the demand which was made upon the Government under the leadership of Nelson Mandela, who is probably still a fugitive to-day.

Where is he?

They ought to know where he is. A national convention was demanded on which all groups and races were to have representation and where the demand would have been made that there must be complete equality in this country. I say that the hon. member for Wynberg is an expert in this sphere. He knows a great deal about that national convention. Amongst other things he could have said this—

The hon. member for Wynberg himself insists that convention be held, a convention at which there would be a demand, as foreshadowed. for complete equality.

What would General Smuts have said about such a thing?

But what did their own leader say about it? Even he rejects it, but in spite of the fact that the hon. leader of the party had rejected it, this item still appeared for discussion on the secret agenda, perhaps as the result of statements and utterances from the hon. member for Wynberg.

Do you want to give equality to the Indians?

No, but I shall tell the hon. member over there what they want to give in addition to that. Not only do they want to give the right to these agitators to come and sit in the House of Assembly eventually—these people who have the ear of the outside world, these people who are lauded in the outside world as the heroes of South Africa, these people to whom even a Nobel Prize is awarded, these people who are given banner headlines in the English-language Press in South Africa too—the moment Luthuli or somebody who shares his views opens his mouth he is given banner headlines. These are the dangers which threaten us. These are the things that we must exterminate in this country.

I come now to a final argument advanced by the United Party. The hon. member for Drakensberg has just used the same argument again, and that is that the electorate knew nothing about this further development in our apartheid policy when they had to vote last year. Time does not permit me to quote many speeches made by the hon. the Prime Minister, but may I just mention a speech made by him on 20 May 1959 in this House, in which he not only announced this policy but emphasized it very strongly. May I refer just in passing to the speech which the hon. the Prime Minister made in the South Africa Club in London on 17 March last, where he once again stated the position very clearly. That speech, in pamphlet form, was placed in the hands of every office-bearer of the National Party of the Republic of South Africa. On 8 June of last year, too, the hon. the Prime Minister used these words—

It was old news as far back as last year already—

Last year already the hon. the Prime Minister clearly pointed out out that members on the other side refused to believe it. He said that we had said so repeatedly but they refused to believe it. They think that it is nothing but talk and that we are not in earnest. The Prime Minister said that time and again. [Time limit.]

I am sorry but I cannot congratulate the hon. member who has just sat down on his speech. His contribution this afternoon was more or less a nought. He made a number of allegations, not one of which he tried to prove and not one of which he could prove. He started off by saying—he devoted so much time to it that his time eventually expired—that the United Party stood for equality. He then quoted from a speech by the hon. the Prime Minister to prove that this Bantustan policy of theirs was nothing new. Had he read the whole of that speech he would have seen that in that very speech the hon. the Prime Minister really charged the United Party not with having a policy of equality but one of discrimination. How can you have discrimination and equality at the same time? Surely that is nonsense. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development got up in the Other Place and said that the United Party policy of White leadership with justice was a figment of the imagination, that the world would not allow any discrimination. In other words, the position is this that the most the hon. member could have said was that the United Party policy of discrimination with justice could not be carried out. But he should not say that the United Party policy is one of equality. He ought to know that is not the position. I do not think I need devote any more time to that hon. member.

The hon. the Minister of Information quoted from a newspaper cutting this afternoon that I was supposed to have used the word “kaffer” at Sea Point. I got up immediately to correct him. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that he was not quoting from a newspaper but from a political pamphlet, the Burger. We are used to the Burger not speaking the truth. I will give you a few examples, Sir. I am supposed to have made that speech at Sea Point. Various newspapers were present there. Only the Burger heard the word “kaffer”. I did not see the report but my electioneering agent telephoned me the following day—I was not in Cape Town—and told me what had appeared in the Burger and that he had written them a letter to tell them that the word “kaffer” had not been used. The Burger replied and said that they were sorry but they could not place the denial. I just want to say to the hon. the Minister that if in future he should complain about having been misrepresented overseas and he wrote letters to those newspapers in which he had been misrepresented and they told him that they could not publish his reply, he would know why. I want to tell him of another experience I had with the Burger and the manner in which they report. This happened during the referendum campaign. During that time I held a meeting at Hout Bay and there were two Union flags with a number of smaller ones that evening. The next day the following heading appeared in the Burger: “Volop Union Jacks op Houtbaai by Jack Basson se Vergadering” (Many Union Jacks at Hout Bay at Jack Basson’s meeting). Usually I do not take any notice of distortions but I telephoned the Burger and told them that there was not a single Union Jack at that meeting. Some of the executive members of the Nationalist Party who had been at Hout Bay telephoned me by chance and I asked them to get in touch with the Burger as well. The Burger then placed a denial, hiding it away in an obscure corner, that any Union Jacks had been displayed and said they were sorry for what had happened. Two or three days later I went to Springbok to address a meeting there and somebody got up and asked me why I had had so many Union Jacks at my meeting at Hout Bay. I then told him that allegation had been refuted in yesterday’s newspaper; that the denial had been published and that it had been a mistake that had crept in. I then opened the newspaper of Thursday and although I read it with my own eyes, I could not find any denial in that particular newspaper, much to my surprise. I then discovered for the first time that the Burger published two kinds of Burgers—one for overseas consumption and the other for consumption in Cape Town. It had been corrected in Cape Town but in Namaqualand, Springbok and other parts of the country they still believed that there were Union Jacks at the Hout Bay meeting. That is why I shall not pay much attention when that hon. Minister quotes to me from the Burger. In that constituency, that attractive constituency of Sea Point for which the hon. the Minister has such a special love—they are all coming to live in my part of the world at a fairly reasonable price—they dance all sorts of dances, the Rock ’n Roll and the one that they call the Twist. In Sea Point they call it the Frankie Waring Shuffle.

Can you swim?

Not as well as the hon. member. He is swimming on dry land with this Bantustan policy of theirs, but he will nevertheless drown. I want to say this, Mr. Speaker, that I think most of us inside and outside this House are deeply and seriously concerned about the position in which South Africa finds herself today. [Interjections.] That hon. member says he is not worried. The whole spirit of the speech by the State President was one of worry and concern about the future. It is true, however, and I am sorry to have to say this, that since the salaries of Members of Parliament have been increased so much, it seems to me that they have all become followers of Epicurus and that their motto to-day is: Let us eat and drink because to-morrow we die. They are leading South Africa on the road to destruction. The White man is being led by them on the road to destruction and there is not a single Nationalist or any other person in this country to-day who feels happy about his own future and that of his wife and children. It is not as a result of anything else but as a result of this Government. The least they can say is that is the position to-day in spite of them. As a result of their policy South Africa is to-day faced with a future where not one of us on either side of the House can to-day say to our children: Within the next ten or 15 years you will be happy and safe in South Africa. It is sad to have to admit that but it is the truth. It is the same South Africa where a few years ago the word “South Africa” was the open sesame to private homes and to the highest forums throughout the world.

If you study the political history of this country, Sir, you will find that it seems as though fate has decreed it that whenever we are in a critical period, the Nationalist Party has chosen the road that will lead the White man of this country to destruction. Fortunately on every such occasion the Almighty has called upon the United Party once again to govern South Africa before irreparable harm has been done. The hon. the Prime Minister and every Cabinet Minister have painted a picture to us; the Minister of Defence told us that we would have to fight until our horses stood up to their bridles in blood. That is the picture they have painted for us after 13 years of Nationalist Party rule. That is the hope they hold out to us; the child whom you have brought into this world, your child whom you have struggled to educate, is faced with a future where he will have to fight until his horse stands bridle deep in blood. That is the only hope we can hold out to our children.

Where will you stand?

I shall not crawl into a foxhole as the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) did during the Boer War. My family nearly shot him dead. But that is by the way. I repeat that what we need in this country in order to put right what has gone wrong, is in the first place, a realization on the part of every citizen that he should be loyal to South Africa and not to a political party, and when I talk about citizens I talk about every citizen of every colour, whoever he may be. What we need in addition is that in this troubled world South Africa should have allies, strong Western allies. I want to ask hon. member opposite this: Mention one single country in the world who is prepared to be the ally of South Africa as long as she has this Government?

That only goes to show the harm you have already done.

You are detribalized.

Some members can never be serious. The hon. member is going downhill. He realizes that he will probably not live much longer in South Africa but I and my children want to live here. If he is prepared to say that he will take as much as he can, that he will take the big salary for which he himself has voted and forget about posterity, he can do so, but we on this side will not do so. That is the spirit that those stupid interjections reveal. I repeat that the spirit with which the Government and the Nationalist Party have imbued the people of South Africa by means of their powerful political newspapers and by means of the radio which they use as a propaganda machine today, as Hitler used his radio, will render South Africa and the Nationalist Party the same service as that rendered to Germany by the propaganda machine of Hitler. There is evidence to-day that during the last war the German Command realized in 1943 already that they could not win the war and that they tried to persuade Hitler to put an end to it. They tried a coup d’état but they realized that would not help, because the spirit of the German people had been so conditioned that it would not have worked for any length of time. That is exactly what we have here to-day. By means of the schools, and having given it careful thought, I want to go so far as to say by means of the Church …

Disgraceful.

Yes, it is disgraceful that the Church should be dragged into it by the Nationalists. I repeat that through the radio and the political machinery of the Nationalist Party … [Interjections.] I say that through those organizations and bodies the people of South Africa have been so conditioned to-day and so muzzled that they no longer care what happens. I am very sorry for them but that is the position. The Government comes forward with a policy which holds out no hope. All they say is that when the time arrives when the numerical strength of White and Black is such that the overwhelming majority is four against one in favour of the Black man, we should introduce this policy of Bantustans, a policy which offers no solution and holds out no hope. They have become afraid of the little snake that they themselves have nurtured. If it is true that the position has become untenable and that the numerical strength is too strong and they continue to increase as the number of non-Whites grows, we shall have exactly the same comparison in 50 years’ time. Will the answer again be Bantustans and will we again have to go through the same process, and will that have to continue until eventually the Minister of Finance and I will be the only two who are safely ensconced in Sea Point? No, a nation and a country do not become stronger by separating a portion of your people and by giving away portions of your land. It becomes weaker.

May I ask a question?

No, my time is running out. If that separation could be permanent and complete so that all the Bantu would be in those Bantu states, it would even be more dangerous but there would have been some justification for it and you could have said that offered a solution to some extent. But when the majority of citizens of those Bantu states have to live as strangers in the Republic of South Africa, you are creating trouble from which you will not be able to get away. May I just remind the Nationalist Party that we had a Boer War not only because of the rights of the so-called “uitlanders”… [Interjections.] The hon. member for Middeland (Mr. P. S. van der Merwe) is the last person to talk. He is a foreigner born beyond the borders of the Republic. He is a Portuguese, born in Angola, and he came to this country by grace alone and he now abuses the hospitality that has been extended to him. [Laughter.] I said that what we were doing was to create a position in which we would have the biggest fifth column possible right within our midst, where our industries and our farming industry that has to produce our food, will be in the handls of foreigners.

But I want to come nearer to the Nationalist Party. I want to go back to 1939 when this Government tried to justify Hitler’s attack on Poland. The Prime Minister who was editor of a Nationalist newspaper, said at the time that Hitler was quite justified in his actions because of the way in which the oppressed German minority were ill-treated in Sudeten-land, Austria and Poland. Do they for one moment think that another Hollander will not go to those Bantu areas to lead them and to tell them that when their people form the majority in a foreign country, they should not allow any discrimination against them? What does the Government do? They are not trying to solve our problem. They are trying to find a peg for the world outside on which it can hang its hat. That is all and that has failed. I now ask them this: In view of the fact that your attempt to mislead the world outside has failed, in view of the fact that you were prepared to take the risk …

Order! The hon. member must refer to hon. members as ‘hon. members’ and not as ‘you’.

In view of the fact that the Government has not succeeded in getting the world outside to swallow this bait, I ask them this: For the sake of the future of our White children—and there is nothing wrong with fighting for the future rights of the White child nor is there anything wrong with saying that there should be White leadership with justice in South Africa; in spite of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration the White man also has the right to be in this country; that is quite reasonable and justifiable (and there I disagree with the Progressive Party)—the civilized group, namely the White group, should retain the reins in their hands for many years in the future, not only for the sake of the White man himself, but also for the sake of the Indian, the Coloured and the Bantu himself.

For how many years?

The hon. member asks for how long? If the United Party came into power again the White people of this country will have one choice only. Once again the choice will be between death or the United Party. The hon. followers of Epicurus only believe in eating and drinking and in creasing their salaries and to live merrily because to-morrow they die. What is the basis of their whole argument? Why will the Bantustans not be a danger? The hon. the Prime Minister has admitted that there were possible dangers connected to it, but, he said by implication, that he believed and hoped that the Bantu would always realize that it was the White man who had given him his independence and that being so he did not believe that the Bantu would become a danger. May I point out to the Prime Minister and the entire Nationalist Party that man is simply not made like that. Man is not always grateful. Gen. Hertzog said that England was the mother of our freedom. Shortly after the two republics had been conquered England gave South Africa her freedom and four years after the establishment of Union supporters of the Nationalist Party rebelled against England and shot the British, under what pretence? What makes them think that a Bantu is more decent than a Nationalist? What makes them think that the Bantu will not follow their example and shoot the White man who has given him his freedom?

You are a mean fellow.

No, I am not being mean. I say that as far as this Government and this country are concerned, I sometimes wish and hope that when they read their Bible they would read one of the most beautiful and true verses in the Bible. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration complained to-day and said that the United Party were not grateful for what was being given to the Bantu to-day. Let me tell him that there is a very beautiful verse in the Bible that says although you bestow all your goods to feed the poor and though you give your body to be burned, and have not charity, it will profiteth you nothing; the policy of this Government is not based on the principle of giving the Native and the Coloured their fair share of love. Their policy is based on the principle—and that brings them votes—of putting the Native and the Indian in their place. Not equality. One of their back-benchers said to-day that the United Party spoke about equality, but they do not do so; the only person who talks about equality is the Prime Minister. And why will he not gain by that? The more money they give, while the Bantu and the Coloured feel the way they do feel to-day, and the more goods they give to feed the poor will not profiteth them if they do not have the charity. When there is another change of Government in South Africa, I hope without any shooting, I hope that Government will make a statement to the affect that in spite of what this Government has done, the Republic of South Africa will once again become one unit; that every person in South Africa, whatever his colour may be, will once again be loyal to South Africa and not have to rebel against South Africa.

May I ask a question now? I just want to know what the hon. member really said about the swimming at Sea Point?

As far as the swimming is concerned, our attitude is more or less this: Most decent people may swim there and if the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark wants to apply, it will be seriously considered whether or not to allow him. I say to the Coloured and the Native and the Indian and the White man that they can take this from me that as soon as the United Party come into power, they will once again be regarded as citizens of South Africa and although they may be of different colours and speak different languages, we shall demand from them that they have one common loyalty towards South Africa and that they do not commit high treason, but that they all pull in the South African harness to make South Africa a prosperous and safe country. That is why, where this Government has done much to cut South Africa into fragments, there is still hope. As the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) has said it is very essential that the political parties should once again think of what has happened here. The danger does not lie in the little that they have given the Native to-day. There is only one thing that is more dangerous than independent Bantustans, and that is to promise them independence and not to give it. No country in the world has ever been prepared or willing to wait for the date on which independence has been promised to it. All of them have always demanded it before that time. If the Government do not go further than they have already gone, order may yet be restored out of the chaos that they have brought about and I believe that there is only one answer and my hon. friend will agree with me that if they go further there will only be one answer, and that is a form of federation, albeit a race federation or a geographical federation. I believe that a race federation may still save the situation, but I want to say this: I hope there are still Nationalists whose love for South Africa is stronger than their love for the Nationalist Party. I believe there are still Nationalists in this House who will realize that once you have promised or given independence to those areas, no subsequent Government can withdraw that. We can safely carry out this experiment of the United Party and have Bantustans any time in the future, because Bantustans only mean the unconditional surrender of the White man to the Bantu. That you can do at any time. You can adopt the policy of the Liberal Party at any time and say “one man one vote” because that means unconditional surrender. But if you carry out any one of those two policies, either that of the Nationalist Party or that of their allies, the Liberal Party—because they fall into the same category—no future Government will be able to restore order from that chaos. That is why I trust that those hon. members who are laughing and carrying on in the way they are, when they are encouraged by their regional leaders, will, when they have to erase that look of fear from their faces on the instructions of their group leaders, the Gestapo within their ranks …

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

I withdraw it and say group leaders. I think “group leaders” is bad enough. Do hon. members want to place more evidence before the people of South Africa as to what is happening here, more evidence that when the most serious thing that has ever hit South Africa is discussed, the Bantustan policy, something which affects every White child in this country, that is the spirit that you get, Sir? I have increased my salary; I shall eat and drink and be merry, because to-morrow I die.

Order! The hon. member must not cast any reflection on legislation passed by this House.

With respect, Sir, I am not casting any reflection on any Act; I am casting a reflection on hon. members who receive that money and are unwilling to discuss matters seriously. [Time limit.]

Mr.

Speaker, I do not think one should take the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) too seriously. At most, one can compare him to a balloon. He inflated himself and then again deflated himself, and look at the hon. member now. If he feels the way he looks, he must feel very bad indeed after all the personal remarks he made. The hon. member told terrible stories about South Africa. If only he had added locusts and lice, it would have reminded me of the plagues of Egypt, but if the Egyptians and the Jews had just had the hon. member for Sea Point as the eleventh plague, one would really have heard them complaining!

He asked what country was prepared to be an ally of South Africa. The hon. member asks that after having taken part in the campaign of vilification against South Africa.

Where did I do that?

It just shows what harm he and his party have already done South Africa. If he reads the newspapers he will see that all those people who tried to escape what the future holds in store for South Africa by settling in Australia and elsewhere are returning one by one because they say that the peace which they foresee in South Africa cannot be found anywhere else in the world. [Interjections.] After having listened to the hon. members for Sea Point and Wynberg (Mr. Russell), and also to the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk), one can come to two conclusions only, namely the very deliberate attempt made by the United Party to keep its racial policy as dark as possible. Not one of them tried to cast any light on the position or to give any explanation of their own policy; on the other hand, one finds the obstinacy on the part of hon. members opposite in simply not even trying to understand the policy of the National Party. For years now our colour problems have practically predominated over all other problems in the country. We have fought and won one election after another on the strength of that, and what do we find in the House to-day? On the part of the voters and of members on this side of the House there is greater clarity to-day in regard to the policy of the United Party than there is amongst those hon. members themselves. What does the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) know about the policy of the United Party? At most, he knows as much about it as the hon. member for Sea Point, and that is hardly anything at all. What does the hon. member for Durban-Point (Mr. Raw) know about it? Why did he not tell us what the policy of the United Party is? But then they come here and try to kick up dust about our policy. Have you noticed, Sir, how the back-benchers of that party try to keep at a respectful distance from the policy of their party? They approach it very cautiously, but then seem to regard it as something sacred; they do not touch it, because if they do they will burn their fingers. The policy of the United Party has to-day become one which can be interpreted only by a small inner circle in that party, and one of the men who can still interpret it is the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), who is not here at the moment. Every year he acrobatically tries to evade the snares in the United Party policy, but even he does not succeed. What hope has the hon. member for Orange Grove, or the ordinary voter, of understanding or accepting the policy of that party if even the hon. member for Yeoville cannot do so? If not even the United Party members in this House can thoroughly understand that policy, how can the voters outside be expected to do so? All that the ordinary United Party member knows about their policy is the anthology of worn-out terms by means of which that policy is described from year to year in terms such as White leadership with justice, the moderate middle course, etc. The hon. member for Durban (Point) already knows that rhyme so well that he can recite it with his eyes closed. Every year we simply have a repetition of the arguments and metaphors used by them. This tune has been repeated so often that it is becoming monotonous and intolerable. It reminds me of the two tramps who lay down beneath a thorn bush and the one sang a song, “Oh the locusts, the locusts”, until the other one became annoyed and told him, “Leave the locusts alone. If you have to sing, sing something else.” Then there was a slight pause and again he started to sing, “Oh the locusts,” and when his friend asked what he was doing now, he said, “No. it is another swarm of locusts I am singing about now.” It is still the same policy, but they just try to put it in a different form. The one year it is the Graaff Senate Plan and the next year it is White leadership with justice, but it is still the old story. It is high time for the United Party to use their imagination and develop their thinking powers. No wonder that the editor of the Rand Daily Mail accused them of being unable to think. I read what he wrote in February 1959—

He says that tens of thousands of United Party supporters are looking for new leadership—

And is it not true? [Interjections.] Yes, I thought the hon. member for Orange Grove would feel hurt now. Now I see the hon. member shaking his head. I have been told that one shakes a bottle to see whether it still contains anything. It is because that party cannot think and have lost confidence in itself that it carries on in this way. It sees no hope in its own policy any more. That is why it sought an ally in the person of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson), who has just entered the Chamber. Sir, just imagine this position. The United Party wanted to seek light from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who himself stood holding in his hand a candle the flame of which had been extinguished in Namib. If things went so badly with me that I had to seek an alliance with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, the position would be very serious indeed, and I think that is the case with the United Party. Or is it because the United Party saw a potential danger in the hon. member that it wanted to enter into an alliance with him, because they are frightened by every bush they pass. They were frightened of the National Party, and now they are afraid of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout also and prefer to be his ally than to have him as an opponent. That reminds me of one of the cordon guards from the constituency of the hon. member for Sea Point who was sent to my constituency. He had never before seen a thorn-bush and they sent him to a place 150 miles from the nearest township and his fright increased, and when it started getting dark he grew alarmed and it seemed to him as if the bushes were coming nearer, and he then decided that in order to survive he would have to pray, which he did, but whilst he was busy praying a jackal cried out behind him and he said: “O Father, and I am just as afraid of that thing which screams like that.” The United Party is in the same position. It is afraid of every sound that it hears. That is why it entered into such an expensive alliance with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. The hon. member knows that he did not make the contribution towards that alliance which the United Party expected of him and one would have thought that he would be so ashamed that he would have pulled his hat over his eyes and said: “You promised me a seat in the Senate, but seeing that I did not make my contribution you need not keep your promise.” But he is so unashamed that he demands: “Give me that seat,” and now the United Party will have to make him a gift of a seat in the Senate.

He ought to give that seat to Hymie Miller.

There is no longer anything on earth of which the United Party is not afraid; it is afraid of practically everything, and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout unscrupulously abused the fear of the United Party. I do not mind if in its anxiety the United Party affords us some amusement, but what grieves one is that in the process of doing so they did their best to refuse to understand the policy of the Government. I refuse to believe that they cannot understand that policy which has been expounded so clearly that a child can understand it, as clearly as the Prime Minister explained it the other day. I refuse to believe that the United Party is incapable of understanding it. I refuse to believe that the hon. member for Wynberg cannot understand it, even though he looks so stupid. I refuse to believe that the hon. member for Orange Grove cannot understand it.

What they are doing now is to set up all kinds of bogies and then to say that this is the policy of the Government, and then they take all their courage in their hands and very courageously knock down those bogies again, and then they beat their breasts and say: This is how we have dealt with the policy of the National Party. They realize as well as we do that the policy of the National Party, in view of the developments in Africa, is the only one acceptable to both the Whites and the Blacks. But what do they do now? They go out of their way to tell the Bantu not to accept it. They try to tell him not to accept the policy which is the only thing which can save the White man in South Africa. It appears that they do not hate us because of our policy, but for ourselves. I find this phenomenon on the part of the United Party whilst the White man in South Africa stands in the last trench and we are in danger of losing our continued existence in Africa.

I do not want to discuss the policy of the National Party. Suffice it to say that what we are granting to the Xhosa in the Transkei and hold out in prospect to the Bantu in South Africa in general is not one whit less than that which the American in America claims and the Jew in Israel claims, and what more do they want? What we want to give them is no more and no less than what we demand for ourselves, namely, the opportunity to live our own lives. The White man in South Africa has no feeling of guilt. We did not, as may be said of other nations, destroy others in order to settle here. Our only sin in South Africa to-day is that we are in the minority, and we refuse to accept that being in the minority constitutes a sufficient moral basis for asking us to sacrifice ourselves.

But let us anlayse the race federation plan of the United Party. I shall indicate that not only is it unacceptable to the Whites because it knocks away from under their feet the only moral grounds they have to stand on, but it is also totally unacceptable to the Bantu. If it were acceptable to the one section, one could at least have pleaded mitigating circumstances, but in this case one cannot even do that. The United Party wants a race federation in South Africa—a federation, a contract derived from the Latin word “faedera”. They want race relations in South Africa to be based on a contract, in this modern world in which Africa is demanding independence. Sir, I should like to see how those hon. members want to control race relations in South Africa by means of a contract. It is a complete fallacy. There is no race federation to-day throughout the whole world, and in this 20th century in which we are living, the age of Africa, it is completely inconceivable. It is not worth the paper it is written on. We find a federation in an inflexible constitution where nothing is sovereign except that written constitution. Neither the President of America, nor the White House, nor the Governor of any of the states, nor the local legislative bodies, nor the court, is sovereign in America. An amendment can only be made if two-thirds of the states in America ask for a change and three-quarters approve of it. This race federation plan is based on a contract, but it already contains the germ of racial discrimination. In America we, e.g. have the position that in New York, with a population 200 times as great as that of Nevada, has equal representation in the American Senate. Where the discrimination is, however, on a racial basis, as the United Party wants to have it here, the constitution will soon be violated; no discrimination will be tolerated. Nothing will be able to stand in the way of the demands in Africa for the franchise for the masses, and such a constitution is not worth the paper it is written on. The Black man in Africa expects and demands not only partnership—whether it is a federation or a union—but what he expects and demands is simply full independence, and that is what the chairman of the African Movement says. He says—

That is what he demands.

The United Party propounds this plan of federation because it hopes that the Bantu of South Africa will accept that plan, but it completely misses the target. That is not the position. Not even the moderate Bantu element is satisfied with the policy of the United Party. I will read what was said by one of the so-called moderate Bantu, no less a person than Albert Luthuli, who is so highly regarded by that side of the House. I am quoting from New Age, and this is what he says—

They merely think that the National Party wants to go faster, but they are not prepared for a moment to accept the policy of the United Party. This is what Albert Luthuli, the man who received the Nobel Peace Prize, said—

What he demands is simply the vote for the masses and not one iota less. That is what the moderate element among the Bantu say to-day about the United Party. What do the agitators say? What does Mandeloa say? No, when we have to work out the pattern of future race relations in South Africa, we must take these demands into consideration, and that the only moral standpoint against the demands of Black Africa which at the same time affords protection to the Whites, is that of the National Party. If the standpoint and policy of the National Party fails, we will have a Black Government in this country. Therefore I say to-day that the alternative Government in South Africa is not the party opposite, nor the Progressive Party; the alternative Government is a Black Government.

It is not only the Whites who will have to pack up if the system of Bantu homelands fails. What will happen to the minority of Indians and of Coloureds? They will travel with us in the same boat, because democracy, as seen by Africa, is based on the principle of “one man, one vote”, It does not matter how illiterate that person is, and the Coloureds and the Indians who are in the minority in South Africa to-day, in the potpourri the United Party wants in South Africa, will simply have to travel with us in that boat. I do not only fear for those minority groups, but I even fear for the ethnic groups which are in the minority in South Africa to-day. What will happen, e.g., to the Hereros in South West if that territory is to be given independence? There we have an Herero population of 32,000, as against more than 300,000 Ovambos. Do you think that they will be able to retain any share in the administration of the country? No, not in the least. The division on a tribal basis between the Bantu tribes in South Africa and in Africa is as strong to-day as ever before. I want to read what happens in Kenya. I have here a Sapa-Reuter report from London, which appeared in this morning’s Burger. It says—

But that shows again that you cannot say that if the Bantu as a whole should take over control of this country there will then be peace. No, we have already had that position in South West Africa. Between 1830 and 1890, before the White man came to make peace there, 60 golden years passed, and in those 60 years there were no fewer than 57 wars between those Bantu tribes of South West; the position was so bad that the 55 Herero and Mbanderu tribes came to ask the Cape Government for protection in order to bring peace to their country. Can we abide by that, or do we have a responsibility towards the non-Whites and the other non-White minorities in South Africa? I say that the Whites who to-day are the guardians of the Blacks have a responsibility not only towards themselves, not only towards the minorities, the Coloureds and the Indians, but they also have a responsibility towards the other Bantu groups who are in the minority. The United Party will say: Let us surrender; what can we do about it? We have already had the experience of what happened to the so-called democracy which the United Party envisages in South Africa. We have already had experience of it in the Black states of Africa. What happened to them? I want to quote from a Sapa-Reuter report from Brazzaville, which summarizes the position of the other Black African states in regard to democracy, because I say that if those independent Black states which will eventually predominate over the Whites if the United Party policy is to triumph in South Africa, then we will be in the same position in which other Black countries in Africa find themselves, namely the following—

Then I have here a report which appeared in the Burger of 23 January—

We in South Africa have only one solution to our racial problem, the solution of territorial segregation which is as old as the nations themselves. That is how France and Germany and Holland and Belgium and Luxemburg and Britain and Western Europe received their final form. That is the way in which the greatest problems of the present century were solved. That is how peace came about in Pakistan, when there were clearly demarcated borders between Pakistan and Bahrat. That is how peace was obtained between the Jews and the Arabs in Israel, when the Jew was given his area in Israel and the Arab his in Jordania. This development has taken place under the guidance of UN itself. The policy of race discrimination and race federation will of course be acceptable to UN. but only in so far as it enables the Black man in South Africa to enforce his idea of democracy, on the White man. I say it is either territorial separation in South Africa or the end of White civilization here. South Africa now has the opportunity to make that choice and I repeat that the demands made by the Bantu of the United Party are not to be ignored; they are demands which should be borne in mind. In the Burger of 12 December 1961, are seen the demands which were made by Luthuli, the great peace-maker. He says—

That is what Luthuli says. Therefore I say— and I wish to conclude on this note—that we in South Africa are to-day faced with a serious choice we have to make, not for the sake of the preservation of the White man in South Africa, but also for the sake of the minorities here, and it is a pity that we have in our midst a party like the United Party which wants to disguise these important political problems so that the ordinary voter in the country cannot get a clear picture of the problems confronting him. Such a party, I say, deserves nothing else but that it should be destroyed to its very roots.

The hon. member for Middelland (Mr. P. S. v. d. Merwe) has taken up some time of the House in first of all criticizing members on this side and then charging us with not clarifying our party’s policy and then giving no clarity on his party’s own policy. He indicated that France and Germany and Holland and Luxemborg were all independent countries and he made the same plea for independence for the races in this country. He did not say that it was his party’s policy, but by inference he suggested that it was his party’s policy to give independence, complete independence, to these countries [Interjection.] I am glad to have that confirmation from the Chief Whip. In other words, complete independence in the same way as Holland and Belgium and France.

That is the ethical basis of our policy.

In other words, Ovamboland and the Transkei and these other areas will have complete independence on the same basis as France and Belgium and Holland. I am glad to hear that from the Chief Whip because he should know, holding the position of responsibility that he does. It is quite clear now that it is the intention of the Government to give complete responsibility to those countries. and complete responsibility would involve making their own treaties with any country in the world.

That is a process of evolution, of course.

Thank you. I am very grateful to have that from the Chief Whip of the Nationalist Party.

You have had it for years.

We have had the effort of the Minister of Information here this afternoon. I do not think he can be proud of his first speech in that capacity. We were looking forward to a speech dealing with his portfolio and we do not think that is an example which he would like to follow in future. The less we say about the speech of the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Sadie) the better. But I want to come now to the hon. member for Hercules (Dr. A. I. Malan). The other night the hon. member for Hercules, in his private capacity, criticized the Building Societies by inference, and said that it was unfortunate that the Building Societies did not follow the lead of the Banks. Sir, one would not think so, but we are dealing this afternoon with a financial measure, and I hope that the Minister will deal with this matter in his reply. The Minister will have ample time to reply to this. The hon. member for Hercules suggested by inference that the Building Societies were not following the example of the Banks. I would like the Minister to tell us in his reply whether he agrees with the hon. member for Hercules that the Building Societies should follow the Banks in reducing their rates. Does he not think that the time has arrived to bring about a further reduction of the bank rate? Call money rates are tending to fall under pressure, and the bill rates dropped from 4.07 in December to 3.84 at the beginning of February, and the long-term gilt-edged market is not still in the position of bare balancing, as was suggested by Dr. de Kock of the Reserve Bank last December. At existing rates there are more lenders than borrowers and yields on preference shares have been brought down to 6.5 per cent, if one can get them. The Minister of Finance is the custodian of the public purse and we look to him to give us a lead in financial matters. One knows that it is unusual for any Parliamentarian to get time on the South African Broadcasting Corporation, but when a person holding the position of Chairman of one of our leading commercial banks criticize Building Societies, an institution which also gets guidance from or is in consultation with the Minister of Finance, one is entitled to ask the Minister of Finance whether he agrees with that advice, and if he does not agree with the advice, what his attitude is, and, if he does agree with the advice, what he intends to do. There are two points. Firstly, does the Minister agree that the Building Societies should be encouraged to reduce their rates both for lenders and for borrowers, and, secondly, does the Minister not agree that the time has come for the banks to reduce their rates. The effect will be to encourage building if the Building Societies reduce their rates, and, as the Minister knows, the building industry is in the doldrums at the moment and a reduction of rates might have the effect of encouraging building and helping the unemployment position. Secondly, if there is a reduction of rates, it might help to boost activity and trade generally as a prelude to the Minister’s budget which might not have the same effect. I hope that the Minister will use this opportunity to indicate what his attitude is to the suggestion made recently in a broadcast by a person who speaks with responsibility.

It is almost farcical to expect me to reply to this debate. This debate is supposed to be a financial one, but only in the last moments of this debate, during the last three minutes of a debate which lasted three hours, did we find the first and the only financial point raised here. I shall, as I usually do, reply to all the questions, even though there were few of them.

The first thing the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) wants to know is whether the time has not arrived to have a further reduction in the bank rate. The bank rate was reduced in the beginning of December. Any matter in regard to lowering the bank rate is in the first instance the function of the Reserve Bank, even though the Reserve Bank always consults the Treasury. Hitherto—and I quite agree with him—they have seen no reason for reducing the bank rate further again within three months. It is a complicated matter. Hon. members can hardly expect me to give a lecture here on the subject, but I just want to give the assurance that the Reserve Bank has not yet felt—and I share their standpoint—that the time has arrived for a further lowering of the bank rate.

The other question put by the hon. member was whether the building societies should not also reduce their rates of interest in the same way that the banks did when the Reserve Bank lowered the bank rate in December. I know that many bankers feel this ought to be done. I also know that many members of building societies feel that it should not happen. In the financial sphere there is not always the best co-operation between the various financial institutions, and because I would like to have it we are at the moment having the question of the relations between the various financial institutions investigated by a Committee of the Treasury and of the Reserve Bank. At the moment I can only say that I cannot blame any person who thinks that the rates of interest of the building societies should also fall in line with the rates the banks have to follow. Everybody is entitled to his own opinion. I think this is one of those matters where much can be said for both points of view. We know that the argument of the building societies is that they have not yet amassed sufficient funds to perform the necessary functions of their business, and therefore they cannot afford—that is their argument—to reduce their rates of interest now. But I am not here to act as the arbiter now. We must first see what the position is there. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Pinetown very heartily on having saved the debate and having given me the opportunity to reply to something.

The other arguments advanced here gave me the impression that it is the second team which has been batting to-day. They still batted on the same pitch we had during the second reading, but if I have regard to the standard of the contributions we heard from the other side again, it really seems to me that it is not the first team which was batting to-day. The hon member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) evidently acted as the captain to-day, but I really do not know whether I can congratulate him. In any case he made my thoughts turn back to the scholars of the middle ages. Having seen how he put up ninepins here, ninepins of his own creation, and then took great delight in knocking them down, and having seen how he stretched words as far as possible and burdened them with meanings which those words cannot really carry, and if I think of the zeal with which he did this exercise, it really reminds me of the arguments carried on in mediaeval times as to how many angels could actually point on the point of a needle. It was the kind of complicated cleverness which existed in the Middle Ages. I just want to touch on one point he raised. I just want to tell him that it is not apartheid as such which is irrevocable. The point made is that the granting of self-government, the eventual granting of freedom, is irrevocable. I reminded hon. members of the words of Chief Justice Stratford when the argument was advanced that the Statute of Westminster was an Act of the British Parliament and therefore it could be repealed by the British Parliament. With reference to that argument, Judge Stratford used the words: “Freedom once conferred cannot be revoked”. Even the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) said here that if one promises freedom to these people, one must keep one’s word. Then it is irrevocable not only from the ethical, the moral standpoint, but also from a legal standpoint.

The second person who went in to bat today was the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk). I must say that I was very impressed by the enthusiasm with which she tried to defend impossible propositions here. She said with almost a sob in her voice that what we are asked to do here is to sacrifice everything which is dear to us. I wonder whether she was here when the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) spoke, because he clearly said that it was no sacrifice, that it was merely a bluff, and that it was perhaps the greatest bluff of all. Just imagine coming here and saying that what we are giving is the greatest bluff there ever was! The hon. member also sang the Jeremiads of agriculture. She told us in what a deplorable state agriculture in South Africa found itself. I want to give her only two figures which I get from the Survey of Contemporary Economic Conditions and Prospects for 1962, published by the Bureau for Economic Research. In this publication they say that the latest figures available to them, namely for 1959/60, show that whilst the general increase in the gross income of the country was 7 per cent, the increase in the agricultural sector was 9 per cent. In other words, the increase for which agriculture was responsible was above the average for the whole country. It is clear also from the other figures they give that in that last year for which they have figures available, the gross income from agriculture was between R20,000,000 and R30,000,000 more than in the previous year. When listening to the speech of the hon. member one would have thought that agriculture is on its last legs, but if one has regard to the facts and the figures and sees what the opinion is of responsible people, of experts, then fortunately for us the picture is not quite as sorry as the one painted by the hon. member.

In this debate we have again had the same old arguments and I will be forgiven if I do not even use all my time. It is quite unnecessary to do so. We have again had the same arguments, of hon. members opposite but they have been effectively replied to by hon. members on our side of the House who took part in the debate. I just want to say that the pattern still remains the same. There has been no criticism at all of any Government Department except in respect of the Bantu homelands and the granting of self-rule to the Transkei. That was the only point of criticism. Seeing that the hon. the Minister in the main was not attacked, he himself had to make a sortie.

The other point which was also raised here again are the bogies which hon. members opposite continually set up. The idea is that we should now get gooseflesh, that we should become afraid of what we have done, and they also want to try to frighten our supporters, However, I think that is an impossible task. We again had the old doubt about the irrevocability of the step we have taken. I want to associate myself with what was said there, namely that even though another Government comes into power they will not be able to restore the position, and I also want to agree with what Judge Stratford said, that freedom once given cannot be revoked. Even another Government will not be able to turn back on that road. Whilst it still happens in one’s own state, one can give rights and take them away from sections of the people from time to time, but when once one has given any section the liberty to break away, the position is irrevocable. Therefore, not for the sake of the National Party but for the sake of South Africa, I want to repeat that our hon. friends opposite should accept this fact, namely that this freedom which is being envisaged here is irrevocable, and that they and we should now co-operate to determine the tempo at which the Bantu in the Transkei are to develop from self-government to independence. On that point, if I understand the arguments correctly, they will probably stand very near to us. We cannot take these rights away again, but we can together with them, not for our sake but for the sake of South Africa as a whole and also for the sake of the Bantu, together ensure that we do not repeat the fiasco of the Congo by giving too much too soon to the Bantu of the Transkei.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

This Bill aims at amending the Births, Marriages and Deaths Registration Act of 1923. The amendments really deal only with deaths, and they affect Section 15, 21 and 27 of the existing Act. Section 15 is affected in this sense, that a district registrar or an assistant district registrar of births and deaths may issue an order for the burial within his district of the body of a deceased person who died outside his district. Section 21 again affects it in the sense that notice must be given to the district registrar or the assistant district registrar of births and deaths of the death of any person occurring in his district Thereupon the district registrar or his assistant has to issue an order authorizing the burial of the deceased within his district. It is provided in Section 27 that if the burial of the deceased does not take place in the municipal area in which the death occurred, a removal order must be obtained from the district registrar in whose district the death occurred or from his assistant for the removal of the body. Further it is provided in these sections that if either of those officials, the district registrar or his assistant, is not available at certain times before and after office hours and perhaps on holidays or Sundays, any police officer in charge of a police station or in charge of a police mortuary, or a police official of the rank of sergeant or higher, in command of a charge office, may issue such an order in the three cases I have mentioned here (in terms of the three sections of the existing Act) when he considers it necessary to do so in order to avoid delay and inconvenience. Such officer must inform the district registrar concerned, or his assistant, as soon as possible after the issue of such an order and in writing. It now appears that the Commissioner of Police reports that when constables, particularly on Sundays and holidays when there is not so much work and the station commander is not in the office, are in control of charge offices, the public at present, as the result of this arrangement, is not able to obtain the necessary burial orders or orders for the removal of the bodies. This state of affairs, as hon. members will realize, causes much sorrow and inconvenience to the bereaved. Now the House is being asked to amend it in order to obviate the inconvenience and delay, and the amendment is to the effect that the power to issue burial orders and orders for the removal of bodies should be granted not only to officers in command of a charge office with at least the rank of sergeant but also to constables in command of charge offices. In the Other Place objection was raised to the effect that this might lead to injudicious action. I immediately sent a telex message to the Commissioner of Police to ensure that proper regulations would be drafted which would give proper guidance to these constables who under such circumstances will be in command of charge offices, and I have received the assurance that this is now being done. The position therefore now is that if the police consider that a person is capable of being in charge of an office and of doing the other work there, we can take it that he is also capable of authorizing the removal of bodies.

We accept the amendments contained in this Bill and we are very pleased to have from the hon. the Minister the assurance that he has in fact checked that the proper procedure will be adhered to in carrying this out. We believe that it will relieve in many cases the people who have to carry out the unpleasant task of seeing to the burial of a deceased and that it will enable them to carry out that task with far less trouble than they have experienced sometimes in the past.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

This Bill is the first sign of the tremendous growth and progress we have had within the Republic. If you find that your archives and your system of documentation which reflects your present and past history are expanding and you find that improvements have to be effected, it is something to gladden your heart; it gladdens your heart to see how the country has developed and what has been achieved. As a result of the growth that has taken place since the Second World War the State has also had to undertake more work. Documentation in various fields has increased tremendously and has placed a bigger and more oneous burden on those in control of our archives. It has, therefore, become necessary to extend the scope of the 1953 Archives Act and to amend it to meet the needs of the development that has taken place.

This Bill proposes that one Minister shall be charged with the custody and care of archives. In the past various ministers have been charged with the custody and care of archives but it has become apparent that responsibility can be passed on if it does not rest on the shoulders of one person alone. Particularly from the point of view of control measures, also in respect of this place, it is essential that the responsibility should be placed on the shoulders of one Minister. In referring to archives I am not only referring to archive depots, but I am referring to all documents in Government offices and offices of local authorities, all documents that, in the course of time, are received or created in a Government office or an office of a local authority. So as to avoid any misunderstanding, I want to emphasize that the Minister is only charged with the custody and care of archives in Government offices. The other aspects of documentation in Government offices are not affected and are being left as they are at the moment. It is only a question of the custody and care of archives.

As hon. members know that the majority of archives when they are 30 years old find their way into the archive depots where they are taken into custody and cared for and it is essential that we extend this function of exercising control over that custody and care and to start with Government offices because the Archivists are experts in this field, and if this function is extended to include Government offices it will mean a great saving in expenditure because it has become evident in practice that documents have been damaged and neglected on a very large scale.

There is a new provision in this Bill that is closely linked with the provision that I have just explained to the House, and that the power that we are giving the Minister to establish intermediate depots under Clause 5 (c), that is to say, places between Government offices and archive depots where archives will be kept in custody. We are adopting this new course because it will mean a very great saving on present-day expenditure on filing and controlling of archives in Government offices. Hon. members know that Government offices where the documents have to be cared for are as a rule very expensive buildings, particularly in our capital cities. The rental that you have to pay for space is very high and because of that we are introducing this system of intermediate depots which is much more economical. It has come to light that Government offices keep documents although they very seldom refer to many of them. If they could be removed from those expensive offices and kept in these intermediate depots to which Government offices will have access when necessary, it will mean a great saving to us. Furthermore, it will also bring about a saving in that less staff will be required for these intermediate depots and because the staff is smaller it will mean a saving in salaries.

An important fact is that this Bill also makes provision for the custody of archives belonging to local authorities. To enable us to exercise proper control over the archives of local authorities it has become very necessary that we adopt this new course. We are getting nearer and nearer to the stage where some of our towns are getting 100 years, 150 years and 200 years old and it has already been found that when the local history of a town or of a city has to be recorded, much of the important data that could have been obtained from archives, is completely missing, with the result that it is difficult to give a true reflection of the history of such a town. We know how that is being done at the moment. The provincial administrations are the bodies that keep copies of important documents and the originals are kept by the local bodies themselves. We now want to hold the provincial administration responsible for the originals as well. By means of this Bill we will therefore ensure that better control is exercised over the custody and care of those documents.

This Bill also contains a provision in respect of the designation of the chief archivist. He will in future be called director. This is to fall into line with the general trend in the world to-day, namely to give this person a higher status, although not necessarily a higher salary. We merely wish to give him the correct title in view of the important task that he performs.

There is also an exemption clause in this Bill because it has been found that some legal documents have found their way from magistrates’ court offices to the archive depots, documents that should really have been destroyed in the magistrates’ courts and should never have found their way into court records. I refer to civil cases that have been settled out of court. You can do what you want to but the possibility exists that some of those documents will give rise to actions for damages because they should really never have been there, and the person who uses them and the Government itself who keeps them in custody may become involved in an action for damages. They are being destroyed as far as possible. But some such undesirable document may creep in and for that reason we have to indemnify and protect the Government. These documents are of no value whatsoever to the legal profession or as far as research work is concerned.

This Bill also contains an important amendment in respect of access to archives. Hitherto after the expiration of a year archives have been accessible for another year but that procedure has been found unsatisfactory, because there may be documents in one file that should really not be made accessible as yet and then such a file must be half closed or partly closed and research workers do not always observe that condition and often tamper with the section that is closed. The precautionary measure that we are now taking is rather to make a file accessible for a further period of five years, every five years. This means that there will be fewer files of which some portion is closed and after every five years the department can open up a new set of files, and those portions that have been disposed of, can then be properly used. For the rest a number of sections are clarified and there are a few minor amendments. If it is found necessary to go into those at the Committee Stage, I shall be pleased to reply to questions.

Mr. Speaker, in the first instance I think that I would be neglecting my duty if I did not congratulate the hon. the Minister on his appointment as Minister of Education. He was a member of the teaching profession for many years. He is aware therefore of the needs of education and of the teachers. He is familiar with the science of education and we expect a great deal from him in this connection. He placed his case before us to-day in a succinct, scientific, thorough and objective manner, which is the proper thing to do in dealing with such a Bill. I want to say to him at the very outset that in principle this side of the House has no objection to this Bill. I propose to deal with a few aspects of the Bill and to put certain questions to the hon. the Minister with regard to certain clauses or matters, and whether we are going to move amendments in the Committee Stage or not will depend on his replies.

My hon. friend is so taken up with our new form of government that he acted rather hastily in saying that we are bringing about these changes to our Archives Act of 1953 so as to indicate the tremendous growth of the Republic! My hon. friend has overlooked the fact that our first Archives Act was placed on the Statute Book as far back as 1922, and although our country has developed enormously since that date, we failed for many years to adapt ourselves by means of legislation to this new development or growth. It soon became evident after 1922 that changes would have to be brought about. Circumstances—I think the war certainly had something to do with that —prevented us from bringing about any changes, changes which would be more embracing, which would or could embrace the development of our history to a greater extent and meet that development. Our universities, for example, have developed and expanded in an unprecedented way since those days. Many more universities have come into being or have been established, due entirely to the fact that more degrees have been awarded, that we have had more advanced education in the universities since 1922, that more students have enrolled for the higher or more advanced degrees which necessarily entails or requires research. Nevertheless we waited until 1953 until we proceeded to place an improved and more comprehensive Bill on the Statute Book, that is to say, to make the provisions of the Act of 1922 in connection with our archives more embracing and more thorough. In that debate in 1953 various suggestions were put forward, and in reading that debate one notices that well-considered, thorough and very sound suggestions were made, to which I shall come back later on, by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) particularly, and I hope he will forgive me for mentioning his name. I am pleased to see that the hon. the Minister realized so soon after 1953 that some of those suggestions put forward by the hon. member should be accepted in this new Bill. It shows that he approaches this matter objectively. and scientifically and that he will be willing to accept good suggestions, and that criticisms and suggestions from this side will not fall on barren soil.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has not cut up the Act of 1952 by introducing an amendment here and an amendment there, by inserting new provisions and omitting other provisions, but that he has come forward with an entirely new Bill with amendments, of course, but a Bill which is and will be of much greater value to the student and to us in this House than a measure which has been subjected to the cutting-up process that we so frequently follow in this Parliament.

As my hon. friend has said, this Bill makes provision for two or three very important changes. He talks about the depots or interim places of custody for our archives. If ever anything was essential in South Africa it is these depots or interim places of custody. Whereas in the past certain documents were destroyed, very often because the offices had become too small or because the official did not have the necessary knowledge as to what was historically important in a document, we now have the convenience and advantage of these interim places of custody. The Minister has now brought the designation of the Chief Archivist more into line with the modern trend by calling him the Director of Archives.

Because the Minister has realized, and perhaps also become afraid, that documents in our offices may become lost, but also because he realizes that in these files there may be documents which can be misused by research workers, he has also brought about another change and improvement. Mr. Speaker, I want to admit at once that not everybody who goes to the archives goes there purely to do scientific research. Very often people go there to try to make political capital or to try to determine a certain trend, and although a certain document may still be closed to us it is only human nature to use that information in some way or another. I am pleased therefore that he has made this period for the closing of the files five years, thus reducing the possibility of misuse.

I should like now to refer the hon. the Minister to Clause 4 and put a few questions to him in that connection. Clause 4 makes provision for a board of at least seven members. I should like to hear from him who the present seven members are; secondly, who appoints the chairman and, thirdly, how frequently they have met during the past year or two to perform their functions? Then I also notice that in the Other Place the Minister accepted a suggestion from the Opposition, one with which unfortunately I cannot agree. I agreed with the explanation which the hon. the Minister gave there. He pointed out, quite correctly, that the Opposition had not read this clause correctly and you will forgive me, Mr. Speaker, if I read this clause correctly now. I refer to Clause 3 (f)—

The Minister has accepted a suggestion made in the Other Place and has omitted the words “on payment of the prescribed fee”.

May I just explain the position? The Senate has no right to discuss financial matters. That is why this portion could not be accepted by the Senate, but it will remain in the Bill as passed by this House.

Thank you, then I am perfectly satisfied. I had forgotten that provision for the moment. In other words, the Bill remains as it was submitted to this House originally. If these words do not remain in the Bill, the officials will be so inundated with applications that they will be able to do no other work.

Then I want to come to Clause 12 on page 8. There the word “wilfully” is used: “Any person who wilfully damages any archives or accessions, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding R200”. As far as I am concerned, the Minister could make it R500, because anybody who wilfully destroys one of our treasures in our archives should be punished severely. That is why I am pleased to see that provision is made in a subsequent clause for the Minister to be able to prevent such a person from attending our archives again or from being admitted to our archives. But I am wondering about the use of the words “wilfully” and “negligent”. Many documents in our archives have already been thrown away or carried away with other papers as the result of negligence, or a page has been torn out or something has been erased, etc., as the result of negligence. I wonder whether my hon. friend should not insert the words “wilfully or negligently” there. He can reply and then we shall see.

As somebody who has had something to do with research and with investigations, I am able to say that there are still many hundreds, if not thousands, of very important documents and letters, etc. in the hands of our people. But that does not only apply to private individuals. I have in mind my own case. If I had to die to-morrow, valuable documents would be destroyed in my office, unless somebody knew that they were valuable. Here I want to make a suggestion. There are hundreds of others in the same position who have such documents or portraits of great value to the history of South Africa and to our descendants, and I feel that steps should be taken to see that they are not destroyed. Hundreds of those documents are destroyed annually, not deliberately but because our people do not realize the value of those valuable documents in their possession. I am thinking of our churches, for example: I am thinking of the attics of our old magisterial offices. I wish I could give you some idea of the number of most valuable documents that I came across in an attic, covered thickly in dust, dealing with the old Klip River Republic. There are valuable documents lying there which are being ruined. The same applies to our churches. In the church offices and archives one finds the minutes of the church. I wonder, for example, how much we would have known about the celebrations at Blood River if we had not gained that knowledge from the minutes of the Utrecht church. There are many other churches where there are valuable documents which ought to be traced.

But I want to go further. What about the political parties as from 1910? Has the time not arrived for the archivist to see whether it is not possible to get hold of the documents of our political parties? Mr. Speaker, a portion of the history of South Africa is to be found in the history of the political parties. There is nothing of which we need be afraid.

Are you sure?

It is part of our history. Perhaps my hon. friend over there knows that better than I do. But I am sure that there is nothing in the documents of my side of which I need be afraid. That is just a suggestion. The Minister realizes the value of what I am saying here because he himself is suggesting that we should appoint archivists attached to our Departments to see that valuable documents are not lost. I think that not only is it necessary that we should get the local authorities to do this or that we should get the Departments to do this, but I think it is necessary, as the hon. member for Turffontein advocated in 1953, that we should also get semi-Government Departments to do so. That is why I suggest the appointment of a travelling archivist, somebody whose duty it would be to trace these documents, to trace the documents which are in the hands of people like Mr. de Klerk, Dr. van Nierop, Gray Hughes or myself, so that, while not compelling those people to hand over those documents, we can at least urge upon them that there is only one place for such documents, and that is in the Archives building.

Finally I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether we have the necessary modern archives buildings. We must have modern buildings. We must have buildings which are not only big enough but which are convenient enough for convenient research. I can recall the days in Pietermaritzburg when the archives there were in a critical condition and how pleasant conditions were after the erection of the new building. That building too has already become antiquated and too small. What about the Union Archives, what about the Archives in Cape Town? The Archives here are far too small and it is high time we built Archives of which South Africa can be proud. Apart from that, we want places where all our public records can be properly preserved and where it will be possible for research workers to do their research in comfort.

These are just a few suggestions that I want to put forward, but I want to say again that we on this side are grateful to the Minister for having introduced this Bill. We shall help him, as far as it lies within our power, to keep our public record system far above politics and we know that he will help us in that regard. We shall help him too if he puts forward any suggestion to place our archives on a sound footing.

It is a long time since I last heard anybody praising a Bill and the deeds of a Minister so much as the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) has just done. In the beginning he said that he supported the principle of the Bill. We were very glad to hear that. He then continued to advance a few minor arguments, with which I shall deal later. At this stage I should like to move—

I second.

Agreed to; debate adjourned until 13 February.