May I ask for the privilege of the half-hour? Since shortly after his assumption of office the hon. the Prime Minister seems to have set himself the task of improving South Africa’s image in the outside world. By demanding that the world should accept us as we are, he has found, I think, by a few adaptations and a few minor changes—changes I may say, Sir, very much in line with United Party thinking over the years—that he has reaped surprising dividends. As a South African I may say that it is no pleasure to me to have to say that this Government and this Prime Minister have to an extent been dragged into taking these steps by the hair, so to speak, and that it is only recently that they faced up to the problems of the 20th century. Part of the dividends which they have received are evidenced by the statement made recently by Mr. Joseph Palmer II, successor to Mr. Mennen Williams, the Secretary of State in the United States of America. This gentleman is reported to have said on the 31st March, to the African-American Institute:

He was asked by telephone last Saturday, a week later, to amplify his views and it is interesting to note what he says. He says that he agreed in a radio interview that the actions taken by South Africa recently, including the reception of visiting African officials and integrating sports teams, seem to be in line with what the Prime Minister said he would do. He said—

The immense value of such a reassessment, especially when D-day for the report of the ad hoc committee of XIV on South-West Africa is imminent, is absolutely incalculable. Indeed, I believe that any improvement must be welcomed when one considers the critical low point which we had reached last year in our international relations. I believe that the changes are welcomed by all South Africans. It is against this background that I want this afternoon to examine some of the major problems with which we are faced in the international sphere to ascertain what progress, if any, has been made and whether there has been any change of approach in the light of changed and changing circumstances.

Let us start by looking at the South-West Africa position, a position in respect of which there is a great measure of agreement between the Government and the Opposition in so far as the external relations of that country are concerned. I think that the hon. the Prime Minister and I came independently to the conclusion last year when we spoke on the same night at different times that the decision of the United Nations Organization to terminate our mandate over South-West Africa was both unconstitutional and probably illegal. I think we were agreed that that resolution should be ignored. I pointed out at the time that in my view not even the League of Nations had the right to terminate that mandate. If the League of Nations did not have the right to terminate that mandate, where did the United Nations get the right to do something which the body of which it was not even the heir at law, according to the decision of the International Court in 1955, could not do. I also believe that we · have a right to refuse to serve on that ad hoc committee and I believe that we have a right to refuse them leave to enter South-West Africa. That position has not changed and I think that all South Africans should reaffirm our determination to maintain our legal position in respect of South-West Africa. I think that on that we are united. I believe also that despite the provocative nature of the resolutions taken at the United Nations Organization, we were right not to withdraw from that body at that time. I believe that the arguments which weighed with us then, are even more weighty to-day when we are attempting to present a repolished image of South Africa to the world outside. So far I think we are agreed. But, of course, the recent statement on Ovamboland was part of this new image building. As far as the steps taken to date are concerned we on this side of the House have no objections to a greater measure of self-government for the area concerned, and the introduction of the elective principle. That coincides with our policies.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Minister says that one of these days I will be Nationalist. I return the compliment. If the Minister goes on evincing so much common sense it will not be long before he is back in the United Party. In the early days, as you know Sir, he was a member of the United Party. What I want to say is this. If these steps in Ovamboland are an indication that the political recommendations of the Odendaal Commission are to be applied both in the letter and in the spirit, then I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that our ways part at that point. Our ways part at that point for the reasons outlined by me in this House when the report of the Odendaal Commission was discussed and outlined by me in two speeches in South West Africa on this very issue. It does not affect our external relations but it does affect our disagreement concerning the internal management of that territory. I say that that is the position if these recommendations amount to an acceptance of the provisions of the report of the Odendaal Commission because I have been studying with some interest this South West Africa Survey of 1967. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that I find that apartheid in South West Africa is quite different from apartheid in the Republic of South Africa. It has suddenly become a pragmatic policy, it has suddenly become a policy which varies from place to place. I read from page 48 of this report—

Then they go on:

They do not say how, but they do say that it has to be done. That is also coming closer to the sort of thing for which the United Party has been pleading. I say that doubt exists when one hears this philosophical definition of apartheid. I want to say that if this means the implementation of the political recommendations of the Odendaal Commission, we cannot reconcile ourselves to the ideas of that report. The Government is apparently not working to retain a federal relationship with the northern part of South West Africa, nor any relationship at all, while in the southern part its plan involves building homelands, at present nonexistent, by shifting populations and shifting human beings on a scale proportionately hitherto unprecedented in the modern world. I believe that in one portion of the south of South West Africa some 166,000 should have to be moved into reserves where only some 25,000 have their homes at present. A more ridiculous set of recommendations I have not come across in my life. I want to say that we cannot accept recommendations of that sort. The Prime Minister must not look to us for support on that account if that is what his intentions are. That is the position internally. The external position nevertheless remains a difficult one because we have moved out of the legal sphere into the political sphere, as I think I warned last year. I trust that the Government will refrain from any action which will weaken South Africa’s moral or legal claims regarding South West Africa. I think we are all agreed that we would like to see our relationship retained with that territory.

Now there is the question of the protectorates which have recently gained, or are gaining independence as the result of action by Great Britain. I want to repeat the question which I put last session to the hon. the Prime Minister. I want to ask him how much progress has been made in respect of treaty relations with the two territories that have attained independence, and especially in regard to the question of extradition treaties. I see from the report of the Secretary for Justice that treaties have been entered into with various territories. These protectorates are mentioned. I see also that there is talk of some big power seeking treaty relations with South Africa, particularly extradition treaties. I think we are entitled to know how far we have gone and how much progress has been made in that regard. For some considerable time now we have been without treaties of any kind with these territories. On their gaining independence the old extradition treaties lapsed. It seems a most unsatisfactory state of affairs that that should be allowed to continue for any length of time. The Government stated some time ago that it was prepared to meet the leaders of African states on a leader to leader basis. Indeed there was a meeting between the previous Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Basutoland and there has been a meeting between our present Prime Minister and the same gentleman. The Prime Minister may or may not think it wise to give us any account of that meeting. Perhaps he will tell us whether any advance has been made in respect of the treaty obligations which I outlined last year and which I dealt with in some detail at that time.

Of course the big problem as I see it is the question of how those areas are to be assisted to develop economically. I have raised this question before. I want to raise it again to remind the hon. the Prime Minister that when I raised it once before I indicated that if we did not help, there was a possibility of other powers helping. I referred to the resolution of the United Nations Organization calling upon the countries of the Western World to establish a fund to help develop these territories so that they would not fall under the economic influence of South Africa. I believe that we have to be first in line amongst the friendly nations of the world in giving a hand to these people. I believe that we have to be first in line to give them advice and to give them money for investment. It is my belief that if we can spend R250 million in a year on defence and defending ourselves from aggressors, we can spare a few million for the protective friendship of our neighbours, neighbours who need it very badly indeed. I believe that this is just common sense and a very good investment. We are a comparatively wealthy nation and we are ideally suited geographically, as a result of our vast store of knowledge which has been built up over the years, our experience, and particularly our technical experience, to be of assistance to these people. I believe that they need it very badly. I believe that they cannot lift themselves up by their boot strings. They need money. They need technical advice. They need guidance, all of which we can give them without making them the victims of economic colonialism.

Why do you not agree with that as far as South Africa is concerned?

The hon. and learned gentleman from Turffontein asks me why I do not agree with that as far as South Africa is concerned. I was just about to say that overseas investment in South Africa amounts to R3,000 million without our ever having come near to suffering the fate of economic colonialism or thraldom by foreign powers or foreign ideologies. Does the hon. member know that? I want to say that in that same spirit we should be prepared to help our less privileged neighbours and that we should start with those which are nearest to us, those with whom we have the closest bonds and from whom we have already had overtures of friendship. They are Lesotho, Botswana and, I believe, in due course, Swaziland. I believe that there is a lot we can do. If they are limited to Britain’s help, Lesotho certainly, if I am to believe their advisers, is going to be relegated to the status of a mere labour reservoir for South Africa. Although I believe that her people are welcome here, it is not a future that will contribute either to Lesotho’s advancement or to South Africa’s advancement. Envious neighbours are dangerous neighbours. It is in the interests of our people to aid these less privileged peoples to achieve their full potential. If the nations of the West fail, I believe that the nations of the East will step in. Sir, do you feel that it is to the credit of the nations of the West that Russia should have built Egypt’s Higher Aswan Dam? Do you think it is to the credit of the nations of the West that Chinese and Russian technicians should be infiltrating among so many of the emergent states of Africa? I believe that it is in our own interests to get on with this job. That is why I am feeling for an indication from the hon. the Prime Minister that we will be prepared to consider assistance in this line. I believe we have the business men, the economically trained people with an ability to see that proper programmes are prepared, conducted and carried through. I want to say that we have noticed, I think with approval, that Dr. Anton Rupert has been appointed economic adviser to Lesotho, apparently with the Prime Minister’s consent. Am I right? Is it with the Prime Minister’s consent?

It was not necessary.

It was not necessary. Very well. Dr. Rupert’s views on industrial partnership are well-known. In case hon. members of this House are not familiar with them they are set out particularly in two lectures, the one entitled “Communicating in a growing international organization”, an address delivered in Rotterdam at the International Management Congress in September last year, and the other one, “Missionaries or Mercenaries?” which was also delivered last year on the 6th May to the Economic Club of Detroit in Canada, by Dr. Anton Rupert himself. Here is what he says—

Then he points out what the local inhabitants do in building up the infra-structure and he says—

Those are indications of the sort of line in which Dr. Rupert is likely to move and it is an indication of the sort of interest he will try to create amongst private enterprise in South Africa. I feel that in the light of what has happened in the past, private enterprise in the Republic needs reassurance. Because when I raised a matter of this kind in this House with the previous Prime Minister in January, 1962, this is what he said (Hansard, 23rd January, 1962, column 85)—

In other words, the Prime Minister at that time left no doubt in anybody’s mind that it was contrary to the policy of his Government that private citizens in South Africa should invest in the High Commission Territories. If there is to be assistance to these emergent protectorates then I think we want a statement from the hon. the Prime Minister as to what his attitude is at the present time. I think that private enterprise will have to be reassured before it will be able to go in, and I think it is very necessary that his attitude be made clear. If this is going to be the sort of approach and it is going to frighten away the chances of our people investing in those areas, then we can rest assured that the battle will be lost before we start, and investment will be by foreign powers and overseas investors, many of whom may not be friendly towards South Africa. I think what I say in respect of Lesotho goes also for Swaziland and Botswana, and this raises the whole question of what the attitude of the Republic is likely to be in respect of the Oxbow scheme and the purchase of water from Basutoland. I do not propose to deal with that—it will be dealt with by the hon. member for South Coast.

I pass on to the recent treaty negotiated with the independent country of Malawi. I should like to know from the Prime Minister if this is part of the concept of the gradual building up of a Common Market for Southern Africa. I should like to know how far in his view that extends. We have the views of the previous Prime Minister on this subject. We have his vision in respect of a Common Market of the Southern States of Africa on the same sort of lines as a Common Market for Europe. But we have not had it developed since certain of these territories attained independence and I think we should like to know from the Prime Minister in what direction we are moving in this regard, because you see, Sir, as economic ties strengthen, there will come the need for consular ties and diplomatic ties, and as trade is expanded, one wonders whether we shall be able to continue with the present policy of ad hoc consultation between these territories and the Republic. Where one has a daily flow of trade ad hoc consultation from time to time is not likely to be satisfactory. It seems to me that if this is an indication of a movement in the direction of closer trade ties, as it seems to be, then I think the Prime Minister must be encouraged to grasp this nettle of the question of exchange of consular officials and go into the whole question of diplomatic relations.

Now, I have dealt with our relations with two sets of territories. I want to raise one more subject which I believe is of vital importance in international affairs and that is the question of international sport. Because of its popularity it can have tremendous repercussions. It can have repercussions possibly quite out of proportion to its importance or the number of people involved. This matter has an unhappy history under this Government. Members will recall that when the last South African rugby team was in New Zealand we had a statement made by the previous Prime Minister at the Loskop dam stating his position with very great rigidity. Subsequent to that we had arguments between the Minister at the time and the then president of the South African Rugby Board as to what had been agreed between them and what had not been agreed between them. For a while there was quiet, and then out of the blue there came a statement from the present hon. Minister of the Interior which he contends was not an accurate reflection of his views. I regard it rather as the statement that was nearly made but not made. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to give the hon. Leader of the Opposition an opportunity to complete his argument, if he wishes to do so.

I am very grateful to the hon. the Prime Minister. I say to him: “Thank you very much indeed.” The statement was followed by a period of quiet and then came exploratory articles in the Press controlled by the Prime Minister and the Nationalist Party. Then came the Part Appropriation debate in which the United Party made a clear statement as to what its attitude was in this regard. We made it quite clear that we desired of the Government that it should remove the immediate causes which threatened to deprive South Africans of their traditional participation in international sport by—

1. (1) Allowing all race-groups to watch all organized sport provided adequate facilities are available for Whites and non-Whites;
2. (2) Entrusting the control and administration of sport in the Republic to the recognized sporting bodies;
3. (3) Accepting the principle of non-interference in the realm of international sport and leaving the issuing of invitations and the selection of teams to the controlling bodies concerned;
4. (4) Recognizing in the case of both national and international professional sport acceptable boards of control representative of the sport concerned.

Since then there has been a guarded statement by the hon. the Prime Minister at Oudtshoorn on the 4th March, when he promised another statement and indicated that he would consider creating facilities for non-Whites to take part in the Olympic Games. Eighteen days after that we got a statement from the President of the South African Olympic Committee, Mr. Frank Braun, on the 22nd March, 1967, a statement which appeared in The Argus. He said there that he was stating the policy of the South African Government concerning participation in sport outside the country. He listed the main Government principles—

He indicated that they would go overseas as a South African sports team. Afterwards, Sir, there came another statement that was never made, this time a report to the South African Rugby Board, a report which was not delivered but seems to have got into the oversea press. We are now in a state of very great confusion and it does seem to me that the Prime Minister owes us an explanation as to what the policy of his Party is and what attitude he is going to adopt. Is he going to accept the principles as outlined by the United Party? Sir, he is well on the way. Is he going to accept those principles? If not. where does he differ? I am making it easy for the hon. gentleman. If he wants a joint approach to these things I would be only too happy. If he accepted these principles I am sure that he would solve all the problems in connection with this matter very easily indeed. Sir, I think it is necessary for another reason. I see from the week-end press that there is a statement by the Chairman of the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation who, as the hon. the Prime Minister will know, is a most important man in their hierarchy, which seems to cast criticism on the attitude that is being taken up by the Government at the present time. Sir, is that a warning from the Chairman of the S.A.B.C. to the Government, or is it the spokesman of the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs indicating that all is not well within the Cabinet?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition started off by paying me what I would rather describe as a back-handed compliment, inasmuch as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to suggest that the successful policy pursued by this side of the House—and he referred particularly to the period during which I have been Prime Minister of this country—was in actual fact the policy of the United Party. Sir, that cannot be so, of course, because to be very candid I do not know what the policy of the United Party is. It is just impossible for any hon. member on this side of the House or, for that matter, for any person in the country, to say what the policy of the United Party is, and in the time at my disposal I will illustrate to the House exactly what I mean when I say that. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a speech at East London on the 29th November, 1966, which was reported in the Pretoria News of the 30th November, 1966. This is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said according to this report—

They did not say “the greater Leader of the Opposition”—

Judging from this report the hon. the Leader of the Opposition apparently has in his possession a blue-print for South Africa. I would love the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to tell us all about it in this debate. As a matter of fact. I am going to create the opportunity for him to do just that. I am going to invite the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to tell us about his policy. If he does not accept my invitation, I am going to beg him to say what his policy is, and if he refuses to do so after having been begged, I am going to drive him to tell us what his policy is. Sir, here we have a Leader of the Opposition telling us all that he has a blueprint but that it is such a top secret that he does not want to tell South Africa about it. I am just saying this in passing. I think it is time the hon. the Leader of the Opposition told us exactly what his policy and the policy of his Party is. I discussed this with a friend the other day after I had read this report and I said to him, “I see according to the Pretoria News that the Leader of the Opposition says that he has a blue-print for South Africa”. His reply was: “Oh, don’t worry about that. It is not a blue-print; it is just a carbon copy of one of his old speeches that he has.” I am afraid therefore that we are not going to get a blue-print from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition at all, but I am just warning him in advance that we expect him in this debate not only to ask questions but also to tell us what his policy is. Of course, it is his prerogative to ask questions and I will reply to each and everyone of them. For my part, I will also put questions to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I expect him to be as frank in his replies to me as I will be in my replies to him.

Just to put the record straight, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition first spoke about the South-West African issue. Just for the purposes of the record, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that it was well that we did not allow the committee to come to South Africa. The fact of the matter, of course, is that they did not ask for permission to come to South Africa. I mention that just in passing. I would also mention just in passing that we were not asked to serve on that committee, and as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition anticipated, we would not have served on it even if we had been invited.

* Furthermore, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the South-West Africa affair. He said quite rightly that he and I were fully agreed that the resolution taken by the Committee was ultra vires its own constitution, if one may put it that way, and that resolution had no legal foundation. I am also pleased that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not pursue that matter any further, because I do not intend discussing it in any detail in this debate, at any rate, for obvious reasons.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to this document on South-West Africa. Permit me, Sir, to say that it is an excellent piece of work, and that great credit is due to the persons who compiled it, and I believe that to any unbiased person it will be worth his while to obtain this information on South-West Africa. We have in fact had this document compiled because even last year, as the Leader of the Opposition is aware, I expressed my concern about the fact that Government concerns and other bodies which ought to know better appeared from their pronouncements to be so uninformed on what was taking place in South Africa and in South-West Africa. I may therefore commend this document without any reservations to any person who wishes to have authoritative information on South-West Africa.

But I do not think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was being fair when he referred to page 48, from which he quoted to us. I do not know what impression other hon. members received, but I received the impression, from what the hon. the Leader said, that he wanted to suggest that we had tried to run away from the policy of separate development in this document; in other words, that we were ashamed of discussing this matter or presenting it in its true perspective when dealing with South-West Africa. That is not true, of course, but the hon. member simply did not read any further. What is written quite clearly on page 49, just where the hon. member stopped reading, is this, and I just want to read it for the purposes of the record—

It then continues to say exactly what separate development is. What is stated here is no more and no less than what was said by my predecessor and by myself from time to time in respect of separate development; because separate development is not the puppet the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party and his Press set up from time to time to knock down again, and which they then present to the world as separate development, but separate development is the policy of this side of the House as enunciated by us from time to time. I am now compelled to enunciate it once again, because I want to know from the Leader of the Opposition what his alternative is. I put it emphatically to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that it is not I who am asking what the policy of the Opposition is; the entire country is asking that. Sir, hon. members on the opposite side are asking that, or should ask that, because they themselves are so confused in respect of that policy. Take the attitude of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. It is not the attitude of the hon. member for Yeoville.

Why not?

I shall tell the hon. member for Yeoville why not. Does the hon. member for Yeoville subscribe to the attitude the hon. member for Bezuidenhout adopted from time to time with regard to this matter?

Since he became a member of the United Party again, yes.

I am sorry. I did not want to hurt the hon. member for Bezuidenhout as much as the hon. member for Yeoville is hurting him now, by attributing the various attitudes to him. I merely asked the hon. member for Yeoville whether he subscribed to the attitude of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Now he tells me: “Since the hon. member for Bezuidenhout became a member of the United Party again, yes.” [Laughter.] Then I ask the hon. member for Yeoville, who is the policy-maker on that side of the House, whether he subscribes to the attitude that now that the Coloureds are on separate voters’ rolls, they should be represented by their own people in this House on those voters’ rolls? Because that is the policy of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. [Interjection.] You say you subscribe to that. Then surely you could just have indicated that to me. But in any event, I shall hold the hon. member to that, and the members on my side will hold the hon. member for Yeoville to that, and he will get an opportunity to state his attitude in this House.

But I come to the hon. member for Karoo, a leading member of the United Party, who was a leader in the Provincial Council. The hon. member for Karoo adopts a different attitude altogether. I am pleased that he has recovered sufficiently to be back in the House. I do not expect him to take part in the debate —I say this in advance—if according to medical advice he should not do so. But the hon. member will forgive me if I ask the Leader of the Opposition—because if it had merely been a back-bencher I would have taken no notice of it, but it comes from the hon. member for Karoo, who was a front-bencher and the leader of the United Party in the Provincial Council, and he holds his own views. I refer to a report in the Rand Daily Mail of 18th January, 1967, which reads as follows—

So we have the attitude of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, which I now hear for the first time and which has found a new disciple in the person of the hon. member for Yeoville. We also have the attitude of the hon. member for Karoo.

Do you have the original of that memorandum?

No, the hon. member did not send it to me.

This is a misrepresentation.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says this is a misrepresentation. I would then be pleased to receive the original from the hon. the Leader, because then I could judge for myself whether this was a misrepresentation. But the fact of the matter is that it is stated here by the hon. member for Karoo that eight black people should come and sit in Parliament. That is his attitude, according to this newspaper. Now I hear that it is a misrepresentation of what he said. If the hon. the Leader would give me a copy, I should like to …

I shall try to get it.

The hon. the Leader says he will try to get me a copy. ]Interjections.[ The hon. member for Karoo says he will try to get it for me. I shall be grateful for that. While I am dealing with this point, I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the question on which political parties in South Africa differ nowadays is mainly the question of separate development. All the other issues have fallen away to a very large extent in South Africa. The people of South Africa have no problem in knowing where they stand with the Government in respect of separate development. They have no problem. Not only do they see it unfold in practice, but hon. members on this side of the House and I myself are at all times prepared to discuss these aspects inside and outside the House. That is why I am now making a cordial appeal to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to use this debate to tell us what their attitude is in this regard.

I am not to ask you any more embarrassing questions?

As for the questions of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the more the merrier. Let us come to a very clear understanding. [Interjections.] I am not going to have the hon. member for Transkei prescribe to me how I am to answer the questions. [Interjections.] I should very much like to give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity, and I shall give him as much time as possible—and we are by no means in a hurry, neither he nor I myself—to ask me as many questions as he wants to ask under the circumstances. Now, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me about the Protectorates. He asked me what progress had been made in regard to the extradition agreements. I discussed the question of extradition with the Prime Minister of Lesotho. The question of extradition between Lesotho and South Africa is under consideration at the moment. The stage reached at present is that officials are working on the preparations in this connection, and I hope and trust that it will shortly become a reality and that such an extradition agreement will be signed. In principle there is no reason why it cannot be done. But in passing I just want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and he is aware of this, that in latter years extradition agreements are by no means what they used to be, because the political clauses contained in all extradition agreements have watered them down to a very large extent. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is aware of that. Be that as it may, we have not had many problems in this regard in the past, and the problems there have been will be solved if and when we enter into such an extradition agreement.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me about assistance to that territory. From the communiqué issued subsequent to our consultations he will have noticed that we did discuss those matters. It was worded as follows—

In other words, assistance was asked for, and for the information of the House I may just add that the Prime Minister of Lesotho told me that he had taken cognizance of my attitude as set out in this House last year, when I said that as regards the assistance South Africa had to offer, we would not simply hand out money to people, because in principle we did not believe in that and because we did not have the superfluous money available, but that we would help them to help themselves. The Prime Minister of Lesotho told me that he fully agreed with that attitude and that point of view. I am pleased about that, because that is indeed the only way in which one can help a country. Since our discussions there has been constant liaison between the Republic and Lesotho through officials with a view to investigating the various subjects raised by the Prime Minister of Lesotho, I have offered him technical assistance, which he accepted, I have offered him advice, which he gladly accepted, and investigations, which include the Oxbow scheme, are already in progress. Pending those investigations, active assistance will be rendered to Lesotho by the Government of the Republic in the spirit of what I said last year. That applies not only in respect of Lesotho, but also in respect of other African States. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me what my attitude was in respect of private investment in the territories which were previously the Protectorates. I assumed that my attitude was quite clear. Here one has to do with independent states, in contrast to what they were when my esteemed predecessor discussed this matter. Here one has to do with independent states, and I neither can nor want to prohibit anyone who wishes to come to the assistance of those states in an honest and equitable way, from investing there. Those states, however, are faced with the problem of finding people who are prepared to invest in them. I have no power to prohibit anybody from going there. I am satisfied that these persons want to be of assistance to those people and want to create opportunities of employment for them. Even if I had that power, they would go there with my blessing. Here we are not dealing with a state which is still seeking independence, nor with a state which has yet to choose its course, nor with a state which has yet to adopt an attitude, but with a state which has already adopted an attitude and which is therefore master in its own house. I want to point out to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that to exaggerate the possibilities for investment in those territories will help neither them nor anybody else. If it is possible to invest there now, or rather, if investing there is an attractive proposition now, the question arises: Why did nobody ever go and invest there in the past? [Interjection.] We had no say over the Protectorates under Britain.

The previous Prime Minister said that it was contrary to his policy.

The previous Prime Minister was quite right in issuing a warning, if the hon. member considers what happened in Tanzania, with the nationalization of banks, etc., which took place there. Nobody, neither the late Prime Minister nor anybody else, could have prohibited anybody from investing in Lesotho or Botswana or in Swaziland. Those were territories which fell under the British Government. I presume the British Government would have been grateful if anybody wanted to make an investment there, because few or no investments were made, neither by the British nor by foreigners from elsewhere.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me, with reference to the Malawi agreement, whether we had discussed the “common market”. We did not discuss a common market. We negotiated on a specific bilateral agreement concluded between one independent state and another independent state. The agreement has been laid upon the Table. The hon. member is acquainted with the terms of that agreement, and I do not want to discuss it any further.

The question of diplomatic representation was dealt with by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs when he spoke in this House earlier this year. There is no need for me to say anything further about this aspect, except that as it becomes necessary to safeguard the interests of the Republic and as it becomes necessary to put the attitude of the Government into effect, the necessary negotiations will be entered into with states, whether for diplomatic relations, trade relations or any other relations. Surely the hon. the Leader of the Opposition need not ask me that? Surely it is his policy which I am carrying out? Surely he should know what I am going to do in this connection?

In the last part of his speech the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the question of sport. I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition raised that, because I should like to take this opportunity to say a few words about sporting matters. Sport is a social activity which is most important and which should not be under-rated, but you will permit me also to issue a word of warning on this occasion, namely that it should not be overdone, neither by our own people nor at any time. I also attach tremendous value to sports relations—I have in fact said so in public—but they must not override all other considerations. I believe that a tremendous deal can be done to form ties with countries and to strengthen ties with countries if there are sports relations. At the same time I believe that unless these are handled correctly, they may cause irreparable mischief between countries. In the case of South Africa there is a special responsibility on each of us and in particular on the Press as to how they are handled, because unless they are handled correctly—and I want to repeat this—they may do more harm than good. I therefore want to avail myself of this opportunity to appeal to the newspapers of South Africa to handle these matters, which are frequently very delicate and which will be delicate in future, with the utmost circumspection. I am glad that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not succumb to that temptation. Above all I want to request that this matter should not be dragged into politics, because in my humble opinion it is a matter which does not belong there. As I shall indicate in due course, however, it may hold political implications. We cannot lose sight of that, of course. Because it is a social matter, there are certain statements I have to make before I come to the question of sport as such, in order to indicate and to declare unequivocally what the attitude and the policy of this side of the House are in respect of that matter. As I said previously, the policy of South Africa, and not only of the National Party, is separate development. Separate development is a policy which has never been based on hate or prejudice or fear. I also want to make it quite clear—that has also become necessary in this debate—that it does not mean the denial of a person’s human dignity. On the contrary, it underlines the diversity of the various population groups which have to find a home in the same geographical area, as in the Republic of South Africa. Instead of being a policy which may be said to be a denial of human dignity, it is in fact a policy which is aimed at creating opportunities which previously never existed. We can quote many examples of that, should it be necessary. For the sake of the record I just want to reiterate what I recently said in Parow, namely that this traditional and historic policy of South Africa—of separate development—is aimed, firstly, at preserving the identity of each population group, and that it is the inalienable right of the Whites, amongst others, to retain their identity. Secondly, it is aimed at eliminating and minimizing points of friction and disturbances wherever possible. Thirdly, as I said, it creates for every member of every group opportunities which did not exist previously, and it creates possibilities for future development. In that connection I must also make it quite clear that South Africa has never demanded of any state that it should also accept this policy, and similarly South Africa will never allow the policy of another state to be forced on to her in this regard. As I had no reservations in telling the leaders of the black states with whom I came into contact, South Arfrica’s attitude will always be that differences in domestic policy are not an obstacle to peaceful co-operation between countries. As far as that is concerned, separate development therefore also applies to the field of sport.

I therefore want to make it quite clear that from South Africa’s point of view no mixed sport between Whites and non-Whites will be practised locally, irrespective of the standard of proficiency of the participants. I am first dealing with our own people. Irrespective of the standard of proficiency, the position is simply that the Whites practise and administer their sport separately and that the other colour groups, the Coloureds, the Indians and the Bantu, practise their sport separately. We have had problems in that connection in the past, but our views and our attitude are quite clear —no matter how proficient one of our own people may be in his line of sport, we do not apply that as a criterion, because our policy has nothing to do with proficiency or lack of proficiency. If any person, either locally or abroad, adopts the attitude that he will enter into relations with us only if we are prepared to jettison the separate practising of sport prevailing among our own people in South Africa, then I want to make it quite clear that, no matter how important those sport relations are in my view, I am not prepared to pay that price. On that score I want no misunderstanding whatsoever. I also want to say in advance that if, after I have said on these matters what I still want to say, anybody should see in this either the thin end of the wedge or a surrender of principles, or that it is a step in the direction of diverging from this basic principle he would simply be mistaken. Because in respect of this principle we are not prepared to compromise, we are not prepared to negotiate and we are not prepared to make any concessions.

I am not trying to trap the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or to do anything of the kind now, I do not want to make matters impossible or difficult for him, but I would appreciate it if the hon. the Leader would tell me in due course whether that is his attitude too, in order that we may know whether we are on common ground in this respect. If he thinks it is his policy then he may tell me so right away. In the second place our attitude in respect of sport—and I am now merely reiterating what my colleague Minister Maree said here on a previous occasion—is that attendance of members of one group at such recreational events of the other group takes place by way of permit, if at all. There are sports grounds where it is not permitted, but that is the affair of those people. Where it is in fact allowed, it takes place by way of permit, provided that separate facilities are available and as long as it does not result in situations which are conducive to friction and disturbances, and I want to add, provided that it will not hamper the development of their own facilities. My concern here is to grant every population group the same sports facilities in their own area and among their own people that I grant the Whites. [Interjection.] The hon. member is bothering me.

I am sorry, but the Deputy Minister said the facilities for the Bantu in the urban areas should not be too luxurious.

The hon. member should speak loud enough for me to hear him; he should not mumble in such a way that I cannot hear him.

That is why I repeated it.

The hon. member should just speak louder if he wants to speak to me. I say that in this connection we should guard against one thing, and that is to give the non-Whites the impression that they will always remain mere spectators at our sports meetings. We should rather induce them to value their own sports meetings, to go and watch their own people compete, and if the standard of their own people is not high enough, to help to raise that standard.

How would they know?

Surely they will know that? I am not saying they should not come at all. Surely the hon. the Leader is misunderstanding me completely? Surely I have just told him that those people may attend by way of permits, and that they are admitted?

We must not bring them under the impression, however, that the sport practised by our Whites is the only sport worth seeing. We should instil pride in them in what their own people can achieve in that field. We should encourage them to be spectators at their own sports meetings in order that these may become paying propositions. We should encourage them to develop their own facilities in that regard.

We now come to the various sporting issues. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition probably did not have adequate time to do so, else he would have itemized them. I shall now do so on this occasion. In the first place there is the Olympic Games, to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred. He also referred to the announcement made by Mr. Braun in that connection. I want to make it quite clear that a decision was already taken in this regard under my predecessor. It is not a decision taken in my time and I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is aware of that. The Olympic Games is a unique event in which all countries of the world take part, and our attitude in respect of that event was that if there were any of our Coloureds or Bantu who were good enough to compete there, or whose standard of proficiency was such that they could take part in it, we would make it possible for them to take part.

In the same team?

The hon. member should not be so hasty. The hon. member is more concerned about the question whether they will be in the same team than he is about the provision of the necessary facilities for those people. He is more concerned about seeing whether it is not possible for integration to take place according to the recipe of the United Party in this regard. The hon. member need not even have asked that question, because only one team from each country is allowed to take part in the Olympic Games. He is aware of the fact that although East Germany and West Germany are two separate states, the organizers of the Olympic Games require from them that they send one team. It is quite true that previously, because it would have been better, we asked whether it was not possible to send separate teams. We explored that angle because it would most certainly be better if that could be the case; it would suit us better, but it is not possible and it was therefore decided that the non-Whites could take part. The position is quite clear as set out by Mr. Braun, and I want to repeat here what he said in that connection, namely (translation)—

Sir, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised this question. It is my attitude that in South Africa sport should be practised and administered separately by the four different population groups. I should like to hear whether that is also his attitude—

We have always had that in the past, and we have no objection to its taking place in future either—

Because the Olympic Games lays it down as an absolute condition, the people who are then selected will take part as one contingent under the South African flag. That is our attitude in that regard and I think it is the correct one to adopt.

Then we come to other sporting matters. There is, for example, the question of another world competition which is not on the same footing as the Olympic Games because there are not so many countries that take part in it. It does not have the same constitution nor does it have the same scope, but at present approximately 68 countries take part in that competition, and that is the Canada Cup tournament. I want to tell hon. members that I have no objection to the Canada Cup tournament taking place here in South Africa. In fact, I have issued an invitation to that effect to the organizers of the tournament, and although they are accommodated up to 1970, it is not impossible that the tournament will take place here one day. Personally I would be very pleased if that happened. The same applies in respect of the Davis Cup competition. This is another international sporting event in which we take part, and if it were to happen that we had to play against a Coloured country in the finals, we would do so, whether in that country or in South Africa, because here one has to do with an interstate relationship …

Hear, hear!

… a relationship which the hon. member who has just said “Hear, hear” did not appreciate when he referred scornfully to the Mount Nelson and the other place. [Interjections.] The hon. member referred disparagingly to that.

On a point of order, I said “Hear, hear” and I did not do it scornfully.

No, I am not referring to the hon. member for Sea Point. I would never compare the hon. member for Sea Point with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. One thing we must understand quite clearly, and I am saying this specifically in consequence of what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said. We must draw a very clear distinction between personal relations on the one hand and inter-state relations on the other. It is when one fails to draw that fundamental distinction that one lapses into the kind of sophistry one gets from some hon. members on the opposite side—not all of them.

Will you elaborate on that?

I am doing so. As far as the Olympic Games is concerned, we are concerned with an international, interstate relationship, and it is therefore my attitude in principle and the attitude of the Government in principle that one may take part in the Olympic Games on that basis without sacrificing one’s personal attitude, without meddling with the separate practising of sport between individuals in one’s own country or among one’s own people. If one accepts that on the one hand there are those personal relations and on the other hand the various interstate relations …

Is this your well-considered attitude?

Surely the hon. member knows that I am not a member of his Party. I have only one attitude, and that is the one I am stating. I say that I draw a distinction between personal relations and inter-state relations. To illustrate it even further to the hon. member, it is not our policy that there should be social mingling of Whites and non-Whites in South Africa, but because I was dealing with an inter-state relationship in that instance, I could receive the Prime Minister of Lesotho as I did, because it was not a personal relationship but an inter-state relationship. I received him as the Prime Minister of his country, just as my forefathers and the forefathers of the hon. member received people of that rank many years ago, as the Free State Volksraad received Moshesh in Bloemfontein. I therefore say that this is my attitude in respect of the Olympic Games and in respect of the Canada Cup tournament, and in respect of the Davis Cup competition.

I then come to the other sporting issues, and I presume that what the hon. members are interested in in that regard are firstly rugby and secondly cricket. I want to make my attitude quite clear. In the first place I start off with the question of rugby. I am going to speak very slowly, because I do not want hon. members to misunderstand me and to ascribe words to me which I did not use. I regret that this matter has gone wrong, and it went wrong because sports writers and newspapers and others did not see the matter correctly in principle, did not see it correctly historically, and I shall tell hon. members why.

We do not have rugby ties with the whole world or with everybody who plays rugby. There are many countries which play rugby but with which we have no ties, and with which I do not believe it is either necessary or advantageous to form rugby ties at this stage, just as we do not have relations with all countries that play cricket. We have no relations with the West Indies, India or Pakistan. In respect of this matter it was my publicly stated attitude that we had no such ties in the past, nor did I regard it as necessary that we should have them in future. I was not the only one to see matters in that light. In other words, as far as these branches of sport are concerned, it is my attitude that we have enough and all I am concerned with is to maintain and if possible to retain the traditional, existing sporting ties. Now in respect of rugby I want to make it quite clear that we had rugby relations, formed in the distant past, with the British, the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish, the French, the Australians and the New Zealanders, and later with the Argentinians, and at one stage with the people of Kenya. The latter relations lapsed for obvious reasons. If I put it to you that we had sporting relations with the New Zealanders, then it was wrong to drag the Maori question into this matter at all, because we had no sporting relations with Maoris as such. We did not have them in the past nor shall we have them in future.

But they are New Zealanders.

Give me a chance to complete my argument. The hon. member runs himself to a standstill before the race has started. I say we had no traditional relations with Maoris, and I shall tell the hon. member why. It is because the New Zealanders themselves distinguished between Maoris and Pakehas, as they call the White people. I wonder whether the hon. member is aware of the fact that the first touring team ever to leave New Zealand was a Maori team; they were not Whites. That was as early as 1898. I shall now skip quite a few tours, but in 1924 an All Black team visited Britain, and immediately afterwards, in 1926, a purely Maori team toured Britain. In 1948 a Maori team visited the Fiji Islands, and a team visited Australia in 1949, and Fiji again in 1954, and teams visited New Zealand specially to play against the Maoris. I am now dealing with remote background history. Now, it is true, and this is the only way one can view it, that the Whites of South Africa, as organized in the South African Rugby Board, had traditional rugby relations with these countries, inter alia with New Zealanders. It is true that the 1929 touring team included two Maoris or people of Maori blood. I understand that on the 1949 tour there were at least three who had Maori blood. On the later tour, in 1960, there were also at least three who had Maori blood. These people see the matter differently from us and that is no concern of mine. I do not want to quarrel with that. That is their business. We received those people and we treated them as any other members of the New Zealand touring team were treated in South Africa. There were no problems and there were no difficulties in that regard. Now it so happens that in the past our pattern here in South Africa, namely that White and non-White do not compete against each other, was known to everybody with whom we had those relations, and I want to make it quite clear that we have been set the ultimatum before that our Springbok team would not be welcome unless it included all race groups. If that demand is made of us and is attached as a condition for the continuation of sporting relations, then I say: I am not prepared to comply with that condition, because that is exclusively our own affair. Now the hon. member for Yeoville must listen to me. I want him to understand me quite correctly. In the past we had traditional relations with the All Black team and in that regard we do not want to prescribe to them, nor have we ever done that.

[Inaudible.]

Would the hon. member just wait until I have finished my speech? Our South African Rugby Board extended the invitations with the knowledge, in the case of the 1960 tour, of myself, as Deputy Minister charged with education matters at the time. I have gone into the entire history and traditionally—and now I am again speaking slowly for the benefit of the hon. member for Yeoville, who now wants to suck poison; and I may give him the assurance that he will not find a drop of poison apart from that which is already on his tongue—we have never prescribed to those people whom they may or may not select. That was left to the sound judgment of the rugby administrators in New Zealand. That is what I want to do. I want to make it quite clear, however, that if politicians take a hand in the matter with the object of clouding relations between countries or of dragging sport into politics, as they did in 1963, or of creating domestic difficulties in that way, I would not hesitate to adopt the attitude adopted by my predecessor at Loskop, because then we would not be serving the interests of sport. Then one is not seeking to foster sporting relations between countries, then one is seeking to politicize and to play politics. Then one is seeking to cloud relations and to antagonize countries. I want to make it quite clear that no matter how set I, as a sportsman myself, am on preserving these sport relations, I dare not allow sound relations between my country and that country and sound relations in my own country to be made subservient to sporting matters. It appears to me as though the hon. member for Yeoville does not understand that.

You must just justify the Loskop statement to me.

I have set it out in detail for the hon. member. [Interjections.] No, the hon. member is not asking that for the purposes of information. He wants to make political capital out of that. If the hon. member wants to make political capital out of that, then I invite him in advance to enter this debate, and then he may cloud sporting relations in South Africa as much as he likes through his political intervention, because that is his intention. The hon. member is not seeking a solution; the hon. member is seeking a few crumbs—and I grant him those crumbs— which are to fall from the political table. Very few crumbs have fallen in recent years. I therefore state it as my attitude in this regard that in view of the fact that in the past invitations were not extended by Government bodies, but that invitations to teams to visit us were always extended by the various sporting bodies, invitations will—that is how I visualize it— continue to be extended by those sporting bodies. If they are asked. ‘‘What is the attitude of your Government on the matter?” they will have no reservations in saying: “Our Government does not prescribe whom you may select and whom you may not select, because our Government is not your selection committee.” We leave that to the sound judgment of the sport administrators in the country which is invited to South Africa. But I want the hon. member for Yeoville to understand quite clearly, if he enters this debate, that that attitude of mine is subject to the condition that relations between that country and my country shall not be clouded as a result, and that relations in my own country shall not be harmed as a result. I believe this will remove any doubts anybody may entertain on the attitude of the Government. I believe that this is the answer to the problems we have experienced in this regard. But I believe that one thing is not the answer, and that is what people tried to do in the past, which was to name an individual lone before a tour was to take place, and to say: “Will you or will you not receive him?” I do not think that serves the interests of sport in South Africa. It is the kind of question which is asked purely to cause difficulties where no difficulties exist. As far as rugby matters are concerned, I want to say that I am quite prepared to leave these rugby matters to New Zealand and to South Africa in the belief and the knowledge that they will iron out their difficulties in that connection. There is to be no tour this year in any case. The French are coming here this year, the British are coming next year and the Australians the year after. I shall regret it if, with a view to the times that lie ahead, people will now go out of their way to make mischief in this regard where no mischief should be made. I believe that sport can make a tremendous contribution towards improving relations between countries. I believe that this attitude of the Government—and if there is any doubt about it and if the Leader of the Opposition does not have enough clarity on the matter, then he should not hesitate to ask me about it—as also the other actions of the Government to which I shall come later in this debate, will be of great benefit to South Africa, as they have been in the past.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Prime Minister displayed a surprising degree of irritability and an exaggerated sensitiveness here this afternoon, something which I find a great pity. I can only arrive at the conclusion that his irritability was actually directed at people in his own group. The hon. the Prime Minister wants his own way in everything. They can drag anything into politics. Then it is all good and proper. But look out if the Opposition should “drag something into politics”. Then he explodes into righteous indignation. I must tell the hon. the Prime Minister that we are not prepared to accept his double standard. If we say something we always hear that it is integration, but if they subsequently do something we recommended, then they do not think of it as integration. We would like there to be one standard only. Then we would be prepared to play the game. Let me now as a member who, as the hon. the Prime Minister said, “became a United Party man again” exchange a few words with him as a member who became a Nationalist again. Both of us belong to a club in this House. It is time the hon. the Prime Minister realized it. It is quite a large club. To that club belongs, amongst others, as I see them here, the hon. the Minister of Transport, the hon. member for Umaruru, the Deputy Minister for South-West Africa, the Deputy Minister for Bantu Administration, the lion, members for Queenstown, Krugersdorp, Christiana, Turffontein, the hon. the Minister of Sport and the hon. the Minister of Immigration. It is a large club, and I do not think it behoves any member of the club to point a finger at another member of the club.

In the ten minutes at my disposal I had hoped to deal with other matters, but I now have to deal first with a few points which the hon. the Prime Minister has raised. The first is the so-called clash on Coloured Affairs between myself and other members of the Opposition which he sketched here. Why does the hon. the Prime Minister not try to deal with the matter in its entirety? The policy of this side is clear. It is that the Coloureds who were on the Common Voters’ Roll must be restored to that roll. Another point in the policy is that the northern Coloureds who were never on any Voters’ Roll must be represented in this Parliament on a basis of group representation … [Interjections.] Give me a chance. I only have ten minutes. The difficulty is that those hon. members themselves set up a policy for us and then want to shoot it down. It is stated in back and white. It has been stated there for years. They are never prepared to state our policy correctly. They are entitled to say that our policy is wrong, that they do not agree with it. But then they must first state the policy correctly before they criticize it. The first point is the restoration of those who were on the roll. They are only a limited number now. Then, in respect of those in the Cape and Natal, who were not on the roll, various points have remained an open question in the policy of the party. I am not dealing now with right or wrong. I am just dealing with the facts of the policy. The northern Coloureds must be represented on a basis of group representation in Parliament …

By whom? [Interjections.]

Who is shouting “order” there?

All of us, Sir.

I am warning members now. The hon. member may proceed.

The policy is that if a Coloured is elected he can come and sit here. Where is the clash? I have stated here in Parliament that in principle I am not opposed to restoring those who were on the list. Coming to the general question of all the Coloureds in South Africa my attitude has always been that the Coloureds of South Africa would themselves prefer—this is an opinion—to be represented by their own people on the basis of group representation. What is the attitude of my party in this connection? The party has always adopted the attitude that it wants to interpret the will of the Coloureds, but it is obvious that, if I am correct in my opinion—namely that the Coloureds themselves would prefer to be represented on a basis of group representation throughout South Africa by their own people —the party would not be opposed to that, because its basic policy is one of consultation. One does not give a person something he does not want. There is no clash therefore.

The hon. the Prime Minister referred to derogatory remarks I allegedly made. Of course, if I want to be derogatory, I will be. But I now want to ask the Prime Minister who was more derogatory than he this afternoon? He must not be so sensitive in the position in which he finds himself. Does he claim for himself the sole right of being derogatory towards me, but that I may not be derogatory in politics towards him? Nor was I being derogatory in regard to the question of the Mount Nelson. I will tell the Prime Minister what my attitude is, and it would be a good thing if he would realize what our feelings in regard to the matter are. We take exception to the fact that we are continually being accused of being integrationists. It is being done in a derogatory way by the other side, and then the Government subsequently does the very things for which we are being berated. I shall mention a practical example.

We had this afternoon a very important statement from the Prime Minister in regard to sport.

Why do you not talk about that?

I am talking about it now. It cannot be denied that the attitude which the Prime Minister has now adopted is in direct conflict with the attitude which the former Prime Minister adopted. I do not want to read out a lot of statements. But here is the speech made by the former Prime Minister at Loskop. It was reported in Die Burger of 6th September, 1965. Die Burger’s headline was (translation): “All Blacks never again in South Africa. Team with Maoris not permissible.” It was stated clearly by the Prime Minister and it was repeated in plain language by the hon. the Minister of Education, who was then Minister of the Interior. [Interjections.] The report begins as follows (translation)—

[Time expired.]

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat tried to make the point that the attitude which the hon. the Prime Minister is now adopting in respect of international sport is completely at variance with that of the former Prime Minister. He then referred specifically to the speech made at Loskop Dam. If the hon. member and other hon. members on that side of the House had listened to what the Prime Minister said this afternoon, surely it ought to have been clear to all of them what the position was. The National Party still adheres to the principle to which it has always adhered, in spite of that peculiarly worded motion in regard international sport which the Opposition moved in another debate earlier on in the year. The Government still adheres to the principle that we do not prescribe to the sports teams of any other country how they must make up their teams. Hon. members should have listened to what the Prime Minister had to say, i.e. that if he is forced to do so, as did happen on that occasion to which they referred when the former Prime Minister made the statement —by. people abroad with politically ulterior motives—and I see many of them sitting in this House this afternoon …

The same old story.

Let it be the same old story. There are many old stories which could bear repeating and have very good results. It seems to me one can tell hon. members of the Opposition the same story every day and they will still not understand it. In fact, they have never yet understood their own policy. The Prime Minister stated very, very clearly that if there should be a repetition of what has happened in the past, i.e. that people with political motives, as opposed to people who only have the best interests of sport at heart, should once again force us into unenviable positions, he would adopt the same attitude as that adopted by the former Prime Minister. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout read here from newspaper headlines which states: “All Blacks never again in South Africa—Black Maoris not permissible.” He was reading to us inferences which had been made by newspapers. He was not stating the point of view stated by the former Prime Minister.

Did Die Burger make an incorrect inference?

I have no choice but to express my regret at the way in which hon. members on the opposite side have this afternoon again reacted to this matter of international sport.

Talk about Die Burger.

If the hon. member in the corner there would just for once try to follow one’s argument then he might also come to understand at long last what his own party’s policy is. I say that I am sorry to see that the same attitude is being displayed by hon. members of the Opposition in regard to a matter which could have so much significance for our country, i.e. the matter of international sport. It is a field in which our country has attained so many achievements and a field in which one looks forward to continued relations. I have noticed this afternoon the same attitude which was noticeable here in a previous debate when the hon. member for Yeoville—and we know enough about his sportmanship—formulated an amendment here on international sport. He set in motion here a debate which was exclusively aimed at dragging this matter into politics.

On that occasion the hon. member for Johannesburg (North)—whom I regret to say is not present here now that I am mentioning his name—had a few things to say about sport which made me realize that he himself did not know what this matter was all about. And yet he is a man who has a knowledge of sport, inter alia, he said the following (translation)—

Here of course he means soccer, the game which he knows a great deal about—

Factually he is quite correct here. But now he takes his argument further and states—

Are we no longer a member of this conference as a result of steps taken in regard to sport on the part of this Government, or is it because we are no longer a member of the Commonwealth? The International Cricket Conference is linked up with the Commonwealth; its constitution is very closely associated with that of the Commonwealth. Now the hon. member for Johannesburg, who, as I said, is a sportsman, came along and reproached the Government for allegedly being instrumental in our being ousted from international competition, specifically cricket. That is not the case because the past few cricket test series were proceeded with unhindered. But the hon. member said here that we were being forced out of cricket on account of the Government’s policy. I maintain that those kind of remarks draw attention to the fact that hon. members, when they attack the Government on occasions such as this one, do not have the best interests of sport at heart. I say the same thing in regard to hostile bodies abroad who have often in the past tried to embarrass us, knowing what our domestic views are.

You are talking nonsense.

The hon. member for Green Point says I am talking nonsense. Now, if I am talking nonsense, then I wonder if the hon. member knows what sense looks like. I do not think the hon. member knows what the difference between sense and nonsense is. I say that for the sake of domestic peace and order, quite apart from tradition, we have a system here in South Africa where no mixed sport is allowed. Hon. members on that side of the House agree with that—they say that it should be so. Now I am telling the hon. member for Green Point that there are people abroad who do not like that. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) can also testify to that fact. The International Soccer Organization—known as F.I.F.A.—do not like the fact that we apply a policy of sport apartheid within South Africa.

What has that to do with the matter?

It has a lot to do with it. The body with which the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) has had a lot to do, the International Soccer Association, did not suspend South Africa—this is something about which the hon. member is complaining here —as a result of a statement made by a former Prime Minister in regard to international sport. It suspended the S.A. Soccer Association because within South Africa itself apartheid, separateness, is maintained when soccer is played. If the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) is not aware of that either, then I say he is very stupid in regard to what is actually taking place.

Now I say that, as in the case of that sporting body which controls soccer—in the same way so there are people elsewhere in the world who have nothing to do with the welfare of sport, specifically also this organization SANROC, the non-white South African Sport Association with its headquarters in London and whose big boss was a certain Mr. Harris, the man who planted a bomb on the Johannesburg Station—who want to use sport in South Africa to get at its traditional way of life. They are the enemies of South Africa. That is why one finds it a pity that hon. members of the Opposition, when they participate in such a debate, do not speak with a thorough understanding of these matters. One would expect them not to play along with, and that they would do nothing which would be grist to the mill of those people, and would encourage them. One would rather expect the Opposition to share in the Government’s attempt to keep a matter such as international sport, something which really does not have anything to do with politics, at a level above that of politics. Then we in South Africa, all of us, United Party and National Party, white and non-white—also our non-white sportsmen—would be able to derive the best benefits for South Africa in international competition. It is a pity that hon. members of the Opposition cannot, or will not, participate in a discussion of this nature in such a vein. They prefer clutching at straws to try to make political capital. What does it really matter to us what was said on some or other occasion in the past? Surely hon. members know and they have confessed it here in this House, that our tradition and our practical participation in sport in South Africa, for the sake of many other matters, is one of no inter-mingling and it is important that this should be the case. Does it not suit the purpose of hon. members of the Opposition to try and help us to try and bring about an understanding of this situation abroad, as well as amongst our sporting friends overseas? [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Stellenbosch is quite wrong when he states that I only quote here from newspaper headlines; it is not so. Let me quote to him what the former Minister of the Interior, Senator de Klerk, said (translation)—

Mr. Chairman, when the Government announces a change of policy, let it admit that it has come to view the matter in another light. It is not our intention to make political capital out of it if we can reach that stage in our domestic politics where we can accept each other’s politics honestly, as it is, and criticize it on that basis without these kind of labels which we are continually trying to attach to one another. When we said that Senator De Klerk and the Government were wrong, that we ought to allow New Zealand to select its own team, what was the reply we got in return? I am quoting again from what the former Minister of the Interior said (translation)—

We have no objection to that—

If we say that New Zealand must be allowed to select its own team then it is “integration”.

Who said that?

The former Minister of the Interior, Senator De Klerk said the following in regard to this question of the Maoris: “We cannot tolerate this integration policy of the United Party”. What does that hon. member expect us as an Opposition to do? Must we always sit quietly and simply endure the punishment? When the attitude which we adopted has been justified, after we have been berated for being integrationists, must we not avail ourselves of the same methods? We have all been in politics long enough to know that if one metes out punishment of a certain kind you are going to be repaid in your own coin. I am telling the hon. the Prime Minister in a very friendly way that he is going to have a difficult task. We have one norm only and that is: Is he acting in the interests of South Africa, yes or no? We were right in our view that the Government was playing into the hands of our enemies and that is why we warned them: “Do not play into the hands of our enemies”. All that we are asking is that there should not be a double standard. But if we are going to get this kind of politics from the Government side then I am afraid that we are going to dish out the same kind of politics to them. It will be of no avail the hon. member for Stellenbosch and the hon. the Prime Minister accusing us of dragging sport into politics because we have most certainly never dragged sport into politics. Our attitude has consistently been that a government should not in any way interfere with sport. The tradition in South Africa has always been that of separate sport; that is what the public wants. Public feeling in South Africa is so strong that it will not accept mixed sport. Why cannot the Government trust the sporting bodies? Surely there are times when one must be able to trust public opinion. Public opinion is either against mixed sport or it is in favour of it. If we are convinced, and if the Government is convinced that it is against mixed sport why must the Government make statements and try to steer matters in a certain direction? Our attitude has always been the following: Leave sport to the public sporting bodies which will not be able to go against public opinion. That is still our attitude.

“Let things develop”.

We shall hold thumbs, and we sincerely hope that in the interest of South Africa the statements made by the hon. the Prime Minister will get us through our difficulties. We are satisfied with what he said here this afternoon although what we should like to see is that the Government adopt the attitude that it is not going to interfere in any way with sport in South Africa. If things go wrong and our sportsmen and women are not accepted for the Olympic Games or other international competitions, then the Government will be in the strong position that it can say that it had nothing to do with it, that it is a matter which is in the hands of public opinion and the sporting bodies in South Africa. I do not think that the Government will at this stage accept this advice, but in any case it remains our attitude that a Government should refrain from interfering in any way in sport.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to certain matters in regard to South-West Africa. Just as in the case of sport, the policy of the Government has, in this respect as well, undergone a surprising metamorphosis in the field of foreign affairs and South-West Africa, and one example is the publication of the South-West African Survey. I want to tell the hon. Minister that it is a very good product. I think he should compel each one of his members to read it because here the race policy of the Government is placed in a very different light than it has been up to now. After all, we all know what is happening; we all know that the actual formulation of domestic policy has now passed into the hands of the Department of Foreign Affairs. That is a very good thing; it is in good hands. We are glad that the Government has men such as Advocate Dawid de Villiers and others to keep a watchful eye on the formulation of policy so that our policy is now being presented in such a way that it is at least understandable overseas. I do not want to quote and read out here but there is no doubt at all that the policy is being presented in quite a different light than it has been presented up to now. This South-West African Survey is a very fine piece of work although it has its deficiencies. I cannot help taking a personal interest in it. For years I have been pleading in this House for the publication of a year-book for South-West Africa. In fact I even went so far as to establish a company in 1959 to publish a private year-book. I even had the “dummy” printed; here it is, South-West African Survey, 1959. The Government has even taken my copyright without expressing a word of thanks! But in the interests of South Africa we are glad that this stage has been reached. Hon. members must forgive me if it affords me a measure of satisfaction, but is this not a lesson to the Government that they should pay more heed to what the Opposition has to say? What do we find to-day? If you go to overseas libraries, throughout the world, what do you find on the shelves? If a student wants to make a study of South-West Africa then they have to rely on books such as the one written by the communist Ruth First, entitled South-West Africa. They have on the shelves their books such as Brutal Mandate by Loewenstein. There are the numerous one-sided reports drawn up by the U.N. on South-West Africa containing nothing which is sympathetic to or which gives the facts on South-West Africa. For eight years we have been pleading, not that a report be made to the United Nations, but that information be made available there, as is now being done in this case. Even if it is late, one is at least grateful that we have at least reached this stage.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the handling of the cases in regard to Ovamboland, and also referred to the degree to which we support it. I should like to subscribe to what he said and put it to the hon. the Prime Minister that as far as the southern part is concerned, I think the hon. the Prime Minister must reconsider the matter. Mr. Chairman, I have said that this report is a good one, but there remains this problem that in some respects it is a little too clever, because in certain respects there is a conflict between the economic section and the political section. One must never underestimate one’s readers. It is of no avail referring in one section to the progress towards “independence” by areas such as Damaraland and Namaland and Rehoboth if it is stated quite clearly in the economic section that it is totally impossible for the entire South-West Africa to become independent from the Republic. How will small areas like the two mentioned be able to progress towards independence? [Time expired.]

I am glad that hon. members on the opposite side welcome this White Paper on South-West Africa, but it is not correct to say that the outside world does not have similar information at its disposal. The entire court case was conducted on the basis of the information contained in this White Paper, and all that information is available to the public. One has only to read it. It is available in the libraries of the United Nations, and it is very more detailed than this book. The information contained in this book is actually intended to supplement the information made available in the court case.

It is easier to handle.

Yes, that is quite correct, and the other South-West Africa year-book is also easy to handle. Each year the South-West Africa Administration publishes official documents. Full information in regard to any South-West African matter is made available in these official documents. There is the White Book which the Administrator submits each year with his estimates in which all the information contained in this publication appears. It is therefore not correct to say that that information was not available to the world public.

I want to return to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, as well as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said in regard to the policy of the Government in respect of the southern part of South-West Africa. They were very quick to tell us that they agree with us in regard to Ovamboland because they knew that in that case they were in agreement with the policy of this Government.

It is our policy too.

I am glad that the hon. member had said that. It is their policy that Bantu homelands should be established. I want to read to you what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in Windhoek when he was there in 1964 (translation)—

Now it is no longer race federation; it is now territorial federation. We should like clarity in regard to this matter—

Mr. Chairman, here one has the Kaokoveld; that must also receive independence and there are only 10,000 people there. But if we say that Damaraland with its 40,000 people must receive its independence, then that is not acceptable.

Do you want independence for the Kaokoveld only?

How must it become independent? I take it that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition meant that all the northern regions, taken together, should receive independence. Is that what he meant?

You are not being fair to yourself.

Did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mean that all the northern areas together should receive independence?

A federation.

The northern areas must gain independence as one federation.

Not independence.

In the same year the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke in this House about the independence of those areas. In his speech here in the House of Assembly during the period May, 1964, Sir De Villiers Graaff repeated these points with this exception that he used the word “independence” in respect of Ovamboland and the northern regions. [Interjections.] It stand in Hansard. [Interjections.] Good, we agree on the northern regions. If it becomes a Bantu homeland, there is no danger of communist intervention as it was alleged there would have been in other homelands. But the southern part must also become a federation. I am reading what he said in regard to the south. He said (translation)—

I am quoting from Die Suidwes-Afrikaner. He then went on to say—

Let us analyse this. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition suggests that the northern regions must become a federation, whether they are independent or not, and the southern region must form a federation, and then the two federations, the northern and the southern federations, must be integrated on a federal basis with the Central Parliament. He states that all the population groups in question in the south must then receive representation in the legislative assembly so that they can decide their own affairs. Now I am putting it to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: If those two federal elements must obtain representation in this Central Parliament, who must represent them here?

Who is representing them at the moment?

Yes, but then they are separate and have their own government. No, the hon. member cannot evade the issue. Remember, one has various elements forming the federal government. Who represents other federations in their federal parliament? Is it done by people other than one’s own people? Does it happen everywhere? Is it so in America, or in Australia, and was it so in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland? Did their own elected representatives represent them in the central parliament? We are now discussing the policy, and we want clarity in regard to that policy. I as a South-Westerner want to know the following: If the two federations of South-West Africa are going to get representation in this federal Parliament here, who is going to represent them here? The hon. member said that if it were to happen, if their policy of race federation were to be applied, it would be acceptable to the outside world. I want to tell him now that if Ovamboland and the northern sections are not represented by Ovambos in this Central Parliament he can forget about the world ever accepting it. And if the southern part is not represented here by the population groups constituting that legislative assembly, he can forget about the outside world accepting that too. What it amounts to is that their Central Parliament here, which then becomes a federal Parliament, will be a mixed parliament, and that is the final outcome of their race federation.

And that is what you are afraid of.

I am very afraid of that because we are opposed to, and it is in conflict with the policy of the National Party, the fact that we will sit in a Parliament in which all those various races are represented. That is not consistent with our policy of separate development.

The hon. the Deputy Minister will forgive me if I do not follow him. His speech will no doubt be dealt with, but I really want to deal with a matter of policy in so far as the Prime Minister is concerned. I want to deal at once with the point mentioned by my hon. Leader when he mentioned the Oxbow scheme. The hon. the Minister of Water Affairs will, I am sure, not accuse me of discourtesy if I raise this matter under the Prime Minister’s Vote. I do so very much for this reason, that last year, when the Prime Minister’s predecessor was dealing with certain questions particularly in regard to the Tugela and Oxbow, in the Hansard at Col. 117, of 26th January, I said this—

The matter was taken up in this House on 7th October last year, after there had been a rather untoward incident in regard to the presentation of a gift by this Government to the new Parliament of Lesotho. The matter was raised then specifically in regard to the Oxbow scheme, and the present Minister of Water Affairs then said this—

This Session we referred to that in a Private Member’s motion and asked whether he still stood by it, that he is not prepared to negotiate as far as the Oxbow scheme is concerned, with a foreign country on which we may be dependent, and he said he still stood by it. Now, let me for a moment leave that. I want to quote from the report on South-West Africa, which I also want to give full praise to. But for a moment I would like hon. members to listen to what I am going to say as referring to the different states in Southern Africa, and not the different tribes in South-West, because I think it is absolutely applicable. This is at page 49—

I say that we are dealing with this question of the Oxbow scheme, and in the Press it has been reported that we are negotiating also with the Portuguese authorities with regard to the Rucana Falls scheme and a new scheme on the Zambesi. I am asking the Prime Minister for a definition of policy here. I am not criticizing what has appeared in the Press or what has been said by the Minister of Water Affairs. Far from it. I am saying that the late Prime Minister said these were matters for treaty and international agreement. I realize— no one better—that in South Africa we may have a policy in respect to our neighbours, determined on two totally different grounds. We may have a policy based on solid principles of economics. We adopt that policy because for economic reasons it pays us to do so. Or there may be a policy based on different grounds, which have nothing to do with economics at all. It may be a good neighbour policy in relation to our neighbouring states, and because of this policy or that policy, an economic policy or a good neighbour policy, or a conjunction of both, we may follow a certain line. It is quite clear that the Minister of Water Affairs does not like the idea that we are to be dependent on Oxbow, and I emphasize the word “dependent”. It may well be that we can assist in regard to Oxbow, but that we do not want to be dependent on it, and the same applies to the Rucana Falls scheme and the same may apply to the Zambesi scheme. The hon. the Deputy Minister for South-West Africa Affairs talks about independence for Ovamboland, but what about the Rucana Falls scheme? Are they, as was recommended in the Odendaal Report, to be established on the other side of the river, costing many millions of rand? What is to be our policy? Is it to be based upon a good neighbour policy? My leader said, and I agree with him entirely, that we must try to find a method of dealing with our neighbours so as to create good neighbourliness. Some seven or eight years ago I had the advantage of being in India at a Commonwealth Conference and I listened to delegate after delegate from what was then the Commonwealth standing up and condemning Britain for what they called exploitation—exploitation up to the time they got independence, and almost the same delegates in almost the same breath said that now they want Britain to aid them. Eventually I was constrained to say that it seemed to me that what was financial assistance before independence was called exploitation today, and the same financial assistance to-day was now to be called aid. It was another name for the same thing. What risks do we run? This is the point I want to make, and I want to make it as pungently as I can. What risk do we run that the help we may be giving now, which is called aid, may later be called exploitation? As they say in the South-West Africa Survey, what is anathema to-day may be good common sense to-morrow, and vice versa. What guarantee have we got in regard to the aid we are giving, be it in whatever form, not necessarily money—it may be given as assistance to develop this kind of work which is suggested at Oxbow and at Rucana Falls and for the Zambesi. Is that kind of thing going to lead to an accusation that we are guilty of this new colonialism? People may then dislike us and use just any language. This word has lost its meaning in financial circles to-day. When you read the messages that come from overseas, you ask yourself how far can language be distorted? It is absurd. We could give aid with the best intentions in the world, and then be accused of neo-colonialism. Is that where we go from here? How can we safeguard ourselves? What kind of insurance can South Africa have that we will not be treated that way? We see to-day’s political set-up. We see certain nations which claim to be stable, but are they? What happens if there is a change of Government in our neighbouring countries? What was approved of by the present Government might be destroyed by a new Government which suddenly comes into power. That has happened elsewhere in Africa. We need not go further than Tanzania. Compare the policies they followed there after they got independence with the policies they adopted after they consolidated with Zanzibar. That is the point I want to put to the Prime Minister. What is our policy in regard to these huge water works upon which it appears that millions of rands will have to be spent? Are we negotiating on the basis of a good neighbour policy, to help to make those countries more viable, or is it purely an economic policy? [Time expired.]

The hon. member for South Coast advanced arguments which I think he himself did not understand. I think the hon. member should simply accept it as a fact that we lack certain facilities in Africa, for example for the provision of electricity, which is necessary for the establishment of industries and an orderly civilization. Now it so happens that in Southern Africa we have certain rivers on which certain schemes may be established. A scheme such as that on the Kunene and other schemes on our borders are not only of great importance to South Africa, but are also conducive to the establishment of interests which may be to the benefit of other areas. Before any scheme of this nature can be initiated, a thorough investigation must first be instituted and it must be ascertained that it will be possible for the states involved to utilize the projects concerned advantageously, in the remote future as well. And there, I think, we may drop the argument of the hon. member for South Coast.

Some while ago the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made a remark to which I want to refer in passing. In the course of his speech he referred to members on this side of the House who had formerly not been members of the National Party. Now I want to tell the hon. member that it is certainly not a disgrace to change one’s views at some stage of one’s career and to throw in one’s weight with the party which in one’s opinion is following the right course. I hold it against the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that he is perhaps the only member in this House who on some occasions adapts his principles to his party and on other occasions his party to his principles. That I hold against him.

Now I want to deal with some statements made here by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He spoke of our “changing image” abroad. He quoted, inter alia, what Palmer and others had said. I want to tell the Leader of the Opposition that the course adopted by our present Prime Minister does not diverge an inch from the policy we have been following for years. What did happen, was that as a result of the propaganda of the United Party the outside world received an erroneous impression of our present Prime Minister. To prove that I want to quote some extracts from reports written by two newspapers immediately after he became Prime Minister. The London Times said that Mr. Vorster showed a strong similarity with the Chinese communist Leader Mao Tse Tung. Whereas the latter saw saboteurs of the pure revolutionary state everywhere, Mr. Vorster saw secret enemies everywhere. Like Mao’s Red Guards, who acted against the revisionists, Mr. Vorster had his effective military and police apparatus. The New York Times said that South Africa had treated world opinion with the utmost contempt by electing Mr. Vorster as Prime Minister. It said that in their fear South Africa’s Nationalists had handed the reins to the most extremistic, ruthless, totalitarian of their party leaders. The newspaper also said that his election almost certainly meant that South Africa would move more rapidly towards total isolation and ultimate conflict with the major part of the world. That, the newspaper said, was a further setback for the hope of a peaceful solution for South Africa. It goes without saying that now that this image, which the Opposition gave to the outside world, has not been validated, the outside world will in fact be under the impression that there has been a change and that our present Prime Minister has experienced a change of heart—since he is not as cruel as they said he was. In the same breath with which he referred to our image, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to consultations with Jonathan. Now I want to say that it is generally considered in South Africa and also abroad that a break-through has been made in respect of our relations with African states. But it is no break-through in our policy of separate development. On the contrary, it is a break-through which is in fact made possible by our policy of separate development. It is therefore no new policy. Our policy of separate development and our relations with the various states in Africa, as initiated by the previous Prime Minister and pursued by the present Prime Minister, were followed even in the Transvaal Republic, which received missions from Bantu territories and even sent diplomats to Bantu states. Let me give some examples of this. On 12th July, 1864, it was announced in the Government Gazette of the old Transvaal Republic that the hon. J. M. de Beer had been appointed as diplomatic agent among the tribes in the Lydenburg district; in respect of Soutpansberg, Mr. Schoeman was appointed as diplomatic representative on 17th April, 1868. In 1887 a treaty was concluded with the Matabeles, of which section 6 provided that the State President would appoint a person to reside in the territory of Chief Lobengula as consul, to keep an eye on the local subjects of the Transvaal Republic. It was also provided that such a person would be afforded the necessary protection, both as regards his person and his property. It is still the same policy which this Government is following at present. It should also be borne in mind that the attitude advocated by the party on this side of the House could achieve virtually no stature in the world for a long period, even up to 1948, because we were still a dependency, so to speak. For that reason it could not develop its policy.

Were we still a dependency in 1948?

We achieved our so-called sovereignty in 1931, but despite that the sword of Britain still remained over our heads. We need not try to get away from that. It was only after we became a Republic and left the Commonwealth that this party could proceed to develop its sound policy towards African states. Hence this notion that we are now engaged in a change of policy. I say that what is taking place at present in respect of our relations with African states is the logical and natural consequence of our policy of separate development. This policy envisages, firstly, assistance to the Bantu nations in the exploitation of their economic potential and with a view to raising the standard of living of the inhabitants of those homelands and, secondly, establishing a stable, independent and responsible economic and political structure. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down has given us a most interesting account of certain events in history which he remembers and which are important in his view, but it is always very difficult to attach due weight to such an argument if its entire premise is marred by such an allegation as that South Africa was still fettered and a dependency as late as 1948. What a slight that is on the legends of General Hertzog and the previous Nationalist Party, who governed South Africa as a sovereign, independent state until 1933! Hon. members on the opposite side would have us believe that a man like General Hertzog and the Cabinet which he led in those years and afterwards, until 1933, were contented to take a subservient, subordinate, inferior position among the states of the world. I simply refuse to accept that, because I have more respect for General Hertzog and his memory than for hon. members on the opposite side. [Interjections.] Now we are also to assume that we misunderstood the history of South Africa. The hon. member for Middelland has forgotten how the old Nationalist Party under General Hertzog wanted to demonstrate the economic independence of South Africa in the thirties by remaining on the gold standard when they should have left it, and ruined South Africa in the process. They had all right to follow a policy completely different from that of England. Nobody could dispute that. I hope that if we are to argue this—it is an interesting argument—we shall maintain a slightly higher intellectual standard. The hon. member for Middelland is capable of doing so, perhaps more so than most members in the House.

I was most grateful when the hon. the Prime Minister virtually insisted that I should enter the debate. For that reason I am now doing so. I co-operate gladly. I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that we on this side of the House are particularly appreciative, firstly of the detailed exposition we have received from him of the sport policy of the Government under his Prime Minister ship. We really feel that it points to great progress. It is just a pity that the hon. the Prime Minister apparently refuses to admit that there were in fact policy changes in South Africa during the past year. That is why I was so interested in a speech made by the previous Prime Minister at Loskop in September, 1965, because there the Nationalist Party policy in respect of sport was set out differently. I have the same report here which my friend the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had. It is a remarkably lucid report. Die Burger says (translation)—

Then Die Burger continued. It is not I who say this; it is Die Burger who says this—

Nothing could be clearer. But I do not want to take up old sores. I just want to say that the Opposition appreciates the fact that we have a new Prime Minister to-day—a relatively young Prime Minister—and we assume that he will impress his own personality and his own views upon the policy of the party led by him. I see no reason why he should be ashamed of that. I must say that in this respect, as regards the statement he made to-day on sport, he really has nothing to be ashamed of. But we said that before he did. As long as he lives the Prime Minister need never be ashamed of adopting the policy of the United Party. That day will never arrive. On a previous occasion during this session—the Prime Minister will remember—we moved an amendment. That amendment consisted of four main items, but the most important was that we should allow countries with whom we have foreign sport relations and who send teams to South Africa to select their own teams. Admittedly that was in conflict with the statement at Loskop in 1965. But now the Prime Minister says exactly the same. I want to congratulate him and I want to congratulate South Africa. I want to go further. I think it is a huge step forward. I also want to say—I have the authority of my Leader to say that we say this on behalf of this side of the House—that we should like to support the Prime Minister in his appeal to the Press to the effect that the Press and also other people should not make all kinds of hypothetical speculations, some four years before a team is due to come to South Africa, on what may happen to that team and on whether the team may face possible crises and disputes. We think it is not in the interests of sound sport relations in South Africa to anticipate such difficulties. In that respect we also agree with the Prime Minister. From his side he has therefore moved towards us, and now we also move a step towards him.

I wonder whether the Prime Minister will permit me to point out to him that he—as frequently happpens while one is speaking— undertook to deal with this question under the heads of the various branches of sport. He mentioned that he would also deal with cricket. But I think it slipped his mind in the course of his speech. We would be very grateful if we could just know—he need not reply across the floor; he may do so in his own way —whether the principles which he set out with regard to rugby will apply equally to cricket. It is our sincere hope that that will be the case, but now, because he did not mention it specifically, there is some uncertainty.

And now I want to bring the following to his attention—I am not speaking about sport now; I have finished with sport. While he was speaking on sport, the Prime Minister laid down a most important principle on social and similar relations between races in South Africa. He was somewhat annoyed with me when I asked him whether that was his well-considered opinion, and he affirmed that. It was of particular interest to us when the Prime Minister said today what had also been said in Die Burger, in an article by Dawie, some weeks ago. On Sunday there was a most interesting article by Mr. Dirk Richards, of the Prime Minister’s Dagbreek, in which he set out the same attitude. I presume, therefore, that the Prime Minister has already explained this attitude of his to the Press of the Nationalist Party. They are certainly all telling the same story. The story is that one may have relations with people of other races and colours if they are not citizens of one’s own state but citizens of another state, in which case it becomes an inter-state relation.

One head of state to another, yes. And on the other levels.

Not only one head of state to another. I do not want to drag sport into this, but the Prime Minister quite clearly mentioned the instance of the Canada Cup Tournament. So that also becomes an interstate sport relationship. And it is not a relationship of one head of state to another.

And on all the different levels.

On all the different levels. That is the point. Those are the operative words. But is that the Prime Minister’s well-considered opinion? Has he visualized the effects of this policy? I do not want to criticize. I am not saying it is wrong. I am merely seeking clarity. The Prime Minister said he would drive us to state our attitude. I am asking him cordially to explain his attitude.

Go ahead and state your attitude. I shall state mine.

As a member of the House of Assembly I am asked to approve the Prime Minister’s salary and his Votes. I shall never hesitate to state the attitude of the United Party. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, one pities the United Party, because it can never state its policy of its own volition but discovers it every time only after the Prime Minister or a Minister on this side has stated his policy. Thus it has happened several times in the course of this Session that the United Party discovered its policy in surprising fashion after either the Prime Minister or another Minister had spoken. Now we want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to try to forestall the Prime Minister and the Government and to state their own policy with regard to other matters. As for this sport matter to which the hon. member for Yeoville referred, I want to say that the statements to which he referred so fervently were in fact statements which coincided with and related to people who anticipated the circumstances and the times and sought statements in connection with people who would possibly come to South Africa, whether Maoris or others. I am convinced that if New Zealand selected an All Black team, whether this year or next year, which included one or two or three players of Maori descent, they would come to South Africa just as in the past, without any objection on the part of the Government or any other concern in South Africa. We are grateful that this matter was set out so strikingly by the hon. the Prime Minister to-day, so that the Opposition may also be pleased, at least as far as this matter is concerned, and may be in agreement with us on this side.

You are talking rubbish.

The hon. member will get his turn; he may let me have mine now.

I should also like to refer to another development regarding our country’s relations with the states of Southern Africa. I want to leave the sport issue at that and just say that in the past year, and also this year, it was obvious that a very good and favourable development took place as regards our relations with the states of Southern Africa. It is quite clear that a political and economic inter-state relationship is developing which promises much good for our future and the future of Southern Africa. In fact, Southern Africa compares very favourably with the rest of Africa, for the very reason that such good relations are developing between South Africa and the Portuguese territories and other states in Southern Africa. Here I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Midlands said a while ago when he pointed out that it was in fact South Africa’s policy of separate development which was taking shape, which was unfolding and becoming manifest and clear to the people of Southern Africa, the various states, who see that not only is ours a country of potentiality and magnificent development, but that it is also a country which is not in the least engaged in a policy of neo-colonialism. They see that in our endeavours to achieve good relations with the states of Southern Africa we are only trying to help those states to develop peacefully and orderly, as South Africa herself in fact seeks to do. Here I may refer to the sound relations which are developing between South Africa and the former British Protectorates; I may refer to the sound relations developing between us, Rhodesia and Malawi.

I should now like to refer to a specific group of people who have done a great deal in respect of the broad spade-work for these good relations which are developing between South Africa and other states of Southern Africa. I want to refer, namely, to the missionaries of various church denominations in South Africa who more than 70, 80 years ago left South Africa for various African territories—Malawi, Northern Rhodesia, Southern Rhodesia, the Protectorates and South-West Africa. They did not go to those countries with the object of making political conquests, but with the object of founding a Christian Church there. They took with them doctors, teachers, nurses and other people, and thus laid the foundation for the development of civilization in those countries. At the recent visit of the delegation from Malawi—and this may interest hon. members—all three members of the delegation stated that they were members of a certain Afrikaans church in South Africa. They expressed their appreciation for what the Church had done for their country and for them personally. I mention these things in order that we may take note and appreciate the inestimable value of this silent service which was rendered by men who left our country at the turn of the century to go and do that work in Malawi, Northern Rhodesia, Southern Rhodesia and other territories. At the moment there are people, amongst them a capable young man from South Africa, who are founding a church among the Bushmen in South-West Africa. They are learning those people’s language and are translating the Bible into their language. In this era in which we see the development of these good relations I think it is proper that we should recognize and pay tribute to the men who did that important spade-work and who laid the foundation for these fine developments.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Piketberg has stated that the United Party only discovered its policy after the Prime Minister had made a policy statement. I want to suggest that the hon. member has a look at Hansard of 8th February, at the second amendment we moved on the Part Appropriation Bill. He will admit at once— because he is a very honourable man—that the policy statement the Prime Minister made to-day is based four square on the policy statement which was submitted by this side of the House several weeks before the Prime Minister made his speech. That just in passing. I was asking the hon. the Prime Minister whether he would follow through the statement he made in regard to inter-state relationships and relationships in other fields to its ultimate conclusion. Because you see, Mr. Chairman, the policy of the Government is a policy of separate development, parallel development, autogenous development—one can call it what you like—but I take it that the fundamentals of their policy are still the same. The fundamentals of that policy are that homelands be developed for the various ethnic groups amongst our Bantu, and that they are to be allowed—even be helped—to develop until they ultimately obtain full sovereign independence, if that is what they desire and if they are capable of doing so. I take it that that is still the key to the policy of separate development and that they will develop sovereign independence, if Dr. Verwoerd’s policy is still the policy of the National Party. I assume there may be changes. For the purpose of this argument I take it that that is the basis of the Government’s policy. Would the hon. the Prime Minister tell us whether this policy of his would also be consistently applied if all these areas belonging to our own Natives were also to become independent sovereign states? Would it be applied to a sovereign Transkei, a sovereign Zululand, a sovereign Vendaland, a sovereign Tswanaland, a sovereign South Sotholand, a sovereign North Sotholand, and so on? That side is very fond of asking this side questions about our own policy. I now want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister what the position is in regard to similar inter-State relationships which recognize the dignity of those people on an official level? What happened in regard to such inter-State relationships with our own non-Whites who have much closer links with us and who cannot develop their own sovereign or independent homeland? I am talking now about the Coloureds and the Indians in South Africa. I think that before making such lighthearted, and sometimes such derogatory and sharp, remarks about the United Party’s policy he should give us a greater degree of clarity in regard to his own line of thought, and that is why I am asking him these pertinent questions. It is all very well to say that as far as Malawi is concerned, as far as Lesotho is concerned, and ultimately that as far as the Transkei and Zululand are concerned, there will be social intercourse on an inter-State level, in so far as it is necessary that there will be diplomatic intercourse and that there will even be clashes on the sports fields in terms of certain existing traditions which we have, but what about the other two coloured communities who will not have their own state and for whom there will be no inter-State relationships? How can one justify that logic?

Tell me what your policy is.

I am coming to that.

You will never come to that.

Our policy is very clear. Where it is necessary for the head of our state, or for any V.I.P. of our state to have contact, in the interests of the administration of our state, on any level with leading non-Whites of South Africa, that contact is necessary and desirable. General Smuts was in contact with men like Professor Matthews and other well-known Coloured leaders such as Dr. Abdurahman and Church leaders, and it was quite natural and quite right. I do not know why the Prime Minister is making such a tremendous fuss about it, and that is why I am asking whether he realizes that his policy will inevitably lead to his having to accept further aspects of the United Party’s common-sense policy. It is inevitable; he will have to accept them. The hon. the Deputy Minister for South-West Africa Affairs has asked us certain questions in regard to our policy. I want to reply to those questions and I want to say to him straight away that the policy of the United Party is that the various races, with the exception of the Cape Coloureds, will be represented by Whites in this House. That is our policy and it is stated in writing.

That is not what you said in London.

I was not in London when I said that. I was here in Cape Town. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, hon. members on that side can carry on as much as they like. They will not listen to the reply even if they know what it is. Our policy is that their representatives in this House will be Whites except in the case of the Cape Coloureds. In the case of the Cape and Natal Coloureds their old rights will be restored to them and they will be able to elect Coloureds to represent them in Parliament if they so desire. In the case of the Transvaal and Free State Coloureds they will be able to elect Coloureds on separate Voters’ Rolls, if they so desire. Here it stands in black and white.

And in regard to Ovamboland, who will represent Ovamboland here?

As far as the Natives are concerned, whether in South-West Africa or in South Africa, their representatives here will be Whites.

For how long? For always?

For how long will the policy of the National Party be carried out? This double standard by which they are trying to judge us must come to an end now. Here we have an official statement, the most comprehensive statement in regard to National Party policy which has ever been published, which was published for world consumption and by which means the world must be sold on the National Party’s policy for South Africa, and what do they state here to be their ultimate policy? I am reading from page 49—

It is the United Party’s philosophy which they have taken over. They have not only taken over our policy but also our philosophy. We say that any colour policy in South Africa must be of this nature—

It then continues—

And now the most priceless statement of all—

Naturally; there is nothing wrong with that.

They then go on to say very clearly that those ultimate relationships could very probably be a form of union, not a federation. It could be a form of union; it could be a form of federation; it could be a Common Market. Here it stands. Hon. members on that side do not know what their ultimate policy is going to be. If I were to debate on the same level, then I am now saying to the hon. the Prime Minister that he should give up and tell us where the policy of separate development is going to end, in view of all the alternatives contained in his own official document, as the future separate development? Is it going to be a federal relationship; is it going to be a unitary relationship; is it going to be a Common Market relationship? What will it be, because all the possibilities are being presented to the world as the final result of separate development? We on this side maintain that we must do what is right and necessary for all the races in South Africa according to the Divine guidance given us in the times in which we are living. We must try and guide the development in the right direction and we believe that the right direction for South Africa is a federal one.

As human beings we do not have the right to say that we will be able to determine the future course of events. Future generations will also have to take their decisions; future generations will also have to make their own adjustments. Mr. Chairman, I want the hon. the Prime Minister to reply to one pertinent question: Why does he condemn us because we say this, but say exactly the same thing when he wants to announce his policy to the world and announce, as he has done on page 49 of this document, the same philosophy, the same basic point of departure and line of thought in regard to colour matters? He was an old United Party man and we do not blame him for ploughing with our heifers, but all we are asking him is to have the courtesy to admit that he has taken over the United Party’s policy and that he will not try to impute to us things which we do not deserve, because if we are guilty then he is equally guilty.

Mr. Chairman, this debate is becoming particularly interesting for me now. The hon. member for Yeoville became terribly excited. What he really wants is for me to say to him: “Monkey, what a fine fellow you are”. That is what he really wants from me. How silly can one get? I thought the hon. member was better acquainted with my political past. If he wants to berate me about my political past, why does he berate me as being a United Party man? I just want to get the record straight. The hon. member said that I was a member of the United Party. Let us understand each other very well.

You were never a United Party man.

The hon. member said that I was a member of the United Party. That is of course an infamous untruth; it is an infamous lie.

Order! The hon. the Prime Minister may not use the word “lie”. “Untruth” is quite permissible.

I just want to argue it out with you then. The hon. member must admit that he was wrong.

I am sorry; I meant to say “Afrikaner Party”. I realize now that I inadvertently used the term “United Party”.

The hon. the Prime Minister may proceed.

Very well then, I accept it like that.

Withdraw the word “lie”.

The hon. member for Yeoville has made the apology I demanded from him, and so I gladly withdraw the word. But how silly can one be. I asked the hon. member for Yeoville to state his policy, and what did I get from him? He stated that his policy was that the Government must have contact with the various race groups. I want to put this in all fairness to the hon. member for Yeoville: He was acquainted with former Ministers and in particular he was acquainted with former Ministers of Bantu Affairs in South Africa, and I want to ask him this question: In the years during which my predecessor, the late Dr. H. F. Verwoerd, was Minister of Bantu Affairs in South Africa, who had more contact with the Bantu than he?

But there is no difference of opinion on that score. I cannot remember having said anything like that.

The hon. member has stated that it is the United Party policy. [Interjections.] The hon. member is making great play of it being their policy. It is no policy. It is merely what is essential for any Minister to do. But there are many matters in regard to which the hon. member must state their policy. The policy deals with representation in this House. The hon. member for Yeoville must remember that their sixpence policy stated that the person who differed from that policy would be kicked out of the Party. That is why I am waiting so anxiously for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to give me the Eden statement. I hope I am going to get it before this debate has run its course, because the hon. member said just now that the Rand Daily Mail reported it incorrectly, and I should like to offer an apology to the hon. member for Karoo if I have quoted incorrectly as a result of the newspaper’s incorrect report. But I also think it is necessary that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should himself get up here and announce that policy to us.

But I am merely rising to reply to a few questions put by the hon. member for Yeoville. He asked what the ultimate goal of separate development was. We have stated the ultimate goal of separate development for the Bantu over and over again here. It is independence. It is self-determination.

And what if they do not want it?

Then we are not forcing it upon them. Then they stay just where they are. Then we will continue to do our duty towards them, but they then remain subject to us, if they choose to be that. [Interjection.] I am simply replying to the question put by the hon. member, i.e. that the ultimate goal of separate development is independence. That has always been our view, and it remains our view.

The hon. member asked me other questions arising from the cricket question. There my policy remains the same as it is in regard to rugby. I am not going to prescribe to anybody, but the reservations which I added in that case apply in this respect as well, and I want to repeat them, i.e. that politicians must not intervene in the matter to impair relations between countries, that sport must not be dragged into politics in order to achieve some purpose or other, and that it must not create difficulties for me at home.

Those are the three conditions which I laid down. And if that should happen, I would have the courage of my convictions and would say to the country in question that I was sorry but that as a result of such and such an occurrence I would place my domestic relations, or I would place our international relations, above those of the sport, and that I would then rather sever the sport relations. But now the hon. member has come along and he has been so kind as to accuse me of following his policy. All that has happened is that here and there the means of this policy which I have stated may coincide with what may be the hon. member’s conviction. I cannot be held responsible for the hon. member for Yeoville agreeing with me. But I do want to know from the hon. member whether he agrees with the preamble which I made, i.e. that at all times participation in sport amongst our own people will take place on a separate basis and that proficiency—I am referring now to the Papwa case—will not mean that a man who has reached that standard will compete with Whites here in South Africa, because that would be a violation of my policy.

But you have allowed it nevertheless.

Yes, and the hon. member knows as well as I do what the circumstances were that gave rise to that. But I am talking now about a policy based on principle, and that will be my policy in the future. I want to know from the hon. member whether he agrees with that. I do not expect him to reply across the floor of the House. I know that these are difficult questions which I am putting to him and that he needs a little time to consider them, but once he has considered them, will he then stand up and tell this House whether or not it is his policy? In other words, I am putting it to him now in regard to the preamble, but I am also putting it in regard to the reservations which I made. Does the hon. member subscribe to them? You see, Sir, here in the middle things draw a little closer together, but when it comes to the crux of the matter I do not get a reply.

May I, for the sake of clarity, put a question? Would a man like Papwa be allowed to compete in the Canada Cup Competition in South Africa? He plays abroad.

He plays abroad, but if the hon. member would only take the trouble to ascertain what the composition of that competition is, he would not even ask the question. I have a whole book on the subject, and I shall give it to the hon. member. [Interjection.] My reply is no, he cannot play here, and I shall give the hon. member the book to prove that that is the case because it will mean that the other countries—and I now want to explain again to the hon. member what an inter-state relationship is—competing on that basis will come and play here. I should also like to remove any misunderstanding which may possibly arise from that, because it does not seem to me that the hon. member understands very well what is meant by inter-state relations, if the hon. member would read in that book … and I want to tell him straight away that if the Transkei or Ovamboland were to become independent and the Prime Minister of the Transkei or of Ovamboland were to come here he would get the same reception from me as would the Prime Minister of Lesotho or Malawi, because it would then be an inter-state relationship. But that does not mean to say that when Coloured citizens of other countries come here they can disregard our conventions, customs and laws in respect of colour relations. We must understand each other very clearly on that point.

Except if they come as members of a sports team.

Or if he comes as Prime Minister, but then he comes in another capacity altogether. Then he does not come as an individual coming here on a visit or to travel through this country; then he comes as a representative of his country. Surely the hon. member understands the fiction which has existed for many years in law. Then colour is secondary, because he is representing his country, and it is in that capacity that he is coming here.

What if he is an important businessman?

Then he represents his business and I would not accord him the same treatment I would accord the Prime Minister. He would in fact receive that treatment, in so far as it was necessary, from the people with whom he was doing business, just as a Bantu receives if he enters a white shop to make purchases, or a Coloured if he enters a shop to make purchases, namely elementary decent treatment. The hon. member asks me: “Would it therefore apply to the territories which become independent?” My reply is yes. The hon. member also quoted here the words, “to cope with changing circumstances”. But it has always been pre-eminently the National Party’s policy to take changed circumstances into account. One such example of changed circumstances was the desire of the black people to become independent. Twenty years ago there was no such desire.

[Inaudible.]

Who created that image? That hon. member and his Press. The hon. member and his Press are the people who created that image. That was the image of my worthy predecessor which they sent out into the world. It was the image of him that they presented which has done South Africa so much damage. I do not want to elaborate on it, because I would then be forced to say things which I would rather not say. But what is the fact of the matter? If the hon. member now thinks he is going to steal a march on me and make the world believe that I am differing with my predecessor or that I am adopting a new policy, then the hon. member is making a mistake. Who knew my predecessor better, the hon. member or I? Who lived closer to him, the hon. member or I? Let me tell the hon. member this. My predecessor had two tasks. The one was to make the Republic acceptable to the people of South Africa, and it was an enormous task to make the English-speaking people, who had been roused up by the hon. member and his people, accept the Republic. That was his one major task, and it took up years of his time. What was his other task?

His other task was to have separate development accepted by the various colour groups in South Africa, and it was necessary because those hon. members were continually placing that policy under a cloud of suspicion. It became necessary because hon. members did not for one moment hesitate to do so. Do you remember when we were introducing the Bill on separate universities? Do you remember how hon. members on the opposite side roused the Coloureds against that institution, to mention but one example? Do you remember how they belittled it to the extreme so that no decent self-respecting Coloured would ever want to have anything to do with that institution? Mr. Chairman, that was my predecessor’s task and his difficulty. He devoted the entire eight years he was in office in South Africa to getting the Republic accepted, and praise be to God he succeeded in doing so, and in that lies the memory of his strength. He succeeded in doing so and his monument in South Africa will be that separate development did not only become the policy of the National Party, but became the accepted policy of South Africa. I want to point out to the hon. member for Yeoville that when my esteemed predecessor had done that, the time had come for him to go out into the world, but he was not to be granted that opportunity. He was lost to us before that time. What I am doing now is not to differ from my esteemed predecessor, but he made it possible for me to be able to do these things because he laid the foundations on which I can build. I can build on the foundations which he laid. I was able to make the breakthrough with Jonathan because my predecessor had already made it possible for me in his lifetime. I could negotiate with those African states on the basis on which I did because my predecessor, with his policy, made it possible for me to do so. I want to put that very clearly here, and I hope that this parrot cry will cease now. Hon. members will not steal a march on me. Hon. members will not succeed in making my people suspicious of me. If those are their tactics, they are doomed to utter failure. If hon. members on the opposite side are serious when they say that I am implementing their policy, then surely they no longer have the right to exist. Do you know, Sir, I am not the only person who thinks so. The public outside also think so. The public outside think so to a very large extent. I am waiting again for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to state his policy. I shall then tell him whether it is in agreement with my policy. I do not think that that will be the case. I should like to hear what the standpoint of the hon. member for Karoo was which the Rand Daily Mail misinterpreted. I am waiting anxiously to hear that.

Mr. Chairman, when I was a young member in this House, I heard the Prime Minister of the day, the late Dr. Malan, say to a member opposite: The trouble with this member is that he is suffering from an attack of Burgeritis. If I were to interpret the disease of the hon. the Prime Minister at the moment, I would say that he is suffering from an attack of Burgeritis. He has been reading Die Burger too much, and its leading articles, and he has made up his mind that since he cannot defend on the economic front, the best thing is to try to drag in race relations into his Vote to see if he can get something out of that. [Interjections.] Let me say to the hon. gentleman that I am prepared to meet him, as I met his predecessor, and his predecessor before that, and exchange policies with him in this House, but I shall do it in my own time and in the manner which will give this debate some continuity. Let me tell you, Sir, that this hon. gentleman is not going to escape. I am raising these matters with him all in good time, and I am raising one matter at a time. The hon. the Prime Minister has given us the statement on sport which I must say comes very close to the United Party policy statement made in this House in the appropriation debate. There may be a few minor differences in respect of internal policy, in that we are inclined to leave more to the discretion of the bodies that manage sport in South Africa, as it has been left to their discretion in the last 200 years. We see no reason for this anxious intervention by the State in the administration of sport in South Africa, which has been done so magnificently and so adequately and has brought such distinction upon South Africa in years gone by. Nevertheless we have seen an advance. I commend the Prime Minister on that. We have got away from the old principle: When we visit your country, we accept your social conventions; when you come to our country you accept our social conventions. There is another principle accepted, and I welcome it. That is that where there are inter-state relations with states with whom we want to remain on a sporting footing, we do not argue about who represents which state. I welcome that.

With a proviso attached.

With the proviso attached that it might create internal disturbance and that it might create international incidents. I accept that. On that basis we would not play against them in any event. I hope that we never have the international repercussions that were once the result of the bodyline crisis in Australia. The Prime Minister drew my attention to a report in the Rand Daily Mail of a memorandum given out by the hon. member for Karoo. I spoke to the hon. member about it and before I say another word let me say he is extremely disappointed that medically he is not permitted to speak to-day although he is extremely anxious to speak and defend himself on this matter. Sir, the whole problem with this particular memorandum is that it was under a covering letter and that unless you have the covering letter you do not understand the context. [Laughter.] Mr. Speaker. I quite fail to understand the amusement of hon. members opposite. If I send you a memorandum by means of a covering letter and in the covering letter I say that a memorandum is enclosed containing the policy of the Nationalist Party you would not proceed to contribute that policy to me? [Interjections.] The letter under cover of which this memorandum was distributed reads—

Now laugh! The hon. member does, therefore, not accept that as his policy or as being the policy of the United Party. He believes that to be an interpretation of what the Coloureds and Indians in South Africa want at the present time. They may be crying for the moon, but that is what they want.

Read the letter. Who was it addressed to?

It is addressed to voters in his constituency and to a number of Coloureds and Indians, I understand, in other provinces. I’ll give the letter to the hon. the Prime Minister.

The hon. the Prime Minister challenged me in respect of a report in which I am alleged to have produced a blueprint for the future of South Africa. I did, Sir. And what is more, it was a first-class speech! In it I laid down the conditions for the future prosperity of South Africa, for the security of South Africa and for the happiness of all its peoples. I set out very carefully why the Nationalist Party policy would never produce that measure of prosperity, and I was right. I also set out why the Nationalist Party with its policy would always leave doubts about our security. And I was right. I showed why Nationalist Party policy could never give much happiness to all the peoples of South Africa, as the policy of the United Party would—again I was right. Mr. Speaker, I am awfully tempted to read certain passages from the speech to the hon. the Prime Minister but the danger is that if I read it to-day he will be telling us next session that it is his policy. If ever I came across a Government that is very keen to take advice from the Opposition, it is this Government.

The Prime Minister also asked me if I believed that sport should be managed each group for itself internally. Yes, Sir, I do. I believe that is the most satisfactory method. Sport involves social intercourse of one kind or another. However, as I have said, I prefer to see non-Government interference in these matters and that it be left to the sporting bodies themselves to manage matters as they have done in the past.

You have dealt with the management of sport but not with the players themselves.

I believe the social conventions of South Africa should be observed as, I believe, they have been for a very long time now.

The hon. the Prime Minister also raised the question of Coloured representation in this House. As far as I am concerned I am perfectly prepared to debate it with the hon. gentleman, but is it wise to do so? Is this matter not before a commission now? Do we really want to debate it here to give guidance to that commission or are we going to leave it to the commission to report first and thereafter debate its report to see what conclusions we arrive at in the best interests of South Africa? The policy of my party is perfectly plain and always has been. There against the policy of the Prime Minister’s party has changed somewhat in the 20 years I have known them.

What is your policy?

It is set out quite clearly in this booklet and I am quite prepared to give the hon. the Prime Minister a copy although I am sure he has read it many times. [Time expired.]

As the Prime Minister’s Vote presents an opportunity for the greatest confrontation of the Session between the policies of the respective parties, I think this is the appropriate time to take stock of the political situation as it has developed since the National Party took over the reins of government in 1948. In this regard I want to make a statement on which certain hon. members will not agree with me, but on which 90 per cent of the people outside will agree with me. That is that if the National Party had not come into power in 1948, there would have been a black government in this House to-day. To demonstrate that we have to recall the measures which the National Party Government took from time to time, measures which were consistently opposed by the Opposition. These were measures which were primarily intended to effect separation of the white and non-white races of South Africa, firstly in the political field, here in this House. Here the National Party succeeded in effecting political separation. The first measure in this regard was to abolish the Bantu representation in this House and to give them a quid pro quo in terms of which they will be able to govern themselves in accordance with their own instincts and customs—in other words, separate development. In this field there are two concepts, two conflicting concepts, which show the world and the people where the National Party stands on the one side and the United Party on the other side. On the one side there is the National Party policy of good neighbourship, a policy which is now unfolding quite clearly—to such an extent that even the outside world is now forming a better conception of it. On the other side there is the concept of partnership as set out by the United Party from time to time.

I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the following question. He happens to be a practical man. Would he as a stud farmer like to enter into partnership with all his competitors and fellow-farmers in this country as far as his stud farming is concerned? How long would he then be able to survive as a stud farmer? He will appreciate immediately that as this kind of thing cannot be done with regard to animals, it is even less possible in respect of the population, a population which is as multi-racial as the local one. But the things to which I have referred are not the only ones which we may recall. Let us just take some of the major points of policy in respect of which we were opposed so constantly by the U.P. We have to bear in mind that the rising generation, which at present forms the major portion of the electorate, may not have such a clear conception of what the position would have been if the U.P. had still been in power. There is the question of our citizenship. If the N.P. had not won our own citizenship for us, we would still have been British subjects under the old laws. We would still have had two flags. We would still have had two National Anthems. We would not have had population registration to indicate who was white, who Coloured and who Bantu. All these things were achieved by the N.P. We would not have had a Republic, but would still have been a member of the Commonwealth, together with countries such as Sierra Leone and with people such as Nyerere, we would still have been in the Commonwealth along with that whole bunch. We would have had no political separation here—the Coloureds would still have been with us on a common voters’ roll. The Coloureds would have had no representation in this Parliament, which they do have at present. The young people of South Africa would not have had the vote, because that was also opposed by the U.P. Apart from these political benefits, South Africa would not have had a Sasolburg, one of our greatest supporting pillars in the economic sphere, which was also established by the N.P. We would not have had a greater Iscor. We may continue along these lines. Not only do we have a state of national prosperity in South Africa now, not only an economic situation which inspires jealousy throughout the world, but we have a situation which enables the country to offer our neighbours and all the states in Africa the guidance, the knowledge and the advice which may make them prosperous, too. As a result of the N.P.’s political policy, a policy which has been advocated and put into practical effect since 1948, we have the situation to-day that our non-white races are not only grasping the concepts of good neighbourliness for the first time, but are also trying to put these into practice and to transmit them to black states in Africa. For these reasons we cannot but congratulate the hon. the Prime Minister and lend him our solid support, particularly in view of what he announced this afternoon. Once South Africa has succeeded—as it is now doing to some extent—in getting across its real policy, as it is now unfolding, to the world abroad and to the states of Africa, South Africa will naturally become the leader on the entire Continent of Africa. From time to time we are the victims of sophistry at the U.N., on the part of the Opposition and of the hostile Press in South Africa. Yet despite all that resistance South Africa is the country which inspires jealousy in others. I want to add that if the N.P. had not been in power, we would quite probably have had a bunch of false prophets in charge of affairs here, apart from the fact that South Africa could have been a black state with a black government. Because not one of the U.P.’s predictions of the time of what would happen under the National Party Government, has been validated—they were all false. In spite of all those attempts at undermining, all those attempts to present us in a bad light in the outside world, the N.P. nevertheless succeeded in making the country develop, in making it grow and become stronger. As I said here seven years ago, the day will come when South Africa will convince the world that this is the best, the only concept by which justice can be done to all the various population groups. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I was asking the hon. the Prime Minister whether he was going to discuss Coloured representation or whether, by virtue of the fact that this matter was before a commission it was not perhaps wiser that we left that on one side and discuss this matter when the commission brought in its report.

You know, of course, about the reservations that were made at the time.

The reservations by yourself and myself?

Yes.

Yes, I accept those reservations. I have no worry. The policy of the U.P. is set out very clearly in this pamphlet in my hand, and has been our policy since 1963.

It is not the same policy as that of Japie Basson.

Yes, it is the same policy as that of Japie Basson.

Give us your policy in writing.

I quote from the U.P. pamphlet Handbook for Better Race Relations—

Not in the House.

Not in the House, no, but …

He said in Parliament; he did not say in the “Volksraad”.

Parliament consists of two Houses.

Perhaps the hon. the Minister will listen. I repeat—

That means this House. It is perfectly correct —that is how it stands. I do not propose to take that matter any further at this stage, except to say that I believe that this is a far more consistent policy than the one advocated by the party on the other side. I well remember the days when their idea was that the representatives of the Coloured people would be “second-class members of Parliament”, and now they have changed their minds and made them “first-class members of Parliament”. They then tried to deprive them of certain of their rights. If the Prime Minister wants to discuss this issue, perhaps he can tell us whether we can accept from him that these Coloured representatives are going to remain in this House under the policy of his party?

I told you last year what my view was.

Yes, you told us what your view was, namely when the Coloured Council asked for them to be removed.

Yes—I told you what my view was.

What are you going to suggest to the Coloured Council they do?

I told you last year.

I think that we should know where we are.

I told you that I am not compromised and as far as I am concerned that representation is wrong.

As far as you are concerned that representation is wrong …

Yes, I said that.

·… but you are not going to remove it unless the Coloureds ask for it. Is that correct?

No.

Very well. I will wait for the hon. gentleman to set it out himself, if he wants to discuss it now. That is no worry to me.

Now, the Deputy Minister for South-West Africa Affairs I know means well and I do want to get certain matters quite clear with him. I will give him sight of the speeches I made. These copies are all that I have and I do not want to lose them. The position is this …

What about Hansard?

There is no Hansard in Windhoek. The position is perfectly simple. The United Party suggested that north of the police zone—the Caprivi-Zipfel, Ovamboland, Okavango and a short portion of the Kaokoveld—formed one unit where to a large extent there had been a measure of self-rule, indeed, for many years. They have maintained law and order themselves. The police hardly ever worried to visit them. We believe that they could slowly work up a measure of self-government which would enable them to form a unit which could have a direct association with the Republic of South Africa. It is the policy of that party that Coloureds should be represented by Europeans. So they can have no worry about the fact that we feel that that area could be represented by Europeans in this Parliament. As regards this southern portion, our difficulty was that there was a suggestion that a large number of small tribes or groups should be given the right of self-determination to the point of independence. We felt that they were not viable and we felt that the areas demarcated for their so-called homelands bore no relation to where they were living at the present time. In fact, we believe that it would require the moving of 166,000 people to be moved into those homelands where there are only some 25,000 of the original inhabitants living. We believe that this was a population movement unprecedented in modern times. We believe that to give groups which were not viable independence was asking for trouble. Therefore we believe that they, too, should come together under one legislature—the legislature in the southern portion, which in its turn should have a federal relationship with the Republic. We believe that in the legislature which they have in South-West Africa there should be representation of the various groups from time to time that have developed up to that stage, so that they would have a say in the Government which finally controls their destinies.

What form of representation?

That is a matter to be decided in the future.

White or nonwhite?

I want to say that our policy is white, except in the case of Coloureds, but we subscribe so completely to the United Party philosophy outlined in this document that I am surprised that the hon. the Minister even worries to ask me. Nor is it necessary to embark on speculation as to what the ultimate future political pattern will be, that is whether and to what extent there may be amalgamation or union of some kind, a federation, a commonwealth … [Interjections.] If one reads the portion on the Transkei one finds much the same sort of philosophy, as I have in mind, in respect of the reserves. I think there ought to be no doubt between us. What worries me is that the policy of the Government party is to lead these people up to the point of self-determination. Thereafter it has no policy for them; thereafter it says nothing as to what the future relationship will be. It is mere speculation as to how that territory is going to be governed, whether it is going to be completely balkanized, whether it is going to be a series of independent little groups fighting with each other, or what the relationship is going to be with the Government of the Republic of South Africa. We at least state ideals for which we are striving, namely that there should be two big units which should be reasonably self-contained, that each of those units should be in a federal relationship with the Republic. We may not achieve it. There may be international difficulties.

Independent units?

Separate from each other but not in the sense of having independence as independent states. We want to see them under the umbrella, under the federal association with the Republic of South Africa, but never independent of the Republic. I state that quite categorically. That is our ideal, and we believe that is in the best interests of South-West Africa and all its people. We believe it is in the best interests of South-West Africa that so far as possible it should retain one economy. We believe that those people should be assisted to develop by means of a policy of industrial partnership. We believe that as far as possible we should not have independent units, units competing with each other in the economic sphere and lowering wages against each other to the detriment of the people in the Territory.

I believe that if you compare the outline of policy that we have given with the outline of policy given even in this Survey by the Government, then I believe any “Suidwester” would want to support our policy and not the policy of the Government. I look forward to the time of meeting the Prime Minister in debate in Windhoek—let us argue this matter out before the people of South-West Africa and let us see what they want.

Is that the reason why you have no representation in the Legislative Assembly?

The hon. member for Middelland talks about the United South-West Africa National Party which he knows is not part of the United Party. Or has he forgotten that too? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal firstly with the reply I received from the hon. member for Yeoville. I asked the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the pertinent question: Who will represent that northern territory—Ovamboland, Kaokoveld, and the few others—in the central parliament here? Would they be Bantu or would they be Whites? The hon. member for Yeoville then replied that they would be Whites.

Yes.

Now I am asking him this: How can he lay down the law to an independent territory, an independent country?

When did Ovamboland become independent?

I shall tell you now when it became independent. In 1964, during the discussion of the Odendaal Report here, the hon. the Leader said the following (Hansard, col. 5474) in a speech which was virtually a verbatim repetition of the speech he had previously made in Windhoek—

According to the Leader each region has developed its own form of autonomy. The Leader elaborated on that and referred to the Laokoveld, Ovamboland. the Caprivi Strip and Okavango, and further on he said—

Thereupon I asked the following by way of interjection, “A big Bantustan?” The hon. the Leader’s reply to that was—

I should say a big independent area …

No, I did not say that.

Here it is in Hansard: “… a big independent area …”

I think that is a translation—I wonder what I did say.

We all wonder.

Now, I fail to understand how one can say that that area will develop into a big independent area—it says so in Hansard and I must accept it …

That was never the intention.

… and how one can subsequently say, “We shall tell that independent area that it may not send a nonwhite person to this House to represent it here,” and think that the outside world will be charmed with that.

Is your policy being determined by what the outside world wants?

What I read out here to-day is what the hon. the Leader also said in Windhoek. He said in Windhoek that your policy would also satisfy the outside world. Therefore, it is not the Government that formulates a policy to satisfy the outside world, but it is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who has determined a policy for the approval of the outside world.

I am returning to this White Paper. I shall read what is said on page 49 of the South-West Africa Survey 1967—

I repeat, “develop amongst the non-white peoples …”—

This only relates to the non-Whites of South-West Africa. The report goes on to say—

It refers to the non-white groups.

That is United Party policy.

Wait a moment. The report states further—

Why should we speculate on that? Then the report states further—

They will exist among those groups, not between them and the Republic, not with our White Government here.

No commonwealth for the Republic?

No.

Are you excluding that?

In his recent speech in Ovamboland the hon. the Minister told the Ovambos that they could have independence. He told them that we were not going to tell them what they had to do in the future—in the future they themselves can decide whether they want to continue on their own or whether they want to co-operate with other aboriginal groups. [Interjections.]

Order!

Yes, now they are making quite a din, Mr. Chairman. They do not want to hear. They, the population groups, can decide whether they want to amalgamate or whether they want to remain on their own. They can decide whether they want to co-operate with one another in a union, whether they want to federate, or whatever they want to do. That is our point of view. Once those people have been granted their independence—and that is our policy— it does not make any difference to us whether they want to co-operate and in what form they want to co-operate with others; that is their affair because they are independent. As far as viability is concerned, it has been stated time and again that it is the policy of the Government that, as regards those small areas, we want to grant political independence but we want economic inter-dependence—political independence and economic inter-dependence. That is the course of events all over the world. Europe is not the only place where countries co-operate mutually in the economic sphere. Why can those areas not co-operate mutually in the economic sphere so as to make it possible for them to exist? Why can those areas not co-operate economically with the Whites so as to make it possible for them to exist? Why can they not co-operate economically with South Africa, along with the Whites, so as to make it possible for them to exist? That is the policy of this Government. There is no need for the total economic exclusion of these territories from the rest of the country, once they have become politically independent, politically separate, once they have become self-governing. They can be inter-dependent economically and make a good living in that way.

The question is: What about the future? On one occasion the late Dr. Verwoerd said here that as far as the future was concerned, as far as the future relationship between non-whites and the white state was concerned—as he envisaged it—there would be a loose form of a commonwealth. It is not the policy of this Government that some or other non-white state in South Africa should co-operate with the white section of this country on either a union basis or a federal basis, because that will result in our having to grant them representation in this white Parliament, something we shall not do. That is the great difference between this side and that side. We foresee a white Parliament and separate non-white Parliaments in their own territories. We do not at all foresee a joint session of Whites and non-Whites in this House. I repeat that if the policy of that side were to be implemented, namely that of granting representation in this central Parliament to the various elements of the federation, it must result in those territories having to be represented here by their own people. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, did I understand the hon. the Deputy Minister correctly that he said that there was no question of these areas forming part of a commonwealth with the Republic?

Mr. Chairman, on a point of explanation: I said that Dr. Verwoerd had stated that as far as the ultimate future was concerned, the relationship between the various non-white states in Southern Africa—which includes South-West Africa— would be a loose form of co-operation in the common interest, a form of commonwealth, but not a commonwealth as we knew it when we were a member of the old British Commonwealth of Nations.

Must I understand from this hon. gentleman that the white group in S.W.A. will not be allowed to have a federal or a unitary relation with the Republic of South Africa?

I am talking about the non-Whites.

The hon. gentleman should express himself more carefully. He places us in a very difficult position. I asked him whether they would not have even a commonwealth relationship with the Republic and he said: “No.” I accept that.

On a point of explanation: I was discussing the relationship between the non-white groups among themselves—they can become united on a federal basis or any other basis, but not with the Whites.

The hon. gentleman quoted to me a certain passage of the debates on the 5th May, 1964. I see that I said (column 5474)—

The hon. the Deputy Minister then interjected: “A big Bantustan?” I replied as follows—

[Interjections.] If they will ever be independent, they will be in an independent group in the sense of a separate group which comes together to form part of a race federation in the whole of the Republic of South Africa. That is the whole point. I do not think that there can be any doubt about it here. I think that when one reads on, it becomes clearer. I quote from Hansard (column 5475)—

How can they be independent if they have a federal relationship with the Government of the Republic? The hon. member will see that “independence” was used there in the English sense of “separate” and not “sovereign” independence.