I move—

Before I go on to the main subject that I want to deal with, I want to pay from this side of the House, a special tribute to those people who have helped to work our harbours and everything connected with them during this period of almost crisis, a period during which they have had to handle traffic which was never intended to be handled with the facilities at their disposal, owing to the closure of the Suez Canal. I cannot find words to express our thanks for the wonderful job which has been undertaken without complaint and in the most efficient manner, as we have all seen, and I am sure that not only this side of the House but everybody in South Africa would like to be associated with this tribute to these people.

I want to come now to a subject which I raised last year in passing and which has been raised from time to time in this House in passing but which has never been dealt with, to the best of my knowledge, as fully as it should be. I want to raise the question of the control and the planning of our harbours and the creation of a body whose sole responsibility shall be the planning, the administration and the development of our harbours. Included in this, will, of course, be the training of those people whom the hon. the Minister said he could not get because he could not go and pull them off the streets, the specialized staff needed for the working of the harbours of South Africa and any harbours, because dealing with ships and shipping requires a special knowledge and not only a special knowledge, but a special feeling which you only find in people who are fond of the sea, in people who deal with ships. You do not find it in other people. I think this is an added reason why we should have an authority to train such people to handle our harbours and our ports, and until we accept this fact I believe that we are not going to make any progress at all. Sir, on each and every occasion that this particular subject has been raised, the hon. the Minister has immediately taken up an attitude which amounts to this: “We are doing all right as we are and we do not intend to do anything about this under any circumstances.” In fact, he is almost belligerent about it. I want to make it quite clear from the start that it is not my intention, and I do not believe it is the intention of anybody else, to take the control of the harbours away from the Minister. We are not interested in the financial aspect of the working of the harbours so much as the proper working of the harbours and proper planning. I want to make this point quite clear so that the Minister will view what I have to say against the right background and in the right spirit. I believe that the debate which we have had this week on harbour matters has accentuated the need for a body such as I am going to put forward later on. I believe it has accentuated it in many ways.

Here in Cape Town alone the planning is chaotic. I use the word “chaotic” advisedly. We have had nothing put to this House which, for instance, relates the cost of a Rietvlei fishing harbour, which I believe the hon. the Minister or at any rate his colleagues will have to embark upon, and the cost of the scheme which the hon. the Minister was going to embark upon in Table Bay Docks and the necessity for shipbuilding or other provisions which are apparently envisaged for this end of the continent. We have had no comparative scheme put to us. If, for example, these were all put in at Rietvei, what would be the comparative cost as compared with putting them individually in Cape Town harbour, in Reitvlei and perhaps in Saldanha? I believe that they could be combined; they would provide far more berths, and in addition it would cost the taxpayer very much less. These are things which have to be considered but I do not believe that they have been properly considered. If they have then the hon. the Minister has figures which he has not released to us. I have never seen a comparative graph showing the relative cost of putting all these features in Rietvlei, for example, as opposed to putting part in Rietvlei, part in Cape Town and part in Saldanha Bay. I believe that this is part of planning. I believe that these figures should have been available to us. I believe that if the Minister had planned properly he would have had those figures. If he has not got them, then it is an indictment against him because he is embarking upon a scheme about which he has not got sufficient information.

But, Sir, I want to quote other people who support me in my thinking about a separate body. Let me quote from the Financial Mail of 5th January, an article by Michael Holmes who was a reporter on the Eastern Province Herald for ten years before going to Tokyo to work as a free-lance photo-journalist. In an article headed “South Africa turns to the Rising Sun”, he talks about trade with Japan. I want to quote just a few extracts from this article, which is probably inspired by the visit of Dr. Kruger to Japan with a view to disposing of ores and some of the wealth of South Africa. This is what he says, amongst other things—

I am quoting this because it is important—

Sir, I am not going to quote any further. This is from a man on the spot who has obviously had interviews with people who are keen on buying our ores if our Railways and Harbours can deliver those articles to them at the rates that they want. But, Sir, there is another person who is with me in this thinking and that is a gentleman called Al. J. Venter, who wrote an article in the F.C.I. Viewpoint of December, 1967. It is headed “An Autonomous Authority to Control South Africa’s Ports”. I want to quote part of this to the Minister— The surprising aspect at the local situation level—and this has been noted by both South African and oversea observers—is that so many governmental bodies are fettered by almost indivisible links to some other Government bodies …

And if this does not apply to the Railways and Harbours and the Airways I will eat my hat—

Then he goes on to say—

Then he goes on to quote examples to support what he says. He ends up by saying that various suggestions have been made and then he concludes—

I am not alone therefore in this thinking. This thinking is gaining ground every day, and when I raised it here last year it is surprising what response it had. As a matter of fact, I can inform the hon. the Minister that it was accepted very much better than was his immediate flat refusal to accept the suggestion. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to think this matter over very seriously indeed because the time has come—and I have said this in debate after debate—when, in order to exploit properly the mineral wealth of South Africa, the facilities for doing so must be provided. This hon. Minister, above all others, is the Minister who is in a position to do so and who is charged with the duty of providing those basic facilities of transport and the wherewithal to transport He is even more obliged to do this because he has a complete monopoly. At least in other countries railroads and ports are operated to some extent by private enterprise, and where the authority does not make provision private enterprise has done so on its own, and I am sure that private enterprise would do it in South Africa, but I know that the hon. the Minister will not give them the right to develop their own berthing facilities. He will not even give them the right to work their own cargo when he cannot work it himself, so he surely will not go further than that, and in those circumstances he is surely charged with the duty of providing those facilities himself. He must provide them in time. He must make the necessary investment now for 10 or 15 years ahead, not for himself and his Railways to show a profit at the end of the year but for South Africa to show a profit after 10 or 15 years. This is what we are interested in. He must get on with the job. I realize his difficulties and I appreciate them. He has a Railway Budget of his own and he is responsible for the use of public money. I do not know whether this is a Department which can get itself involved in trading. I do not know to what extent this Minister can plan for the future on public moneys. These are obviously bonds which tie him but, Sir, he can overcome all these things by setting up a body such as I have suggested. I am not going to lay down hard and fast rules as to the way in which he should do it, but his counterpart in Britain, Mrs. Barbara Castle, has just appointed the members for her National Ports Council and she has seen fit to cut the number from some 30, which I believe used to be the figure, down to 14 members.

Here is a list of who they are. If one goes through this list one will find that it is representative of all interests—commerce, industry, transport and the users of transport. And yet Britain is a country tending to nationalize everything—its railways and to a large extent also its ports. But even they realize that in nationalizing their ports and railway facilities some independent body has got to do the planning because, as the Japanese say, a Government Department consists only of civil servants and cannot plan for the future. So, some sort of body must be set up. The hon. the Minister knows what the set up is in Britain. There is a National Ports Council. This council provides for training and has its own engineers. As far as South Africa is concerned, I do not think we want an authority for each port; one authority can, I think, deal with all our ports. But to return to Britain, there they have the Port of London Authority, a body which might serve as a good model to this hon. Minister for his own ports authority. I believe if he establishes an authority like that he will start getting somewhere. In any event, this Port of London Authority issues a monthly journal. This is a most interesting journal to read. It covers every angle from the point of view of the proper functioning of a port. They do not suffer from the problems we suffer from. For instance, there is containerization. The hon. Minister of Economic Affairs has just recently appointed a committee to investigate this aspect. But he is probably two years late with that. The Port of London Authority is already using containerization. Does the hon. the Minister know that by the end of this year there will be 278 container ships operating throughout the world? I say, containerization might be the answer to the congestion in our harbours. How far has the Minister gone into this particular aspect? Let him read some of the comments on this, made by the Port of London Authority in this journal. If he does he will see that they are a good jump ahead. They deal with every imaginable aspect and put out reports on what they are doing so that commerce and industries and people using port facilities are informed all the time of what is going on and what are the newest transport ideas in the world.

The Port of New York Authority gives out an information directory. The port of New York is also run by a port authority, the Port of New York Authority. They are keeping at it all the time. There you would not find all these complaints we are constantly putting before the Minister. That far are they ahead. There are other places with port authorities. There is, for instance, the port of Milwaukee where the port authority, I believe, operates under the local authority. This port regards itself as being one of the most progressive ports. There is competition and a spirit of getting somewhere. In South Africa we have none of that—we are dead. But let us go further. There is the Port of New Orleans Authority. They are proud of telling what they can offer, what they are doing, what they are planning and what they can cope with. They are proud to give others ideas how to handle their cargo. There is Wisconsin and other places, places where many hon. members would not even suspect there are harbours. But there they are and they are much further ahead with their ideas about handling transport, handling exports and imports—the lifeblood of their country. They are much further ahead than we are in this respect. Why? Because of the monopoly? But I say, because of this very fact this hon. Minister must bestir himself and face the facts. South Africa might have been a small unimportant spot on the southern tip of Africa some years ago, a spot about which nobody really worried very much as long as there was a harbour at Simonstown. But to-day we are right in the middle of it. We are the route to the East, and we will remain so—as a matter of fact, the hon. the Minister himself admitted it earlier in this debate. He said that from information he had, most of these large carriers would not use Suez on account of high tariffs. Furthermore, it will be many years more before Suez will be able to cope with the type of ship we are dealing with here. And yet even at this stage we are still arguing and fighting about what we should do. This grieves me. Half of what should be done should already have been completed and the other half should have been well on its way to completion. What is worrying me is that we shall never get moving. If our businesses and industries were run on this basis, if they were so far behind in their planning as the Railways and our ports, they would have floundered, and then there would be no need for harbours anyway.

I say, it is the duty of this Minister to face up to these facts. I am putting forward to-day a very strong plea to him to get on with the establishment of a body which can get down to planning for our ports—for their development, for their administration, so as to ensure that the facilities they offer keep up with the requirements of South Africa in so far as the handling of her imports and exports and the development of her wealth to the benefit of all are concerned.

The hon. member for Umlazi delivered a lengthy plea for the introduction of a port authority. In this connection he referred to the Port of London. I am pleased he did so, because I want to tell him that in spite of the organization in the Port of London it is nothing out of the ordinary for a consignment of canned fruit to remain in port for three weeks or even longer prior to being off-loaded. What we want is efficiency. We are faced with a shortage of trained staff. But are things really as bad in our harbours as the hon. member wanted to suggest? We have heard allegations of a monopoly. Last year the hon. member for Yeoville repeatedly alleged that the Railways in our country were a monopoly. But if we look at the service which the S.A. Railways is rendering to our country, I can see no other way of rendering that service than on the present basis.

Opposition speakers repeatedly alleged that the amount of R43 million by which the salaries and wages of Railway officials are going to be increased, would promote inflation. Can one imagine an argument like that being used? Last year we took strong measures for controlling inflation. At that time inflation was at its worst, but R250 million was nevertheless injected into a single sector of our economy during that year, i.e. into the agricultural industry—injected not by the Government, but as a result of good rains. And did we succeed in getting inflation under control? Now the Opposition is complaining about R43 million which will allegedly promote inflation, while R250 million came into circulation all at once last year as a result of bigger potato, Kaffir corn, maize, ground-nut and sunflower seed crops. But in spite of that we succeeded to a reasonable extent in getting inflation under control. I wish the United Party would remember that inflation was kept in check mainly by five things. The first was the restriction of credit; the second was higher taxes; the third was the deflationary method of financing, in that the Government utilized funds of its own; the fourth was more expensive money. I admit that money became more expensive, and that curbed the tendency of the entrepreneurs to expand and encouraged savings. It curbed inflation. The fifth factor was the psychological climate created by the State as a result of the cancellation or postponement of certain Government works. You will recall that the Department of Irrigation, for instance, shelved the building of the Van der Kloof Dam. These were measures which curbed inflation. From July last year up to January, 1968, there has been virtually no increase in the cost of living. At present the figure is .175 per cent. But the Opposition continues complaining about inflation and suggests that this R43 million will promote inflation. It was a fantastic achievement on the part of this country that it succeeded in controlling inflation by applying these five points without disrupting our economy. If a U.P. member would only get up and say, “Look boys you are really smart. I take my hat off to you now!” But we only get negative criticism all day long. In an enormous undertaking such as the Railways one at least expects certain fine things to be noticed from time to time. I want to tell you in advance, Sir, that I do not want to thank the Minister. Whenever a Minister is thanked in this House remarks are made and there is laughter. I am not thanking him. One does not praise a good wine.

One drinks it.

There are, however, certain facts which have to be mentioned in passing. Hon. members are inclined to forget that newspapers supporting the United Party posed the question last year after we had been blessed by rains whether the Railways would be able to transport the mealie crop. Hon. members will remember that. It was said that the Railways could not transport a surplus of 109 million bags to be exported. They carried on to such an extent that the Mealie Board thought at one stage that they were really going too far. As regards the transport of mealies in this country—not only export mealies—34,850,000 bags of mealies were handled during the period of eight months from April to November last year. Hon. members should read that report by the Minister if it is not beyond their comprehension. We, as agriculturists, have come to feel that we may produce as much as we like. The Railways will be able to transport our products.

Mr. Speaker, if only I could be as privileged as the hon. member for East London (City) to get at Standerton what he got at East London! When one drives through East London to-day, one immediately notices a landmark, namely a silo which can store 600,0 bags of mealies and which was erected at a cost of R5.7 million. I say one can be proud of the Railways. Do you know, Sir, that the installations at that silo makes it possible for 1,800 tons of mealies to be shipped in an hour? Have hon. members of the Opposition ever gone to see what is happening there? It is unbelievable to think that five bags of mealies can be shipped every second. Can you imagine that, Sir?

It is only unbelievable for someone who has no imagination. [Interjections.]

Order!

But now, when I hear all these negative stories, I feel that the time has arrived for attention to be drawn to what a pleasure it is for producers to-day not to have any fear of bottlenecks. Matters are being rectified very rapidly.

According to the report of the General Manager for last year, 3,470,000 tons of agricultural products were transported. In bulk that tonnage is virtually equal to transporting Table Mountain. But now I admit that certain tariff increases have been introduced on the Railways which are pinching some of our industries. One of these is the citrus industry. But hon. members should also be realistic when speaking of tariff increases. I have here the figures for the past 17 years in connection with railage charges for citrus fruit. In 1950 a case of citrus fruit was transported by the Railways from the interior at 4.09c. Last year the cost was 7.32c. Hon. members will say that this represents an alarming increase, but there is no comparison between this and shipping charges for example. Seventeen years ago the shipping charges for that same case were 25.98c. Do you know, Sir, what shipping charges amount to at present? In 1967 the shipping charges were 59.9c. It is now being said that the transport of the product is the cause of the citrus farmer finding himself in difficulties. Generalizations are being made and transport by ship and by rail are being classified together. If you analyse the position, Sir, you will see that the Railways has always adopted the attitude that the agriculture product has to be protected.

Let me just touch on the pre-cooling services. Do you still recall the fire in Cape Town? I wonder whether supporters of the United Party who live in the vicinity of Cape Town have ever gone to the docks to see what is being done in connection with the precooling of agricultural products. Fantastic repairs were made after that fire in respect of a major problem which had arisen for the fruit farmer of the Western Cape. [Interjections.] What happened after the fire in Durban? I wonder whether the hon. member for Durban (Point) has been to see with what unbelievable speed the chute which caught fire, has been repaired. In Table Bay Harbour the Railways spent R7.2 million on pre-cooling facilities. In Port Elizabeth it spent R2.7 million; in East London, R203,000—it is such a pity that it is a seat of the United Party; in Durban, R2.3 million. According to this report a total amount of R12.6 million was spent in this country on pre-cooling facilities alone, on the harbours, where everything allegedly is so chaotic. On behalf of the producers in the country I say thank you for the services which are being rendered.

The year before last the citrus exports of our country amounted to half a million tons. In the space of one year that was increased by 37,000 tons. The Railways could absorb that without saying anything. The deciduous fruit exports of our country also amounted to half a million tons the year before last. Exports increased by 25,000 tons in one year and that increase was transported by the Railways. With these figures in mind as well as the increase in production, I want to ask for the sake of the farmer when we speak of higher salaries, although that is not appropriate in this debate, whether they too, seeing that adjustments are to be made to salaries, cannot get something at some stage from the crumbs which may fall from the table. But this does not matter. I am merely mentioning this in passing.

The hon. member for Yeoville is very concerned about the profit being made on the pipeline. He said last year, and he repeated it this year, after the Minister had given him a clear reply, that the cost of transporting one gallon of fuel through the pipeline from Durban was one cent but that the Government was charging seven cents. That is recorded in his Hansard. He complains about that ad nauseam but he overlooks the fact that the agricultural products I have just mentioned are being transported at a special tariff. Cattle are being transported from South-West Africa to the Johannesburg market at a loss. In view of the fact that the hon. members spoke of a monopolistic condition, I challenge anybody in South Africa to transport one head of cattle from South-West Africa to Johannesburg in a lorry or by any other means at the price at which the Railways do so. He will simply not be able to do so. But certain products which must be protected are being subsidized by high-rated traffic and by this pipeline. I can now go back to my people and tell them that that side of this House wants tariffs for the transport of low-rated traffic, for agricultural products, to be increased. How else can that be done? The tariffs for other commodities must be higher if we want to transport agricultural products at a low tariff. As we probably all know, 110,000 Whites are in the employ of the Railways, while the number of employees of all colour groups come to nearly a quarter of a million—there are approximately 215,000 or 218,000 men on the Railways. Is that not an undertaking to be proud of? There are more white railway officials than white farmers on farms in this country. I say that the Railways has kept abreast of development in this country. Transport forms one of the most important links in any country’s development, and the Railways has kept abreast. It grips one’s imagination that a smaller number of railwaymen have been able to bring about a bigger turnover, because this is an achievement indeed. They too must eat, they are the friends of the farmer, and we have to look after them. Consequently I am very pleased that R14 million are being voted for the building of houses for railwaymen. The building of these houses benefits a large number of the various sectors of our national economy. If one takes stock of the overall situation one must notice shortcomings. I admit that, because nothing or no one is perfect. I too can be negative and dig up a shortcoming here and a grievance there, and I too can mention things which are wrong. But I also say that the Railways is under good management, and on behalf of the agriculturalists of our country I say to all the railwaymen, from the lowest paid Bantu to the General Manager: “Thank you very much for what you have achieved for us.”

Mr. Speaker, I hasten to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Standerton when he pays tribute to all Railway employees, from the highest to the lowest. The hon. member referred to the question of the transportation of goods and he quoted figures and spoke in glowing terms of the large quantities of goods which were transported, some of them for export. He identified himself with the customary paeans of praise which we usually hear in a debate of this nature.

Now, I want to deal not with the conveyance of goods so much but with the conveyance of passengers, because I feel that in this field there is reason for a certain amount of despondency. Before I do so, however, I want to refer to one question concerning wages. A great deal has been said about wages of Railway employees, and general satisfaction has been expressed because the position has been improved by this Budget. I want to refer particularly to the wages of Railway non-white employees. I appreciate they will participate in the wage increases announced by the hon. the Minister. Over the past six years I have annually asked the Minister a question concerning the wages of his non-white employees. I framed my question in such a way that the answer would reveal the number of non-white workers who earn more than R2 per working day and the number who earn less than that. I chose this figure because some years ago it became apparent that the figure of R2 per working day was regarded as the daily wage which industry and other employers of labour should aim to pay their workers. If confirmation of this is needed, one need only refer to an article published in the South African Digest in October, 1963, wherein Dr. Anton Rupert indicated it was the intention of his organization, as from that date, to pay all his employees a minimum wage of R2 per working day. He also pointed out that many un-skilled workers on the company’s payroll already earned more than that amount.

I appreciate that in 1964 non-white Railway workers received an overall pay increase of just over 10 per cent and in 1965 a further increase of just over 11 per cent was granted. In 1963, however, 97.9 per cent of the non-white workers on the Railways were in receipt of a total salary, inclusive of other items, of less than R2 per working day. We found that, despite the increases I have just referred to in two consecutive years, in 1967 92 per cent of these workers were still earning less than R2 per day. There was a slight increase of 6 per cent for the better, but it left the vast majority of those workers earning less than the generally accepted minimum of R2 per day.

These figures, I realize, apply to all non-white employees on the Railways, Bantu, Coloured and Indian, but as the Bantu comprise the bulk of those employees, I feel I should make special reference to their position. I wish to refer to a survey which was undertaken by the Bureau of Market Research of the University of South Africa, entitled “Income and Expenditure Patterns of Bantu living under other than Family Conditions in Pretoria”. The survey was done in 1965. One of the survey’s objects was to establish the average monthly income of Bantu male wage earners, in cash and in kind. I will quote the survey’s results, and the figures will be in round figures to the nearest unit because I believe it is easier to use this system. Those employed in finance undertakings received R53 per month; those in the manufacturing sphere R39 per month; in municipal service R34 per month; and those on the Railways R32 per month. These are all average figures. Thus the Railways were paying the lowest monthly wage. It is interesting to note that the combined average of these four sections was R38 per month. If we take into consideration the average monthly household expenditure, then an interesting picture is presented. I want to make it quite clear that the figures from which I quote are concerned primarily with poverty datum line items. We find, for reasons of comparison, that in the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage area it was considered that the minimum household expenditure figure for a family unit of five persons, was R64 per month. In Durban the figure was a little lower, namely R60 per month. The minimum figure established for a family unit of five, as revealed by the survey, was R53 per month. That was considered to be the minimum. I hasten to say that the food requirements were based on the minimum dietary requirements as laid down by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. My object in quoting these figures is to indicate to the hon. the Minister that, bearing in mind the wages paid to his non-white workers, I do not believe the Railways are meeting the challenge of modern times, and the Railways’ record does not compare favourably with that of commerce and industry, who, I believe, have accepted this challenge. I know that many difficulties exist, and I know that increases have been granted, but I do hope that when future increases are approved, consideration should be given to these facts so that the salaries paid are at least realistic and in line with the needs of the workers.

Then there is an aspect on which I seek clarification. When he supplied the figures showing the number of people earning under R2 per day, the hon. the Minister mentioned that 36 Indian Railway employees earn more than that. In answer to a further question which I addressed to the Minister in regard to the number of non-Whites performing work formerly reserved for Whites, I received these figures: There were 22 Coloureds, 89 Indians and 765 Bantu being employed on work normally performed by white graded staff. My difficulty is this. There are 36 Indians earning over R2 per day. There are 89 Indians performing work normally performed by white graded staff. By a simple process of subtraction I conclude that there must be 53 Indians who are doing work which is normally regarded as that of white graded staff and who are in receipt of salaries of less than R2 per day. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether there is some explanation for this. My reasoning may be at fault. I cannot believe that that could be the position. If it is the position, I believe that it is most inequitable and should not continue.

There are 19,000 Whites earning less than R100 a month.

Yes, that is not a figure to be proud of either.

Where do you get that figure from?

From you.

You are wrong.

I want to deal with another subject now, and that is in regard to what benefits the users of the railways have received. We have heard during this debate of some of the benefits, but I want to ask specifically what benefits the passengers on the railways have received. Now I know the Minister has often said in this House, and I believe it is generally accepted, that the passenger services of the S.A. Railways do not pay, but the Minister has indicated that this is an essential service and whether it pays or not, certain facilities must be provided for the citizens of South Africa. I want to deal with the question of long-distance passengers, because I do not believe that really they are being provided with the facilities to which they are entitled. I know this question of passenger traffic and its non-payability is a worldwide problem, but I believe that other countries are taking a much bolder and more imaginative approach to this problem. Many of them are offering greatly speeded up services and many of them are ensuring that their passengers travel in the maximum comfort it is possible to provide.

The largest proportion of our long-distance main line travellers consists of the Bantu. In 1962—and I am quoting in round millions— the figure of 16 million was given in the General Manager’s Report as having used the Railways. In 1967 this figure had grown to 25 million. There had been an increase of roughly 50 per cent in the total number of passengers, and in round figures 8 million additional people were using the Railways in a short period of five years. It is interesting to ask what facilities were provided for these main line and mainly long-distance passengers in the way of coaching stock. The picture is not a very promising or encouraging one. Taking third-class saloons, the total number in commission in 1962 was 744, and the number in commission, according to the figures the Report provides, in 1967 was 747, an increase of three third-class saloons. Now, I am aware, because the Minister told me in reply to a question, that it is intended to convert 175 first-class saloons to third-class saloons, and that also on the Estimates there is provision for 50 third-class saloons for construction and for delivery during 1969. I hope that this undertaking will keep up to the time-table which the Minister has indicated in his reply, because I believe that an increase of 8 million passengers must have created conditions of great discomfort for those people who are forced to travel for long distances in extremely unpleasant and crowded conditions. One can ask what other benefits the passengers received. Of course, one other factor was that they were charged another 10 per cent on their fare, and there was also the removal of a facility which had existed in the past, and which gave certain concessions in regard to journeys to their homes at certain periods. I believe that as the Railways are a business undertaking, it is good business to see that the vast majority of passengers who use the Railways are at least given a service which is comfortable. I wonder, too, sometimes whether the large increase which I believe has taken place in the operation of pirate taxis to various Native areas, is not to some extent, due to the fact that the Railways have not always been able to offer these users at least comfortable facilities. Last year I drew the then Deputy Minister’s special attention to the conditions which existed on a train which journeyed from the Transkei to Cape Town, and in which, according to the information placed before me, the conditions were almost indescribable. The Minister did not react to my comments in regard to that train. I can only assume, as the result of his silence, that the facts were correct, regrettably so.

Which train was that?

It was a train which came from Umtata carrying Bantu, and I believe they changed trains at Beaufort West and then there was another change at Touws River or Bellville. I could give the Minister the details if he wished, but I have not the information with me now. The only comment I was able to elicit from the Deputy Minister as the result of my remarks during that debate was—

I had raised this hardy annual, the question of the non-delivery of the air-conditioned dining-saloons which the hon. the Minister promised in 1963, would shortly be placed in service. Sir, those were in the days of spending for prosperity and not in the days of the credit squeeze. They were shortly to be placed in service, but with all the facts at my disposal —and I do not compete with the General Manager in that regard—I have not been able to find out where these air-conditioned dining-saloons are. I do not believe that they are on the tracks of the S.A. Railways yet, despite the fact that the Deputy Minister last year assured me that they would come into commission between June and October. The Deputy Minister at that stage indicated that during the past years the air-conditioned dining-saloons had been held back because more essential rolling stock had to be purchased. But it goes back a long way, because I have referred to the Minister’s remarks in 1963. I think we are entitled to ask what effect the non-provision of promised facilities may be having on the outlook of the users of the Railways, and I want to quote from the Report of the General Manager for 1962-’63, in which he said this—

It refers to the “beginning of better patronage”. Then in 1963-’64 the Report was in similar vein. It said this—

I know the hon. member for East London (North) speaks very feelingly about the comfort of passengers on the trains in his area. Now what is the present position? During the last five years we find that there has been a decrease in the number of first-class passengers by 85.000, and a decrease in the number of second-class passengers by 3,000. I think we should also bear in mind the increase in the number of third-class passengers by 8 million. Then we find, too, that there has been a decrease in so far as the ancillary services are concerned, the bedding services and the dining-car services. There has been a decline in these as well. We often say, when we refer to the number of road accidents and the increase in crime, that this is due to the increase in the overall population of the country. I believe that is a correct remark to make, but when we say it when we are referring to other aspects, then I think that reluctantly we must accept that the Railways are losing even more ground than the figures would at first show, in regard to the question of the conveyance of passengers on long-distance journeys.

We hear and we know that the Airways are booming. Business has never been so good and I believe that the reason is not very hard to seek. The hon. the Minister provides efficient, up-to-date, comfortable, speedy aircraft to convey the passengers, in keeping with modern-day requirements. But is this being done for the passengers of the Railways? No matter how much the Airways of South Africa are developed, I do not believe that they can ever cope with all the people in this vast, spread-out country of ours. I would say that there are many thousands of people in the various towns along the main passenger rail routes in South Africa who are not able to avail themselves of the facilities of air travel and who, because the service has not risen to expectation, no longer use the Railways to the extent to which they used to do.

They must be using an alternative, and I think the time has come to examine what this alternative is and what is going to be done to deal with this problem. Let me say this in order to illustrate my point. We know that the peak passenger periods occur during the holiday months, and in order to provide sufficient conveyance for the holiday-makers many special trains have to be run. Here again there is a disappointing decline in the patronage which holiday-makers are giving the Railways, because if we consider the comparative particulars of the number of first and second-class passengers conveyed from the Transvaal to coastal resorts during the month of December, we find that over the four years from 1963 to 1967 there has been a gradual falling off and that the 1966 figure is the lowest figure for those four years. I believe that this is something that one must consider and try to find the reasons. I believe that one of the reasons is this. I put a question to the hon. the Minister in regard to the number of special trains which were run and from his answer I was able to deduce that there were 222 special trains run over the whole year of 1967. I may be wrong, but at a conservative estimate, I would say that they would have conveyed at least 60,000 passengers. What is disturbing us, Sir, is that I found from the answer to the question, that not one of those trains was provided with air-conditioned dining-saloons or with lounge cars, so these passengers were not enjoying the facilities which had been publicized and to which I think the travelling public of South Africa is entitled. But what is the position in regard to the dining services which they were given? Here I am not speaking of the personnel; I am speaking of the coaching stock itself. What do we find? We find that the dining saloons which were used on these 222 special trains were from 20 to 50 years old. Sixteen of the 46 in service were commissioned between 40 and 50 years ago. Sir, this brings to mind a little remark which the then Deputy Minister made in reply to the debate last year. The hon. member for Turffontein had drawn the Deputy Minister’s attention to the antiquated photographs which were being displayed in the Trans-Karoo and the Trans-Natal trains. He felt that they should be brought up to date. This evoked a remark from the Deputy Minister, a remark which I think is most applicable. He said (Hansard, col. 3150)—

And he is now the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs.

He is a collector of antiques.

Sir, I submit that some of the dining saloons which are at present providing a service, probably fall into the vintage class and not in the antique class yet.

That is why they keep the Durban Post Office.

I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to give us some ray of hope in regard to the provision of air-conditioned dining saloons.

Sir, it is interesting to examine the coaching stock and the position that exists at the present time compared with the position that existed in 1962. If we take first-class saloons we find that during these five years there has been no change in the actual number. Some have been replaced, others scrapped, but there has been no change in the actual number. As far as first and second-class saloons are concerned, there has been an addition of 88 saloons, and as far as second-class saloons are concerned, there has been a reduction of two, and a reduction of nine in first, second, and third-class saloons. I have already dealt with third-class saloons alone. There has been no change in air-conditioned twin dining saloons, and the total stock is 11; so it means that as far as eight-wheeled main line stock is concerned, the position is that in March, 1962 there were in stock 3,653 and in March, 1967 the overall number had increased to 4,011, showing an overall gain of 358 coaches. Sir, what is interesting is this. Of the 358 coaches, 106 comprise coaches which were provided for officials during the period, at a cost of R2.169 million and also 200 baggage and parcels vans at a cost of R5 million, so from the total of 358 one can deduct 306, and this means, as far as main line coaching stock for passengers is concerned, 52 have been added over a period of five years. The passengers themselves gained 52 but the official coaches numbered 106 and the baggage and parcels vans numbered 200, and this was provided at a cost of R7 million odd. It seems to me therefore that the question of passenger priority is rather low on the list.

Sir, I want to refer briefly to the question of Indian and Coloured passengers. Normally I think it is their habit on long distance trains to travel first and second-class reserved. I have had occasions where bitter complaints have been made that the facilities are not up to expectations and that the treatment of these people is not always perhaps what it should be. I am fully aware of the fact that orders have been placed for first-class and second-class reserved saloons. The General Manager’s Department informed me of this when I made the facts known to him. Sir, I do want to make a plea that they will not take too long to come off the assembly line. Please let them be expedited a little more than the air-conditioned dining saloons so that at least these people will be able to travel, as I believe they are entitled to do, in comfort.

Then I want to deal in a little more detail with the Brown Book. Sir, I think the name of the Brown Book should be changed. As far as I am concerned I think it should be called the Bluff Book or Uncle Ben’s Fairy Tales. I say that advisedly, because I find the situation most puzzling. I am not very good at these complicated figures, but the figures that I have been able to deduce from the Brown Book certainly make me think. In 1965, for example, the Brown Book indicated that provision was being made for two Blue Train sets costing R2.6 million and 50 second-class main-line saloons at a cost of R2½ million. In that particular year an amount of R400 was allocated for the immediate expense involved in this commitment. In 1966 the position was that 25 first and second-class main-line saloons, 50 second-class main-line saloons and 50 third-class main-line saloons were provided for in the Brown Book at a total estimated cost of R6.1 million, and a nominal amount of R600 was set aside for current expenditure. In 1967 provision was made for 50 third-class mainline saloons at an estimated cost of R2.2 million and for a nominal amount of R200. Then in 1968 provision was made for a further 200 saloons in the Brown Book at a total cost of R10 million odd, so according to my analysis of those particular years we find that two Blue Train sets and 425 main-line coaches were going to be ordered at a total estimated cost of R23.6 million. But, Sir, what has come off the assembly line in these five years? The five-year period does not correspond exactly but the first-, second-, third-class and composite saloons placed in service, according to my calculations, show an overall gain of 80 saloons, and yet the Brown Book indicates that this vast amount of money was due to be spent to provide two Blue Train sets and 425 main-line saloons. So, I would like at this stage to ask the hon. the Minister to give us an indication of the progress that is being made with the new Blue Train on the drawing board and when it is expected it will be brought into operation. In the South African Digest I have seen that this is expected ito be by 1970, but I should like the hon. the Minister to confirm this. Another thing that interested me was that when 50 second-class main-line saloons were put on the Brown Book for 1965, the additional cost about two years later was almost R¼ million. There is, therefore, a constant increase in costs.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to certain comment which appeared in the F.C.I. Viewpoint of November, 1967. The article was entitled “Unmeditated Investment in Transport Capacity may aggravate Inflation.” It was written by Dr. Verburgh, the professor in Transport Economics at the University of Stellenbosch. This is what he had to say—

[Time expired.]

At the beginning of his speech the hon. member for Berea had a great deal to say about the wages of non-Whites in particular, a matter which will probably be dealt with by the Minister. Later in his speech he criticized the facilities which are at the disposal of passengers on main-line trains. In this connection he quoted a whole series of statistics. He especially had a great deal to say about dining car services being poor at times. But my experience has been that the standard of service on these trains—and here I am referring to the Blue Train and to the Trans Karoo in particular—is such that it compels one to have nothing but the highest praise for these services. As a matter of fact, travellers from overseas, tourists, also have high praise for the facilities on these trains. I have never travelled on the Trans Orange but I should think that the facilities on that train will be of a similar standard. Consequently I think the criticism expressed here by the hon. member was inappropriate.

On several occasions in the course of the discussions on the Budget of the hon. the Minister, gratitude was expressed to the Minister , to the Management and to every worker. All of them need to be thanked together and tributes should be paid to them together, because they work together as a team. For my expression of thanks to-day I should like to single out one person—Mr. At Stander, System Manager of the Eastern Transvaal system. I want to pay tribute to him for his fine and loyal services. I understand that he joined the service in December, 1923. He will retire in May this year, i.e. after a period of service of 444½ years in different ramifications of the S.A. Railways. I have found him to be a very approachable man. This has also been the experience of the railway staff. As a matter of fact, he has endeared himself to the railway staff. They have come to regard him as a father who has to reprimand and punish them, when necessary, but who can also show sympathy, when necessary. He has acted with the highest degree of discernment throughout— and that is why he has endeared himself to the railway staff. On behalf of thousands of railway employees throughout the country—Mr. Stander has been stationed at various places— I want to wish him and his wife good health and many enjoyable years of retirement.

The hon. the Minister castigated the Opposition on various occasions during this debate about irresponsible and inappropriate accusations. For the rest other hon. members on this side of the House rubbed salt into those wounds at every possible opportunity. One of the most foolish and blatantly inappropriate allegations was the statement that increases in salaries and wages allegedly were granted to the railway staff immediately prior to elections. This, of course, is an utterly ridiculous argument as has been proved time and again. This rash allegation will remain on the account of the Opposition for the future. We know that increases have been granted on merit—as compensation for the loyal service of the railway staff in all facets of the service. The National Party is not trying to catch votes by means of wage increases. The National Party does in the first instance what is in the interests of the country and in the second instance what is in the interests of the labour force concerned. Consequently those allegations are completely inappropriate.

Another allegation which was made stealthily, one which had often been made in the past as well, was that the Minister and his Management allegedly had not displayed sufficient vision; had not planned far enough in advance. This morning we again heard that from the mouth of the hon. member for Umlazi and yesterday from the mouth of the hon. member for Durban (Point). But if we analyse this Budget, we must come to the conclusion that there is sufficient advance planning. I want to refer to a few aspects, without going into details. I maintain that the construction of new railway lines, the doubling of railway lines, electrification schemes, etc., are being planned judiciously. As regards rolling stock, we know that this Budget is making provision for the acquisition of a large number of electric and diesel locomotives, passenger coaches and vans, goods-wagons, suburban motor-coaches, etc. As regards harbour facilities, an aspect which the hon. member for Umlazi severely criticized this morning, we are undertaking the Richard’s Bay project in order to absorb the increasing shipping traffic. I also want to refer to the proposed extensions, for which provision is being made in the Budget, to the Cape Town and Durban harbours. As regards the pipeline, a new pipeline is to be built mainly for the transport of crude oil. What is this if not fine, visionary advance planning? Then I come to the advance planning which is really imaginative, i.e. that in connection with the Airways—which was criticized yesterday and to which the Minister has already replied—for absorbing the rapidly increasing passenger traffic, internally as well as internationally.

Sir, I want to refer to another aspect of advance planning, namely in connection with the amount of R13.8 million which was voted for housing for the staff. I regard this as advance planning, because it is systematic and will ensure a stable staff position in the future while it will also induce new recruits to join the Railways. I think it is sheer audacity and presumptuousness on the part of any member of the Opposition to say here that the Management and the Minister do not plan ahead sufficiently and timeously.

I should like to come back to another matter which was raised in connection with the staff. It was said here, and this is a known fact, that a smaller staff kept the thousands of wheels of the Railways rolling efficiently during the past financial year thereby enabling traffic to be absorbed effectively. We know that the increase of 6.12 per cent in respect of all revenue-earning traffic as compared to the previous financial year was handled efficiently. As a result of automation and mechanization manpower is being saved. This is being done by the effective application of means of aid in various spheres. But something which has always been particularly interesting and important to me is the improved technique in connection with the recruiting, selecting and placing of staff on the Railways, especially as far as aspirant railway servants are concerned. We know that this is already being done on a scientific basis by vocational experts who are in the employ of the Railways. An important factor in this connection, and to me the most important one, which contributed to the increased volume of traffic having been handled in this way, is that increased productivity has been brought about. This can only happen if there is loyal cooperation and support from the railway servants and when they co-operate harmoniously with the Management. On the one hand we know that the Administration makes training facilities available to new recruits as well as to persons already employed on the Railways. In other words, functional training of these people is taking place. An example of this is, of course, the “university of the Railways” at Esselen Park. At the time of our visit there, as members of the Select Committee, we were once again impressed by the magnitude of the work being done there in connection with training. We also know that decentralization of those activities is already being brought about through the courses being offered at other training centres such as Bellville, Port Elizabeth, Bloemfontein, Wentworth as well as Koedoespoort. I also want to mention in passing the training of non-White staff at the training school at Germiston where they are being trained as crossing attendants, labourers and even drivers on the Road Motor Service, but also as clerks.

But we shall be getting nowhere if these facilities are being offered by the Administration on the one hand and not being used by the servants on the other hand. We know, however, that the servants are prepared to improve their abilities and qualifications. These people display ambition and a desire to learn and consequently they obtain further qualifications, receive promotion and are paid higher wages. By qualifying themselves they become more productive as far as work is concerned. In spite of the fact that automation and mechanization are being applied, the labourer remains the pivot on which everything hinges. The employee remains the most important factor.

In connection with productivity I should like to compare the achievement of our railway servants to that of railway servants in other countries. For the purpose of comparison I want to choose England. We know that the Railways in Britain, as in South Africa, is under Government, control. It is common knowledge that the Railways in Britain has been operating at an annual loss—I do not know what the position was in recent years but in previous years that was always the case —and that the Government has had to inject colossal amounts into the transport services in order to keep them going and to prevent them from collapsing. Non-paying transport services have even been abolished. A few years ago it also happened that several thousands of rail-workers were dismissed in England. Now I should like to compare the productivity of the railway workers there to that of our railway workers. In 1964, according to the most recent figures I could obtain, there were 400,000 workers in the service of the Railways in Britain. These people served 16,000 route miles. In South Africa 210,919 people of all races were in the service of the Railways alone —I am not including the Airways and Harbours—and they served a railway system of 13,702 route miles. What follows now is the important point. In order to serve approximately 14 per cent less miles than in Britain, the South African Railway system could make do with approximately 47 per cent less manpower. The argument may be advanced that the Railways in Britain is more active and require more intensive labour. To me, however, revenue is the real test. The fact of the matter is that the revenue in Britain with approximately double the number of workers exceeded revenue in South Africa by one third only, which is, of course a special compliment to our own Railways as such as well as to the Administration.

These statistics undeniably prove that the record of the South African Railways in terms of numbers in service on all levels of the Railways compares very favourably to that of a leading—perhaps with a question mark these days—Western country like Britain. The record becomes even more remarkable if one takes the fact into consideration that the Railway system in Britain draws its employees from a total population of literates, while approximately 50 per cent of our railway employees are non-Whites who are not on the same level of development as railway employees in Britain. In other words, the labour productivity of the non-Whites in point of fact generally is on a lower level than that of the employees in Britain.

There is another aspect on which I should like to touch and this relates to engineers. In his Budget Speech the hon. the Minister said that many of the engineers, graduates, who joined the service left it in the course of time. The Minister mentioned that of the number of 319 men who had completed their engineering studies on Railway bursaries, only 174, i.e. approximately 54 per cent, still were in the service of the Administration. We immediately ask ourselves what has become of them? It is not difficult for me or any of the other hon. members to reply to that question. The reply is, of course, that they have been absorbed by the private sector. We know that a general labour problem exists on the Railways, and this has been admitted. But the erosion taking place in the ranks of these engineers is very rapid indeed. In reply to a point raised here by an hon. member, the Minister said that the salaries of engineers would more or less be brought into line with those in the public sector by means of the new increases.

In line with those of the Public Service.

They will be brought into line with the salaries of engineers in the Public Service. I have often spoken about engineers with reference to their services and the protracted courses they have to take. I should now like to make a suggestion and perhaps the Minister and the Management will want to take a decision in this regard. I want to ask whether it is not possible to create more posts for engineers in the higher salary groups so that there may be more prospects for the young engineers on the Railways. I think their commencing salaries compare very favourably to those of engineers in the private sector, but possibly there are not enough posts in the higher salary groups to encourage them to remain in the service. The point I want to make is that there may not always be sufficient prospects for engineers in the service. We know that the engineers we lose are the men in the middle salary group, the men who are mature and are consequently rendering the best services. It is extremely difficult to replace such a person immediately.

In this connection I should like to refer to the Straszacker Report which expresses this as follows—

We speak with great respect of the work of the engineers. Before concluding my speech I should like to refer to the good work being done at Koedoespoort. I am referring to the repair of rolling stock, and particularly of steam locomotives. Over the past ten years the number of locomotives repaired per bonus worker increased from 0.84 to 1.26 while the time taken for repairing a locomotive decreased from 42.5 days to 22.8 days. One can also mention similar achievements in respect of the repair of passenger vehicles and trucks. I should like to bring this good work to the attention of the Minister.

As regards my suggestion concerning engineering posts, I do not want to pretend that that will offer a solution to the problem, but it is something which may perhaps be given consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring two matters to the notice of the hon. the Minister. I am very glad to be able to say that in the case of the first one I am in full agreement with what the hon. member for Koedoespoort, who has just sat down, had to say about the Railway engineers. We heard about staff shortages, and the hon. member for Yeoville asked the Minister to state to the House his policy in respect of the staff. The Minister also did so in respect of the employment of non-Whites in White posts. I should very much like to hear from the Minister what his policy is in respect of engineers. First of all I want to furnish a few figures concerning civil engineers, figures which are probably very familiar to the Minister but perhaps not to the country. Early in 1968 there was a shortage of 64 engineers out of a total number of 276 posts; in other words, only 212 posts were filled. As regards assistant engineers, there was a shortage of 64 out of a total number of 131 posts, a shortage of approximately 50 per cent. In referring to these vacancies, one must bear in mind that no supplementary posts have been created since 1962. One wonders whether it was decided not to create further posts, since the services of engineers were simply not obtainable. One asks oneself whether standards can be maintained when this large number of vacancies has persisted for such a long time.

As regards the retirements and resignations of these men from the service, the picture is not a rosy one either. From 1962 up to early this year, 110 civil engineers resigned, whereas 110 assistant engineers were appointed over this period. The new appointees are, of course, much less experienced than the men who resigned. They are men who still have to gain the necessary experience.

We know that the Minister has been trying to solve these problems by the recruitment of people in Europe, but unfortunately very few of those people are still in the service. We also obtained data concerning bursary facilities. We obtained the figures, and the hon. member for Koedoespoort has just quoted them again; consequently I shall not repeat them. The fact of the matter is that the engineers are leaving the service of the Administration, and we should very much like to hear what is going to be done to set this position right. By way of interjection the hon. the Minister said that the salaries of the Railway engineers were being adjusted to bring them into line with those of the professional staff employed by the Public Service. That is an improvement, of course, but now one wonders why they were not placed on those scales long ago. I should imagine that two facts would turn the scale as regards whether or not the engineers remain in the service: their salaries and their status. As far as their status is concerned, there has also been deterioration. In the past they always had higher status in the sense that more engineers served in the highest ranks in the Railways. That, of course, is something that worries them. I am also told that as far as system managers are concerned, there is to-day not a single one who is an engineer, and that makes one wonder how this can be the case. I should very much like to hear from the hon. the Minister what he is contemplating in this regard so as to combat these shortages. We know that the hon. the Minister is making use of consultants and contractors to keep the necessary services going, but in view of the fact that this is being done, often at very high cost, one asks oneself whether it would not be better to grant their own engineers better salaries and enhanced status rather than to introduce these people. I concede at once that there is room for them. When it comes to specialized services and auxiliary services, these people may be introduced to keep the service going. But one asks oneself whether it would not perhaps be more advantageous to remunerate their own engineers better, than to introduce these consultants.

The second point I should like to raise, is the question of the suburban services. We know that for a long time most of these services operated at a loss, but in this respect one wonders again whether it is not possible to make them pay. There are several road motor services that are showing profits, and here in the Peninsula one thinks of course of the City Tramways, whose profits are increasing all the time, and one asks oneself whether it is not possible to make these suburban services pay. There may perhaps be things to which attention can be paid. In the peak hours of the service there are reasonably few trains that can be caught, and often one has to wait rather long before one gets a train. This may perhaps be related to the fact that the present suburban stations have only been designed for eight coaches. Cape Town itself has been designed for 11 coaches, but in view of the fact that the suburban stations have been designed for eight coaches only, it would seem that this prevents the use of more coaches. It will definitely help to provide a better service during peak hours.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could perhaps tell us something about the possibility of a third line from Cape Town to Mowbray, or even to Claremont. This would also obviate this problem to a certain extent if he were to see his way clear to doing it. Sufficient land is available for such a line, and I should very much like to hear whether this would at all be possible.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 30 (2) and debate adjourned.

I should like to move the motion as printed in my name—

I realize that since the relations between various states can be extremely sensitive matters, this subject should be approached with great circumspection. Nevertheless we are living in a world where changes and developments are taking place with astonishing speed. The age of technology has brought the nations of the world very close together, and to be able to make continual adjustments so as to associate in the international sphere requires, alertness, vision, knowledge and insight. That is why it is probably necessary that this House should also be afforded an opportunity of exchanging opinions from time to time in regard to our relations with other States. In particular it is probably necessary that hon. members on the opposite side should also be afforded an opportunity of stating their point of view, because few people probably realize how important it is for our country that we should form a united front here to present to the outside world. That is why I trust that although hon. members on the opposite side may possibly disagree with the particulars of my motion, they will nevertheless support its general purpose so that we will not endeavour to make political capital out of this matter.

My motion implies that greater emphasis is in recent times being placed on the promotion of our relations with other countries. This is really an obvious and well-known fact. The so-called outward movement has only really begun to take shape in recent years. As I shall presently indicate, it is. however, no change of policy, but is the logical continuation of the policy as it has been applied over the years. There was a time when it was very difficult for this Government to promote its relations with other countries, not because it did not want to do so, but because it had to carry out the instructions of the people of South Africa, i.e. to provide ways and means which would ensure that the white section of the populations should retain control over that part of the country which belonged to it historically. The result was the policy of racial separation which developed into the policy of autogenous development, a policy which placed the various population groups in South Africa in parallel lanes, next to one another and not intermingled, and with the ultimate granting of equal rights as its final objective. Particularly as a result of humiliating misrepresentations, some of which even came from South Africa, this policy came into direct conflict with the liberalistic crusade for general integration which was launched in the Western countries after the Second World War. The official policy of South Africa came into conflict with this so-called world opinion. That is why it was initially very difficult for this Government to promote its relations with other countries. For the first 15 to 16 years of our rule, this Government obviously had to give its almost undivided attention to the formulation, the development and the implementation of its policy of autogenous development, as well as to many other domestic problems which required attention. That is why this Government found it essential during that period to act extremely conservatively towards countries abroad. We had to entrench ourselves against the onslaughts from outside so that we could first obtain clarity in regard to our own problems. The onslaughts against us were tremendous and tributes must be paid here to the leaders of that time for standing firm and not giving way.

This period of apparent isolation, this period of entrenchment in our history, was definitely advantageous to us: It demonstrated to the world that we were unshakable and that here was a small nation which did not merely let itself be swept along by world politics which would inevitably have carried it to destruction. Here, in fact, was a small nation which refused to allow an unenlightened and prejudiced world opinion to prescribe to it how it should work out its own salvation. There comes a certain time in the life of every nation in the world when it finds that isolation is the best weapon. Isolationism was, in fact, the predominant political characteristic of the U.S.A. for 150 years. Even to-day it is still an important factor in certain schools of political thought. We have no reason to blush therefore if there has been in our history a period during which there was a tendency to isolation. If it appears to be necessary again in future, we may move in that direction again. The period between 1948 and 1965 was therefore a period of consolidation of our domestic policy, one of ensuring our domestic safety, of economic development in order to offer resistance to possible boycotts and of military preparation in order to cope with any threats. We accepted that in order to find friendship and co-operation in the world we would first have to be inwardly strong so that there was no need for us to bow our heads to anyone. Although we definitely underwent a period of consolidation our Government never during this period supported or advocated total isolation. We never isolated ourselves or sought shelter behind a granite wall. On the contrary we stated our case positively, and sometimes actively at the U.N. and elsewhere. Figures indicate that during this period there was nevertheless a considerable expansion in our diplomatic service. For example, in the 1947-’48 Budget an amount of less than R¾ million was set aside for the Department of Foreign Affairs, whereas in 1964-’65 it was R4 million, that is to say, more than six times than in 1947-’48. In 1947, for example, there was a mere total of 275 persons connected with the Department of Foreign Affairs, whereas in 1965 there were more than 600. Then, too, it must not be forgotten that it was in these very years that we took part in the Korean War and the Berlin Airlift, and participated in the Antarctic treaty and the treaty for technical co-operation in Africa and other international organizations.

There was in fact progress, expansion and growth in the international sphere. But by 1965 we had reached a stage where it was possible for us to move forward more rapidly. Our Republic was firmly established. Our economy was basically sound. Boycotts no longer presented any real threat to us and our Defence Force was strong enough to resist any attacks. In addition our policy of separate development had been clearly thought out and finally formulated. With dramatic powers of conviction we were therefore able to speak with a clear voice in the conference halls of the world. The scene was ready for the outward movement. In fact, the outward movement had already begun to take shape a number of years before when we decided to rally our very best brain power and legal knowledge in defence of the South West Africa case before the World Court. Our achievements at the World Court were irrefutably a major break-through and ushered in a new period for South Africa. We would in future be able to move outwards with greater confidence. That this happened to coincide with the accession to power of a new Prime Minister, was mere coincidence, but it is nevertheless important and revealing to note that it was this man, whose calling it had been to ensure our domestic safety through the difficult years, to preserve peace and good order in the country, who was also called upon to stand in the forefront of a movement to convince our enemies and prosecutors of the honesty of our endeavours far beyond the borders of our country. It was in fact no easy task. People with less courage and vision and statesmanship would have flinched from that task. In Africa we came face to face with an extremely difficult situation. Within a short period of time the Western Powers withdrew, and dozens of independent states came into being. Instead of accepting our hand of friendship and co-operation, they adopted an inimical attitude, chiefly because they erroneously associated us with the old colonial period. Ignorance and misrepresentation were responsible for the fact that these people built up a blind hate against the white man in Southern Africa, which it will only be possible to eliminate with the greatest patience and tact and over a period of many years.

With great circumspection and patience and tact we persisted, and are even now persisting, in offering our hand of friendship and cooperation. Everyone realizes to-day that South Africa is in a unique position to make an active contribution to the development of the African Continent. Because we have been learning over the centuries to cope with and solve the problems of Africa, we are able to offer very efficient assistance in the scientific, technological and economic spheres. Of course we cannot take too much upon ourselves. Our own Bantu areas must always be given preference, and we are ourselves struggling with a manpower shortage. But then we also believe in that form of assistance where the black man is taught to help himself. We do not believe in merely distributing largesse or doing the work for them. Our policy and our point of view is beginning to yield good results everywhere. As was indicated last year by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, co-operation is taking place in a much wider field than most people realize. Those African States which are closest to us and which have a better knowledge of our policy and our honest intentions have openly become our friends. The hate campaign is gradually losing its potency. The Black man of Africa is beginning to an increasing extent to look to the south for assistance and co-operation.

The exchange of diplomatic representatives between South Africa and Malawi was a courageous deed on both sides, a deed of historic significance, a pioneering deed which can be used by both countries as a springboard to greater co-operation and the good of the entire Continent of Africa. The formation of a bloc of friendly nations in Southern Africa, with the Republic as a steadying factor, will be of incalculable significance both for them and for us. The very fact that we can and want to cooperate with the people of Africa on a friendly footing, will convince the Western Nations of the honesty of our endeavours. In fact, the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs stated recently at Potchefstroom that we will have to accept that our relations with the rest of the world are to a large extent being determined by our relations with African States. A rapid clarification of the Rhodesian position is extremely desirable for us and for Southern Africa, because the present stalemate position is exercising a restraining influence on closer cooperation between the various States of Southern Africa. A general health organization would for example hold great advantages for the developing States. A common Market for Southern Africa is probably no mere flight of the imagination any more. In fact, the nucleus of such a market already exists between South Africa, Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland.

It is high time the struggle which our Portuguese neighbours are conducting against the terrorists in the North, a titanic struggle which has been waged for many years and has been accompanied by great sacrifices, is recognized by the world for what it really is—a struggle against communistic incitement and subversion, in the same communistic imperialistic pattern which this has followed in other parts of the world. What real difference is there between the struggle which the Portuguese, as well as the Rhodesians now, are waging against the terrorists, and the struggle which the Americans are waging in Vietnam? In my opinion it is the same war on two fronts. The communists have already found a foothold in Tanzania. There and elsewhere in Africa the Red Chinese are being welcomed with open arms, and modern weapons are being offloaded there. One is justified in asking this question: Of what benefit can weapons be to an undeveloped country where such a great shortage of the basic means of subsistence does in fact exist? But we have no illusions about this. These weapons are firstly intended to be used against the white man in Southern Africa, but also and particularly for the destruction of the black man in Africa who stands in the way of communistic imperialism. The closer the co-operation between us and the states in Southern Africa, the deeper into Africa we will be able to send our eyes and ears, and the more advantageous it will be for us as well as for the black people of Africa.

But, Mr. Speaker, the policy of emphasizing the expansion of our relations with other states, is not only confined to Africa. Special attention is also being given to the South American states which, geographically-speaking are really quite close to us. With some of them we have already had good relations for many years. Last year diplomatic relations were entered into with two further states, i.e. with Paraguay and Bolivia. A year or so ago the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs paid a visit to various of these states, and was cordially welcomed everywhere he went. Important contacts were made, and shortly after his visit the Brazilian Government, for example, sent an important trade mission to South Africa. They also participated in our Rand Easter Show. South Africa has made various bursaries available for South American students to undertake post-graduate studies at our universities and at Onderstepoort. As a quid pro quo Brazil is considering making similar bursaries available for South African students. Three units of our fleet visited the Argentine last year. It was an extremely cordial and very successful visit, a deed of friendship for which they will probably be attacked In the U.N.O. Negotiations are at present in progress in regard to a direct air route between South America and us, a development which will bring us much closer to them and which ought to contribute a great deal to improved relations. It is significant that the South American states, in spite of sharp mutual differences, have learned over the years to co-operate with one another on the basis of non-interference in one another’s domestic affairs. It will therefore be possible for them to co-operate with us on this same basis. They form a very solid bloc at the U.N.O., and assistance from that quarter will indisputably be of great significance to us. Nor is the promotion of better relations with our traditional mother countries in Western Europe being neglected. Various European Ministers have visited our country, and various members of our Cabinet have paid visits to various European countries, with great success.

I feel convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the time for a great effort to expand our relations with Europe and America is at this very moment more than ripe as a result of the irresponsible actions of some African leaders, and particularly the events on the racial front in the U.S.A. and Europe which have forced these people to look at the matter in a more realistic light. All these factors have contributed to the fact that the Westerners are now beginning to ask themselves whether there may not after all be something in our policy of separate development. Of course, as was clearly stated by the hon. the Minister, we do not regard apartheid as an export product. All that we ask is that we be given a chance and that our honest intentions will not be doubted. It is definitely the case that individuals and Governments in Europe are beginning to be more sympathetically disposed towards us. Unfortunately one still finds a hostile front there, in the forefront of which is Sweden. It is perhaps important enough to dwell for a while on this point. We find it extremely difficult to understand or explain this attitude of Sweden’s, for throughout our entire history the people of South Africa have never said or done anything to prejudice Sweden’s interests. On the contrary, there has always been a feeling of generous goodwill in South Africa towards these people, and over the years Sweden has had very advantageous business dealings with South Africa. But, Mr. Speaker, this matter should also be viewed in its correct perspective. It is not only South Africa which is in Sweden’s bad books. To-day the U.SA. and Greece are also great scapegoats in this small country, the U.S.A. because it is attacking the communists in Vietnam, and Greece because, according to Swedish standards, it has an undemocratic government. It is strange that Sweden should be so vindictive towards these three countries which are relatively far away countries, whereas one never hears of it attacking the cruel suppression of human rights and the dictatorial form of government of its own neighbour, Russia. It is high time, Mr. Speaker, that these nations realized that one nation cannot persist in carrying on and building up a vendetta of hate and prejudice against another nation which has done it no harm without being forced to the logical conclusion that it will be necessary to take steps against it in some practical way or other. Strangely enough it was in fact an eminent Swedish visitor to South Africa who recently addressed the following words to the wife of one of our colleagues (translation)—

The conclusion one arrives at is therefore that Sweden’s prejudice is based on ignorance, which is to be deplored, because when our Government addressed an invitation not very long ago to the Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs to visit South Africa, he rejected the offer. One must therefore accept that these people are in truth not really interested.

Another aspect of our outward movement is to cope with ignorance, misrepresentation and distortions, inter alia also by authoritative publications. Various such publications of which we may really be proud are obtainable from the Department of Foreign Affairs. Invitations are also being sent out from time to time to Ministers and other dignatories in various parts of the world to pay a personal visit to South Africa. Nothing is being concealed from these people, and all of those who have been here and returned, returned with a more favourable opinion regarding South Africa. Hon. members probably remember the amazingly favourable statements made by the ex-Judge of the World Court, Sir Safrullah Kahn. The visit by Sir Alec Douglas Home was also of great advantage to us.

Then I want to dwell very briefly on the second aspect of my motion, namely the basis on which the promotion of our relations with other states rests, namely the principle of mutual respect, recognition of one another’s sovereignty and non-interference in one another’s internal affairs. That is the golden rule, the only basic principle on which cooperation between a large variety of nations, having great differences in background, education, level of civilization, interests and desires, can rest. It is one of the basic principles of the U.N. Charter and if it had not been so, very few countries, if any, would ever have joined the U.N. We would probably never have joined it. Looking into history, we find that practically every outburst, practically every war in the past, can in fact be ascribed to the violation of these principles. For our Government this is the golden principle on which our entire relations politics with other states rest. We are applying this principle consistently, and we therefore expect that other states will apply it to us. Our handling of the Rhodesian question is probably a classic example of this policy, and what advantages did the application of this policy not hold for Rhodesia and for us, and in fact for the entire world! One hesitates to think what the result would have been if we had interfered in Rhodesia. For South Africa in fact this principle is as old as its history itself. In his diary Jan van Riebeeck mentions an incident when the British ship, Mayflower, visited Cape Town on 15th May, 1657, only five years after the settlement. Because they could not obtain enough meat from the Fort, the captain threatened to go and obtain meat in the interior “on a friendly basis or otherwise”. The Founding Father, however, warned him that the Company had taken possession and “would tolerate no interference within their jurisdiction”. To-day we still stand or fall by this policy as laid down by the Founding Father himself. On this basis rests our friendly relations with all other states. The hon. the Prime Minister has often stated it in more or less the following words (translation)—

In conclusion I come to a third aspect of my motion, namely to express gratitude and appreciation towards the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his Department for the competent and tactful way in which they are carrying out this task under difficult circumstances. I find it a very pleasant task, because thrice blessed is the country that has at the head of such an extremely important Department a person of the calibre of our hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. His inimitable correctness of action, his calm dignity, his sincere friendliness, and the culture and education which he is continually displaying, must of necessity win the respect and the consideration of friend and enemy alike. What may be said of the hon. the Minister may also be said of the officials of his Department. Here is a group of men who have to fight for us in the foremost trenches and who have to endure insults in the process, who have to turn aside hate and enmity with a smile and who have to respond with icy self-control to the most atrocious provocation. They deserve our greatest respect and appreciation. Through their exemplary behaviours and correct conduct they have over the years built up a great name for South Africa. Only recently our team at the U.N. was praised by the hon. the Minister in this House. Various Indian newspapers praised Dr. Naudé and his team highly. Thinking people throughout the world are beginning to wonder whether South Africa can be such a bad place after all if its representatives always act so correctly and in such a civilized manner. Our enemies want to drive us out of international organizations by means of barracking and walk-outs. They are trying to break our spirit and isolate us totally. But by continuing to state our case in a calm and collected way, we will be able to triumph in the long run. But tough perseverance is necessary in order to do that.

Through centuries extraordinary demands have been made of diplomats. The other day the hon. the Minister said at Stellenbosch that a diplomat in the 16th century had to be an expert in the field of technology, mathematics, architecture, music, physics, fine arts and law; he had to be schooled in Plato and Aristotle, and in addition he had to have a thorough knowledge of Latin, Greek, Spanish, French, German and Turkish. Diplomats sometimes find themselves in strange situations. There is the example of Lord Malmesbury, an attractive fellow, who represented England in Russia in 1779, who was so successful a diplomat that the Empress Catherine on one occasion granted him a personal interview in her bedroom—alone. At that time it was regarded in Britain as an important break-through in favour of British-Russian relations. Perhaps our diplomats of to-day are not fulfilling their tasks under similar convivial conditions. Yet they are being expected to make important break-throughs, and that is why we have to make important demands of candidates for the diplomatic service. Apart from the fact that the candidate must have a university degree, and that he must write the prescribed departmental examinations, he is carefully selected on the grounds of characteristics such as integrity, honesty, calmness of spirit, modesty and patriotism. It is a great pity that some of our most competent men are often, particularly after a period of service overseas, being attracted to the private sector by higher salaries, to the great detriment of the country. It is a pity because it is definitely necessary for this important task that the cream of our young people should be attracted and retained.

When our men are engaged on this major task, the task of expanding better relations with countries abroad, a task which is an extremely difficult and exacting one, then I can only, in all humility, make an appeal to hon. members in this House to display the utmost caution in what they do and say. Because through our words and deeds we can make the task of these people even more difficult. We do not always realize that the eyes and the ears of the world are focussed on us, and that everything that we say is as it were scrutinized through a magnifying glass. Apparently innocent things which are said here are being wrested from their context overseas and used against us in a hostile and negative way. I do not know who is fulfilling this task for the U.N., but it amazes one to see how all reports, all speeches in Hansard, all newspapers and publications are, as it were, being gone through with a fine tooth-comb in the search for quotations which can be used against us in U.N. reports. I once read through such a report, and it amazes one to see what can be used. The hon. member for Houghton, is for example quoted six times. But not only she— hon. members on the opposite side as well as on this side of the House are quoted in a distorted form, but in such a way that a semblance of truth is given to it. In this way the campaign of hate against us is being fomented. It is these things our diplomats have to refute in overseas countries. Because the world would rather believe what is incorrect and ugly, their task is so much the more difficult. That is why it is always desirable that we be requested to guard our tongues. On 18th July, 1966, Dr. Verwoerd, after the decision of the World Court, concluded his last message to the nation with the following words (translation)—

That is the ideal we are striving to attain; it is the great task on which the Minister and his Department are engaged. Let us try to strengthen their hands by saying or doing nothing which may cause them to become discouraged and give up the fight in the foremost trenches.

The hon. member’s motion consists of two parts. In the second part “thanks and appreciation are expressed to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his Department for the efficient and tactful manner in which they are undertaking and fulfilling the task of promoting South Africa’s relationships with the outside world”. On more than one occasion I, as well as other hon. members on this side of the House, have already expressed words of praise to the hon. the Minister and his officials who have to do difficult and important work for South Africa abroad. I do not think that members on this side will ever hesitate to show gratitude where they feel such gratitude is necessary. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will accept that it is not aimed at him personally when I say that we are, however, allergic to broad thank-the-Government motions of this nature. As regards our relationships with countries abroad, one of the reasons, is that the serious deterioration South Africa has experienced for so many years has to a very great extent been the result of the Government’s own actions. And if, after years, a better course is finally being adopted, it goes without saying that we welcome it—in fact, we welcome every little bit of progress that is being made. But then we who have always been walking in the light, cannot be expected to applaud along with the hon. member for Algoa and other hon. members opposite, for whom the light has dawned only now. So much for the one part of this motion.

The first part of the motion asks the House to approve “of the Government’s policy of emphasizing the promotion of South Africa’s relationships with other countries”. I am taking special not of the words “the Government’s policy of emphasizing”. I must say that we are not impressed by the way the motion is worded. However, having listened to the hon. member, it is clear to me that what he actually wanted was that the House should express its approval of the attempts the Government is making at building up better relations with countries abroad on the basis of the three points he mentioned here. We have always felt that it is absolutely essential that South Africa should extend its diplomatic and commercial contacts with other countries—in fact we have never stopped advocating it in this House. The hon. member mentioned three conditions for this promotion. One of them is the “recognition of sovereignty”. In our opinion this is quite self-evident. After all is said and done, political relationships are entered into among independent countries. From the nature of the case there must be recognition of one another’s sovereignty. No objection can therefore be raised against this condition, because it is really self-evident. A second condition that is laid down by the hon. member, is that good relationships should be based on the principle of “non-interference in the domestic affairs of others”. This, too, is absolutely essential, and I think that it is just as well that we note that it is a principle—as the hon. member did in fact point out, too— which is generally being accepted and endorsed by nations with whom we should like to have these relations. Admittedly all the countries do not have the same view of what is meant by the concept “non-interference”; that is why the following question arises: What exactly does the concept “non-interference” embrace, and how far does it extend? What kind of attitude does “interference” embrace, particularly in the case of South Africa? It is a pity that the hon. member for Algoa did not help us in that respect. When, at what stage, does interference take place? I hope that if the hon. the Minister replies, he will avail himself of the opportunity to tell us for once what the Government’s view is of what we are to understand under interference and non-interference.

If I were to rise in this House and to criticize communism as it is being applied in Russia, or democratic socialism as it is being applied in the British welfare state, or Fascism as it is being applied in another state, or if I were to attack it as we are attacking communism, with Russia as the model, would that be intervention, or would that not be intervention? Would it then, after the analogy of these examples, constitute interference if another state were to condemn apartheid and speak out against it? Where does interference start and where does it end?

We in South Africa stand in a double capacity in relation to the world, and we are sometimes inclined to forget it. Apart from the fact that we are an independent state in our own right, we also have under our control the territory of South West Africa, which has been placed under our trusteeship and in respect of which we have voluntarily accepted certain international obligations. We are therefore the holder of a trust, and we have given to the international community certain undertakings in connection with the administration of that territory. Since this is the case, it is all the more necessary for us to obtain clarity in regard to this concept. I do not wish to make any reference at all to wilful members of the international community. I am referring now to the normal, responsible members of the Western world: If they are interested in the way we are meeting our obligations in the territory of South West, would it be interference or would it not be interference? If this is not interference, how far may a country’s interest in a matter extend before it becomes interference? I think it is essential that we should have clarity in this regard. The principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of others, is an absolutely good one; it is absolutely right that this should be the basis of international politics. Let there be no misunderstanding about this. As I have already said, in general this principle is formally endorsed by the nations, but various nations have various views on the practical meaning of this expression. As we, as is being done in the motion, are making this a main feature of our foreign policy, namely that reciprocal relations should be based on non-interference, I think it is time we heard exactly what our Government understands under the concept “non-interference”. I think we ought to formulate it. As I have said, it is a pity the hon. member for Algoa did not give any help in this respect. Apparently he is content to use words without going into their exact meaning. However, I hope that the hon. the Minister will fill the gap and that at some time or other we shall get a clear definition of the concept “non-interference”.

What is your view?

I did not move the motion. The motion was introduced by the hon. member for Algoa. [Interjections.] That hon. member introduced a motion; he used a certain concept, and since this is one of the bases of our foreign policy, we are merely asking for a clear definition of the meaning the Government attaches to “noninterference”. What would “interference” embrace in respect of the Republic of South Africa as an independent state, and what would “interference” embrace in respect of South Africa as the administrator of South West Africa?

*Dr. P. S. VAN DER MERWE: Are you prepared to accept interference?

Good heavens, I cannot cover the whole world in less than half an hour! Let me deal with the various points.

The hon. member for Algoa also mentioned a third point which has to form the basis of relationships. I funk that that is the truly important point in his motion; it is the crux of the matter. It is the question of “mutual respect”. I say that this is the crux of the matter. If there are two countries that want to enter into relations, and their people have no mutual respect and goodwill, then good political relations are from the nature of the case out of the question. To us this appears to be quite a fundamental requirement. But once again we find that the hon. member used an expression here without saying what “mutual respect” embraces. Let me mention an example. Is it, for instance, sufficient for South Africa to say to Kenya, “I have respect for you”? Will that country be satisfied with the mere statement that we have respect for it? I think it was Dr. Verwoerd who said on a certain occasion—he addressed these words to President Kaunda—that it was not sufficient for an African State to say that it wanted to enter into friendly relations with us; through its actions it had to prove that it did in fact adopt a friendly attitude towards South Africa and its people.

Correct.

Quite correct, yes! But the same does after all apply to the concept of mutual respect. I do not think that any country will simply accept that we are adopting an attitude of respect towards it and its people if we do not live up to and furnish proof of this attitude in actual practice, and this is where South Africa’s and the Government’s greatest difficulty is to be found. This matter gives rise to a whole number of questions, and that is why we want to avail ourselves of the opportunity to obtain clarity from the Government in regard to this cardinal aspect of its foreign policy. The question it has to reply to, is this: Domestically the Government has created a pattern of compulsory separation between White and non-White. The dividing line bisects everything that is White, on the one side, and everything that is non-White, on the other side. It is so strict that certain forms of social contact are punishable criminal offences. Whether this is right or wrong, is not relevant in this debate. I am merely mentioning the fact, the existence of the domestic pattern. Now we know that we are dealing with a world in which everybody is not White. Around us everything, with one or two exceptions, is Black. Even our old allies, such as England and America, must now be regarded as multi-racial. Some of our main trade contacts in the East, for instance Japan and Taiwan, are countries which are yellow or brown. Political relations lead to personal relations. In fact, the whole purpose of good relations among countries is to promote personal relations between the people of the two countries. The question we are putting to the Government is this: How is the Government going to handle this question of personal relations? How is it going to promote the international relations between us and others with the strict pattern of separation it is maintaining domestically? How is it going to manage that?

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

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when business was suspended for lunch, I wanted to know how the Government hoped to promote international relations between South Africa and countries in Africa and countries in the East in the light of its strict domestic pattern of separation. Since we should like to have replies to this in good time, I want to move the following amendment—

If I remember correctly, South Africa has today high-level political contact with approximately 21 countries, mostly old European countries whose citizens have no personal problems when they visit South Africa. In spite of this it is true that a large proportion of the countries with whom we have these friendly formal relations is adopting a hostile attitude to the situation as it is found in our country. Consequently some of them do not want to sell arms to South Africa and are therefore boycotting us in that field and are also applying other forms of censure to us. As this is the case with our old allies of European descent, it goes without saying that it will be infinitely more difficult to enter into good relations with the new non-White countries whose people, if they had to visit South Africa, would be affected directly by our race policy. We have only recently succeeded in entering into formal relations with a Black African state, namely Malawi. There is not the slightest doubt that this is being welcomed generally. We are extremely pleased that we have made so much progress. We have a kind of arrangement with Lesotho and Botswana which is promising. This, too, is welcomed by this side of the House. But let us be realistic, because there are things we must face up to if we want to make progress. We accept that these countries are sincere and genuine in their desire to maintain friendly relations with South Africa. But in countries abroad they make no secret of the fact that they, and I am now referring more specifically to the old Protectorates and Malawi, are geographically and economically in an extremely difficult position. They are in this position, as we also say, where they cannot do anything else. The major test for us in this regard has not yet come. These countries, such as Malawi and Lesotho, are economically and geographically in such a position that it is absolutely essential for them to have friendly relations with South Africa. We are only going to be confronted with the major test when we want to enter into friendly relations with an African state which does not find itself in this position. At one stage we hoped that we would be able to enter into diplomatic relations with Japan. I believe we almost succeeded in doing so, but time has not stood still and it seems to me as though this has now been put off indefinitely. In respect of political relations with other countries, both in the East and in Africa, we have therefore been making very little progress. It is an extremely hopeful sign to see that the Government has now embarked on an outward-going policy. It is clear that the desire is there. I think that the Government rightly realizes that it is essential for South Africa’s future and safety that we should develop more friendly relations with the outside world.

But the question we are putting to the Government, and this is a question which is put to every South African who visits countries abroad, is how is the Government going to prepare and clear the way domestically so that the relations we are establishing with new countries will indeed be based on mutual respect? This principle has in fact been embraced in the motion. The hon. member for Algoa himself said that without it we would not be able to enter into good relations. I think that it is time we knew how the Government intends to handle this situation, because before there is clarity in regard to this aspect of the position. I do not think that there will be proper progress as regards our relations with new countries. To us this remains the fundamental problem. The problem is simple, really, although the solution is certainly not a simple one. The problem is simple and it amounts to this. Let us suppose that we want to enter into diplomatic relations with country A in Africa on the basis of mutual respect— as it should be—will a visitor to South Africa from country A be in the same position as a visitor from South Africa in country A? If he will not be in the same position, then I want to know what has become of the basis of mutual respect? Suppose we want to enter into better relations with Japan. Can we afford something of this nature: a visiting swimming team from Japan being refused permission to swim in the Pretoria swimming bath, or a South African students’ team being refused permission by the Government to play rugby in Japan? If this is our attitude, I want to know what view a country such as Japan is going to take of it. It will not view this as a policy of respect. It will take offence. These are but a few of many examples one could mention. It is very easy to say that there should be mutual respect, but we want to know how that mutual respect will function in terms of practical politics in South Africa. Businessmen and representatives from those countries are paying visits to South Africa.

I do not think that there is one self-respecting country that will allow its citizens in South Africa to be in a weaker position than is the case with the citizens of other countries. We realize that this is no easy problem. Recently the first permanent representative of an African state arrived in South Africa. Just look at the preparations that had to be made for this occasion! In passing I just want to say to the Minister that the idea of a “diplomatic suburb” is an extremely unpopular idea among diplomats. The general feeling I encountered, is that the Government could indeed have made land available, but that it should not have called it a diplomatic suburb. Even ugly names are being given to this idea. I am convinced that we shall not make much progress with such plans. Foreign representatives do not like this idea at all. I want to repeat that no country will in the long run allow its citizens to be in a weaker position in South Africa than is the case with the citizens of another country. We are afraid that the Government has created a pattern which is of such a nature that, before we obtain clarity in regard to this question of what the position of those people will be in South Africa, very little will really come of the large-scale improvements of foreign relations up to the point where we shall really have relations between us and the African states and relations between us and the East. I am not referring to diplomats only; they are the easiest people of them all, but along with the diplomatic services there are the promotion services and the businessmen who will follow the diplomats. That is why our appeal to the Government is that, for the sake of promoting its outward-going policy, for the sake of promoting the policy of establishing more extensive relations with other countries, it should give us clarity in regard to these questions. I repeat that we accept the fact that South Africa must extend diplomatic and commercial relations based on the three points the hon. member for Algoa suggested, but we feel that the time has come for the Government to indicate clearly the manner in which, considering the framework of its domestic policy, it will give effect to that outward going policy.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout devoted the first half of his speech to looking for a definition of the word “non-interference”. He did so because, according to the vein of his whole speech, he had absolutely no criticism to level at the actions and the policy of the Government and he was looking for a way out. Consequently he used the definition of the word “non-interference” to waste his time and the time of the House. The only criticism the hon. member could level at the actions of the National Party, was that at a certain juncture, in the very distant past, the Party had pursued a wrong policy. Now, coming from this hon. member, this is very strange to me because it is, after all, his political philosophy that what a person said in the past, or the attitude he adopted in the past, is of no importance; what is important, is the present attitude and actions of a person or a party. Then the hon. member also dragged into it South West Africa, which has no bearing on this matter, and he used the word “interference” in that regard. The whole international court case was, after all, about the very question of whether certain countries or U.N. had any right to interfere in our administration of South West Africa. But I just want to point out that the meaning of the word “interference” was quite irrelevant, for the simple reason that all parties do in fact know what the meaning of the word “interference” is, and it is also very apparent from the amendment the hon. member has now introduced, where he also refers to non-interference in one another’s domestic affairs.

Now, in the short while I have at my disposal, I do not want to pursue further the course taken by the hon. member, but I just want to say a few words about our relationships with the rest of Africa. In view of the fact that South Africa has been under a magnifying glass for all these years, any event, any development here, any point of view as far as race affairs are concerned, is of the utmost importance and immediately becomes world news. Since that is the case, it is easy to understand why our relationships with the rest of Africa, because they are Black states, is a cardinal factor in accordance with which the world passes judgment on us, and it is for this reason that the policy of the Government towards the African states is so important. Now, as far as the policy of the Government itself is concerned, I do not want to say much, since that policy has already been stated repeatedly. The hon. member for Algoa also explained it here and he did so very well, and I do not want to repeat it. Recently still, on the occasion of the graduation ceremony of the Free State University on 16th March, the hon. the Minister summarized the position as follows—

Since we have introduced a motion to-day in which we are thanking the Government for its actions and its policy towards states in the rest of Africa, I should like to conduct tests to see whether that policy is bearing fruit. Then we can, in the first place, compare our position with the relations policy of the other Western countries towards Africa, and then we can examine the consequences of their political policy to see what the consequences of their policy are for them and for us. Without any doubt I can say that the feeling towards the other Western nations is even more acrimonious than the feeling towards South Africa. There are various reasons for this— and, probably, quite different reasons—but as a result of the policy they are pursuing the feeling of the African states towards them is even more acrimonious than the feeling towards South Africa, and I want to refer to the most important countries such as Egypt, Algeria, Malawi and Zambia. We can also include Rhodesia as an African state, and then we can come nearer home to Lesotho and Botswana and even the Portuguese territories. The other Western countries are being accused of hypocrisy and insincerity at every congress held by the Black states, whereas, as far as we are concerned, they do at least realize that this Government is honest in its approach to the various problems. After all, countries abroad must find it striking that the closer the African states are situated to South Africa, the less hostility there is towards us. It must, after all, penetrate to them that the more knowledge the African states have of our actions, both domestic and foreign, the better our relations are, and this must inevitably have the effect that countries abroad will in fact have to start thinking that our policy cannot really be so unacceptable. The fact that through out diplomatic relations with Malawi a breakthrough has now been made on the diplomatic level, must have come as a shock to our enemies. To the Government itself this is a triumph and tangible proof of the success of our outward movement through which we have strengthened our international position tremendously.

A second factor I want to use as a test of this feeling, is the economic factor, commerce. Everybody knows that commerce, the economy, is a barometer which reflects—not always, but in many cases—the disposition of the relationships among the various states. We therefore find it striking—and here we have a fact—that our trade with the rest of Africa has increased tremendously, whereas that of Western countries had decreased in volume. The trade of the other Western countries with Africa is being taken away by the communist countries such as Russia and Red China and, astonishingly enough, by South Africa. During 1959 I went abroad. I visited various European countries, and during January this year I was privileged to pay another visit to Europe. I can say in all sincerity that a marked about-face has taken place in favour of the Republic. People are beginning to realize more and more that leftists of the kind who would like to see disorder and chaos and even revolution here, are our critics, and that they are the people who do not want an orderly community here on the southermost point of Africa. They are beginning to realize that we are treating our various national groups in our own way, with humanity and with justice. As a result of the Government’s level-headed and irreproachable conduct towards the outside world, and the firm stand it takes in regard to the non-interference in the domestic affairs of other countries, and further as a result of our policy of offering economic assistance in a practical way, we are steadily gaining more friends and our relations with the rest of Africa have shown a marked improvement in all respects, be it economically or politically.

Coming from South West Africa, I feel that there is a matter which is of vital importance to us, and I should like to raise it here this afternoon. It is the question of the terrorist activities that are taking place to-day. Last week the Security Council decided to demand that the Government should release the terrorists who had already been sentenced. In a speech made recently by the Prime Minister, he referred to this matter merely in passing, but we shall be glad if the hon. the Minister could give us any further information. We should like to know whether those representations have already been made to us by the Security Council, whether the Government has already replied formally, and what the position is in regard to the terrorists. I am asking this because it concerns us very deeply.

I do not have much time left. I should just like to add my thanks to those expressed to the hon. the Minister by other members, and I want to express my appreciation for the way in which the hon. the Minister and his Department are handling our foreign affairs.

The hon. member for Omaruru began by saying that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout did not really have any criticism to express against the Government and that he had consequently devoted the first half of his speech to the significance of “non-interference”. He could not have listened very carefully, because the hon. member for Bezuidenhout pointed out that many of the problems we were faced with were owing to the Government’s policy of apartheid which they accepted when they came into power in 1948. I should like to deal with this further. The hon. member for Algoa then interpreted the policy in terms of epochs, the apartheid policy of the Government, that slogan with which they came into power in 1948, and in terms of which they have been passing a legion of laws since 1948 in order to try and crystallize and give shape to that policy. As the hon. member for Algoa said, they have been engaged in this task for 17 years. This is the first time that I have heard an interpretation being formulated in this House as to how long the Government has neglected to develop its foreign policy and that between 1948 and 1965, according to the hon. member it was forced to elaborate the policy of separate development and that it had now crystallized it into a “pure concept which had now assumed final shape”. I want to put forward the hypothesis that as far as the apartheid policy in the interior is concerned, we have now been trying for the past 20 years to entrench it by means of legislation. I should like to know how many of our laws which have been passed in the last 20 years related to the colour bar. This is a wealth of legislation with which the National Party Government has been trying to entrench and crystallize its apartheid policy. I want to make the assertion that the policy of apartheid, notwithstanding all the legislation which has been passed, has been a hopeless failure at home here. Before I come to the foreign pattern, I first want to say the following: The hon. member for Algoa launched an attack on the standpoint and the attitude of a country such as Sweden, which is pre-eminently a white country and has no colour problems, a country which according to the hon. member ought to be our friend. There I want to agree with him, but I want to tell the hon. member for Algoa that the enmity which is being displayed towards us by Sweden and other countries cannot be wiped out simply by means of the good work of the African Foundation and the numerous people who are being invited here; they are doing tremendously good work for South Africa, but it is a drop in the ocean compared with the antagonism and the antipathy which not only the non-white nations in the world but also the white nations feel towards us. As far as Sweden is concerned, a Nordic nation which is hostile to South Africa, the hon. member for Algoa pointed out that the Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs had refused an invitation to visit South Africa.

The hon. member for Algoa used a lot of fine words in his speech and I listened to him carefully, but I want to make the assertion that we will only be able to change our image abroad, not by fine words such as those used by the hon. member for Algoa, nor through reciprocal visits, but only through following a policy in this country which will alter to a certain extent our image abroad. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, our policy is not under discussion here; we are now discussing the Government’s policy. If we had been governing since 1948, this policy would not have been there. I am talking about the framework of the Government’s policy which has been applied now for 20 years. In view of the fact that it has been the Government’s, or the country’s policy for the past 20 years, I think the time has now come when hon. members on the opposite side should inform us what other course the Government should follow in regard to its overseas policy than the course which it has been following for 17 years, when we, as that hon. member said, were in a position of extreme isolation. Since 1965, according to the hon. member, there has been a change in that direction. He stated that there had been no change in policy. Very well, then, I accept his word. What we have had in recent times then is at least a different outlook, an outward-going outlook which can only be to the good of this country. Surely it is time we decided what form of reciprocity we are prepared to grant diplomats and missions from States other than white States. We now have the position that there is, to a certain degree reciprocity between South Africa and Malawi, but we have other neighbouring states, such as Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland and Zambia —and I notice that the hon. member for Omaruru mentioned these last—and nobody in this country knows how a trade mission from any of these countries is going to be received here. Nobody knows where they are going to be accommodated, and what will happen to them. The hon. member for Omaruru stated that although we did not have diplomatic relations with the black states to the North, our trade with those states has nevertheless expanded. Mr. Speaker, these countries are our natural market; it is the same Continent. Does the hon. member want to maintain that if we had trade attachés there, we would not be better off than we would be without them? Of course he will not assert that.

Mr. Speaker, I should also like to add my, words of appreciation for the work which the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has done. I had the privilege to see him in action at the U.N. I know what kind of vilification he sometimes had to endure there. And I was there on more than one occasion. I do not know how many hon. members on that side have attended U.N. debates while the case of South Africa was under discussion there. I was there last year as well. But despite the good work which the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs did at U.N. in the past, he will still be saddled with a problem unless a policy is laid down, no matter how vague it is at first, a policy which can subsequently be crystallized in a certain direction, in regard to the question of reciprocity between South Africa and its neighbouring states. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to bring it on to a diplomatic level, because on a diplomatic level the problem is not so very difficult. Even on the diplomatic level I do not believe either that the solution is to go and establish a diplomatic suburb in Pretoria. On the diplomatic level there is diplomatic immunity for all diplomatic representatives: this is protocol and it is accepted everywhere in the world. But what is the position when we come to secretaries (first and second), trade envoys and members of trade missions? We had a trade envoy in Singapore, whom we withdrew, and in Hong Kong we have a trade envoy at the moment, but apart from that, in how many countries, other than white countries do we have representation? There are so few that I can count them on the fingers of one hand. I am talking now about trade envoys. I am not even mentioning diplomatic envoys or consuls-general. I can count our trade envoys in other countries, other than in white countries, on the fingers of one hand. There are very few non-white or Asiatic countries where we have diplomatic representation or where we have trade representation. Surely the time has come for us to try and increase that number. Must we rest on our laurels and say that we are able to export our products in any case, or should we make provision for trade attachés and for trade missions to these countries? I do not even want to talk about other kinds of representation which we need in foreign states. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to tell us whether this Government has as yet devised a pattern whereby South Africa could exchange representatives with countries such as Lesotho, Swaziland, Botswana and Zambia, and even the Transkei, a state which we have created ourselves. If businessmen come here on an official level, how will they be received, and where will they live? If businessmen come from those places and they are not here in an official capacity, how will they be received? Surely it is time that we devoted some thought to and discussed all these matters. After all, we can definitely improve our image abroad if we are able to find a satisfactory formula in this regard. Surely that is better than to sit and do nothing. Can we ever eliminate the criticism of Sweden and other white countries if we cannot give them an indication of what we want to do in terms of our outward outlook. Surely it should be possible for us to say if we are prepared to do certain things and that we are not prepared to do certain other things. Mr. Speaker, it is no use our kicking up a fuss. Every country must respect the sovereignty and the ethnic customs of the other countries. If we want to improve the South African image abroad, we will have to follow the course indicated by the hon. the Minister and turn our eyes outward; we must give shape to the relations which we would like to establish with the outside world.

What do you know about that?

I wonder whether the hon. member who made that interjection knows how many times this humble man standing on this side has been abroad as a member of South African missions? I wonder whether there are many hon. members in this House, apart from the hon. the Minister himself, who have paid such frequent visits to our foreign embassies over a period of so many years as I have? Mr. Speaker, the good results which Australia and other countries are achieving in regard to their trade is attributable to the fact that they are sending trade missions abroad. At this stage I think Australia has 18 trade representatives to the north of South Africa whereas we only have four, one in Moçambique, one in Angola, one in Rhodesia and one in Malawi. My plea is not that we should try and enter into diplomatic relations with all the black States in Africa immediately, but we will be compelled to lay down a pattern whereby we will have to receive trade missions from African States or overseas countries. A moment ago I mentioned our trade representation in Singapore, and the fact that we had to close our office there. Quite recently one of the businessmen from that part of the world arrived in South Africa, a businessman who has offices here where there is a white staff. When he arrived here, they told him: “You will create embarrassment for this country; we think the sooner you return the better.” Is it not time that we tried to give shape to these things, and that we crystallize the policy in that regard? Let us inform the outside world on what basis we are prepared to have reciprocity, firstly in regard to trade attachés, and perhaps at a later stage diplomatic attachés. Let us state clearly to the outside world what policy we will follow in regard to foreign representatives coming to South Africa; let us tell them that we will respect their norms when we are in their country, and that they should respect ours when they are here. But there must nevertheless be a measure of association between them and us. As long as we are unable to do so, it will be a struggle to improve our image in the outside world as regards white countries. I am grateful for the new turn which our policy in regard to international relations has taken, but I feel that we should describe our policy much more clearly, and for that reason I have pleasure in supporting the amendment on behalf of this side of the House.

One gets the impression that there is a tendency on the part of the Opposition to criticize the Government on its foreign policy. The question that occurs to one is to what extent the Opposition or members of the Opposition are responsible or co-responsible for the propaganda made abroad against South Africa in these critical times, both in the past and at the present time.

In our genesis the people of South Africa were right from the beginning confronted by the power of barbarism, which culminated in the impis of Dingaan and Moselekatse, but we still have to deal with that power of barbarism to-day which reveals itself in terrorism on the one hand, and on the other hand in a new garb which it has donned and in which it walks the lobbies of the U.N.

It is a fundamental principle of international law that one state may not interfere with the internal or external affairs of another state. I quote what Stowell says in his “International Law”—

In the American information newsletter of 10th January, 1968, the following is said in connection with the struggle the Americans have against terrorists, not even in America, but in Vietnam: “We believe that nations large and small have the right to chart their own destinies without the threat of external force and interference.” But the people of South Africa are not granted this right. The people of South Africa may be threatened with terrorist violence and with terrorist interference, and then the argument is advanced that here, as in Rhodesia, there is no black majority government in power. If this argument should be accepted, many countries would not be able to meet the requirements of the argument. In the first place there are states that are by no means democratic, but are dictatorships, and amongst them we find some of the countries that attack us to such an extent and are so hostile towards us. Not only this. Some democracies are very proud of their democratic basis, but they, too, do not meet the demand that the majority must govern there. We find, for example, the following in Webster’s International Dictionary:

In their case, too, it is not always the position that the majority governs.

In any case, no country and no one has the right to interfere with the sovereignty of an independent state. I quote again from the same authority—

The form of government which any particular state has may therefore not be interfered with either.

In the first place we are dealing with threats of violence. I just want to say in passing that I found it interesting to listen to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout when he was so concerned about a definition of the concept “interference”. Perhaps it will become clear from my speech what kinds of interference there are, and perhaps there are even more. One of the forms of interference which is contrary to international law, is threats of violence. Not even actual violence, but mere threats of violence are already contrary to international law. I quote from Stowell again—

This is what we have to deal with. It is generally known that various states, especially black African states, are constantly making threats against us. I refer to a very recent threat when Emperor Haile Selassie addressed the Ministers’ Conference of the so-called Organization for African Unity in Addis Ababa, on which occasion he said that their advice to their “fellow freedom fighters”— meaning the terrorists—was to intensify their campaign. He promised, “As far as we are concerned, we shall give all the help we can”. This is only one example of the threats made against us. We are constantly getting them from various African states.

So much for threats of violence. Actual violence, of course, is the main form of interference. This form of interference may take place in two, or actually in three different ways. The first one is passively allowing terrorists, let us say, to make use of a country’s territory to attack a neighbouring state. Perhaps the state cannot prevent this from happening. But it may not be allowed to happen either. Even if the state cannot prevent a thing like that, such use of its territory may not take place. Also, if the state concerned cannot prevent it, the threatened state has the right to invade the territory of the other state and to wipe out the terrorist bases. The threatened state has the right to do this. We can possibly classify Israel’s recent actions against Jordan under this head. Jordan allowed, perhaps not deliberately, such bases to be established in its territory, from which bases terrorists made raids into Israel. As I am saying, the country that is being invaded, has the right to destroy those bases.

Are you suggesting that that is a practical solution?

This is the passive way, if the state cannot prevent it. But there is also an active way, when the state does in fact help the terrorists, for example, by having a base for them in its territory, or in other ways. This is a very serious contravention of international law. It is regarded as war in disguise. In his recently published work on “International Law and the Use of Force” Brownlie states the following—

In Stowell’s book which I quoted a little while ago, we also find the following—

This is what we are faced with, namely war in disguise which is being waged by barbarous terrorists. States that help the terrorists are guilty of a serious contravention of international law.

Then there is another example of the interference we have to deal with that one might mention. This is when violence against South Africa is sanctioned, as in the resolutions passed by the Security Council of the U.N. to protect the terrorists. It astounds one to think that states that profess to be civilized, and probably are civilized as a rule, can give their support to terrorists who murder innocent women and children. One cannot understand it; the world seems to be out of joint. Lord Caradon, Britain’s representative at the U.N., in the Security Council, says that our law against terrorists is contemptible. Is the legislation contemptible, or is it contemptible that terrorists murder innocent women, children and others?

It is diabolical!

It is diabolical indeed. When they hang terrorists in Rhodesia who have committed murder, he says that it is a terrible thing that has happened. It is inhuman, he says. “To hang them is an illegal and inhuman deed.”

Mr. Speaker, under these circumstances we are very fortunate in having a Prime Minister who is prepared to meet the threat right at the Zambesi, a Minister of Foreign Affairs Who is endowed with wisdom, and a Minister of Defence who realizes that the most effective answer to the aggressor is a militarily strong South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member who has just sat down and I appreciate his attempts to define what is non-intervention and non-interference in the affairs of others. But I must confess that I was left with rather an impression that he was putting forward a case for us taking action against African states who are building up terrorist bases.

No. It is for Israel.

He mentioned the case of Israel and the recent action they have taken against Jordan. I hope the hon. the Minister will take the opportunity of saying that we have no intention of that sort, because really and truly I think the hon. member was trespassing on ground on which he has no right to tread at all, if that was the intent with which he made the remark.

I do not say that we should do so.

The hon. member for Algoa brought a motion here to which we have moved an amendment. I must say that we on this side have taken pains to stress the appreciation that we do have for members of the diplomatic service and the foreign service, who have to represent South Africa overseas. In our time the function of the diplomat, as the hon. member has said, has undergone a tremendous change. It used to be the function and the place of the diplomat to operate in the corridors of power, and not in the halls of power. The hon. member mentioned a place close to the Queen of Russia, which was even more dangerous. But these days our representatives have to stand up in public and face the barrage of heckling and barracking. I think they would feel quite at home in this Chamber sometimes! But we do appreciate what they do for us and we want them to know that, and to realize that they have the support of both sides of this House when they do stand up for South Africa on these occasions. But I want to draw to the attention of hon. members that it is by reason of the failure of this Government to project to the rest of the world the good intentions of the Government of South Africa the type of image that the hon. member for Algoa tried to project here, that we are attacked. It is precisely because of the failure of this Government over 20 years to project to the world the very nice phrases, the beautiful images and all the flowery language which my hon. friend used when he was putting across his idea of the policy of South Africa.

What did you project?

Mr. Speaker, this hon. member asks, what did we project? This is the Government for South Africa which has been here for 20 years, in power, taking action step by step, year by year, by law after law, building up an image of South Africa to the people outside. If these people are unable to tell the world what they stand for, then I think they have failed completely and utterly in one of the most vital fields …

[Inaudible.]

That hon. member has not yet made a fruitful contribution to any debate in which I have ever heard him speaking and I hope he will now remain quiet. [Interjections.] He is only wasting our time. Because, Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest problems that we face is trade, as the hon. member for East London so rightly said. The competition for the trade of Africa is going to be vital to South Africa. Our whole future is going to depend on our export trade. The gold mines to-day, to my mind, have a decidedly doubtful future, and it is only the power of production that we have and the way in which we can sell our goods here in Africa, which are going to maintain the prosperity on which the future of White and Black in South Africa is based. And this hon. Minister through his Department is one of the vital links in creating this image that will allow us to move freely up and down through the continent of Africa on missions of this sort, which will allow us to trade with these countries.

The hon. member for Algoa came here to tell us something about the outward looking policy of the Nationalist Party. Now we know that since 1948, when the Government came into power on the ideal of apartheid they have been forced, year after year, to recognize the reality of what goes on in our country. But the hon. member mentioned our isolation and I want to ask him: Was our isolation voluntary? Because he certainly gave us the impression that the Nationalist Party has withdrawn into South Africa to solve all our problems, and now, after it has sorted everything out, they are going out to the world. But I think that is a dream. We were isolated because the opinion of the world turned against us. It turned against us so decisively that only now, after 20 years, has the hon. the Minister and his Department been able to regain to some extent the good opinion of the nations of the world.

Let me say also that I appreciate what this hon. Minister has done. In fact, I can say he is the Strip van Winkel of the Nationalist Party, because he has stripped away a lot of the old barnacles that have been on the Nationalist Party’s foreign policy. He has brought them up into the 20th century, whereas we have had a Nationalist Party which has been living in the 19th century for years. Today they are suddenly face to face with the reality of events in this world of ours in the 20th century. I believe that what has happened here in our country, if I may say, Sir, is an attempt by this party to “compartmentalize” all the people of our country. The word was used by the hon. member for Prinshof in another debate. It is an attempt to “compartmentalize” all the people, to cut off all the contact between them to a point where they can contact one another only by knocking on a wall.

That is what you want the world to believe. It is utter nonsense!

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister. It is absolute nonsense. But it was a word used by one of his own colleagues to describe the policy of the Nationalist Party. Of course it is nonsense! It is the biggest nonsense we have ever heard. But it is the policy on which that hon. Deputy Minister and his party have been acting all this time, and I take the word out of the mouth of the member of the Nationalist Party. I did not make it up. But what has happened now all of a sudden, is that the Nationalist Party has realized in the world outside 90 per cent of people are non-white. What a shocking thing to realize that 90 per cent of the people outside are non-white! No wonder they have become a cross-eyed party, with one eye looking inward and the other eye looking outward. One eye looks outward as far as the inside rim of the laager, and the other one is looking down the well in the middle.

What was the position in 1948?

In 1947 we had friends to play with, all over the world. [Interjections.]

We did not have to run away from anything in 1947. Wherever South Africans went in the world, they were received as people who had played a worthy part in a war which had just ended. We were proud of our position in the world then.

You had a Communist in your party.

Mr. Speaker, this hon. member says that we were the friends of the Communists. That is absolute nonsense. Coming from that hon. member, one can of course understand it. His own Prime Minister had to refer to this country as being the polecat of the world. I want those hon. members to understand that it is time that the Nationalist Party woke up to what is happening in the world outside. I will say to the hon. member for Algoa that I think that this motion is the yawn which takes place before the Nationalist Party wakes up and puts on the light. I think that is what is happening. I give a lot of the credit for this to the hon. the Minister; I think that it is noteworthy that since he has occupied this post things have been coming right and we have been looking at the world as it is. We are attempting to break through to the opinion of the people outside who are today arrayed against us. I think that we are fortunate in having this hon. Minister. On both sides of the House we agree on that. I think that if he had been in charge of the negotiations which took place in 1949 with the independent states of Pakistan and India, we might perhaps have had a different result. I think that this Minister knows how to deal firmly with people and put our case firmly and at the same time to allow the normal interplay to take place which will not prejudice and make negotiations fail, as happened on that particular occasion. I think that we look forward to successes in this regard on behalf of our country. We naturally wish him well when he attempts negotiations of that kind. In regard to the outward-looking policy mentioned by the hon. member, we on this side of the House have asked the hon. Minister how this was going to work in South Africa. This is a very difficult problem indeed. I think that there is a very great responsibility on the hon. the Minister himself to begin to lead the opinion of the public in South Africa to the kind of change that this will necessitate. I say this because it is not fair to South Africa, to any other country or to any diplomat to allow people to come into this country unless a careful preparation of the thought of our own people has taken place when it comes to accepting people who are not of the same colour and Who come here as the ambassadors of other countries. I think that we accept that the outward-looking policy and the actions of the Minister have started this. Only the first steps have been taken but we think that it is something which will progress. We must all accept that or else the Nationalist Party must repudiate what the Prime Minister has done. If this policy is to go ahead, we must expect more and more of this kind of thing. I say that a very heavy burden of responsibility rests on this hon. Minister to prepare our people for the attitude we have to adopt in regard to these people who will have a special status in South Africa.

There has been a lot of talk in this House about non-interference. The hon. member for Kempton Park also dealt with this matter. I think that we, naturally, call upon the doctrine of non-interference to prevent ourselves from having trouble with people of other countries, but I think that we must understand very clearly that we as a nation have aligned ourselves firmly with the Western world. When we are attacked, the principle of non-interference will not help us. We can appeal to it, but the reason why we are being attacked is that we are a white majority associated with the Western world. We can respect the principle of non-interference and go as far as we can in preaching it in the councils of the world, but it will not prove a shield to us. As we have told the hon. the Minister before, and as he indeed knows, the sort of shields we need are practical alliances which will bind us to other countries, to give us some guarantee of security.

I think that the hon. member for Algoa might well have asked in his motion that there should be some consideration given to obtaining stronger military alliances. This is the point I really want to make. Only with those military alliances will we be able to maintain ourselves in this position, with the threats and the dangers with which South Africa is faced. I think that the hon. member for Algoa mentioned the change of opinion that is taking place in the world, particularly as a result of the clashes in America between Whites and non-Whites. I want to sound a word of warning in this regard. I hope that the hon. the Minister will agree with me when I say that I do not think that it is safe or fair for us in this country to point to the clashes that are taking place in America between Whites and Negro as some kind of justification for the policy of apartheid which we in South Africa accept, but for which the world accuses us. We must not use those clashes as justification of our policy in the world outside. What the clashes have done, is to bring home to the conscience of white America, the enormous difficulties and great efforts that had to be made by black America to attain the stated ideal of their Government and the stated ideal of every responsible political party in that country, namely equality for all the citizens of the United States of America. I think that the hon. the Minister will agree with me that that is their ideal. These clashes have brought home to them the distance they still have to travel. I do not think that this has in any way reinforced the case we attempt to make out overseas for our own policy in this country. I want to ask the Minister to give consideration to that matter because I think that if anything we are weakening our own case. I do not think that it is a strong argument. I think it is a fallacious argument. I should like to know what the hon. the Minister’s opinion is in this regard. I see that he is smiling but I do not know what kind of smile it is.

I mentioned earlier that it is one of the tasks of the Minister to create a climate in which mutual trade can take place between South Africa and other countries, particularly in Africa. I believe that this is the only real foundation upon which South Africa can take the lead that we ought to have in Africa. We have all the practical experience of Africa, such as the conditions of life in Africa, the difficulties of leading backward people, and problems in regard to attempting to uplift primitive backward people to bring them to some worthwhile way of life. This continent is crying out for this country to reach out and take a lead. Again the initiative comes back to this hon. Minister and his department. We may differ from the hon. the Minister and from the Nationalist Party in our basic approach to this matter, but when it comes to the overall interests of South Africa, I join the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in saying that we wish the Minister and his department well in representing South Africa in other countries.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my gratitude for the encouraging words which have been expressed here in regard to my Department and myself. In doing so it is not in any spirit of self-satisfaction that I do so. but in the full realization of how much still remains to be done, of the stumbling blocks which lie ahead for us. and of the great challenge still facing us. Regularly in the past I have in this House and also in the rural areas and other places warned against the dangers and the uphill struggle which still lie ahead for us. I pointed out repeatedly that it was wrong to think, as many of our people thought, that all South Africa’s foreign problems had been solved by the decision of the International Court on the South West Africa case.

We have made progress in our foreign relations. There is no doubt about that I believe that we shall continue to make progress and consolidate our international position. But as South Africa progresses and our position improves, the extremists in the world, supported by the communists, are making a greater outcry and doing everything in their power to intensify the vendetta against South Africa. They are intensifying their efforts to isolate us, as they tried to do recently in New Delhi, and as they are now trying once again to do in the field of sport. They are also doing their utmost to harness the U.N. against South Africa. At this moment they are trying to do so in the Security Council in regard to the terrorist problem in Southern Africa. Then, too, I have emphasized throughout that we will not allow ourselves to be intimated, and that we here in South Africa will not allow ourselves to be thrown off course, but that we shall persist in the course we have adopted, and that we shall present a united front to all attempts to interfere in our affairs and to prescribe to us in what way we should govern our country.

I should like to associate myself with those hon. members who paid tribute to my Department. I should like to express my gratitude to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Fourie, whom I find a veritable pillar of support. I should also like to express my gratitude to my entire Department, those at head office as well as the representatives abroad, who sometimes under difficult circumstances have to stand in the forefront of the cold war in which South Africa is embroiled. They are of course being assisted by members of other Departments, who are also pulling their weight. I should further like to avail myself of this opportunity to express my gratitude to my colleagues, Ministers of this Government, for the good work which they have done recently during their visits abroad through the contacts they have made there, the useful discussions they have held and the good impressions they have created. I must also thank my colleagues and their Departments for their willingness to promote co-operation with our neighbouring states, particularly in the technical sphere.

But apart from Government bodies the improvement in South Africa’s position abroad is also, to a very large extent, attributable to the actions of people from the private sector. I am thinking here of thousands of South Africans from all populations groups, people not all of whom support this Government’s policy, who are doing excellent work for South Africa, by extending hospitality, holding discussions and supplying information in regard to the true facts about South Africa, both abroad and to foreign visitors here in South Africa.

I am also thinking with gratitude/ of a large number and a large variety of organizations in South Africa that are making it their business, both directly or indirectly, to improve South Africa’s relations with the rest of the world and to convey a true picture of South Africa and its conditions to overseas countries. I do not think I dare mention any names in this regard. It would be dangerous, since I will never be able to mention all of them. However, I am glad of the opportunity of being able to thank them here. The degree of progress which we are making is, as is often the case in regard to the foreign relations of any State, to a certain extent the result of factors which are altogether beyond our control. One of these factors is the recent emancipation of quite a few neighbouring states in Southern Africa, states which have come to know us in South Africa over many generations, states and nations which have learned through experience that they can co-operate with South Africa, that they can accept the word of South Africans. and that they can trust us, states with which we share interests in common. It is quite remarkable and significant that it is these very neighbouring states which are so close to us which want to co-operate with us and which declare openly to the world that they are prepared to co-operate with us. The world would do well to take note of this, for the further one travels from South Africa the less knowledge there is of the people in South Africa, our policy and our affairs, the more vindictive those nations are, the deeper their hate and the less they are prepared to grant us here in South Africa the right to exist. One wonders whether a person such as President Kaunda would make such an outcry against South Africa as he did the day before yesterday, according to newspaper reports, and whether he would have spoken so sneeringly of our policy of suppression if he and members of his Government had possessed more knowledge of South Africa, if they had known us better and if they, like several other Government heads and Ministers in African States, had also worked in South Africa for several years.

But this phenomenon does not only apply to our neighbours in Africa; it also applies to a very large extent to the rest of the world. The hon. member for Algoa referred to Sweden. I ask myself whether the Swedish Government act in the way they do because they do not know what is happening in South Africa, and whether they would have acted towards us in the way they are now doing if they had been acquainted with Africa and its problems for as many centuries as the Portuguese and other Western States have been acquainted with Africa. I doubt whether they would have acted in the way they did, if that had been the case with them. Would Sweden’s attitude have been what it is if members of the Swedish Government had taken the trouble to come to South Africa with an open mind, in the same way as the late Mr. Dag Hammarskjöld came to South Africa? It is said that towards the end of his visit to South Africa, when he arrived here in Cape Town, he declared: “But surely this is not Africa; this is more like Western Europe.” That proves how much ignorance in regard to South Africa exists in the outside world.

The hon. member for Algoa was quite right in referring to the Rhodesian dispute and emphasizing that it was essential that a solution be found. It has always been the Government’s view that a solution which is in the interests of both parties must be found, and although the matter is now before the Security Council of the U.N., we still believe that it is essential that it should be solved, and that it can be solved, by the parties themselves.

The hon. members for Bezuidenhout and East London (City) pointed out that our international problems had arisen in the past as a result of the policy and the actions of the National Party Government, but what would have happened to our country, and what would the future of South Africa and our children have been if the National Party Government had, during the past 20 years, governed the country according to principles and methods which would be popular with the communists and the extremists of the world? For they are the people who are in the forefront of this vendetta against South Africa. They are the tail wagging the dog. What would have become of our future if we had given in to the demands of those people? In regard to the question of interference the hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred to South West Africa. I must remind him that as far as South West Africa is concerned, we have never yet had recourse to article 2 (7) of the U.N. Charter, i.e. the article in regard to non-interference. This is an entirely different matter. If I have time at my disposal, I shall be glad to reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Omaruru and I shall then, in addition, demonstrate further how we did in fact act in regard to South West Africa.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout had quite a lot to say about interference. I am not going to try to give a definition of interference here. The whole world knows what is meant by interference by one state or a group of states or an organization in the internal affairs of another state. But I cannot help feeling that the hon. member is insinuating that it does not amount to interference when the U.N. passes formal resolutions, tries to take action against us and collects funds to operate against South Africa, or arranges conferences at which South Africa’s internal affairs are discussed, makes propaganda against South Africa by means of its Secretariat and tries to compel us to do certain things by means of sanctions and boycotts. These are examples of flagrant interference. The principle of non-interference in the affairs of another is a generally accepted one throughout the world; it is acknowledged and put into practice throughout the world, but in the case of Russia, for example, the U.N. and its members do not do the same things which they are doing in the case of South Africa. They do not hold conferences at which, for example, they discuss Communism and organize attacks on Britain or America. That is not being done. In other words, what we have here is once again the application of the double standard. Now that hon. member wants to create the impression, through the questions he puts, that the world body and other powers do in fact have the right to come and poke their noses into our affairs, to discuss our policy and to try to put pressure on us.

On what do you base that opinion?

Just read your speech. The hon. member also mentioned mutual respect. It is true that there is strict racial separation in South Africa. We shall be able to handle the intercourse which will arise as a result of closer contact with African states. What is that hon. member’s solution? Our solution is that states will be able to co-exist on a friendly basis if they have mutual respect for one another, if they have consideration and respect for one another’s traditions, customs and legislation. If they want to come here on that basis, and not to undermine us, they are welcome in our country. This is the only basis on which states can exchange diplomats and can trade with one another. The hon. members want me to supply definitions, that I should discuss here in vacuo cases which might originate in practice. I can tell them that we are not going to work out the finer details of those matters. It would be fatal; it would be useless. But what I can do is to give the hon. member the assurance that these things can only take place if they are conducted on a basis which will not lead to the destruction of our policy in South Africa. The criterion will always be whether or not the contact on diplomatic level or on commercial level, or whatever level it might be, will undermine our traditional way of life in South Africa.

The hon. member alleged here—I think he alleged it and did not merely insinuate it—that it was only because of economic reasons that our neighbours in Southern Africa were being compelled to co-operate with us.

I said that that was what they were alleging overseas.

Since when is a country such as Malawi so dependent upon South Africa that they are compelled to enter into diplomatic relations with us and exchange diplomats? It is something entirely different; it is a question of common interests. Surely it is an insult to that country if a member of this House alleges that they are maintaining relations with us merely because they are compelled to do so. Our neighbouring States are not complaining about our relations with them, diplomatic or economic. They are satisfied with them, and they are working well in practice. But now the Opposition is apparently making complaints. Is it the purpose of these questions and insinuations to look for points of friction rather than to promote co-operation on the grounds of common interests? The hon. member spoke about housing for diplomats. I believe that it will work in practice. The hon. member is placing the diplomats in South Africa who are our guests, in a very embarrassing position by insinuating that he was speaking on their behalf when he spoke disparagingly in this House of the arrangements which have been made here in their interests in order to solve their accommodation problems.

I said they did not like it.

He is placing them in an embarrassing position. The hon. member for East London (City) made a plea for increased representation in Africa and in the East. We have far more representation than there was in the days of the United Party, but we must not act too hastily. We must proceed with caution. But let me furnish an example. In the days of the United Party we had representation in only one country where the Government was in non-White hands, and that was in Egypt, but to-day it is an entirely different matter. To-day we have representation in at least five countries, Japan, Taipeh (Formosa), Hong Kong, Mauritius and Malawi. These are all recent accomplishments of the National Party Government.

The hon. member for Kempton Park made a thorough study, which is a useful thing for the entire House, of the principles of international co-operation, particularly in regard to non-interference, and we thank him for doing so. The contribution made by the hon. member for Mooi River was not as constructive as I have been accustomed to hearing him make in the past. I just want to inform the hon. member that success in our international relations does not merely depend on good diplomacy. That is the case to-day, and it was the case in the past as well. There are many other factors involved, and we must not therefore over-estimate the powers of diplomacy alone. I can only describe the hon. member for Mooi River’s attempt to play me off against my colleagues in the Cabinet as childish and useless. I can also assure that hon. member that race clashes in the United States of America are not a source of satisfaction to the Government. We deplore it, in the same way as we deplore other race clashes in other parts of the world, such as Cyprus and Nigeria and many other countries.

The hon. member for Omaruru asked me to say a few words in regard to the latest developments in the Security Council. Hon. members will recall that on 16th February I informed the House in regard to the representations made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to the effect that we should release the accused in the terrorist trial. I informed hon. members on what grounds we did not do so. I also informed them that I had sent a bulky document, in which legal grounds and statements of fact were set out, to the Secretary-General. But alas, the Security Council paid no heed to these legal grounds or the statements of fact, because in spite thereof a resolution was passed on the 14th of this month by the Security Council demanding inter alia the immediate release and repatriation of these terrorists after they had been sentenced by the Supreme Court. The hon. the Prime Minister reacted to that immediately when he spoke at George on the 16th of this month. He stated very clearly that South Africa would under no circumstances comply with this demand. The Secretary-General is being formally informed of our reaction, as well as the grounds, the motivation for that, some of which have already been mentioned by the Prime Minister. I should like to comply with the request to supply the House with some additional information, because there are good, very substantial reasons for the attitude adopted by the Government in the reply which the Prime Minister furnished to the Secretary-General. To a very large extent the Government’s attitude is also influenced by the experience we have had in our dealings over the years with the U.N. in regard to the same matter.

In the first place I want to point out that in no U.N. debate since 1966, since the court decision, has any consideration been given to the factual situation and to the legal grounds which have been so thoroughly stated by South Africa. The record, however, is full of abusive language and emotional outbursts. Nor is there anywhere in the record any indication of how the interests of South West Africa could be served by U.N. action based on resolutions which have been taken from time to time by U.N. in this regard. One wonders whether the emotional approach is not the result of disappointment amongst some members of the U.N. at the decision of the World Court, and whether they now want to carry into effect by means of political majorities what is legally inadmissible. It is sometimes conveniently forgotten that South Africa did not run to the World Court with this case. South Africa made it clear over a period of many, many years, that she was amenable to negotiation; that she believed that a satisfactory solution could be found by means of negotiation. I should like to refresh hon. members’ memories. In the year 1951, for example, South Africa proposed that a new agreement should be entered into between South Africa and the leading members of the Allied Powers, and that that agreement should first be approved by the U.N. The majority at the U.N. was not in favour of this. In spite of that South Africa continued to negotiate and so much progress was made that the U.N. committee concerned was able to report the following year, that is 1952, that an agreement had been reached with South Africa in regard to five important points. But once again nothing came of it. We nevertheless kept the door open, and in 1958 the South African Government received the so-called “Good Offices Committee”, also known as the Arden-Clark Committee. They were very appreciative —and made no secret of the fact—of the way in which they had been received here. They found, inter alia, that some or other form of partition, of division of land, in South West Africa would offer a possible solution, but this idea was summarily rejected by the U.N., and nothing came of that either. But in spite of the apparent deadlock which had then been reached, South Africa was nevertheless prepared once more in 1962 to receive a mission here, the so-called Carpio-Martinez D’Alva Mission. That unfortunate history is still fresh in our memories. The joint communique which was drawn up and signed at the end of that mission was totally ignored. And the same thing happened in regard to the decision of the World Court in 1966; it also went into the waste paper basket. To-day the majority at U.N. are trying to take the law into their own hands and to do what they want. As has been repeatedly indicated by the present Prime Minister and his predecessor and other members of the Government, South Africa has always adopted the attitude that we have nothing to hide; that there is nothing we should feel ashamed about as regards South West Africa. On the contrary, we have gone out of our way, in recent times as well, to keep all interested parties informed, to supply them with the facts. There is a mass of information contained in the pleadings submitted to the Court which is based on research, hard work and thorough study. Expert evidence was submitted and valuable information was made available by those witnesses. The South African Government invited the Court to come to South West Africa and see for themselves what was happening there. All the facts in regard to our policy there and our actions were placed on record, without being disputed by the applicants in the court case. The record of this trial is a massive document. It is a very valuable source of information in regard to South West Africa, and those who are really interested in this question ought to make a study of that record. But they do not do so. We have also supplied information and explained our attitude by participating time and again in U.N. debates. In 1967 we published the South West Africa survey. We invited the heads of diplomatic missions in South Africa to visit South West Africa and see for themselves what was happening there. I can also refer to my letters to the Secretary-General, containing the necessary information. I think any objective observer would have to admit that South Africa has over the years not been unreasonable; that we have never been guilty of any lack of co-operation and that we have exercised a great deal of patience over the years in regard to this matter. But it has all been to no avail. It has all been summarily rejected and ignored while unfounded allegations by uninformed and prejudiced people have been seized upon and believed because it has suited and promoted the case of the majority at U.N. Mr. Speaker, we cannot be blamed for adhering to our standpoint, and for not allowing terrorism in South West Africa which is based on the Vietcong model, that we are not prepared to ignore the welfare of all the inhabitants of South West Africa, and we are not prepared to neglect our duty. In the interests of all the inhabitants of South West Africa the Government is therefore not prepared to release these condemned persons, as has been requested.

Debate having continued for 2½ hours, motion and amendment lapsed in terms of Standing Order No. 32.

I wish formally to move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper—

1. (a) the growth of the dagga traffic; and
2. (b) the abuse, sale and distribution of dangerous drugs by unauthorized persons in the Republic.

At the outset, I wish to refer to the absence of the hon. the Minister of Health. The hon. the Minister courteously explained why he could not attend. I accept that he is away on official business; I understand the position.

Sir, out of courtesy to Afrikaans-speaking members of the House I feel that I should refer to a misunderstanding or a misconception which may exist in regard to the Afrikaans wording of this motion. The Afrikaans version refers to “die gebruik van dagga en verdowingsmiddels” and I believe that in a certain sense “verdowingsmiddels” could be interpreted primarily as anaesthetics, and secondarily as narcotics. I wish to make it quite clear that it is not my intention to deal with anaesthetics; that I am primarily concerned with drugs which fall within and without the category of potentially harmful drugs and those drugs which, if taken in excess, may lead to some form of dependence. I am therefore dealing primarily with potentially harmful drugs when I come to the aspect of “die moontlik nadelige medisyne”. I am not dealing to any great extent with the question of habit-forming drugs as a whole or “gewoontevormende medisyne”, with the exception, of course, of dagga which is a habit-forming drug and which is commonly referred to in other parts of the world as a narcotic. Sir, I think that we should place on record, An the first instance, what dagga is in terms of world-wide usage. We know that its pharmacological name is cannibis sativa or Indian hemp. The Xhosas, the Zulus and the Swazis refer to dagga as insangu. The northern tribes have other names for it. In North America it is primarily referred to as marihuanha or as American hemp. In India it is known as bhang. In Syria and Lebanon it is known as hashish elkief; in Algeria and Morocco as kif; in Turkey, Mozambique and Brazil and other countries they have their own specific names for what we call dagga. Sir, I think this has some significance because if one refers to the world-wide Press reports, one can at least gauge the extent of dagga use and abuse which is reported from time to time.

Sir, I ask the question: Is dagga a worldwide problem? As far as I am concerned the answer is an unequivocal “yes”. Perusal of World Health Organization publications indicate most clearly that this view is shared by the experts who serve on this world body, the narcotics division of the World Health Organization. It is not my intention to quote all the facts that are available. They are there for reference purposes should they be required. I propose only to summarize some of the main contentions in so far as dagga is concerned. Firstly the following statement is made—

This particular statement is reiterated in the reports of the W.H.O. year after year. Secondly, a statement was made in 1963 by the Commission on Narcotic Drugs which indicated that more information should be gathered in regard to the dagga situation in African countries. In the third place, we find the following statement on addiction—

Fourthly, it is quite apparent that large quantities are illegally produced. Fifthly, the situation is by no means irremediable. These words are important: “By no means irremediable”.

Then we go on and we find that enforcement of strict control would appear to be the prime need in the campaign against the illicit traffic in dagga. This, I believe, is a most significant expression of opinion—“If narcotics control (and I have indicated that dagga is regarded in world usage as a narcotic), is effectively enforced, making it difficult to obtain the drugs, and if the introduction of measures such as legislation, propaganda and education brings about a change of social climate leading to rejection of what was formerly accepted by the general public, many of these people will be able to give up the habit with relatively little difficulty”.

Then we have the views of four world renowned pharmacologists, and they confirm that dagga does not produce physical dependence. But what are its other effects? They list some of the effects, namely carelessness, distortion of sensation and perception, especially of time and space. I think the easiest way to illustrate the distortion of time and space particularly, is to refer to a Persian legend which concerns three people who arrived at the outer wall of a city late one night when the gates had been locked. One man was an opium addict, the other was an alcoholic, and the third a slave to dagga. They saw the gate was locked, and the opium addict said, “Let us just go to sleep and wait until morning”. The alcoholic said, “Let us break the door down”. The dagga slave said, “Let’s go through the keyhole”. I think this illustrates the point I am trying to make regarding the distortion of space. Further, and these are the convictions and findings of authorities, it leads to an impairment of judgment and memory, to irritability and confusion. It also causes hallucinations, illusions and delusions. I believe one of the findings of these authorities is a warning to us, because this is what they say—

The Central Narcotics Board itself concludes—

So, I say to some of the well-meaning but misguided people who suggest that the legislation of dagga would be a means of overcoming a social problem, that in view of the considered opinion of world authorities on the subject, they should think again—and think very seriously.

Regarding statistics. I just do not have the time at my disposal to do them justice. I merely want to say that, according to estimated world requirements, the amount of dagga needed for domestic, medical and scientific purposes was put down at 127,000 lbs. I want to compare that quantity with the quantity confiscated in one year by the S.A.P. The latest figure was 2¾ million lbs. in one year.

We come now to the medicinal uses of dagga and we find that as far back as 1958 the Bureau of Narcotics in the U.S.A. said dagga had no role in present day medicine, either internally, externally, or for veterinary medicines. We now notice that it is omitted from the pharmacopoeia of various countries, for instance the British pharmacopoeia, the British Pharmacopoeia Codex, and the U.S. pharmacopoeia. The Extra Pharmacopoeia, a reference book which makes a point of including obsolete drugs, says that “It is now rarely used as a therapeutic agent; its action is very unreliable”. It goes on to state that “Continued use of dagga may lead to mental deterioration, but insanity is a rare sequel”.

In the old days in South Africa, when I was a young apprentice, we used to use cannabisindica, as it was used in pharmacy terms, for corn paints. There was some mistaken idea that the application of a small portion of this dagga extract to corns led to relief from pain. I think scientific experimentation has proved that is a fallacy, and to-day, although the corn paints have retained the traditional green colour, it is caused by a cheaper synthetic dye known as brilliant green.

I now come to the seizure of narcotic drugs. The latest figures available from the W.H.O. cover the year 1966. We find that, as far as weight is concerned, dagga is first on the list. 636,000 lbs. of dagga were seized in that year, 90 per cent of which was destroyed and 10 per cent released for licit use. The total amount seized in South Africa—and I find this information very interesting and significant0— represented 72 per cent of the world total seized. All dagga seized in this country was destroyed. The U.S.A. conducted a survey in 1958 and found that illicit cultivation was negligible, and that large acreages of “wild growth” were destroyed. In the U.S. in the year 1956 2.2 million lbs. of dagga were seized. None of this came from the U.S.A., it was all smuggled across the border from Mexico. The latest information from Germany is that the increasing consumption of dagga is reaching serious proportions and causing great anxiety.

What is the position in the Republic? In 1949 the Government appointed an Interdepartmental Committee of Inquiry to investigate the abuse of dagga. The report was submitted in 1952. It is a most interesting report, and in the limited time at my disposal I will deal with some of its recommendations. I believe these recommendations should be of particular interest to the hon. the Minister who, I believe, is taking a particular interest in this debate. I appeal to him most seriously that he give my suggestions earnest consideration and, I hope, decide to implement some or all of them. They are not my suggestions really, but rather those of the inter-departmental committee. Unfortunately these suggestions have in the main been ignored. The committee said the consumer and the trafficker should be treated on a different basis. That is a good thing. If a person decides to damage his own health by having the odd “zol”, he should not be treated on the same basis as the man who deliberately sets out to make money by exploiting the weaknesses of others. But, the committee said the maximum term of imprisonment should be doubled from six to 12 months. As I said, these are not my recommendations. They also suggested an increase in the fine from R200 to R1.000. Here I want to quote part of section 235 of the report—

But what has been done? Nothing in this respect. I know that in 1954 in an amendment to the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act certain clauses were accepted and became part of the Act. The control of dagga remained where it had been, the powers of the police regarding search and arrest were increased, and the question of presumption was dealt with to make it quite clear that if a person was found in possession of four oz. of dagga the presumption was he was trafficking therein. These matters were dealt with, but as far as the actual punishment of the trafficker is concerned, the position has remained unchanged since the Act was promulgated in 1928.