Mr. Speaker, I move, as an unopposed motion—

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the privilege of the half-hour? In dealing with the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote I propose to raise first certain domestic matters and later on certain matters concerning the external policy and foreign policies of the country, including certain security matters. I pointed out in previous debates that with a new Prime Minister there comes a change of emphasis and there comes a change of policies. I believe we see in South Africa at the moment changes of emphasis and policy as a result of the hon. gentleman’s assumption of office, and I think that the results have been some measure of doubt and confusion in the minds of the supporters of the Prime Minister. [Interjections.]

Why should you worry about it?

The Prime Minister asks me why should I worry. I have the interests of South Africa at heart, and not just winning votes. May I say I believe in many respects the Prime Minister has plunged the whole nation into a state of uncertainty and into a state of confusion which I do not believe is good for the country.

The very first issue which I want to raise is one which I believe is a most serious one and of tremendous importance to the people of South Africa, and that, quite bluntly, is the value that can be placed on solemn assurances given by members of this Government to the nation. I am constrained to raise this issue by what I believe was a shocking revelation made to us by the hon. the Minister of Defence early in this Session. I do not want to repeat what occurred save to remind the House that the hon. the Minister admitted that he and the late Prime Minister had given assurances to this House that the Coloureds would retain their representation here in this House. Indeed the House will recall there were several examples of the same assurances given by other Ministers without any qualifications whatsoever, but in spite of this the Minister of Defence went on to allege that it was not the intention at that very time of the late Prime Minister or of himself as the responsible Minister to be bound by those assurances once certain other plans they had up their sleeves could be carried out. One often hears complaints from the other side of the House about un-South African actions and attitudes. But I must say that I find it difficult to imagine anything more foreign to South African standards than the conduct revealed by the hon. the Minister’s confession. I think we have the right to ask the hon. the Prime Minister how many other members of his Cabinet were privy to this type of action. Was he himself in the know? There is such a thing as Cabinet responsibility. There is a large number of Ministers in this Cabinet who were in the Cabinet at that time. Were they all party to this arrangement? Were they all party to this scheme designed apparently to mislead the people for fear of the criticism and the action that the Opposition would take? Were those intentions to have been revealed at that time? I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that I believe that the people have a right to know what the situation is in regard to members of his Cabinet. He must know that it is going to take a long time for the Cabinet to live down the reputation that the hon. the Minister of Defence has established for it. The suspicion is now going to remain that when an assurance is given in this House by any hon. Minister chosen from the majority party, that may not be their intention at all. They may have something else up their sleeve and their real policy is not revealed to the public. As a result, I believe that we may find that statements by members of the Cabinet of this Government will be treated by the public with the greatest reserve and circumspection. I want to say that I think that the people of South Africa expect plain speaking and fair dealing from the Government in power because that is the basis on which our peace and security depend. I believe that there can be no greater confusion in a country than when the people of the country do not feel sure that they can believe their Government even when assurances are given in this House in the most solemn terms. I leave the matter there. It is for the hon. the Prime Minister to react as he thinks fit on behalf of his Cabinet.

I want to tell him that despite the fact that the policy has been reiterated many times, there is no facet of Government policy treated with more reserve by the public than that which promises ultimate sovereign independence for the Bantu homelands, if so desired by the people concerned, “en as hulle daartoe in staat is”, which is always the qualification that is attached. We know from the late Prime Minister, who told us so in this House, that it was not what he wanted to see. He went on to say—

That policy is running into trouble internally at the present time. It does not seem to be doing us very much good in the outside world either. Too many people in South Africa regard it as merely for outside consumption and believe that the Government is not serious about ;it. When they are challenged they point to the impracticability of the policy and to the lack of progress made, and particularly in regard to the lack of progress made in consolidating the homelands designed for freedom. Secondly, they refer to the lack of progress made in developing the homelands internally and the astronomical costs involved in making the policy a reality. Thirdly, they complain about the confusion created by articles and statements from Government supporting newspapers and Ministers about the position of Bantu employed in the white areas under this policy. Lastly, industry is becoming restive about the manner in which the Planning Act is being applied, apparently an unavoidable concomitant of the present policy as envisaged by the Government. I want to suggest to the hon. the Prime Minister to-day that neither he nor his Ministers have the answers to the problems which this policy is creating. I believe that the time has come to review not just the answers from a practical and realistic point of view, but the whole policy itself. I believe if the Prime Minister does that, he will be forced to the conclusion that in the best interests of South Africa the independence aspect of his policy should be abandoned and scrapped. I want to say quite frankly that I do not believe he can go on as he is doing and has done since he took office. By all the recognized criteria advanced by the intelligentsia supporting his party, by his thinkers, his backroom boys, the policy is failing before his eyes and he is heading for a disaster, a disaster which will involve the whole country in endless confusion and difficulties.

I just want to give a few brief examples. I cannot deal with them exhaustively. Certain it is that the old idea of the importance of consolidation has been abandoned. The result has been that many honest thinkers amongst intellectual supporters of the Government have been thrown into confusion.

Like whom?

One remembers Dr. Daan De Wet Nel, the former Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, and the emphasis that he laid on the importance of consolidation, and one can recall some of the learned participants in the discussion at the recent Sabra conference when they sought to maintain his position. But the present Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, who is unfortunately not here to-day, seems to treat views of this sort with what is described as compassionate laughter. At the Transvaal Agricultural Union’s congress on African affairs in November he was reported as saying “I always laugh compassionately at those people who speak so wisely and with so much authority over the speed and the simplicity of the consolidation of the different Bantu areas, perhaps whose only knowledge or contact with the subject sometimes is the possession of a coloured map, which is frequently not even ethnically correct.” Referring to the final pattern, Mr. Botha said: “The ideal would be to establish a homeland for each Bantu national unit in one bloc. In practice, however, this was impossible. It was not possible to isolate a united piece of land for each national unit.” Then the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development said at the Sabra conference:

But the late Dr. Verwoerd said the same.

The Deputy Minister continued—

Mr. Chairman, what is the position if this is impossible? I have had this argument with Dr. Verwoerd. I can see that it is possible for independence to be granted to people occupying a homeland or homelands not completely consolidated. We had the example of Pakistan. I believe that it could be possible to grant independence to the homelands consisting of four or five areas not contiguous to each other. But I doubt if it would be possible to do so with 10 or 12 areas not contiguous to each other. That seems to be the minimum number per unit this present policy will result in, if we have some regard to the progress made at the present time. My party’s policy avoids those difficulties, because the measure of self-government we envisage for the Bantu reserves, consolidated or otherwise, concerns matters which are not involved in the sovereignty and independence of the people. Therefore our task will be simple. But the policy envisaged by the Government has so many problems—problems of administration, the integrity of boundaries, passport control, transit and over-flying rights, extradition, and many others—that one’s mind boggles at the difficulties involved if there is no consolidation. But I see no possibility of consolidation the way the Government is proceeding at the present time. The whole thing seems to be impractical. In his reported speeches the Prime Minister does not seem to have dealt extensively at all with the independence issue or with the ultimate relationship between these independent states and the Republic. Mr. Sulzberger, foreign affairs columnist of the New York Times, reported in the Star of 11th September last year on an interview he had with the Prime Minister. Mr. Sulzberger reported—

Sir, this report dramatically confirms one of the dangers involved in this policy, a danger to which the United Party have often drawn attention. The danger is under-scored by the fact that at the present time our young men are on invitation helping to defend the borders of Rhodesia against terrorists attempting to get into South West Africa or into the Republic. But what would have been the case if our neighbour happened to have a communist government, or a government friendly towards communist countries or towards the ideals of the terrorists? We have the danger already, I know, in respect of those territories on our borders governed by very friendly governments indeed. But what will happen if there is to be a change of government? What happens if the situation changes, as it so easily can? Therefore, it seems to me that to continue with this policy at the present time shows a complete indifference to the future safety and security of South Africa. What I cannot see is why we should abandon our present advantageous position where we are able to go into any one of these territories within our borders as of right to protect them against terrorism and to prevent terrorists reaching us, instead of having to wait for an invitation which may never come. Small wonder then that we on this side of the House stand firmly for one government over the whole of the existing Republic and for one loyalty to one state. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. Chief Whip on the Government side is a great humorist.

Let us now have a look at developments inside the Bantu homelands. It is common cause between the Prime Minister and myself that if these homelands cannot be developed to maintain at a decent standard of living their present population, plus the natural increase and plus a substantial percentage of the Bantu in the white areas, then the policy must be a failure. It will be a failure because there will always be so many more Bantu outside the homelands than within. No amount of independence to Bantustans will solve the problem of the overwhelming majority of Bantu outside the homelands. We know that the Prime Minister has been told bluntly, not by me but by certain of his financial advisers, that at the present rate of development these homelands cannot offer a decent living even to their present inhabitants and the natural increase. This has been made perfectly clear to the Prime Minister. I am leaving entirely out of account those people the hon. the Minister of Planning and the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration are hoping to send back. The Prime Minister has been told by me of the astronomical costs of stepping up the development of points in order to make the policy a reality. He has been challenged by me to have the figures worked out by his Economic Advisory Council. But what has been the reply? We have been told that development in the homelands cannot be at a rate faster than the rate at which inhabitants of those homelands can absorb that development. That I accept. That is the reply of the hon. the Prime Minister—you cannot develop faster than the rate at which the money becomes available. We have been told that the Government is maintaining a reasonable pace of development, development as fast as the Bantu can absorb. But then this policy has failed already, because the Prime Minister’s own experts have told him that at the present rate of development these areas cannot absorb the natural population plus the natural increase. It is not I who have told him this—the managing director of his own Bantu Development Corporation told him that, amongst others.

The Prime Minister has been warned for years that he will always be left with many more Bantu outside the reserves than in, if his policy should fail. If he cannot go any faster than this, he has failed already, his policy is doomed to failure. It seems to me that it is useless to talk of a mandate from the people, a mandate that will be carried out at any cost. The fact of the matter is that at the present rate of development after 20 years in power, they are still not going fast enough to absorb even the natural increase and give a decent form of living to the inhabitants. I think it is time that the hon. the Prime Minister faces up to these problems and stops bluffing himself. Of course the development must go on and we will want it to go on, but what I want to achieve is for the Prime Minister to realize that he cannot afford to develop fast enough. According to him the Bantu cannot absorb the development fast enough to make his policy a reality. He must therefore find an alternative in the interest of South Africa. We have already offered him that alternative, an alternative involving the federal concept. His policy is unreal …

Are you serious?

Of course I am serious. I believe that with the passage of time, what I am saying is going to have an impact on the hon. the Prime Minister. I do not believe that he is dull at all. I believe he can absorb arguments and that therefore it will affect him. He has got to be careful of something else at the present state of development. He must be careful of allowing political development to outstrip economic development, because when you allow political development to outstrip economic development you are heading for the sort of trouble that we have seen in almost every one of these emergent African states. They are given political independence before they have developed economically to that stage. I believe that if that truth had been realized in the United States of America they themselves may have seen less trouble than they have got at the present time.

There is also confusion about another thing. That is about the ultimate role of the urban Bantu. It is quite clear that the Government has taken increasingly active and militant measures to try and move the Bantu from the urban areas, which was emphasized on Saturday at Roodepoort by the hon. the Minister of Planning, who pointed out that only 18 to 20 per cent of the urban Bantu work in industries. He concluded that laws similar to the Physical Planning and Utilization of Resources Act have to be applied also to domestic labour and to commerce. Some Government members go to extremes propagating the government’s intention to limit Bantu urban labour. I want to quote from a leading article in the Transvaler of the 5th October, 1967, in which it is said that the Deputy Minister for Bantu Administration and Education stated in Vereeniging that—

That is hard to believe, but I have the photostat here so that there can be no doubt about it. Die Transvaler, of course, supports the Deputy Minister, and it says—

There are gaps in between, but that is the sense of it. Then there is another gap and then comes the conclusion—

Encouraged by that, the hon. the Deputy Minister opened the first Bantu Urban Council at Soweto, and there he said—

But this statement caused confusion to the editor of Dagbreek, a newspaper supporting the Nationalist Party, and he wrote a leading article on it on Sunday in which he took it upon himself to explain what the Deputy Minister must have meant.

And it takes some explaining.

He must have meant, said Dagbreek, a temporary arrangement in the political set-up. He regarded any thought that all Bantu would be removed from the white areas, or that so few would remain that they would constitute no problem, as a Utopia which was not part of the Nationalist Party plan for the future. Does that make Dagbreek guilty of the “verraad” about which Die Transvaler wrote? Is not this exactly what Die Transvaler wrote about and called “verraad” towards our children and our descendants, if we were not prepared to move in the direction of getting rid of black labour altogether? Dagbreek says this is a Utopia which is no part of Nationalist planning. I want the hon. the Prime Minister to note this confusion in his own ranks, on the part of the editors of his own supporting newspapers, who do not seem able to interpret even what his Ministers are saying from the natural meaning of their words. You see, Sir, I think this type of extravagance arises from the fact that the Government will not accept the basic fact underlying our race problems in South Africa. That basic fact is that South Africa is a multiracial state, whether we like it or not, in which different races at different levels of development and of different colours co-operate to form the South African state and to create its wealth and to establish its security. Now I accept that a multi-racial state has more problems than a, uni-racial state, but it becomes the task and the responsibility of statesmanship to overcome those problems. My trouble is that this Government refuses to perform that task, or to accept that responsibility. It tries to hide behind the illusion that it is not a multi-racial state and that races can be separated not only politically, as was stated by the Deputy Minister, but apparently also economically and physically. They do not seem to see the multi-racial nature of the South African state. They talk about a mythical white South Africa. Sir, I am afraid this illusion is going to be shattered because it rests on the attempted concealment of the fact that we do depend on Bantu labour; and they attempt to conceal it by trying to move economically integrated enterprises from our existing industrial areas to white areas on the borders of the Bantu areas and by compelling most new industries to establish themselves in those areas. The Government blinds itself to the fact that huge numbers of Bantu must inevitably remain in our midst, and as someone put it, must inevitably remain in our midst if grass is not to grow on Eloff Street or weeds around the base of the statue of Paul Kruger in Pretoria. The essential folly is very clearly stated in the address Dr. Van Eck gave when he attended the graduation ceremony at the University of Port Elizabeth last year. This is what he said—

He went on—

[Time expired.]

Obviously the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has not finished his speech and I should like to give him the opportunity to do so.

I thank the hon. the Prime Minister and I assure him that I will not abuse the privilege.. I want to say that Dr. Van Eck was speaking in favour of decentralizing industries and he was speaking in favour of Bantu workers living in their own Reserves, but his intellectual integrity was such that he could not conceal the need for Bantu labour to keep South Africa economically alive. In his speech it became perfectly clear that integration would not end because of border industries. Production in them will still depend upon the combination of white capital and enterprise with Bantu labour to an even greater extent than in Port Elizabeth and in Johannesburg. Border development, Sir, solves only one problem, possibly, and that one problem is where to house the Bantu labour force. All other problems and complications of a fully integrated multiracial labour force in our economy remain, and this creates new and more vexing problems both in the political and in the strategic spheres.

This movement of industries to border areas as a solution of our dependence on Bantu labour and as a suggestion that there is no integration is a bluff. It surprises me that the hon. the Prime Minister is a party to this bluff, because I believe he can see through it if he understands the situation. I think the time has come for this bluff to be called. You see, Sir, if you examine United Party policy you will see that we base our thinking …

We have called your bluff at every election.

Sir, the temporary successes of the hon. the Prime Minister in the election field do not worry me. [Interjections.] The public are beginning to see more and more the difficulties, the inconsistencies and the contradictions in the policy which the hon. gentleman is applying. We base our policy on the inescapable fact that history and all our cogent needs have made the races of South Africa mutually dependent one upon the other, and the policy must be based on an acceptance of the fact that we have a multiracial state in South Africa. Sir, develop the reserves by all means. Give them a measure of self-government, but keep them under one central Government. I believe that central Government should be of a federal nature, as we have outlined, but the Prime Minister may favour an umbrella Government such as that suggested by Dr. Du Plessis to the Improper Interference Commission, or some other type of arrangement. But do let us get away from the sterile talk of sovereign independence for completely non-viable states which only creates new dangers and new problems for the future of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, what did the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition actually consist of? It consisted of a lot of carping criticism of National Party policy. All he did was to enumerate the difficulties attendant upon the implementation of our policy and to say that those difficulties were insurmountable, and consequently he condemned that policy without putting forward any alternative. He had all the time in the world: the hon. the Prime Minister gave him all the time in the world to complete his speech. We know of course that our policy presents certain difficulties and problems. But before condemning that policy and before saying that those problems are insurmountable, one should surely indicate an alternative, and allow a study to be made of the problems of that alternative.

Read our policy.

If I must read that hon. member’s policy, I would be doing so for the next six years because with every new phase of the moon there is a change of policy. We did not hear a word from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition about an alternative policy. Take for example the question of when the homelands will become independent. Sir, why is that causing the hon. the Leader of the Opposition any problems?

I did not even mention that.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did of course mention that. He said we were always saying that the homelands would become independent when in our opinion they were able to become completely independent. What is wrong with that? Of course we say that; we will not force premature independence down the throats of the homelands whether it be the Transkei or any other homeland. We will not make the mistake which was made in the rest of Africa. We will not make the mistake which the British Government made with the old protectorates. May I remind this House that our previous Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, made the offer to Britain that we, the Republic of South Africa, would lead the protectorates to independence, and that he did not even receive a reply to his offer from the British Government. But, Sir, we are not going to make that mistake, and I now say this to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: The Transkei and the other homelands will receive full independence, not when they request it; they will receive it when this Parliament and this Government think that they are able to absorb that independence. That is the policy of this Government, and let me say this to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and I know what I am talking about: That policy meets with complete acceptance from the Transkei and all other territorial authorities, Ovamboland and Okawango and all those territories; they accept it in toto. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition came along and conjured up terrible speeches, in other words, he foresaw that the independent states which would come into existence when we decided that they were ready for independence, would become communist countries. Why did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not object to the independence of Lesotho and Botswana and to the imminent independence of Swaziland? Why did he not object? Does he not remember that in terms of the schedule to the Constitution of the old Union of South Africa, we really were the ones who were to say when those countries were to become independent? Did he ever utter one word of protest? No, he did not utter a single word of protest.

You do not know your history.

I know my history much better than the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does.

I attacked the then Prime Minister about that.

When the late Dr. Malan asked, in accordance with the schedule to the Constitution of the Union of South Africa, for the protectorates to be handed over to us, we sat on that side and we supported it and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and Mr. Strauss opposed it. We did not hear a single word of objection to Lesotho and Botswana becoming independent. What has been the result of the independence of Botswana and Lesotho —and I expect the very same thing from the independence of Swaziland? The greatest measure of co-operation with the Republic of South Africa. There is no sign of communist infiltration. [Interjections.] Where are the signs?

They have a Communist Party there.

If there is, I have never heard of it in this House. We receive full co-operation from the Governments of those independent countries. What hon. members of the Opposition strongly object to is that the independence of those countries and their co-operation with the Republic of South Africa, constitute the very best proof that our policy of separate development is the ideal policy for Southern Africa. It is the very best policy for Southern Africa. This is also true of our co-operation with Malawi. Sir, I proceed. Not only are we going to have ideal co-operation from the protectorates which have attained and are attaining independence, but I predict that we are even going to obtain the same fine co-operation from Zambia as well in the distant future, and that we in Southern Africa, under this policy of separate development, are going to become the most peaceful part of the entire Continent of Africa. Of course we know that problems are going to arise. Of course it is going to be very difficult, but what is the alternative? I want to put the following question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and now he or one of his senior lieutenants must give me a straight answer: Does he really suggest that all the Bantu in the Transkei, in the homelands, should for ever and a day remain second-class citizens in Southern Africa? Does he imagine that he can bring about a position in which he can for ever keep those people subservient to Sir De Villiers Graaff? This is pure childish prattle, is it not? There is only one of two methods whereby justice may be done to those people; it is either our method of separate development or his method of integration. And if it is his method of integration, then I say that on that day when the homelands become a danger to the White Republic of South Africa, we and the whole of Southern Africa will already be under a black government. If that day ever dawns under our policy, we will be ready for it, but if it ever dawns under his policy we will already be under a black government. That is the alternative and that is what we are arguing about. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that we are tackling an impossible task, but upon my word, Mr. Chairman, it is not the first time that the Leader of the Opposition and his predecessors have charged the National Party with tackling an impossible task which cannot be implemented. They have said this about so many things; they said it about Iscor; they said it about Sasol; they said it about Phalaborwa and they said it about becoming a Republic and about becoming a Republic outside the Commonwealth of Nations.

This is the same speech which you made here before.

Yes, it is the same speech which I have often made before and which I shall make a hundred times more for as long as we continue to have such a stupid Opposition. The hon. member must not think that this is the first time that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has made the speech which he made this afternoon. He has been making the same speech for the last ten years. There are not always new things to say. [Interjections.] Even His Excellency King George …

May I put a question?

No. If I thought that the hon. member would ask something original, I would have allowed him to do so, but I know that he cannot ask anything original. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that the homelands would never be able to absorb the natural increase in their population. But, Mr. Chairman, we are already proving that the homelands together with border industry development are absorbing the natural increase in the population of the homelands to an increasing extent. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I should immediately like to join issue with the hon. the Deputy Minister on much that he said before I get on to my own main speech. In the first place he said the hon. Leader of the Opposition gave no alternative. That is not so, because, on the contrary, he sketched it out for everybody to see. Indeed our policy is well-known, and the hon. the Deputy Minister even attempted to criticize the policy. So, immediately in this very debate the alternative was given.

It was only in 1959 that the Nationalist Party changed its policy to one of independence for the ethnic groups in the country. Until that time their policy was that this country was to be run as one solid entity, as one state. The Deputy Minister said that that side of the House will not make the mistake that was made in the rest of Africa. But that side is following the policy of the European powers who withdrew from the various African territories. We are now on that road. The Deputy Minister is seeking to delay the grant of independence; but he is not avoiding the dangers that have arisen from the adoption of the policy applied in the rest of Africa. As far as I can recall he has now said for the first time that these Black areas will not get their independence when they ask for it, but only when this Parliament decides to give it. Moreover he goes on to say that this is entirely accepted by the Transkei and other areas. But it is not so. Only a few days ago Chief Kaizer Matanzima in a speech which was reported in the newspapers indicated quite clearly that he had his own ideas about when he would seek and ask for independence. So this new note we hear, namely that the Black areas will get their independence not when they ask for it, as has always been maintained is the case, but when this Parliament is ready to give it, represents a new twist to this policy.

The Deputy Minister wanted to know why we did not complain when Basutoland and other areas got independence. He should know better; he should know it has been the policy of this side of the House year upon year that those territories should be incorporated. [Interjections.] Indeed, it was also the policy of that side of the House that these territories should be incorporated in the then Union of South Africa. As he stated himself, Dr. Malan moved the very motion and year after year this was their policy. It was only when the late Prime Minister made his somersault about policy in general that he abandoned this claim.

Why didn’t you support Dr. Malan when he requested it then?

I am saying that we have made our position quite clear in regard to what should have been done with those territories. It was because of the somersault of the party opposite that the difficulty arose. I would not have been surprised if we had been very near to incorporating those territories at one stage.

When was that?

The hon. the Prime Minister asks me, “Wanneer was dit?” When was what?

When you were near to incorporating those territories.

We have always stood for their incorporation. We always stood for that. [Interjections.] It surprises me that the Prime Minister should ask that, because time and again this has been our policy, and indeed, in 1959 the late Prime Minister thanked the hon. Leader of the Opposition for saying that he would support him in his efforts to incorporate the territories in question. That can also be checked, and must be checked.

Then we had the argument thrown up that there is no sign of a communist government in these former protectorates. Perhaps there are not communist governments as yet, but shortly before these territories obtained their independence the Government Press was particularly keen to emphasize how much Communism there was in those areas. Since they have obtained their independence we heard very little of it. But in fact we know that there is a Communist Party, most active and powerful, in Lesotho, and various members of the Government have in fact indicated that there is danger of that sort from those quarters.

The Deputy Minister says South Africa will be the most peaceful part of Africa. I sincerely hope it will be, but he knows better than anybody else that one needs the support, the sympathy and the co-operation of all our peoples to ensure that that remains so. Blithely he talked recently about the absolutely 100 per cent loyalty of people. It is most important that it should be so. I go from here to his next point to show that it is quite likely that this will not be maintained if we persist with the present policies. The Deputy Minister says that under our policy these people will be second and third class citizens. I deny that. What class of citizenship will the black man living in the so-called white areas have under the Government’s policy? I do not even mention the Coloureds and the Indians. I ask, what about the black man, who under the Government’s policy is apparently to have no rights whatsoever in the so-called white parts? I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister and the Deputy Minister how they believe we are going to get the co-operation of those people in a difficult situation which could develop here, if that is the way in which the black people are going to be treated by this Government?

We are getting their co-operation.

The Deputy Minister may think he is getting it, and I sincerely hope he does, but not all indications are quite as favourable as the Deputy Minister would have us believe.

The Deputy Minister speaks about our policy leading to a black government. I reject that entirely. Why is he such a pusillanimous person now? He speaks about the lion on our road. I want to tell him he has a much bigger lion on his road if he thinks that will happen to the people of South Africa. He has a much bigger lion on his road, I say. We have had the experience of 300 years in our country, where this was the position in the country, and there was no fear of that. So little was there danger of that, that in fact those representatives of the Native people who were in this House were removed. What happened? The white people are still the governing power in the country and we shall continue to be that.

The Deputy Minister, as I say, speaks of the “leeu op julle pad”. It is all very well for him to talk of this lion on the road and to suggest that he does not have these fears and he will get things done. What have we seen as far as results are concerned over the past 20 years? They have stood for a policy of physical separation between the people, but they have got nothing done. Let us concede they are the most courageous people in the world with no fears at all. Yet, their actual results in this regard are absolutely nil, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition has carefully pointed out.

It is impossible for me now to move on to the main points which I intended raising, but I claim to have answered every single point that the Deputy Minister raised. A thing I find particularly interesting and particularly significant about this debate so far, is that the hon. the Prime Minister, who has a habit of rising immediately after the Leader of the Opposition has spoken, knows when it comes to Native policy he has very different ideas from those of former Prime Ministers of this country. I think he has a big lion on his road. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition when he says we are glad that the Prime Minister shows caution in this regard, because we believe that he knows that so much of the stuff that Nationalists have been believing down the years is nonsense. I believe he is changing his policy, has in fact changed it appreciably, and will continue to change it as time goes on. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, once again the hon. member for Pinelands wants to level the accusation at the National Party to-day that we do not want to join them in working for the incorporation of the Protectorates. If the hon. member for Pinelands would delve into the history of our nation, he would find that Dr. Malan went as far as to humiliate himself by going to Mr. Strauss’s office in order to obtain his cooperation in regard to the incorporation of the Protectorates. But it was Mr. Strauss, the Leader of the Opposition, who did not want to give that co-operation. I think it is a blatant lie to say across the floor of this House to-day …

Order! The hon. member may not say that it is a “blatant lie”. He must withdraw his words.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my words. I say that what that hon. member is propagating in this House, is the greatest untruth. He knows it.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may the hon. member say that the hon. member for Pinelands knows that it is not true?

No, the hon. member must withdraw his words.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw those words. I just want to tell the hon. member for Pinelands that he ought to be ashamed of himself for having risen here to-day and having become so hot under the collar. That hon. member was one of the hon. members who recently undertook a wonderful tour through the Republic and South West Africa. That hon. member has seen what apartheid means for that country. That hon. member has seen what has been done in this country and in South West Africa over the past number of years. He has seen the fruits of 20 years of National Party regime. [Interjections.] Hon. members may laugh, but they did not accompany us. They were not there. But let one of the hon. members opposite rise and tell us—we who have had interviews with all those chiefs and headmen of Ovamboland and Okavango—what the reply was those chiefs and headmen gave us. It was that the policy of this Government was the only policy which could bring about for us peace in a multi-racial country. That is what they told us quite frankly.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, we have legislation on the Order Paper dealing with Ovamboland and the policies in regard to Ovamboland. Is the hon. member allowed to discuss this matter at this stage?

Yes, although legislation in this connection appears on the Order Paper, hon. members may in fact discuss it in this Committee.

In South West Africa, in the most remote corner of South Africa, it was quite frankly put to us that the only system and policy which could be followed for the purpose of accomplishing racial peace in a multi-racial country was separate development. That is what we were told by the chiefs and the headmen in that region. But I want to go further. What did Mr. Leslie Beilby, the correspondent of The Daily Telegraph (London) say when he visited South Africa in 1964? He said, “Apartheid is crazy but it works”. [Interjections.] Yes, hon. members may laugh if they want to! He said—

That is what a correspondent told hon. members opposite. Now we ask those hon. members: Do you have an alternative? What is that hon. member’s alternative? It is integration. Their policy will lead to integration. Integration will lead us in this country to chaos. That would be the greatest injustice ever done to the Republic. All those hon. members want is the ruin of the white man in this country. They do not want to provide him with a future. The only alternative, and this we shall say to the electorate outside, is that what those hon. members would like to have is integration. Those hon. members may laugh, but they know that integration is the only alternative for apartheid. Other than that there is no alternative. That is why they must not tell us that there is a middle course. Such a middle course does not exist. To-day they want to know from us when we are going to grant independence to these states. We shall grant it to them when it suits us and when they are ready to receive it and when they are capable of receiving it. When they are capable of governing themselves properly, we shall grant it to them. But if we follow the course we are following in our homelands, which is to train those non-Whites on a proper basis and to help them to help themselves, then that day will soon come. Then it would also be a glad day for the Republic of South Africa and our neighbouring states. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Gardens may laugh at me now, but he is dead in his own Party. Even his hair is snow-white already, because he does not know the problems of our country. That hon. member does not know what is happening in our country. He must travel through our country and see what is being done. He should see what is being done for the Whites and for the non-Whites. When we have a speech such as the one made by the hon. member for Simonstown, I hope that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will well and truly take the hon. member for Simonstown to task. Perhaps he has already sent him out of the House to stand outside the House like a naughty boy. I think it is a disgrace to make a speech such as the one he made at Swellendam. [Interjections.] Do those hon. members believe what is printed in the Sunday Times? I do not, but I want to tell you, Sir, that it is the first time in the history of the Sunday Times that the truth has been written. Moreover, that is typical of the United Party. They blow hot and cold. When the hon. member for Simonstown is in Simonstown, he speaks differently from the way he does when he is in Swellendam. Is it not a disgrace to hear that from the lips of that hon. member to-day? But the voters of South Africa are educated. They are very familiar with the wiles of the United Party. They will not allow themselves to be misled by the United Party and its wiles. They will see through them. Just as Pretoria (West) showed us what can happen, so to-morrow’s election at Swellendam will prove it to us again. The United Party does not have a policy. It is only pecking here and there. We are telling those hon. members to-day that we are tired of that. We are asking them to come forward to-day and to help us to do something constructive. Once again the United Party is allowing this entire matter to pass by without helping to do something constructive. But we do not need their help. We want absolutely nothing from them. We can do it on our own, without their help. We shall continue with the policy which we have been laying down since 1948.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Brakpan asks us: “Help vir ons om te bou.” It is certainly our intention to help South Africa to be rightly built. This is why we must point to the fallacies, mistakes and the wrong road that the Government is on. There is no ill-will towards anyone as a person, but there is disagreement, fundamental disagreement, with the policy. I merely say, in regard to what he said about the protectorates, that it is well-known that our policy from the start was that those protectorates should be incorporated. That was the same policy which his Government pursued, and then abandoned, through the late Dr. Verwoerd. As far as South West Africa is concerned I merely say that I have no reason to think that that territory could not be extremely well-administered and governed in terms of the policy of this party.

I want to remind the hon. the Prime Minister that when he is thinking about these matters he must remember that there are two schools, and that there always were two schools of thought in his party on the subject of independence. The one school stood for federation and the other school stood for independence. That was extremely well outlined by no less a person than Mr. Willem van Heerden, the editor of Dagbreek. In Optima he stated in 1959 most clearly that there is a very considerable body of Nationalist opinion who favoured that solution. He put it as follows—“For the present time the other opinion is prevailing”. For the present time the other opinion is in the ascendant. I would have thought that in the light of experience, some of which I wish to touch upon, this is surely the time for the other opinion to come into the ascendant. This policy of the Government was embarked upon with the very best intentions in the world, but absolutely basic to its success was an approximate equality of White and Black in the so-called white areas. This was stated by the Government to be necessary for the security of the people. I need do no more than draw the House’s attention to the White Paper issued by the Government in 1956 as a reaction to the Tomlinson Commission proposals. In that White Paper there is this clear statement—

I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister— and I am going to listen to see whether he replies to this question since this is his own Vote—whether this is still the intention of the governing party, whether it is still the intention to achieve by the end of the century approximate equality of numbers. This was a most fundamental statement of intention by a past Nationalist Government and I ask the hon. the Prime Minister pointedly—and he is a frank and straightforward man—to give me a frank and straightforward answer to my question as to whether that is still the intention of his Government or not. To achieve this proportion clearly involves a drastic reduction of the number of black people in the so-called white areas. Instead of obtaining a reduction, or an indication of a reduction, we are finding that they are growing immensely and that what is expected by most influential people on his own side is that there will be millions and millions more in the year 2000. Some of the most practical men, who I think can be believed to be supporters of the Government, businessmen whose names I have mentioned in this House but will not mention now, have indicated upon a calculation that there will be something in the region of 12 million black people in our cities alone in the year 2000. I ask the hon. the Prime Minister if it is still his intention to seek equality of numbers in that way. If it is, then he must please give us some clear indication of how this is going to be achieved. We need a convincing statement of the steps by which he would achieve this.

There are many conflicting statements by the Government in this regard. We have had it from the late Prime Minister that the presence, or even the increase, of these numbers did not amount to a violation of policy. Why then do we get the Physical Planning Bill? Why do we get such a draconian measure which has as its main objective the reduction of their numbers in the so-called white areas? If it is no matter, why do we have it? Thereafter, shortly before the late Prime Minister did, we had the statement, the reaffirmation by the Deputy Minister, namely that the turning point would come in 1978. But now we get the statement from the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in his speech at Potchefstroom, which strikes an entirely different note again. He said—

In other words, he indicates there an abandonment of any intention to obtain that drastic reduction. He says this is not the basic, important matter.

But surely you can read.

I do. I have read the full passage.

But you do not understand what you read.

I do, indeed. I understand that this means that it is an attempt to escape the failure to reduce the numbers which one could and should have expected in terms of the White Paper. We see that now it is stated that the emphasis of the policy is to achieve the tying of these people with their homelands. But this attempt has failed before it has begun. Let me give the hon. the Prime Minister chapter and verse on that. He will find this statement in Rhoodie’s book “Apartheid and Partnership”, where he says in his opinion there is not that attachment to the reserves which is required. We have seen it in the recent Soweto election. Various members have made that perfectly plain. Here is one of them.

That is not the only indication and evidence that there is no intention to be linked in this way in the hearts of these people. We had it in 1965. The Native Advisory Council for the South Western Native township in a statement in mid-August 1965, said—

Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that there is not that attachment to these reserved areas; it is not growing, very much the reverse. So, the whole basis upon which the policy of independence for these ethnic groups was planned, has failed to materialize, in the reduction of the numbers as well as in the attachment to the homelands. Therefore it is madness in such a situation to persist with plans for the sovereign independence of these areas.

Now we have a new factor in the situation, a factor which this side of the House foresaw and warned against, namely the increasingly unsettled world in which the likelihood of “interest” in the situation on the part of China and of Russia is extremely great. [Time expired.]

Usually the hon. member for Pinelands is a person who makes a thorough study of his subject, but unfortunately I cannot compliment him to-day on having done that, for the hon. member simply continued in the vein of his Leader, who also did nothing but level a few unfounded accusations here, and immediately afterwards he continued with vague concepts and accusations against the Government, without putting forward any alternative.

I want to pause at a few of the ideas that were expressed here. The first idea that was seized upon here by the Leader of the Opposition is the concept of so-called total separation or total apartheid. It is a fact, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said, that the day may still come—and that is the ideal state of affairs to which we must aspire—when there will be no room for non-White workers in South Africa, in White South Africa. I want to say at once that the hon. members raised their eyebrows very high as a result of that statement, but let us look back for a moment at the National Party’s attitude in this regard since 1948. Here I have the National Party’s programme of principles as at 29th March, 1948, which reads as follows (translation)—

That was the original point of view, on that date, but that is not all. I am going further. As Prime Minister of South Africa Adv. J. G. Strijdom had the following to say in regard to this specific theme (translation)—

But I can still come nearer to our times, to the late Dr. Verwoerd and what he said in this House on 15th September, 1958 (Col. 3805)—

That is the point of view that was stated very explicitly, and each of us here says the same, and I want to subject this to a simple test. If any right-thinking person in South Africa were to be set the actual problem to-day, namely that one has in the Republic of South Africa so many millions of Bantu, so many millions of Coloureds, so many Indians and so many Whites, and were told to place those people on the territory of South Africa to the best of his ability, so that he may create the best situation, then nobody with common sense would have mixed them up. Any right-thinking person would have placed them apart, the Whites in one area, the Bantu in another area, the Coloureds in one area and the Indians in another area. If that is the ideal state of affairs, why are we being opposed in regard to each step we are taking in an attempt to attain that ideal state of affairs out of the situation we inherited in the past? That is the question we should ask ourselves. This ideal of total apartheid remains an ideal of the National Party and for every white person, an ideal which should be aspired to, and every piece of legislation which deals with this matter and which we pilot through Parliament, is being tested against that touchstone, namely whether or not the legislation is a step in the direction of total separation of the races, whether it promotes that ideal or counteracts it. In this way we should advance step by step until one day a generation will come and it will be practicable in this House for a Prime Minister to rise and to cut the Gordian knot finally and so eventually to accomplish apartheid in the full sense of the word. Then we shall have attained the ideal. But it is of no use to say that since that ideal is so remote, we might as well allow events to take their own course, because we shall never attain it. That is the weakness and the laxity and the softness of the Opposition; that is their problem.

I want to touch upon another matter. It is the question raised here by the hon. member in connection with homelands which will eventually be able to obtain total independence and total freedom. This, too, is not a concept from which we are shrinking back or of which we are afraid. As far back as 6th December, 1950, the late Dr. Verwoerd put it as follows, very simply and in plain Afrikaans (translation)—

The is the only ethical and moral course which one can take and adhere to if one wishes to approach this matter in an ethical and moral way. One has a simple choice, as clear as daylight, and if one would only see it that way, one would not be struggling along the way with all the pitfalls in which the Opposition is falling at the moment. In the first place, one has in South Africa a population composition which consists of a few million people who are members of different population groups. One is faced with this simple choice: One may either preserve South Africa as one big country, as one geographic unit. Then it follows automatically that, according to the policy of the United Party, one regards everybody in that country as forming one nation. It follows automatically that, according to the policy of the United Party, one should have one Government governing that nation. It does not matter what one calls that government; it does not matter what picture one forms of it, but if one believes in democracy, if one feels that democratic principles must be the decisive factor, then one must eventually have a government of the majority in that country in which there is one nation. One can argue just as one pleases, but one has to reach that stage. If one does not reach that stage, one is obstructing the natural course of democracy in an artificial manner, with artificial legislation, and that will lead to revolution instead of development through evolusion. That is the simple choice.

What about the Coloureds?

To me the Coloureds present no problem. I shall deal with it fully if the hon. member so wishes. Now we come to the alternative for that, namely that one takes the same country and one says that one is not prepared to regard it as a unit and to hand it over to one government, with a majority of blacks; one is not prepared to distribute powers of government amongst the groups and eventually to grant control to the majority; instead of doing that, one goes back and divides the land basically among the various groups.

How?

I divide the land and give each group its own area, and I say to each of them: In your area you develop to the maximum of your potential and at the rate of which you are capable, and until you reach the full responsibility of which you are capable. In this way each group can develop in its own area, and then one will eventually have a division of the country in which each group will eventually retain its full say. That is the only alternative. [Interjection.] I shall repeat it very clearly. I am making it very clear—and I am not afraid of doing so—that the Bantu should develop in his own area and that he will reach maturity there when he can do so and can accept it. In respect of the other races, we have an identical situation on our hands, and we shall have to face up to that and we are not afraid of doing so. Once we have implemented the policy in regard to the Bantu to its full extent, we shall be left with a smaller South Africa where the Bantu will no longer have any say. But the Opposition’s point of view is that the Coloureds and the Indians are still here. Now I say the course we are adopting at present with the legislation we have before us, does not rule out the possibility that when we reach that stage and we review the situation, separate homelands may also be established for the Coloureds and for the Indians. [Interjection.] It does not rule that out. I am making it very clear that I do not rule out that possibility when we reach that stage one day.

But Dr. Verwoerd said that it was out of the question.

On a previous occasion I have stated explicitly that one develops and that one keeps pace with every development as progress is being made, and when we reach that stage, we shall adopt an attitude in regard to that matter. [Time expired.]

What makes the hon. member for Randfontein’s speech so interesting and so important, is the fact that he is the National Party’s chief information secretary for the entire country, and for that reason cognizance should be taken of what he said; and what he said this afternoon, has probably created even more confusion in the ranks of that party than there has ever been before. What have we heard? In the first place, we have heard that the policy of social separation is a practicable one which they visualize in the foreseeable future, and that it can even be carried into effect by some Prime Minister or another. But what is more, he even foresees that the time will come when there will be separate Colouredstans for the Coloureds and separate Indianstans for the Indians. This is a development we have not yet had in this House and it is a matter in regard to which we certainly do expect an explanation from the hon. the Prime Minister. And within the next few months this Government is, of all things, going to make the study of apartheid a compulsory subject at our schools throughout the country—I wonder what the hon. member for Randfontein thinks of this— when they themselves do not even know what apartheid is. Is the Government going to explain it in that direction, or is it going to explain it in the direction of the hon. member for Brakpan?

That is the trouble with the party opposite. They do not know what their policy is. They have so many policies that one can divide them into three groups. The first is the kind of policy on which they contradict one another, because they do not know what it is. As far as colour policy is concerned, they do not even know what their previous leader said about it, or what he thought about it. As far as colour policy is concerned, they have already changed from franchise for all Coloured women, from a common voters’ roll to a separate roll, from Coloureds in Parliament to a separate Parliament for Coloureds. It is winds of change that howl through their credibility gap which makes the Government look the way it does to-day. It has already come to such a pass that one of the verkrampte ex-Deputy Ministers of that party, Mr. Frans Mentz, has written an open letter and stated that he does not know what the policy of that party is. Now I ask the hon. the Minister of Health and the hon. member for Innesdal: to what extent do they repudiate Mr. S. E. D. Browne in that regard, and to what extent do they agree with him as regards his statement that that party does not know its own policy? To-day they cannot even believe their own Press. It was put down in black and white by Mr. Dirk Richard—and I have the clipping here—that in the past the Nationalist Press had neglected its duty and failed to furnish its readers with the truth and the full facts.

But then there is a second aspect of their policy, and that is the one which is a total failure, the one about independent states and the Bantustans development with which they are unable to succeed, the aspect in regard to which the Minister of Planning referred in a radio talk abroad to eight black prime ministers in Southern Africa. Does he still remember that, Sir? That is the policy of sending the Bantu back to the reserves, the policy which has led to the fact that flats are being built for thousands of Bantu here in Cape Town.

What about television?

Thank you. Then that side has a third type of policy. That is when they come and self-consciously take over the policy of the United Party, and one of these topics is television, which the hon. member has just mentioned. But there are hundreds of others, such as the policy of introducing a ministry of immigration, the policy of appointing a minister of housing, the policy of greater autonomy for the Post Office, the policy of a national medical scheme, the policy of the oil pipe-line, of diesels for South West Africa, of sending reports to U.N. etc. They are even trying to take over from the United Party the policy of pursuing a partly enlightened policy. But they are doing so by trying to light matches in the dark, whereas the United Party’s enlightened policy is one which stands out like a tower of light in the dark. The confusion is a country-wide one and is to be found in all sectors, but let me rather adduce proof taken from the newspapers of the Government itself. They are so confused that in the Transvaal there is virtually a Nationalist Party for every aspect of their policy. There is a Democratic Nationalist Party, a Republican Nationalist Party, a Nationalist Workers’ Party, and then, I think, there is also the official Nationalist Party. The situation in the Cape is different. In certain constituencies there is no longer a Nationalist Party, since they have been taken over by the Rapportryers, and we have also been hearing such reports from another constituency which is not too far from here. What is the position in the Free State? Nowadays they cannot even organize a jackal club there any more, and we find that their Administrator is running between Bloemfontein and Cape Town to such an extent that nowadays he no longer knows his Cape Fountain from his Bloem Town. Mr. Chairman, it is not I who say so. Let me quote to your from newspaper reports that have appeared in Nationalist newspapers, such as Dagbreek, over the past few weeks: “Minister Vlijoen upbraids hunters of liberalists.” “Gradually he is becoming sick and tired of this sort of negative sport.” Then, on the other hand, we find this report: “M. C. Botha reprimands trouble-makers.” Various kinds of trouble-makers on both sides. “Unrest in Pretoria Group about Nationalist Party.” “Two M.P.s shocked. Storm about Jaap and Cas.” That is harmony for you! “Now it is Omie’s turn again.” “M.P.C. in hot water about his speech.” “English Nats may have to form own group,” says Mr. Blythe Thompson. Harmony—wonderful harmony! “Young M.P. reprimanded about Nat newspapers.” “Rumours in Dr. Hertzog’s constituency.” “Talk of opposition in next nomination struggle.” “Nationalists in Natal quarrel about Secretary.” But when we come to these newspapers, it is even more interesting. “Strong reaction to Brown.” That was written in Die Burger two years ago. “Exercise caution as regards reprimands,” Die Burger said two years later. Then we read the following in Die Beeld, the sister publication of Die Burger, in connection with the so-called Van der Merwe Groups; I shall read it as it stands here (translation)—

Then we read in Die Beeld: “Support for Observer a mistake.” Then we read this in The S.A. Observer: “Die Burger—Time has come for a show-down.” Then the next one taken from the Observer: “Afrikaans newspapers which fail the Afrikaner.” Then Dirk Richard writes, “This is how the Afrikaans newspapers failed.”

What has become of him?

I quote from Dagbreek en Die Landstem: “Leave the Browne dispute out of it”. That is followed by this: “But Dawie of Die Burger does not want to do so at all”. Then we find the following in a three-coloumn report in Dagbreek, “Cas Greyling plans new Afrikaans newspaper”. Mr. Chairman, it goes on in that vein, and then we have the reaction to all of this, and we read the following in Dagbreek: “Nats also vote U.P. in Bloemfontein now”. “Nat group receives set-back; U.P. takes seven wards in Bloemfontein”. And, Mr. Chairman, a week ago the bomb was dropped: “Du Plessis drops bomb. They are killing me with slander,” said the Administrator. Unity, Mr. Chairman! Do they know what their policy is?

That is gossip.

Ask Mr. Du Plessis, the hon. the Administrator of the Orange Free State, whether this is malicious gossip, because he is the person who said here in the Lobby that he was being killed with slander. We have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. the Prime Minister. I know that he does not like my saying that I sympathize with him. He has his own guerilla battles he has to fight. “Language dispute: Vorster cannot tell me what to do,” Dr. Terblanche said according to this report. “Angry language dispute flares up”. “Vorster hits back at Terblanche”. It is with all my sympathy, Mr. Chairman, that I have to note these things, and then I just want to say this to the hon. the Prime Minister: And to crown it all, the Rev. Lange of Riversdale as well!

Mr. Chairman, who are the people who are suffering because of this uncertainty throughout the country? Is it not the man in the street? In the city, is it not the man in the street who suffers because of the cost of living, whilst an amount of R180 million is being concealed from the nation by the Government —funds with which it can help the country; in the rural areas, is it not the ordinary farmer, the small farmer who suffers? The hon. Ministers are telling us that the Government has won the struggle against inflation. If it has won, why does the farmer still have to pay 9 per cent interest on loans he has to negotiate? Why does the farmer in the Cape and the ordinary taxpayer in the Cape have to pay Divisional Council rates and taxes as well? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, to-day this House witnessed something here. While the world looked forward to a discussion in this House this afternoon on the Prime Minister’s Vote, with a small country finding itself in difficult international circumstances, we were obliged to witness a shocking display in this House by a bankrupt Opposition. I wonder whether in the history of this country and in the history of this House there has ever been a more shocking display on the part of an Opposition, under such circumstances, as the display which this Opposition gave here this afternoon. One can almost say that they are making merry in this House while Rome is burning. I want to say this to the United Party: I do not know how long I shall remain a member of this House but while I remain a member, I shall never forgive them for this afternoon. I think it is a disgrace many times over. This nation deserves something better than such an incompetent Opposition. Never before have they displayed their bankruptcy to the same extent as they did this afternoon.

[Inaudible.]

I shall not deign to reply to one single word of the hotchpotch produced by that hon. member. Mr. Chairman, I am a young member of this House, but I think it a shame for older members, for greybeards on that side, to carry on as they did here this afternoon under such circumstances. There are serious matters to discuss and if they want to discuss so-called Bantu affairs, a discussion which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition initiated, let us do so but not in this spirit. Let me say this to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: If the nation had witnessed what was happening in this House this afternoon, they would never place the safety of the Whites in the hands of the Opposition.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition began his speech this afternoon by making the assertion “that doubts and confusion exist in the minds of the Prime Minister’s supporters. The Prime Minister has plunged the whole nation in a state of confusion and doubt”. I know that I am not allowed to use certain words with regard to this assertion, and out of respect for Parliament I am not going to use those words, but everyone in the country knows that that assertion is a gross untruth. What is the truth? The truth is that the nation has never before in the history of South Africa been so united in support of a Prime Minister than it is at present in support of John Vorster. Every election proves this. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a much more peculiar assertion than this, one which I regard as being, I almost want to say, ridiculous, because that is in fact what it is. He made a much more peculiar assertion than this and I hope that the electorate in Swellendam will take cognizance of it. He said in reply to an interjection that he did not care about elections. Why does he not care about elections? They are too bankrupt to care about elections because they are suffering one defeat after another, and an Opposition which gives this kind of display, must expect that because it deserves that.

Mr. Chairman, if I had the time to do so this afternoon, I could have occupied the time of this House by making a speech I had prepared on what was expected of an opposition, but I am not going to make that speech now; I shall keep it for another occasion. But I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that just as certain things may reasonably be expected of a government, namely to maintain law and order, the hallmark of good government, certain basic things may also be expected of an opposition. And I want to say this to the Opposition: The Opposition is disappointing us and this country in that they are not satisfying the most basic requirements of an opposition. Let us have our fun and our jokes in this House but there is a time for everything; there is also a time for seriousness. We are discussing the Prime Minister’s Vote and it deserves more serious attention than that which we have been receiving from the Opposition up to now.

But I now want to refer to something else which is really important, and it is this: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition deemed it fit to turn this debate into a debate on Bantu affairs while he has every opportunity in the world to discuss Bantu affairs in other debates. But he discusses Bantu affairs on the Prime Minister’s Vote. Because he has done so, he stands revealed to the eyes of the nation, and seeing that he made that serious error, the biggest tactical error imaginable … [Interjections.] Of course it is. The Opposition will pay dearly for this afternoon, and more senior members on that side, like the hon. member for South Coast, ought to know that. The nation deserves something better than that. I want to remind this House and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and members of the Opposition of a simple fact of which all of us are witnesses. That fact is that South Africa is a country which is experiencing unparalleled prosperity, stability, peace and order, not only for and amongst the Whites, but also for and amongst all sections of the population in the country, from the most northerly to the most southerly parts, from the remotest western to the remotest eastern parts. The hon. member for Brakpan mentioned earlier this afternoon that we had recently visited South West Africa. The members of the Opposition who were there know that even the Bushmen are living in peace and prosperity and that they have enough to eat and wear, and thanks to whom and what? Thanks to a competent Prime Minister, whose Vote we are discussing here now, thanks to a competent National Government and, in particular, thanks to the policy which was attacked here this afternoon and which came under discussion, namely the policy of development along individual lines, because that is the secret; that is why we have stability and peace and order in this country. It is becoming all the more a wonder in the world, not only in South Africa—and we are grateful to the Lord Almighty that we have this position here—when one goes a short way back into history and looks at what happened in other countries of the world during an industrial revolution such as that which South Africa is experiencing at present. The other day Dr. Van Eck showed that by comparison South Africa was experiencing a more rapid industrial revolution than that which any other country in the world had ever experienced. What were the characteristics of such a revolution? The characteristics of an industrial revolution have always been that it ran concomitant with a bloody revolution. The only country which was an exception in this regard was Great Britain in the previous century and that to-day is still being regarded by historians of the world as a wonder of that time. Engels, the authority on industrial revolution of that period, said in this connection that “riots were endemic”. In spite of that known fact, South Africa with its multi-racial population, is a country which is at present experiencing an industrial revolution which is unprecedented in the world when one makes comparisons on the basis of numbers, and we are passing through that revolution peacefully and orderly. Is there any member opposite who will say “that riots are endemic in South Africa”? There must be reasons for this condition of peace and order and you may seek the reasons wherever you wish, but there is one place where you will not find the reasons and that is on the Opposition benches. The reason for this stability, this condition of peace and order, apart from the Grace of God, is this National Party with its policy of development along individual lines; that is the reason for this stability, this condition of peace and order. The other day a proper analysis was made of the South African community in order to determine the reason for this stability, this condition of peace and order. The authority who made that analysis, came to the conclusion that that was due to two factors. He came to that conclusion on scientific grounds and not on political grounds. The first scientific basis, he asserted, was the power of good government. We all know, do we not, that the characteristic of good government is the ability to maintain law and order. This authority found that the second factor for stability in South Africa was the economic development in the Republic of South Africa. These are the two factors responsible for this state of affairs. If it were not for the policy of development, along individual lines, if it were not for the protection of the various population groups which allow each population group to seek its welfare in the circumstances in which they have been placed, and which allow each group to develop freely to the maximum of its ability, we could not have had this unparalleled stability and prosperity. It is due to the policy of development along individual lines. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Primrose seemed to be concerned about the fact that the hon. Leader of the Opposition took advantage of this occasion to raise Bantu Affairs. But the hon. Leader of the Opposition did not intend starting a Bantu affairs debate. What he has done is to call upon the Prime Minister to tell South Africa where he as Prime Minister stands. As Prime Minister he is at the helm of the ship of state of South Africa and as such he must imprint his own thoughts and ideas on the policies of the party he leads. In speech after speech from the Government benches this afternoon we have had—apart from Swellendamitis breaking out here and there—hon. members reverting to worn-out and hollow propaganda tactics— shown up at its worst by the hon. member for Brakpan—in trying to frighten people into believing that the United Party believes in integration. [Interjections.] But that horse will not run any more. It has already won many elections for the Government, but it has been ridden to death now by their propagandists.

It is your skeleton in the cupboard.

This side of the House has stated clearly and specifically, without any equivocation, that we believe in one South Africa under white leadership and under the control of one central government. We have stated this loudly and clearly and without equivocation. We do not beat about the bush —we believe in a central government with authority over all our people, people who will be directed to their true destiny under a white-led government. We now ask the Prime Minister, and we have a right to ask him, to tell South Africa where he himself stands in relation to this cardinal issue which divides us of sovereign independence for the Bantustans which the Government is creating in South Africa. It was not so long ago, as a matter of fact in 1955, that Mr. M. D. C. de Wet Nel, a former Minister of Bantu Affairs, according to the Volksblad of 6th September, 1955, said—

Here we have one of the architects of Bantustans saying as recently as 1955 that this policy of Bantustans was as dangerous, if not more dangerous, than integration.

Rut you know that report was wrong.

Now we have reached the stage where we have one self-governing state in embryo. We do not see much of this in the other Bantustans. We do not see it in Zululand, for instance. We do not see a Bantustan there building up its own parliament. But we do have one in the Transkei, with a chief minister and a cabinet—including a commissioner-general in his palace and all. The same pattern is being followed in other areas. South Africa is entitled to know from the Prime Minister exactly where he intends leading that development. Does he accept, for instance, what the hon. member for Heilbron said in this House at one stage that one does not determine when an apple is ripe, because it will fall from the tree by itself when it is ripe? Or does the Prime Minister believe with others that the Government will determine when independence will come and that they will not accede to the demands of any Bantustan for sovereign independence? They, the Government, will determine when that is to come? That independence has not yet come, but already we have had repeated last week demands by the Chief Minister of the Transkei for more hunks of white South Africa, repeated demands, demands which were repudiated by the late Prime Minister.

You are not stating facts now. That is not a fact; you know what Chief Matanzima said.

He said he would get it by negotiation, but it was his determined intention that Mount Currie (Kokstad), Matatiele and other areas would become part of the Transkei because they belong to the Transkei. Our Prime Minister sits back and says nothing. He allows these things to be said. He allows the Bantu to believe that this is going to happen. He allows the Bantu to believe that in their development towards independence they are going to be able to make demands like this and achieve success. Only last week I was arguing with a new immigrant to South Africa who is a Nationalist. I asked him, “How can you, who have seen what has happened in the rest of Africa, be a Nationalist?”, and he said, “Of course the Government is never going to give them independence; of course they are never going to get sovereign independence. You do not really for a minute believe that the Afrikaner, that the Nationalist Government, is going to give independence to these Bantustans? That is crazy, that is madness, because it will never happen.” That is the issue on which South Africa is entitled to get a clear and unequivocal answer. The people do not believe that the Government means what it says when it says the Bantustans can develop to total independence. The Prime Minister and the Nationalist Party say that is their policy. The people do not believe it is their policy.

I thought you just said we do not say it.

Hon. members opposite have said it. The hon. member for Randfonteinsaid it. We are asking the hon. the Prime Minister now to commit himself …

But you just said that I say it.

I said the Nationalist Party says it.

No, you said the Prime Minister too.

I am sorry, I must have associated the Prime Minister in my thinking. What we want to do is in fact establish whether the Prime Minister thinks that. The Nationalist Party says this is their policy; the voters say they will never do it; that is for overseas consumption. Now we want the Prime Minister to nail his own colours firmly and clearly to the mast, particularly in association with what the hon. member for Rand-fontein, the chief propagandist of the Nationalist Party, said, namely that this policy of sovereign independence does not exclude the same road for the Coloured and the Indian people. I want to ask the Prime Minister what happens to Natal? What happens to Natal if this policy is carried through to its conclusion? We have heard of anything from two to seven separate Bantustans in Natal, two to seven separate states. Natal will be destroyed.

How many Bantu areas are there now?

There are over 150.

No, over 200.

Over 200, counting the black spots as well. Natal will be destroyed, Natal will be wiped off the map of civilized South Africa if this policy is applied in Natal, and now we hear in addition we are to have a Hindustan, an Indiastan, added to the already over 200 black areas in Natal. It is past the time that, as the hon. member for Primrose said, South Africa should fiddle while Rome burns. Never was there a truer saying than that of the hon. member for Primrose. The Rome which is burning is South Africa. South Africa’s future is burning while the Government fiddles trying to win votes instead of getting down to a solution of our problems.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite astonishing to notice how sensitive the United Party is regarding the accusation that they are in favour of integration …

Because it is not true.

… because it is hurting the United Party. In the view of the public they are in fact supporting integration, and I intend to prove that they do support integration. I issued a challenge to the hon. member for Durban (Point) during the 1966 election to have a joint debate with me on one public platform and he funked that every time.

I accepted it and I said: Let us do it on the S.A.B.C., and your Government funked it.

The hon. member obviously does not remember what he said because he said at the time, “Let us do it in Parliament”, and that is what I am doing now.

No, I said let us have it on the S.A.B.C.

No, I have got the Press cutting.

The facts are that the United Party do not support residential integration, and they also say they do not support social integration, but the type of integration which they are in favour of, and which they propagate, is political integration. That is the very crux of the matter; it is the most important issue of all the issues involved: The United Party support political integration.

The position is that they stand for one South Africa with political development for all the race groups within one political structure and the ultimate end must be that at some level of government there must be equal political representation for all the various groups in this country. No matter what they say, that policy which the United Party stands for, which is one South Africa with joint politicial representation in one top Parliament governing all the peoples of South Africa, is nothing less than the ultimate of political integration. That is the policy which the United Party has stood for ever since they have spoken about race policies.

We have never stood for one man, one vote, and you know it.

Obviously they do not stand for one man, one vote. They do not put it that way; they say they stand for a sort of federation, a race federation. They have spoken about territorial federation, and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke about “’n federatiewe gedagte”. The fact is that there will be one central Parliament in South Africa, whether it is federal or whatever it is; there will be one central authority governing all the races of this country wherein every single one of the race groups in this country will have a say, and it must mean that political power in that top Parliament must rest in the hands of the majority of people represented there. Even under their federal concept, it must mean that. Whereas we are one white South Africa and whereas we have at least eight completely separate Bantu groups who must each be represented in their federative concept, as well as the Coloureds, the urban Bantu, and the Indians, how do they intend bringing about a political structure which will not result in political integration?

I now come to the other point which was raised by the hon. member for Pinelands. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that under United Party policy, the policy they talk about to try and bluff the electorate, the Bantu will permanently be second-class citizens. That is the policy they propagate; it is not the situation that will result from their policy. The policy they propagate is that the Bantu will permanently remain second-class citizens. The hon. member for Pinelands then asked what status the Bantu in the white areas will have under our policy. It is simple to reply to that. What status do the Bantu coming from Malawi to South Africa, from Lesotho, from Botswana have? What are the Italians when they work in France, what are the Turks when they work in Germany? They are no citizens of those countries; they are full citizens of another country and are temporarily working in another country. That is the answer to that question. Once they have developed in their status the Bantu, be they from the Transkei or from other Bantu areas when they work in White South Africa, will not be citizens, not even second-class citizens of South Africa; they will not be citizens at all of white South Africa. No, they will be citizens of their country.

Where is their country?

It is quite amazing how people who have lived in South Africa all their lives still do not know where “their country” is.

I want to deal with another point raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. He said that history has made the races of South Africa mutually dependent upon one another. I shall deal with that. It is quite true that history has made the races of South Africa to this stage mutually dependent upon one another. But does the United Party mean thereby that it must permanently stay that way? History has created many artificial unities in the past. In Europe it created the Holy Roman Empire by power politics, by war, by whatever means. But history created these mutually dependent peoples from various nations, from various races and lumped them together into artificial units. We in South Africa are busy solving our problems in the same way as Europe has solved their problems. The Holy Roman Empire has been, but will never be again. It was an artificial unit of different nations, of different peoples. We in South Africa were also created as an artificial unit by power politics, be it by British colonialism, or by any result of power politics. The fact remains that we were created as an artificial unit, by history, by artificial means.

May I ask the hon. member a question? He is referring to the Holy Roman Empire. Was there in any single individual country the number of citizens of the other country that we have in our situation here?

The question is quite plain. I know that he is referring to the number of Bantu now in the white areas. The Bantu now in the white areas are there because of economic circumstances that have arisen, especially after the war, with industrialization, when thousands upon thousands of Bantu flocked out of their areas to work in the industries of White South Africa. That is the reason for that. There is no reason whatsoever why that stream cannot be reversed. But it boils down to this. Whereas history has made these various peoples dependent upon one another, we cannot continue thus permanently and hope to have a happy solution to the various race problems in this country if we remain mutually dependent upon one another within one political state. History has created Europe as one concept of Europe, but there are also many nations in Europe. There are the Dutch, the French, the Belgians, the Germans, the Italians, and all of them are in some way mutually dependent upon one another, but yet politically they are all independent nations. If we are moving in the direction of independent nations in South Africa, it does not mean that the independent nations of the present political unit of South Africa (which will not remain as one political unit), will not remain mutually dependent upon one another. They will be as dependent as the Europeans of Europe, each separate nations mutually dependent upon one another.

Are we going to have a Germanstan and an Englishstan too in South Africa?

I have no intention to reply to that stupid interjection. The policy of the National Party amounts to ultimate national democracy as against the United Party policy of an integrated democracy within one political structure. The National Party believes in the policy of democracy where each nation shall have political autonomy in its own national boundaries; within its own national concept. That is the basic difference.

And independent?

Of course, I have said “ultimate” independence. The question of ultimate independence is something for the future. But the hon. member for Pinelands also said that the policy of creating Bantustans was the same policy as that followed by the colonial powers in Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has now tried to create the impression that what we in South Africa should do, we should do the way it was done in Europe. The idea the hon. member has expressed here, is of course not a new one. We have already heard that idea from the late Dr. Verwoerd in 1959, namely that distinct dividing lines should be drawn between the various national entities. But the argument we on this side of the House have been advancing all the time, is the following. If that is the Government’s policy, let them implement it. But what they are doing, is to move in the opposite direction and to bring about in South Africa more and more economic integration, and to bring more and more non-Whites into the white areas. The hon. member says that it is the policy of the United Party to implement political integration, since we want to grant the non-Whites a certain measure of political representation in our Central Parliament. The hon. member is quite correct in saying that we want to grant those people a form of political say. He knows that. That is the policy that was pursued by men such as Generals Hertzog. Botha and Smuts. That is the traditional policy which South Africa has always pursued.

Dr. Malan also pursued this policy, namely that these various groups in South Africa should have political representation, but that there should be white guidance in that regard. The hon. member is of course trying to create the impression that with political integration, with a form of political representation, a state of affairs will in course of time develop where the majority, i.e. the non-Whites, in South Africa will govern, and that social and biological integration will take place. But I want to remind the hon. member of a speech made by Mr. Eric Louw in England when he was still Minister of Foreign Affairs. The speech was published in The Recorder. He said that in England there were two views which astonished him, namely that the people could think that there was any difference of opinion between Dr. Malan’s party and General Smuts’s United Party on two fundamental matters. i.e. that the political power in South Africa would remain in the hands of the Whites, and that there would be social and residential separation in the country. It astonished him that people could think that a difference of opinion could exist in regard to these matters. The hon. member is creating the impression that the United Party with its political integration is also advocating sociological, social as well as biological integration, whereas his own former Minister of Foreign Affairs said as far back as 1950 that the United Party did not advocate equality in South Africa. In spite of that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana is trying to create that impression here to-day.

He was still too small then.

But I am not interested in what the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has to say at this stage. I am told that he and the hon. member for Randfontein are the two information officers of the Nationalist Party. Apparently they are the two chaps who have to think for the whole lot. What we are interested in, is to hear what the hon. the Prime Minister has to say. I should like to put a point specifically to the hon. the Prime Minister.

When we were engaged in this House in discussing the report on political interference, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana tried to create the impression that there were certain groups in the Nationalist Party who were also thinking in terms of a homeland for the Coloureds. Soon after that the hon. member for Randfontein rose and spoke along the same lines. The hon. member for Moorreesburg also did so. Then the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs rose and said that he had spoken to his two good friends and told them that they should not try to create illusions amongst the Coloureds as regards a separate homeland. But they did not listen to the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs. Soon after that the hon. member for Randfontein said the same thing again. And on 10th April, the hon. member for Randfontein once again said: “The road has been mapped out and we believe that each race will develop in its own political sphere. The door has not been closed to a political as well as a geographical home for the Coloureds when the time for that arrives.” To-day the hon. member for Randfontein almost repeated a similar statement in this House. When we discussed this report we also asked the hon. the Prime Minister where he stood in regard to this matter of establishing homelands for Coloureds.

Now we have the situation where two or three members on that side of the House are telling us that they are thinking in terms of a separate area for Coloureds. Using polite terms, the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs said that they were talking nonsense. The hon. the Prime Minister has not yet told us where he stands in regard to this matter. This is a pointed question which concerns the vast majority of the Coloureds. There are almost 2 million Coloureds of whom one and a half million are living here in the Cape. The nation outside ought to know what the position is. If the Nationalist Party is thinking along these lines, then it is the Prime Minister’s duty to tell us that that is his policy. I should like to remind him that in a statement made before the Union Council for Coloureds the late Dr. Verwoerd explicitly said that that was impossible. I want him to bear that in mind. The hon. the Prime Minister must bear in mind the time when he said: “It is impossible that a state will be created for the Coloureds.” Now we find this new line of thought which differs completely, when it comes to the Coloureds, even from what Dr. Verwoerd said. I think the House is entitled to it and the nation outside ought to know it. We want to know where this Colouredstan is going to be situated. If that is their policy, what part of the Cape are they going to set aside for the Coloureds?

A further problem is where is that area going to be when all those areas are consolidated? Will it be Namaqualand, the South-Western districts, Bushmanland or somewhere else? Where are we going to have this Colouredstan? We always have to hear that this is the Government with a good, sound policy in the interests of South Africa. They never deviate from that policy and they never change their policy. [Interjections.] I hear the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development is also saying: “Hear, hear! ” This is the opportunity for the hon. the Prime Minister to tell us very explicitly what the position is. The hon. member for Primrose cannot level the nonsensical charge that the United Party is trying to make a farce out of this debate.

So far it has been nothing but a farce.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition put many pointed questions to the hon. the Prime Minister. But the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education and the hon. member for Brakpan started with this politicking. They started with accusations in regard to integration, etc. They did not reply to these questions. No, they started to lead the House away from the actual point and to guide the debate in another direction. I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister will reply to the questions put to him by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I also believe that he will give us a reply in regard to this question of where this Colouredstan is going to be. He will tell us whether it is merely nonsense on the part of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and the hon. member for Randfontein, because I myself believe that it is most ridiculous to think that a homeland can be created in South Africa for the Coloureds and the Indians who are scattered all over South Africa and who have no area of their own. They do have certain areas bordering on our towns and cities. They have a small number of smallholdings in Namaqualand, but there is no question of their having a continuous piece of land or of its being possible for one to say that they have established themselves in a certain area. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we have now had the experience that we have just listened to the fifth speaker on the Opposition side and that we have so far learned virtually nothing from them. I cannot imagine that there is something at this stage which could induce the Prime Minister to take part in this debate. I have been in this House for ten years and as far as the Opposition is concerned, this is one of the poorest debates which I have ever experienced and which I hope I shall ever experience in this House. So far it has only been the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who has put a number of questions to the hon. the Prime Minister. The other hon. members who took part in the debate, did not make any further contribution. It is true that when the Vote of the Prime Minister is being discussed, it is fitting for the Opposition to take the Government to task as regards matters of principle. That is quite correct, for it deals with the Estimates submitted to the House.

It is fitting for the Opposition to thrash out these Estimates, the policy of the Government, and so forth. But that is not the only method whereby the Opposition in this House can make an impression upon the electorate. This debate will be a failure if the Opposition cannot at the same time come forward with its alternative policy for this country. It is of no use for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to tamper here with the policy of the National Party and to try to detract from it. I think the hon. member for South Coast will agree with me. He will agree with me when I say that if the United Party wishes to achieve anything at all as regards the electorate of South Africa, then now—after 20 years—it is time, to say the least, for it to come forward with its alternative policy. What has the United Party done?

It went to the voters and in broad outline it told them that it believed in a federative concept, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout called it. I regard the hon. member for Bezuidenhout as one of the intelligent members opposite. Why does he not convince his party that they should work out for us their policy in the finest detail? Once again I am thinking of the hon. member for Newton Park who has just spoken. He said that the Government had to work out its policy in respect of the Coloureds. But why does the Opposition not come forward and say, “Here is my policy in all its detail.” Why does it not tell us what units it wants to include in its federal Parliament? Why does it not tell us what authorities it wants to create in the various units which are going to form part of its federal concept? Why does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and his party, not come forward and outline to us and the electorate outside in detail what powers of government he wishes to transfer to the federal government and what powers he would transfer to the governments of the states? After all, that is what the electorate of South Africa wants to know. Surely, we cannot set to work using broad, general concepts as a basis. Now the Opposition wants the electorate of South Africa to support its policy. The National Party has now been in power for 20 years. I am very sorry to say that in these 20 years we have now reached the stage where the United Party is hiding its policy deep away beneath the bushel. Since we took over the reins of government in 1948, the United Party has been becoming more and more ashamed of its policy. That is the situation we have now reached. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he should really tell the electorate of South Africa now what his policy will in point of fact embrace eventually. I am not the only one who wants to know that. Members opposite are speaking at cross-purposes because they do not know exactly what is embraced by the United Party’s policy. The hon. member for Newton Park denied that the United Party’s policy is one of integration. What is the idea behind the federal concept if it is not political integration? It cannot be anything else. Of course, it is political integration which, if hon. members opposite would only consider it for a moment, must eventually also lead to political equality in every respect. That is obvious, surely, because in that federation no unit with a massive majority of voters will be prepared to acquiesce in proportionally smaller representation in that federal Parliament. After all, we do have examples of what happened elsewhere in Africa and at other places.

But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also advanced another very interesting argument here to-day, and I should like to say a few words about it. He warned against and pointed out the danger of the possibility that Communism might penetrate into the Bantu homelands. I want to admit that throughout the world—and not only in South Africa, but also in Europe and elsewhere—the danger of communist infiltration does exist and that it may indeed also infiltrate into the Bantu homelands. But now I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition this question: Where will it be easier for communists to penetrate: in the Bantu homelands which we are developing as the people there accept responsibility and act in a responsible way, or in the federal Parliament of the United Party, where one would have a mixture of representatives from several races and groups, which would necessarily be based on inequality among the various races, because all of them will not be able to have the same representation? [Interjection.] I want to put this question to the hon. member for Orange Grove who has now become so eloquent. Where will it be easier for Communism to infiltrate? Will it be in the Bantu homelands where the people have been taught under us to accept responsibility?—and, of course, as long as they form part of South Africa that cannot happen, because we are fighting Communism. [Interjections.] After all, even if they were to become independent, the Bantu homelands are responsible. But let us for argument’s sake assume that when they do get their independence, no matter what century that may be, Communism will infiltrate there. In what way is their position different from that of the protectorates and the territories adjoining South Africa? What state in Europe can say to-day that it will not have some potential communist state or another on its borders? And they are still there to-day. If one considers the pattern of development in Europe, one finds that countries which were enemies over the years and the centuries and which only had a river as a boundary between them, are living in peace to-day.

How many wars were there in that period?

After all is said and done, does that matter? Those wars did not necessarily take place owing to the fact that different groups were living side by side with one another. In Europe and elsewhere today we do have the situation where states which are basically hostile towards each other, are nevertheless able to live together as neighbours. Why can that not happen in South Africa? Communist countries border on Western countries which are quite capable of holding their own. Why would South Africa be so weak that it would not be able to hold its own? I say that the United Party is throwing up a smoke-screen, since it knows that its policy of federation and the federal concept to which it adheres, is turning out to be a failure. This debate which is being conducted this year on this important Vote, is an indication to me that the United Party realizes fully that its policy in respect of the race problems is doomed to failure. [Time expired.]

Sir, 1 wonder whether we could get down to something a little more specific and leave all this general talk about Government policy and Opposition policy. Perhaps I could address the Prime Minister on something more specific. I do not want to discuss Progressive Party policy either. I want to talk to the hon. the Prime Minister. Possibly I can elicit a little information from the hon. the Prime Minister which I have not been successful in eliciting from his colleague the Minister of Justice during the no-confidence debate, that is the case of Dr. Hoffenberg.

I want to come back first of all to this question of the Prime Minister’s war with NUSAS. [Interjections.] The Prime Minister has been making some very interesting statements during the recess, when he spent his time rushing from meeting to meeting and very bravely attacking a student organization. He says, of course, to foreign newspapermen, and also in the course of his speeches, that it is not his custom to make war on children, but all I can say is that he seems to spend a great deal of his time doing just that. He has issued threat after threat against this students’ organization. I might say that he has made a number of statements which, on checking, I find, as far as I can ascertain, are highly exaggerated, such as in regard to the number of students who were involved in actual subversive activities and who were prominent members of NUSAS. He uses globular figures. I think 49 was the figure he used, in regard to the number of students involved. I think he said 49 were actually found guilty of sabotage or undermining lawful authority. Well, that is a grossly exaggerated figure. What the Prime Minister does, of course, is to take the figures of everybody who at any time was involved in unlawful activities, who might have been students at universities where NUSAS was active, and acting on this somewhat inconclusive evidence, the hon. the Prime Minister then made positive statements that all these people were prominent NUSAS officials. [Interjection.] All students at certain universities were members of NUSAS. I might say that a large number of members of the Nationalist Party were involved in subversive activities during the last war, but does this necessarily make the entire Nationalist Party guilty of subversion and unlawful activities? Of course not, and equally the fact that some of the students, very few indeed out of the thousands upon thousands of students who belong to NUSAS, were found guilty of any subversive activities, does not entitle the Prime Minister or members of the party opposite to run around uttering dark threats against those English-language universities where NUSAS is prominent.

The Prime Minister said, for instance, that Dr. Hoffenberg’s banning was due, first of all, to his connection with the Defence and Aid Fund, and later of course he also said that he was prominent in student affairs. Now it is quite true that Dr. Hoffenberg was at one stage the chairman of Defence and Aid. It is interesting, however, that his banning order was issued 16 months after the Fund was banned. Perhaps the Prime Minister would like to give this House some information which was not given to the House during the no-confidence debate about the banning of one of South Africa’s greatest scientists and somebody who was held in the highest regard by his own colleagues at the University of Cape Town and by the medical profession as well. Perhaps the Prime Minister would tell us whether the fact that Dr. Hoffenberg was a member of the NUSAS advisory panel, which he certainly was, as certain other prominent citizens also were, is sufficient reason to deprive a man of his ability to continue with his very valuable scientific work at the University of Cape Town, to which, I might say, he brought a great deal of world repute. I would also like to ask the Minister whether he intends to carry on with these dark threats against this students’ organization. I want to know what reasons he has for continuing with this vendetta and I want to tell him that if he thinks that his actions will stop our young students from taking an intelligent interest in political affairs, he has misjudged them sadly. What he would like to do is to intimidate the entire student body at the English-language universities in South Africa from taking any interest in political affairs. He wishes to bring any politically aware student into disrepute with his fellow-students, and in so doing he wishes to widen the breach between the students at the Afrikaans-medium universities and the students at the English-medium universities. I level this accusation at the hon. the Minister. He seems to have it firmly in his mind that there is something vaguely unlawful about students taking note of what is going on in the politics of their country. As I have said he attempts to associate these students with subversive activities, although very few of them were ever prominent in NUSAS; and this is something which happened four or five years ago, yet he persists in dragging the present office-bearers of NUSAS into the subversive activities of the few students who were at one time prominent in NUSAS. He also continues to warn students against taking any part in politics, as if he considers this to be some type of subversion.

I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that it is time he did a little travelling. He should broaden his mind. It is time he left the shores of South Africa and exposed himself to the outside world. To the best of my knowledge, he has only left South Africa on one occasion. I stand subject to correction, but certainly there has never been any publicity given to this fact, and if he had travelled abroad other than the one trip he made to South America I would probably have heard of it. I suggest that the hon. the Prime Minister travels to America, to England and to Europe, and perhaps he would be doing a bit of double duty. He will expose his mind to the broadening influences of travel, and he will see that students in every country of the world take an active part in politics. Indeed, our students have demonstrated tremendous responsibility in the way in which they, by and large, have shown their interest in politics. They are far less militant than the students in Germany at present, or those in America, or even in England. I believe it is the natural right, and indeed it is the duty, of students who after all are the privileged, educated class of a country and will have to take over the reins of government sooner or later from the people who are making a mess of the country’s affairs right now, to become involved in politics. And this, I might say, is borne out in every democratic country in the world. Our students, as I say, have shown remarkable restraint in view of the threats and intimidation of the Minister against them and in view of the profound objections that they have to the basic policies of this Government. Unlike students in other countries, our students have in fact behaved themselves in the most exemplary manner. I think it is time that the Prime Minister travelled abroad and exposed himself to what is going on in other countries; and I might say perhaps he should also show to other countries his own great “verligte” image that everybody is so impressed with in this country. I think he should show the rest of the world how South Africa has changed and how much more enlightened it has become since the Prime Minister took over. I would commend all this to the hon. the Prime Minister. I wonder if, when he does answer me, he will also not only tell us more about the Hoffenberg case and why this man was banned, and give us one single reason why this man was banned, but would also tell us the reason for some of the other actions which have been taken against members of NUSAS, such as John Daniel, who has no passport, and Mr. Sprack, whose citizenship was removed although other people have travelled abroad on British passports and have not had their nationality taken from them. I ask this of the hon. the Prime Minister because I have not the slightest doubt that the Minister of Justice is as innocent as the birds in the sky on all these issues. I am quite sure that the Hoffenberg banning and the action against the executive members of NUSAS are purely due to the Prime Minister’s desire to intimidate students, this desire that students belonging to NUSAS and people like Dr. Hoffenberg, who was an adviser on the panel of NUSAS, should be shown once and for all that the Prime Minister is not prepared to allow these activities. Indeed it seems that not only does he enjoy making war on children, as he puts it, but that this is one of his prime activities. [Time expired.]

Recently when I was travelling by air from Johannesburg to Pretoria, a young Cape Town student, just back from a tour to Israel, sat next to me and within a matter of minutes he began talking politics to me in an attempt to bring me under the impression of present-day nationalism in Israel. I brought it round to our own situation in this country and asked him whether that was not the very same thing as was in progress in this country where we were providing separate development to the various race groups, and his reply was, “Definitely not”. This brings me back to the point the hon. member for Houghton made. When I eventually asked him straight out whether he would take a Bantu woman for a wife, he replied: “Yes, I would not hesitate to take her for a wife.” This is the typical spirit amongst students at the liberalist, integrated universities on behalf of which pleas are delivered at the present time. Mr. Chairman, I want to refer the hon. member for Houghton to this book, “The Road to the Left” by Bruno Mtolo, who was State witness in the Rivonia trial. He writes, inter alia—

Mr. Chairman, you must remember that this man used to be an arch-communist; that he was trained to promote terrorism in this country and that he was incited to hate the Afrikaner and the National Party. This is the man who stood up in the witness box in the Rivonia trial and made this statement—

Mr. Chairman, it is with no small measure of pity that one has to listen in this House to attacks such as those made by hon. members of the Opposition, especially by the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, on the brilliant way in which our Prime Minister continues to fulfil his great task and that of his predecessors not only by virtue of his leadership of the National Party but also from his own convictions and will and on the instructions of our nation itself and, what is more, with the concurrence of the biggest section of the non-White peoples in our midst, especially those who have not yet been poisoned by this integration propaganda. Sir, we on this side of the House, have become so accustomed to these tirades that we hardly take any notice of them; however, what is a pity is that they are taken down in writing and are sent from our country in reports and besmirch our country throughout the world. It is time the Opposition, for the sake of our country, got its liberalistic left-wing under control, that left-wing which, for the sake of publicity overseas, cannot or does not want to see anything fine in this country but which in the meantime, without any compunction at all, shares in the peace and prosperity which the Republic is offering not only to the Whites but also to the non-Whites, peace for all who are law-abiding and want to behave themselves, and prosperity, an income and opportunities for all who want to work and who do not merely want to receive and stand with their hands cupped and hardly want to say thank you. Sir, when I speak of the liberalistic left-wing of the Opposition, I am referring specifically to the leader of that group, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who has undertaken study tours overseas and who has observed at first hand the tension caused by forced integration, but who on his return gets up in this House and ridicules the honest attempts of our Government to find an honest solution to our problems. What is more reprehensible, are the hon. members’ continuous hints at dictatorial methods, to minority governments, etc. I refer the hon. member to the speech he made during the no-confidence debate when he said (col. 232)—

He said that because he felt the hon. the Prime Minister had made “the astounding statement that apartheid is the solution for the whole world”. Now, the hon. member himself made the astounding statement that our traditional policy of separate development was becoming a weapon in the hands of our greatest enemies, namely the communists. And the hon. member really wants to tell us in this House that the National Party has progressed a long way on the road of stealing the United Party’s policy! I should like to know from the hon. member what circles abroad are so terribly upset. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Houghton, next to whom he should really be sitting, are not only completely out of touch with the feelings of Whites as well as non-Whites in this country, but are also wilfully blind and refuse to observe how, politically and economically, the esteem of the Republic is being heightened not only in the Western world but also in Southern Africa, under the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister and his colleagues in the Cabinet. Nothing emphasizes this more than the race riots in the United States, where only 9 per cent or 10 per cent of the inhabitants are non-Whites, and the way in which Great Britain, where the present non-white population represents only 2 per cent of the population, is floundering at present with race legislation. Now the hon. member is concerned about what such sympathetically disposed circles abroad will think.

Sir, what is the position there? What are the opinions of the thinking people there? They are so concerned about the situation in their own countries that their capital investments are pouring into our country so rapidly that our Government does not know what to do with all the money. The hon. member spoke authoritatively about his friends abroad. I want to know from him whether he reads the Intelligence Digest, which is published in Great Britain and which is internationally distributed and regarded as an authoritative publication? In the Intelligence Digest of January, more or less the time when the hon. member returned from abroad in such a worried frame of mind, there appears, inter alia, the complete address delivered by our ambassador in Vienna to a select audience on South Africa’s policy of separate development. The Intelligence Digest called it “A candid statement” and said it was an address that should have received much more publicity. The explanation of our ambassador satisfied this critical British editor to such an extent that he added the following footnote—

The word “fact” is printed in bold capitals. In the April issue of Intelligence Digest—i.e., after the return of the hon. worried member —the editor published an equally positive report about South Africa under the heading “Solid South Africa”. Mr. Chairman, do opinions such as these from abroad not convince the Opposition that the Republic is making important break-throughs precisely because of the unwavering course the Government is following under the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister? The hon. member ridicules the idea that the Republic’s policy of separate development can serve as a positive example to other states with similar problems. The hon. member is becoming more and more lonely in his ridicule. Last Sunday even the political reporters of the Sunday Times started becoming enthusiastic about the policy of homes for separate races, especially after Tanzania’s recognition of Biafra as a separate state. Sir, it will probably not be long now before the hon. member will say that Tanzania is stealing the policy of the United Party!

Mr. Chairman, I am rising to speak because I do not simply want to sit here all afternoon, and, in the second instance, out of courtesy towards the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition began by expressing his concern about my people. Let me tell the hon. member at once that it is not necessary for him to feel concerned about my people in the political sphere.

You have enough worries yourself.

That may be so, but I can cope with them, and that is the difference between the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and me. He need not feel concerned about my people. If he wants to prevent Parliament from petering out and becoming the most boring place in the country, he must begin to feel concerned about his own people, for after all it is expected of an Opposition which professes to be the alternative Government, that it will try to become the Government—not that it will ever succeed in doing so. If I may now give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a piece of advice, as one friend to another, I want to tell him that he is welcome to try; it will make political life in South Africa more interesting. Since my assumption of office the Leader of the Opposition has had six opportunities of exposing to public scrutiny either the weaknesses of the National Party or my own weaknesses as Leader. Apart from provincial by-elections, he has had the opportunity to do so at six Parliamentary by-elections. The first was the one in Heidelberg. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition sent his ally to do the fighting there; he did not dare do so himself. This was followed by the by-election in Worcester. There the hon. the Leader of the Opposition entered the fray himself and the result is sitting on our side of the House.

What happened to the majority?

A smaller majority.

We shall come to that. Subsequently there was the by-election in Potgietersrus. Neither the hon. the Leader of the Opposition nor his ally entered the fray. After that there were two by-elections in the Free State, one in a rural area and the other in Bloemfontein West, in regard to which the hon. member for Orange Grove kicked up such a fuss here this afternoon. The result was that after 20 years of National Party rule we had in both cases thrown so much sand in their eyes that they did not even put up a fight. This is supposed to be an alternative government which wants to come into power! This was followed by Pretoria (West), and both the candidates of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition ran last. With the best will in the world I cannot understand how a leader of a political party can go downhill to the extent that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has done. After all, he came into quite a good inheritance, but not much remains of that inheritance now. The hon. member for Durban (Point), who is an old political organizer, is delighted now because, according to his calculations, the National Party’s majorities at by-elections have been reduced in comparison with its majorities at general elections. If the hon. member for Durban (Point) wants to derive comfort from that—he has really very little to derive comfort from—he is welcome to do so.

It was not comfort; it was bottles.

Yes, I know; the hon. member is an authority on that sort of thing. If the hon. member wants to derive comfort from that, he may do so. My reply to my friend from Durban (Point) is this. Has he looked …

Deep into the bottle!

No, through a magnifying glass. Has he looked through a magnifying glass at the fact that a seat such as Pretoria (West), which not many years ago, as recently as 1948 in fact, was still a recognized United Party seat, is now firmly Nationalist? Has the hon. the Leader overlooked the fact that he only obtained 1,100 votes in that constituency? Why is the hon. the Leader feeling concerned about my followers? I think I can manage, but I am beginning to feel concerned about the hon. the Leader’s followers, and it is also a fact that his followers no longer want to support him as closely as a political party would like to see its followers support it. That is my reply to the Leader as regards his concern about me and my followers.

It is true that from time to time arguments do arise amongst my followers. That does happen. We all read about it in the newspapers. But if the Opposition now want to derive comfort from that and believe that it will bring them into power, then they are, of course, making a big mistake, apart from the fact that they and their newspapers are misleading their own people with that. I have not heard of anybody, and that after 20 years of National Party government, I have not heard or read of anybody of any consequence, whether he was angry with me and the National Party or not, going over to the United Party because of it. That is the criterion. The criterion is not, after a party has been in power for so long, whether trivial disputes and minor squabbles are taking place here and there. That is not the criterion. The criterion is, after a party has been in power for so long, whether one’s followers are going over to the Opposition. The tragedy of our political situation, seen from the point of view of the hon. the Leader, and one need not be a prophet to say this, is that no matter how angry people should become at the National Party, their contempt for the United Party is so great that they will not go over to it. That is the factual position in regard to the political situation in South Africa to-day. Now we have the hon. member for Durban (Point), and others, wanting to profess that I have never expressed my opinion in respect of those matters they mentioned here. Concerning the points mentioned by the hon. member for Durban (Point), I held meetings in Natal from one platform to another during the last general election. I have not only held meetings in regard to those points, but have also dealt with them on innumerable occasions in debates in this House. I am certainly not going to take up the time of the Committee by mulling over all these things, except merely to re-emphasize certain standpoints in passing.

Let me return to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and at the same time the hon. member for Durban (Point), who made the same kind of propaganda here in the House to-day as he made in the elections in Natal. There he still speaks of the “Africans”, whereas in Marico he speaks of the “Kaffirs”. Let us now deal with that aspect of the matter. Some doubts once existed in regard to a certain aspect when the Progressive Party broke away from the United Party. I should now like to know from the Leader of the Opposition whether he and his party still stand by the Native Trust and Land Act. No. 18 of 1936? I should now like to furnish the hon. member for Durban (Point) with my reply once again. I know how the propaganda goes. I have heard and read it so often. It is said, “The Nationalist Party wants to give away our land to the Kaffirs.” This was proclaimed from platforms, but mostly it was done while canvassing from house to house.

We were referring to the claims made by Kaiser Matanzima. I was referring to that.

No, quite apart from that. I again want to state this quite emphatically here. The policy of the National Party is and always has been as follows. In 1936 the United Party laid down what was land for the Blacks and what was land for the Whites in South Africa. Traditionally there had always been land for the Blacks and land for the Whites in South Africa, but any doubts in regard to what was white and what was black land were eliminated by the United Party of General Smuts and General Hertzog in 1936. What is the basis of the 1936 Act? The basis if that Act is that all land which traditionally at that time belonged to black people was black land, and that Act also provided that certain land additional to that land which the black people had at that time was to be purchased. That was done by the United Party. If the hon. member for Durban (Point) is now complaining because the black people have so much land in Natal, then surely the fact of the matter is simply this, that they have that land because they had it before 1936, and because the United Party stated in 1936 that an additional 526,000 morgen of land in Natal had to be purchased for them.

As part of South Africa.

I am coming to that point. This is now the convenient loophole, namely “as part of South Africa”. But the fact of the matter is that the black man has his separate land and that Parliament decided that an additional 526,000 morgen of land in Natal had to be given to the black man. In other words, in 1936 Parliament approved that the black man should have land, and it distinguished between white land on the one hand and black-owned land on the other. For the moment I am leaving out of the argument the fact that spots can be interchanged, white spots for black, and so forth—we are only dealing with the principle of the matter now. As I have said. Parliament gave the white people their land, and to the black people it gave their land. This is where I should now like to begin to argue the matter with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. How does the United Party see South Africa, in contrast to the National Party? The United Party sees it as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition reiterated this afternoon. He stated that the basic fact is that we are a multiracial country—“We are a multi-racial country at different levels of development”. I think I understood the hon. the Leader correctly that this was how he saw South Africa.

Yes.

He says that that is correct. But that is precisely where the basic weakness in his entire argument lies. He says he sees South Africa as a multi-racial country with the various races at different levels of development, and because that is the case, he wants to confirm his white leadership by giving these people, who have developed to different levels, as compared to the Whites, certain prescribed or defined representation in this Parliament. That may be all very well for the moment, but the hon. the Leader will agree with me that it means absolutely nothing for the future. For what is his argument based on? His argument is based on the fact of present differences in development. He states that he can do that because they differ so much from one another in the field of development at present. If they were to catch up with the development of the Whites, surely it would no longer be possible to use that argument. Or else one must accept that the Black man is not capable of development. But then you must Say so. However, that is not what the Leader tells his people. On the contrary. They are, more than anybody else, the people who adopt the attitude, and who reproach us by saying, that the Black man is capable of development. And once he has reached the white man’s level of development, then you would surely be a fool to believe or expect that they, who number many millions more than you do, will be satisfied, having reached the same level of development as you have, with a political formula which you devised for them when you stated explicitly, “I am devising this political formula because you are on an entirely different level of development than I am”. Looking at this from a purely human point of view, without even looking into the future, surely one can see that it will not work? Surely the Black man will turn round immediately and say, “Yes, it may have been good enough in the days when I was undeveloped, when you formulated that policy in the year 1968. At that time it was a good thing that you had a majority in the House of Assembly, because I was backward and undeveloped then. At that time it was perhaps a good thing that you gave me eight Whites. But now I am no longer prepared to accept that”. He will from the nature of the case tell you two things. He will say, “I have been satisfied with being represented by Whites up to now, but Mishack Tshabalala from my kraal can state my needs to Parliament better than any White can, and I want him to go and speak for my people there”. If we have conceded in principle that the Black man has a right to representation in this Parliament in which we now find ourselves, what moral right do we have subsequently to refuse him representation by his own people? Surely, one has no moral justification for refusing him that. This does not come from the Black man. He has not even asked for it. The Opposition have of their own accord, after searching for a policy for ten years, cried, “Eureka! I have found a policy. I am going to have the Black people represented in Parliament”. Sir, if they put forward this argument, and say: “Look, you have said of your own accord that I am in principle entitled to be represented in Parliament. You prided yourself on being a democrat and berated the Government of the time for not being good democrats. You conceded in principle that I could be represented in this Parliament. I now want to be represented by my own people, and I want to be represented in this joint Parliament in accordance with my numerical strength” …

We reject “one man, one vote”.

It makes no difference to me whether you reject it or not. The fact of the matter is simply that you will be subjected to pressure. In fact, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said that he allows pressure to be exerted on him in regard to this matter. That is the fact of the matter.

You see a big lion in the way.

No, Sir, I maintain that no matter how one argues this matter, if that is the basis on which they justify themselves, then it is a basis which does indeed rest on sand; such a basis simply cannot remain standing. In contrast to that it is the policy of the National Party in respect of the Black people, with our homelands policy, which has not only been debated in this House on countless occasions already, but which has been the issue in one election after another, to afford those people an opportunity of exercising self-determination. We have stated very clearly that we shall lead them to independence.

To self-determination?

Yes, Sir, self-determination.

And if they do not prefer independence?

And if they do not prefer independence, then they do not become independent. Surely I have stated it very clearly now. We are not going to force these people away from us. We have a responsibility towards them. But we are stating the alternative very clearly to them: In this Parliament you will never, under any circumstances, be given representation. If they are satisfied with that, then they are satisfied. But the alternative is that they can follow their own course, and we shall help them to follow that course, and we shall follow that course to its logical conclusion, if that is necessary. Surely there is no doubt about that. Surely we have stated it repeatedly in this connection.

And if they prefer independence?

If they prefer independence and if they are ripe for it, this Parliament will decide and this Parliament will grant them independence.

Who is going to decide whether they are ripe?

This Parliament, in consultation with the people concerned. But surely the hon. member knows as well as I do that they will never gain independence in any other way than by an Act of this Parliament?

And if they do not agree with this Parliament?

Then it is a question of negotiation. Then it depends on whether this Parliament allows itself to be intimidated and shunted about, as the Leader of the Opposition would be shunted about under those circumstances. It is an academic question. I want to make it very clear to the hon. member now. I have in the course of time, since I took over this office, held any number of discussions with leaders and other people from the coloured groups. I have said this on previous occasions. For the sake of the record I want to repeat it here. The policy of separate development is not only the policy of the National Party; it has become the policy of South Africa. Separate development is accepted, not only by the vast majority of the Whites, Nationalists and members of the United Party outside—because they accept it as well—but it is also accepted by the leaders and by the masses of the coloured groups. I have experience of this. But one need not have experience of it. One need only look at the order and the peace in South Africa, in contrast to other parts of the world.

We in South Africa have a great deal to be thankful for. We have two official languages. We had many quarrels in that regard. The issue involved in these quarrels was to have Afrikaans placed on the same footing as English. The quarrel was about the denial of the Afrikaner’s rights in his fatherland. That struggle is over. All that remains is to maintain these rights in practice. But the resolutions on matters of principle that had to be taken, were taken, and I believe that all our people have accepted them. For the most part peace prevails in the language sphere in South Africa to-day. It is no longer a political issue. There have been governments in other countries, however, which fell when they found themselves in the same position as we were in. But we have solved those fundamental problems in South Africa. Problems will still crop up in practice; we know that. But I am not dealing with that now; I am dealing with the principle. Compare South Africa to-day, with its Whites, its Bantu, its Coloureds and its Indians, four different coloured groups in one geographic area, with countries where there are only two coloured groups, and compare their way of life there with ours here in South Africa. One does not want to mention names on this occasion, but there is not a single member of this House who is not aware of that.

While I am on that point, I want to turn to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, that member who goes out of his way on every possible occasion he gets to make South Africa suspect.

Disgraceful!

That is so. The hon. member not only avails himself of those opportunities, but without turning a hair he puts words in my mouth which I never used. And he puts words in my mouth, not in order to score a debating point by doing so, because it is no debating point, but I want to charge him with putting words in my mouth …

I had no intention of doing so; I was merely quoting from the newspaper.

No, wait a moment. The hon. member does not even know what I am going to talk about, but I do not blame him for having a guilty conscience about the matter. The hon. member’s guilty conscience will catch up with him. But the hon. member says these things because he is labouring under the great illusion that he is still a factor in politics, and that his words do carry weight somewhere. But nobody takes any notice of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout any more.

Then why are you taking notice of me now?

I find it painful, but it is my duty to disillusion the hon. member; it is my painful duty to do so, and because I did not like sitting here, when I did not have the opportunity of participating in the debate, and finding that the hon. member was putting words in my mouth which I never used, and which were consequently recorded in Hansard as if I had used them. This is what the hon. member said:

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout continues in this way. He does not say where and when I said it.

I shall quote it to you from the Burger.

That is typical of the hon. member.

[Inaudible.]

I shall tell the hon. member what I did in fact say.

I shall be very glad.

Order! The hon. member will have his turn.

I had interviews with various foreign journalists. I consistently told them what I have said in every subsequent speech in this country, i.e. that as far as the policy of separate development was concerned. I did not expect any individual or government outside this country to subscribe to it. I went further and stated that I did not even expect them to understand it, because it was unique to South Africa with her problems. But what I did in fact expect was that we should be given credit for being honest in our attempts to solve a very difficult problem, hut that it was our affair. I now want to quote to the hon. member where and when I did in fact say this. I said it to Mr. Sulzberger, as he wrote in the New York Times of 6th December, 1967. This is how he stated it in his words

But I went further. I now want to inquire from the hon. member whether he will quarrel with me over this. I also said this to Sulzberger, and to-day more than ever before I want to state it as my standpoint in this House. I told him: “All the world looks for a solution to the race problem.” We were discussing the year 1980. I said: “In 1980 people will visit South Africa not only to see its beauty but to study our society of different colours, outlooks, languages and religions, living harmoniously in one geographical entity.” I can say that.

One geographical entity?

Yes, this Southern Africa. After all, the hon. member is not living on a clod. I did in fact say that, and I want to repeat it here to-day. People will come to South Africa, not only to see our beautiful scenery, but people will come to Southern Africa to see how people of different colours and languages are living together in peace with one another. This will be made possible thanks to the policy of separate development. I also put it to Mr. Sulzberger that here in South Africa to-day there is more peace and harmony between people, Whites, Blacks and others, than we have ever had before in our history. This is something we can and must emphasize to the outside world. In this regard he quoted the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and I sincerely hope that he was doing him an injustice and that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition never said this. In the New York Times of 10th December he stated the following after I had told him that there were of course many people who did not agree with me. He stated that one of them was Albert Luthuli, who is now deceased. Then he said—

I hope he was misreporting the Leader of the Opposition.

That is nonsense.

I am glad the hon. the Leader says it is nonsense. I am very grateful for that, because none of us can allow words like that to be put into our mouths in the present circumstances under which we are living. I would appreciate it, not for my own or my Party’s sake, but for the sake of South Africa, if the hon. the Leader would wholeheartedly repudiate the words Mr. Sulzberger put in his mouth here. But Mr. Sulzberger also quoted the hon. member for Houghton. I am very glad that it was a case of his wrongly putting words in the mouth of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I am afraid he is not wrong in respect of the hon. member for Houghton.

Do not look so sad.

This is what he quoted from the hon. member for Houghton—

I expected nothing else from the hon. member. I want to say at once that the hon. member feels concerned about me because I do not travel. There are of course many hon. members who do travel. The hon. member for Hillbrow and others travel. We shall come to that later. But the hon. member for Houghton felt that I “must broaden my outlook”. That is not what the hon. member is concerned about. I shall now tell the hon. member frankly across the floor of this House, without being unparliamentary, why she wants me to travel and why she is concerned about me. She hopes that if I do perhaps do so, it may result in my also becoming fonder of communists and underminers. That is perhaps what the hon. member has in mind. The hon. member raised another matter again this afternoon, and I am replying to her purely out of courtesy. The hon. member again raised the matter of NUSAS. It is probably two years now since I said anything about NUSAS.

I have a quotation of October, 1967, from a speech delivered in Nigel.

I merely dealt a blow in passing to an organization that deserves such treatment. That is all I did. But I shall definitely not waste any more of my time in discussing this organization. It is not necessary for me to discuss them. They themselves have shown what they are. The hon. member’s speech was only aimed at restoring some of their prestige, something which they will never again acquire in South Africa. I am very grateful that it is not only the Afrikaans-speaking people who have seen them as they are, but that English-speaking parents, in regard to whom it was my duty in the past to issue a warning against this organization, also realize precisely what this organization did to their children and to South Africa.

The hon. member also referred to the Hoffenberg case. The decision in that case was not mine, but that of the Minister of Justice.

Tell that to the Marines.

The hon. member can scoff at this as much as she pleases. I am only giving her the facts. However, I do want to say this, that I agree 100 per cent with the decision of the hon. the Minister of Justice. If I had been Minister of Justice at that time, I would have taken the same decision.

Would you mind telling us some of the reasons for this decision?

As far as this matter is concerned, I am not obliged to give the hon. member any reasons whatsoever, and through the hon. member I want to inform everyone to whom this must be said that if they think that certain professions in South Africa will not be touched if they fall into the net of the Suppression of Communism Act, then they are making a very big mistake. In this country it makes no difference what a man’s profession is; nor does it make any difference whether a person is attached to a university—if a person contravenes the provisions of the said Act in promoting the aims of communism, action will be taken against him.

I challenge you to charge him in a court of law.

Order! Would the hon. member for Houghton please refrain from making a running commentary while the Prime Minister is speaking?

The said Act places a positive duty on the Minister of Justice to take certain decisions in regard to those who contravene that Act. Such decisions have in fact been taken over the years, and they will continue to be taken whenever and wherever it is necessary to do so.

As regards the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, I want to tell him that he is living in a fool’s paradise if he believes that he, as he fancies he sees it, can formulate a policy which will bring peace and harmony in relation to race groups which are at different levels of development. The basic flaw in the view of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is that he sees only one difference, if I heard and understood him correctly. Between the Whites and the Bantu, to use only these two groups as an example, he sees one difference only, and that is the difference in their level of civilization. But surely that is not the only difference there is. It is not only a question of a difference in level of civilization, but also a question of difference in outlook, in way of life—in fact, two beings which differ completely from each other. There is no need for the members of the Opposition to become so touchy when their policy is referred to as a policy of integration. I have not yet come across one thinking person who is not convinced that if you follow the course of the Opposition you will ultimately end up with integration. Surely it cannot be otherwise. Surely you cannot—let me state this very clearly to-day—keep on attacking the National Party year after year because its policy is separate development, surely you cannot condemn it morning, noon and night, and then go on to say that you will bring the coloured groups into this Parliament without it leading to integration.

What the United Party has been doing all these years in respect of the National Party has not only been to condemn certain aspects of its policy, but also to reject apartheid in its entirety. There is not one apartheid measure which the Opposition has not made suspect and opposed. We have seen this happening in this House over the years. If you condemn, throw suspicion on and arouse antipathy amongst the coloured groups to separation— for that is what separate development is and means—and if you also arouse hostility against separation, then surely what you mean by doing so is that you are a person who does not stand for separation. That means that you will be in favour of breaking down the barriers. Is it a surprise to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition if the hon. member for Karoo is already adopting this attitude outside, and then states here that he stands for the United Party? He will stand by anyone who affords him a seat in Parliament.

But I thought six members of the House of Assembly for the Coloureds was also separate development.

It can be seen in that way. However, that is not the whole truth. I told the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, when we crossed swords in the very first debate, what my views were in respect of the Coloured representatives in this Parliament. I believe that this is what the National Party has stood for all these years. This is the completion of the National Party’s policy of separate development in the political sphere. I added to that—this is the question which the hon. member for Durban (Point) put to me—what I had already said on numerous occasions in this Parliament as well as outside —that you cannot deal with the Coloureds on the same basis as the Bantu, because they do not have the homelands which the Bantu have. It will not help the hon. member for Durban (Point) to try to build up an argument on the view or standpoint of younger members on this side of the House who say: “That does not exclude that possibility,” because that is all they are saying in that regard. If they want to think about it, it is a good thing, because even if you are a United Party man you still have to think. I welcome it when young members think about these matters politically. I do not regard it—and I have said this on numerous occasions in public—as practical politics. However, one can give thought to the matter, and it is worthwhile doing so. It cannot do anybody any harm.

It can be double talk.

No, Sir. The hon. member should be the last person to talk about double talk in this regard. I have stated my attitude in this House because you cannot treat the Coloureds on the same basis as the Bantu. My attitude is that when the Coloured Persons Council has been established, consultations will be held with them in regard to the liaison which there will be between this Parliament and that organ.

I have heard that hon. members on the opposite side find it strange that we do not want to say at this stage what that liaison will be. There are different ways of establishing liaison, but I purposely do not want to discuss that now, because I want to consult the Coloureds in regard to the matter as and when their council has been established. Neither do I want to come forward with suggestions in this regard at this stage. It would not be fair towards the Coloureds to do so now. Hon. members know South Africa’s political climate as well as I do. We have now argued as to whether or not it is right to have abolished the Coloured representatives here. Hon. members on the opposite side adopted certain standpoints. Practical experience has shown us that the Coloureds do not concern themselves at all about that. The Progressive Party has, as usual, gone out of its way to try to incite the Coloureds in this regard. I have been told that there were not even 30 who were prepared to allow themselves to be incited.

Your special branch is too busy.

No. I happened to read it in the English Press, which is very favourably disposed towards that hon. member, for what reason I do not know. I happened to read there that of the 200 plus-minus 30, if I remember correctly, were non-Whites.

Quite likely, with your Captain Rousseau sitting there as large as life.

He may have been there, but I think so little of the Progressive Party that I did not even take the trouble to ask him what had happened there. That is the truth of the matter. I want to make this statement, and I want to do so in view of what has happened and is still happeningin other countries of the world, namely that separate development is the answer—and I want to go so far as to say that I am becoming increasingly convinced of this—where various coloured groups have to live together in the same geographic area. The peace, order and quiet which we are experiencing in South Africa to-day, we are experiencing despite the threat from abroad, and despite the propaganda which is being made there.

In this regard I want to state that more propaganda is being made amongst our coloured groups in South Africa than amongst any other group of people. We are all aware of the incitement which took place over the years. Despite that we have order and peace, and we can attribute this to one thing only, i.e. that the coloured groups realize and accept that separate development does not operate to the benefit of the white man only, but that it operates to the benefit of the various coloured groups in South Africa. They realize that in terms of this policy facilities have been created which have never existed before, and which would never have existed if it had not been for that policy. We can be very thankful that conditions in South Africa are as they are.

I am convinced that hon. members on the opposite side, in spite of what they are saying, are equally thankful that the National Party stands for separateness as a policy in South Africa. They too appreciate and enjoy what this policy is bringing about for the Whites on the one hand, and are pleased about what it is bringing about for the Coloureds and the other coloured groups, because it is uplifting them. It will avail hon. members on the opposite side nothing to quote Dr. Van Eck out of context against us in this regard. This policy of separate development, in respect of the matter which Dr. Van Eck discussed, was included in the economic development programme of South Africa as far back as 1964. He was a party to that programme, which is being systematically implemented in South Africa, not only to the benefit of the Whites, but also to the benefit of the coloured groups, who are also plucking the fruits of that policy.

I shall on a later occasion reply to other questions which have been raised and which are perhaps still standing over. I just wanted to avail myself of this opportunity to express these few ideas on this matter which was raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I am aware of the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and others, try from time to time—it is probably inevitable that an Opposition will do so—to play me off against my late predecessor, or to play off my colleagues against me, or me against them. It has, for example, been said that with the abolition of Coloured representatives I have taken a different course from the one Dr. Verword would have taken. I want to state very clearly that the policy of the National Party, taken to its logical conclusion, is to do away with Coloured representation here, because I was in this House myself and I heard the questions that were put to the late Dr. Verwoerd.

Those questions were put to him in order to make propaganda against South Africa. His reply throughout was that he was not dealing then with the abolition, that the legislation he was dealing with had nothing to do with the abolition, of Coloured representation. That is what applied at that moment. But I have quoted to the hon. member what Dr. Verwoerd said very clearly, namely that this representation would be considered if and when the day arrived when this Coloured Persons Council had taken shape, as it has now done; and further, that he definitely was not prepared to commit or to bind himself for all time in regard to this matter. That, in fact, was how hon. members on the opposite side always understood it, and this other idea was a later innovation. If that was not the case, why did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, when the matter was raised in 1966, not say something immediately? At that time he made no reproach. Nor was any reproach made last year; what has been made here is a subsequent reproach. But what is more, let me ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who would be better acquainted with the road of the National Party since 1953, when I entered this Parliament, he or I? Who is better acquainted with the direction of the National Party, he or I? I told the hon. Leader of the Opposition at the time that I stood here as an uncommitted person in this regard.

I believe, from the bottom of my heart, that I have done the right thing in regard to the Whites. I believe that at the same time I have done the right thing in regard to the Coloured people of South Africa. I am glad that we have stopped bluffing, bluffing the Coloureds here in South Africa and bluffing the world outside that the Coloureds had political rights in South Africa. This is something they have never yet had. They are being granted it now for the first time by the National Party. I am prepared to be judged in respect of that matter, and the hon. member for Gardens is scoffing in vain. The hon. member should be the last person to scoff, he who signed one thing and then propagated another. But I am quite prepared to be judged on this matter, not only by the Whites of South Africa, but also by the Coloured people of South Africa, because I am convinced that the Coloured people share with me in believing that for the first time now political rights have come the way of all the Coloureds in the Republic of South Africa, and not a semblance of rights—with all respect for the representatives who have sat here—not the semblance of a right which a small group, a handful, here in the Cape have had in this regard. As I say, I am prepared to have the future judge me in this regard. The Leader of the Opposition will be judged according to the policy which he has reiterated in this House to-day.

The hon. the Prime Minister has just stated his attitude in regard to the removal of Coloured representatives from this House, and he said that he was glad that they had now stopped bluffing that the Coloureds did in fact have political rights. Thereupon he perpetrated the greatest piece of bluff of the entire debate by saying that the Coloureds were now at last being granted political rights by the Nationalist Party throughout South Africa. Since when is the right to vote for a municipality a political right? Since when is the right to vote for a council which is always going to be subservient to this House, a political right comparable to the right of being registered on a separate voters’ roll and electing persons who will put forward the views of the Coloured population in this House? The hon. the Prime Minister said that he was prepared to be judged in the future by the Coloureds themselves. I fear that he will quite possibly be judged by the Coloureds themselves in this respect, because I think he is going to find—I do not want to repeat the previous debate here, in which he unfortunately did not take part—that he has created a possible source of friction which is still going to cause him and the nation a great deal of trouble in future. But that is water that has passed under the bridge. The step has been taken, to my sorrow. I opposed it, as the Prime Minister knows. The future will decide which of us was right.

As so often in the past.

As in the past it has so often been proved that this side of the House was right, by the simple adoption of the policy of this side of the House by the Government.

Such as the establishment of the Republic.

The Prime Minister has now stated his attitude concerning his apartheid policy. He has, of course, not replied to all the questions. I hope that further questions will be replied to later.

What do you have in mind now that I have not replied to?

I shall deal with that later. I do not want to disrupt my train of thought at the moment. The hon. gentleman asked whether we stood by the Native Trust and Land Act of 1936, and he asked it in connection with the application of his policy. Yes, we stand by that Act. In terms of that Act, that land would be made available as reserves for the Bantu. We stand by that, but what we do not stand for, is that that land should be given to an independent Native state. There is something else which we do not stand for, and that is that under the policy of this Government there is not the slightest doubt that more land will have to be purchased for the establishment of the new Bantu states.

May I ask a question? While it is their land, if they now refuse to remain in your state any longer, will you force them to remain in it?

The Prime Minister asks whether, while it is their land, if they refuse to remain in my state any longer, I would force them to remain. I would not give them the right to secede, no more than I would give that right to any white group.

In other words, you would force them.

We are one integral state and so we shall remain.

And if they refuse?

What will happen if the Transvaal want to secede? Is the Prime Minister going to force them to remain part of the Republic, or is he simply going to tell the Transvaal that they can go? And if Natal should turn round and say that they are tired of this Government of this new Republic and want to secede, would the Prime Minister allow them to secede, or would he force them to remain a part of the Republic? Mr. Chairman, I said that there was something else which we did not stand for in connection with land, and that is that under this Government’s policy, with the establishment of Bantustans, more land will undoubtedly have to be purchased for the Bantu, and here I call to witness Professor Moolman, who recently addressed the Sabra conference. I quote from what he said—

Mr. Chairman, no one can contribute more to the necessity of purchasing additional land than the Minister of Planning and the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education from Vereeniging, because they are very soon going to make the Prime Minister realize that the present Bantustans are not in a position to afford a decent livelihood and standard of living, not only to their present population, but also to the natural growth of that population.

Absolute nonsense.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says “absolute nonsense”. He has not yet been able to call in question any of my figures; he has not yet been able to prove even once that Dr. Adendorff, the chairman of the Bantu Development Corporation, was wrong when he delivered his speech to the Sabra conference. But he is in the habit of shouting “nonsense” when he does not know what the answer is. He is only thinking of his own ideas when he shouts “nonsense”.

Mr. Chairman, then the hon. gentleman continued and said that I based the difference between Whites and non-Whites on the level of civilization alone. This is not the case at all. He says that there are other differences. I agree with him wholeheartedly, and that is why we stand for separate residential areas and for social segregation. The hon. gentleman wants to know, if that difference exists to-day, what the position will be if that difference is eliminated. Who says it will be eliminated? The Whites came and established themselves here 300 years ago, and at that time there was a great leeway for the non-Whites to make up, but to-day the non-Whites are not on the same level as the Whites. The non-Whites have progressed very far, but have they caught up with the Whites? Have the Whites stood still these 300 years? Mr. Chairman, I read recently that 97 per cent of the scientists who have ever been trained in the course of history are active in the world of to-day. All the progress we have thus far made has been made as a result of the work of 3 per cent who in the past made the fruits of their research and their brain power available to the world. How much more rapidly are we not progressing now? Ninety-seven per cent are active in the world of to-day. Is there any ceiling to man’s knowledge? Must we say that we have reached the highest level and that we cannot progress any further? I think the main difference between the hon. the Prime Minister and me is that I have faith in the future of the Whites and in their ability to develop and to remain ahead, while the hon. the Prime Minister does not have it.

One is surprised at the joke which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has again repeated here now, a joke which he has often made before and which is also made by some of his party associates, i.e. that the Government has allegedly taken over his policy. Nobody can take him seriously, but I want to put this question to him in connection with their policy as they formulated it at their Bloemfontein congress and in terms of which they now want to place the Coloureds on a separate voters’ roll. I am not referring to the representation of Coloureds in this House by Coloureds themselves. When we placed the Coloureds on a separate voters’ roll in the fifties, did we then take over their policy, or have they now realized that it is sound politics to remove the Coloureds from the common voters’ roll and have they accepted this policy for that reason? No, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must realize that nobody will take him seriously if he makes this sort of joke. I want to say how glad I am that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition admitted this afternoon that they still stand by the Native Trust and Land Act of 1936, although only as far as it suits them. In this connection I just want to refer him to a question which I have put to him in this House before, when he raised objections to the purchase of land and when he asked where the boundaries of the Bantu areas would ultimately be. The question which I put to him in this regard previously is whether he has already decided for himself where the boundaries of the Bantu areas are going to be when he has purchased the full quota of land? Is he going to leave the poorly situated areas and the black spots—I do not know whether he knows the difference between the two—as they are, or is he going to consolidate them with the existing homelands? If he is going to do that, will he, when he goes to the people again, tell them that those are going to be the ultimate boundaries, and is he in future going to be honest with the people and tell them that the full quota of 7¼ million morgen of land, over and above the scheduled areas, will be purchased? These are questions to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition owes us a reply. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to suggest in his first speech here to-day that I had said at the Sabra Congress that consolidation could not be implemented and that it was not so necessary any more.

No.

Unfortunately I was not here. I do not want to do the hon. Leader of the Opposition an injustice and I shall be glad to hear what he said in that connection. I want to quote from my speech what I actually said—

If anyone wants to create the impression that I said anything other than that at the Sabra Congress, then he is creating a wrong impression. Neither my Minister nor my colleague, nor any member of this party, has ever said that the consolidation of the homelands is not of the utmost importance. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must not quote Professor Moolman here in order to determine for us how much land will ultimately be purchased for the Bantu. The hon. the Prime Minister told him this afternoon that we are keeping to the 1936 Act. We shall purchase the released land and the quota land, and we shall purchase compensatory land for poorly situated areas and for black spots, as laid down by Act No. 18 of 1936; we shall do that, but if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to tell us at this stage already how far we will have to go, then I say to him we reject that.

And after that?

An hon. member on that side asks me: “And after that?” I now want to put this counter-question to him: Should the United Party ever get the opportunity to implement its policy I take it that it will buy that land as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has now said; but all superfluous Bantu are, according to him, entitled to a home within the white area; is that not the logical conclusion of his policy? No, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot just shake his head now. After all, it is not his policy that those Bantu in the Bantu areas should all be kept there. He says: “Yes, development may take place there, but one cannot develop that far.” He says that even the largest sums that one can spend on the Bantu homelands will not be enough for settling the Bantu there as they increase, plus those living in white areas that my colleague and the Minister of Planning want to send back. Then, surely, one must accept that he wants to create a permanent home for them within the white area.

Precisely.

But he must not ask me what will happen after that. My reply as regards what will happen after that is the following: Those plus minus 19 million morgen have to be developed agriculturally, industrially and socially to the extent that they can support that population. Hon. members must not tell me that this is impossible. What about other states? Do all the European states with larger population groups than our Bantu have larger territories at their disposal?

But they do not have so many restrictions.

The hon. the Prime Minister told that hon. member a moment ago that it would be a good thing if he also started thinking. He should not talk to me about restrictions now. If the Dutch want to expand their territory, they have to reclaim land from the sea. There is still a lot of sea here along the coasts of certain Bantu areas. Then one wonders whether we may not find ourselves on the same boat in the distant future. But that is not what we are discussing now. The hon. member asked me what will happen after that—when these lands which have to be purchased in terms of the provisions of the 1936 Act have been obtained. Is it then that party’s policy that they have to seek their homeland in the white areas, as they are now already saying that they want to give proprietary rights to the Bantu who have found permanent abode in the white urban areas, for example at Soweto, Langa and Nyanga. That hon. member on the other side nods his head. He wants to give the Bantu proprietary rights in white areas as well. In other words, they should not make the charge against us that we will purchase more land than that fixed amount of 19 million morgen. They are the people who are prepared to give up the 19 million morgen laid down by the 1936 Act, but also as much of white South Africa as may in addition be necessary to support the Bantu.

But we are not creating independent states.

Yes, but hon. members should not merely try to hide behind this question of independent states now. The 1936 Act had nothing to do with the political future of the Bantu. It did not prescribe what political belief they should subscribe to. It had to do with the ownership of land by the Bantu. When hon. members speak in the rural areas, they are not concerned with the politics of the Bantu; then they are concerned with the land which is being handed out, as they say, by this Government to the Bantu. That is also what they hint at when they speak here. No, the hon. member for King William’s Town is one of the leading lights as far as sowing suspicion is concerned. I know him very well. We come from the same area. The political future did not enter into the matter in any way in 1936. The political future is a matter which we are deciding here. What we are dealing with here, is the proprietary rights of the Bantu to land in South Africa.

There never was any question of our putting all the non-Whites into those homelands.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Prime Minister accused me of having put words into his mouth, which he denied. Of course, I shall furnish him with the proof.

When? Now?

To-morrow. If the hon. the Prime Minister had informed me that he was going to raise this aspect here, I would have had the proof here now. I shall produce it. One thing I am and have always been meticulous about since the first day I came to this House, is to look up the source every time I quote a person and to have the quotation at hand. Over a period of 18 years I have never yet been found to have made an incorrect quotation in this House. Not one comma has ever been proved wrong. But I want to add this. I have always been prepared when quoting from a newspaper what a person had said—and we all know that the newspapers are not always correct—to accept it immediately when he told me that the newspaper was wrong. But I have never yet quoted a person here without having the proof for it.

I should very much like to hear it.

I am amazed at the Prime Minister. I see he is a person who keeps a scrapbook in which everything he says is pasted. I was not referring to statements he had made to overseas reporters. He addressed meetings in this country at which he said that South Africa “had the solution for the world”. It appeared in bold print in the newspapers, and I shall furnish him with these reports. The point which I made in the debate was that, while I was abroad, certain people whose names I do not want to mention here, because the discussions were confidential, people who are champions of South Africa, were upset. I shall tell the Prime Minister why. All his predecessors as well as our foreign representatives, when defending South Africa, or, at any rate, when defending the policy of the Government—I draw a distinction between South Africa and the Government, and there is a very clear distinction—adopted the attitude that South Africa’s problems were unique and that the Government had a unique solution which applied nowhere else. I have heard with my own ears how persons who defended the policy of the Government told the people, “The policy cannot be applied in your country, because our problem is unique”, and that was the attitude adopted by foreign representatives.

That is the attitude which I have consistently adopted.

I shall furnish the hon. the Prime Minister with the proof and he may deal with it, but he must not suggest here that I put words into his mouth. He said at various meetings, and not only once, that the policy followed by his Government was a solution for the whole world, and he was echoed. I can furnish him with further proof that his followers went and echoed him. The hon. member for Cradock is sitting over there. If the report in the newspapers was correct, he said the same thing at Swellendam again recently, namely that their policy was a solution for the world.

All of us have consistently said that it is an example to the world which they will come to look at one day.

But, good heavens, Mr. Chairman, I like to have the proof when discussing a matter. I shall furnish the proof to-morrow. If I do not get an opportunity to speak to-morrow, I shall send the hon. the Prime Minister the proof, because he will address the House again in any case. It is a practice of mine not to quote a person when I do not have the proof for it. I shall tell you, Sir, what the reaction was and that is why I asked the Prime Minister to clarify the matter, because he is the Prime Minister. The reaction was this. Some of those who defend us overseas landed in the position where people asked them, “Look, if apartheid is a solution to the world, explain to me how I should apply it here in London”. The people were able to defend apartheid as it was being applied in South Africa, but could we explain to an Englishman in London or to a Frenchman in Paris that they should have group areas, race classification, separate buses, separate entrances and so forth, there? Those were the questions that were asked and it placed them in a very difficult position. They then had to explain how the policy had to be applied in those countries. That is the point I raised. I leave it at that; I shall furnish the documents, and then the Prime Minister can tell us whether he was misreported or misunderstood. But the proof is there. The Prime Minister and anybody else may attack me as they please: We have been in politics long enough. It does not matter a great deal to me. But he must not accuse me of putting words into his mouth. He was not here at that time, but I had the proof at hand when I was making the statement. I always have the proof at hand when quoting a person.

Now we have had the old story from the Prime Minister again that I speak for external consumption. A country is not judged by its Opposition. Take any country in the world. Let us take Britain. We do not think of the Government, but of the Opposition. Surely, this is too ridiculous for words. A country is judged by its government, by the policy of that government and by the laws it makes. What does that committee at U.N. do? They study the laws passed by this Government.

Oh, don’t talk nonsense. [Interjections.]

Judging by the statements made by the Prime Minister and some of the hon. members from Pretoria at the back over there, one would swear that those people sit in Picadilly Circus reading our Hansard to see what the Opposition said here.

No, they quote you at U.N.

No. I ask that hon. Minister to make a friendly bet with me now. We can take all the reports, all the books which have been written in recent years and which display a hostile attitude towards South Africa, all the reports submitted to U.N. and all the hostile documents produced about South Africa. We can then add up all the quotations and see how many members of the Opposition were quoted and how many speeches made by members of the Government were quoted, and we shall see that, comparatively speaking, the Opposition does not enter into the picture at all. Everyone who knows something about politics will know that scores of Government members are quoted for every Opposition member who is quoted.

Who says those reports are correct?

I shall prove my statement. We can read the reports of the UN. We can take Michael Scott’s books or those of whatever enemy we want to quote, and we shall see that the Opposition plays no part in those books and documents.

I say that 90 per cent of those reports contain false statements.

I shall produce a U.N. report on apartheid, on the Indians in South Africa and on South West Africa and we can see what is said there. I want the hon. the Minister to accept my challenge then and he should come and make a report here—he has a large staff to do the work. I shall furnish him with all the books. His staff can add up how many times Government leaders have been quoted, all of them, and how many times this side of the House has been quoted. There is simply no comparison. The hostile attitude outside is based on the statements made by the Government leaders. One may discuss the matter with any South African information officer. If he is prepared to discuss it with you, he will tell you that the statements causing the trouble are those made on behalf of the Government. Because what is said on behalf of the Government constitutes policy. What is said by the Opposition does not constitute the policy of South Africa. The people do not judge a country by a policy statement made by the Opposition, but one judges it by the attitude adopted by the governing party.

The Opposition only provides the poison.

No. We know we always have that old story from the other side when it has no arguments to put forward. I want to say here quite emphatically that we are not going to take any notice of it and that it does not hold water.

And nobody takes any notice of you.

Very well. Every man does his duty here. My attitude is the following: If the Government does something which I think is harmful to South Africa—and, after all, I am entitled to my opinion and every hon. member opposite is entitled to his opinion—I, as a South African, shall not allow myself to be bullied by anyone opposite into not getting up here and not speaking my mind. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am just getting up, while we are on this subject, to reply to what was said by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. If his statement were correct, namely that a country is not judged by its Opposition, I would have been very grateful. I would have been grateful for many reasons. In the course of the afternoon I mentioned an argument I put to Mr. Sulzberger, and the whole of my argument concerned the fact that the situation in South Africa was so peaceful and free of tension. He states my arguments, but discredits them immediately by quoting a statement made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a statement which the hon. Leader of the Opposition now says he did not make. After all, these are the old tactics which have been used against us overseas all these years.

It is not the fault of the Opposition then, but the fault of that person.

No, Sir, it just goes to show how careful you must be in what you say. According to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—and I accept his word without reservation—they do not even hesitate to put words into the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition; how much more would they have no hesitation in using the rumours which are being spread all the time. From whom did these people get this argument, of which I have several examples here in front of me and which is used against the Government day in and day out, that we are a police state, and so forth? Did they get it from hon. members on this side of the House? From whom did they get it? I want to repeat this to the hon. member, and I want to read this quotation again, because I have been saying this in all my speeches. On 16th February I had an interview with a French journalist from the paper Réalités, and I shall quote what I said to him. I put it very clearly, and it is the attitude which I have adopted throughout—

This is the attitude I have adopted throughout. Surely, if we believe that we have the solution to a problem, and the whole world is seeking that solution, we may tell them what it is. Does the hon. member want to tell me he has come across a country which has found the solution?

In their opinion, yes.

Does Britain have the solution?

Our nearest neighbour, Portugal, claims to have found the solution, and Portugal is our ally.

Has the U.S.A. found the solution?

They think so.

Let them think so, but am I then not also entitled to think that I have the solution, and do I not owe it to my country to say that people will come to my country one day to see the solution to this problem for themselves? It just surprises me to see that one has so little feeling for one’s country that one can blame somebody for adopting that attitude.

It is a party policy, Government policy, not a national policy. [Interjections.]

It is not a party policy. The hon. member knows as well as I do that it is the traditional policy of South Africa. [Interjections.] I am dealing with the policy of separate development now, and I believe—and I want to put it quite clearly once again—that those nations which are struggling with this problem at the moment and which are not only struggling with this problem, but are experiencing violence as a result of this problem, will come to take a very serious look at the policy of South Africa one day. They will come to South Africa not only to look at our beautiful scenery or at Groote Schuur and at what our scientists are doing there. People who are interested in human development and human problems will come to study these matters in South Africa one day. The hon. member for Durban (Point) will be as proud as I am that South Africa can teach the world something in this field as well.

In saying this, I do not want to prescribe to others what their policy should be or what they should do in their countries. That is their concern. But what is being done in my country, I shall at all times hold up to the world as good, not only because I believe it is good, but also because …

And if we are in power?

But surely that will not happen. I do not find myself in the sphere of the speculative now; I am dealing with facts. I am grateful that this can be said of my country and that people can come to take a look at this country to see how we tackle our problems, that people who are interested in human development, human problems and human relations can come to South Africa in this atmosphere of peace and quiet to see how a problem of relationships should be dealt with. It only surprises me that people take exception to the fact that you adopt such an attitude. You would expect that a person would be grateful for being able to hold up his country as a model in that regard, irrespective of whatever government is in power.

Mr. Chairman, in effect the hon. the Prime Minister has now confirmed the very kind of statement made by me and to which he took exception at the outset. If the hon. the Prime Minister adopts the attitude that here we have a model for the whole world, it is a pity that he does not tell us how other countries should apply it under the circumstances prevailing in those countries. What country does not regard its own solution as the right one for itself? Our own neighbouring territory, i.e. Portugal tells U.N. that it has the answer to its own particular problem.

It is not separate development.

Most certainly not, and I can tell the Prime Minister that observers from his own Party who visited Portuguese territories were particularly impressed by the solution they have for their territories. What would be the position of our allies who have a different solution to ours if we should in effect tell them, “You do not have a solution; you are wrong”? Surely one would then be encouraging their enemies.

Who said that?

Does he want to tell me that his policy should be applied in a country such as Brazil?

We have never yet expected any other country to apply our policy.

If a man in the hon. the Prime Minister’s position says that we have the solution for the world here and that they may come here to see what should in effect be done in their countries …

We have never said that. [Interjections.]

I regret that I do not have the quotations here, but the impression the Prime Minister has again created now, is that his Party has a solution which is applicable to the rest of the world.

In so far as they want to take it over.

Everyone who comes to this country to see how the Prime Minister’s policy is being applied, the vast majority of observers who come to South Africa themselves, and friends of South Africa, leave this country saying that there is some sense in this great idea of separation as far as it is practical, but …