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

Agreed to.

The hon. the Prime Minister and I had a little altercation in the House yesterday. The hon. the Prime Minister made certain charges against me, i.e. that I had put words into his mouth, and he attacked me quite sharply on that. Now, last year the hon. the Prime Minister made several speeches in this country in which he made the statement that the apartheid policy was “a solution for the world”. The particular speech to which I referred when I spoke about that, I have here. As usual, when I quote someone, I have the proof. [Interjections.] I shall give it to the Prime Minister. He spoke at the opening of the National Party Congress in Durban on 17th August, 1967, and here I have the Burger’s report, with a headline extending over five columns. In other words, even the Burger was under the impression that the Prime Minister had struck a new note here, and this is what the report says (translation)—

It struck even the Burger that the hon. the Prime Minister was striking a new note here. Now the hon. the Prime Minister may tell me that he was misreported by the Burger, but then it is an issue between him and the Burger, and not an issue between him and me. All that I wanted to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister, and am bringing to his attention again this afternoon, as long as this report stands—and this is not the only one; he made other speeches in similar vein, but this is the one I have before me—is that he is not helping South Africa by adopting a standpoint of this nature. I do not think the hon. the Prime Minister realizes how acute the feelings about the question of colour apartheid are in the rest of the world. It is difficult enough for our people to explain that apartheid is applicable to the problems of South Africa, but as it stands here, he is representing apartheid as a kind of Messianic policy applicable to the problems of the world, and to explain this is much more difficult than to explain that it is applicable to the problems of South Africa alone. We have this strange oddity in any case that as soon as the coloured world visits South Africa, the pattern of apartheid is suspended. Then they are, whether they be yellow or black, in effect declared white so as to be released from the problems and humiliations of apartheid. If this policy, and I am referring to the policy of petty apartheid in particular, is such a Utopia, if it is a solution for the whole world, we must allow Coloured visitors to South Africa to taste the sweetness of this product, and we should not suspend this system and make temporary Whites of them so that they escape the principles of apartheid. The mere fact that the Government has to save them from the effects of apartheid if they are distinguished visitors, proves that there can be no question of its being a policy which can be applied throughout the world. Let me put the matter in this way to the hon. the Prime Minister. The fact of the matter is that everywhere in the world to-day one is faced with the problem of nationalities, the problem of diversity. In some countries it is differences of class. In other countries it is differences of race. In some it is language, in others it is religion, in others it is colour. It is rather striking that in many countries the problems of religion and language are much worse than the problems of colour. But they are similar in nature. The point of the matter is that the problem of diversity occurs everywhere in the world, and accordingly our problem is by no means unique, not in the least. But everywhere in the world you have different solutions. There is for example the solution of Brazil, which allowed matters to take a completely natural course. I am not saying that that solution can be applied here, but it is a solution for Brazil. A number of years ago a man like Professor P. Serton of Stellenbosch made a comparative study of South Africa and Brazil and wrote a book on the subject, and his conclusion was that “a national unity exists in Brazil which we can only envy that country”. He went on to say (translation)—

That is his finding, they have a distinct solution there. Here in Angola and Mozambique, on our borders, they have a similar solution. The Portuguese have problems with colonialism, but they do not have problems with the question of race relations. On the contrary. Let me read to you, Sir, what the President of Portugal recently said about the matter after paying a visit to Angola.

Tell us what your solution is.

I shall come to that presently. I quote (translation)—

Is that what you want here?

No, each country has its own historical background. Because our history is different, we cannot imitate what has been done in Brazil, or what is being done in Angola or on our borders. In Switzerland, for example, you have four, in fact five, language groups. They have accepted the federal solution. In a country such as Yugoslavia you have six conflicting communities, six national groups at various levels of development, and there they have introduced a constitutional federal system which eliminated the old conflicts of the past. My point is that in each part of the world you have a different approach to the same problem, because of historical circumstances. Therefore I say that the Prime Minister is not doing us any good if in effect he says to those people that they are wrong, and if he says to them, as he said yesterday, that apartheid is “the only answer where various coloured groups are living together”. All I said was that that attitude does not assist our people who have to defend his policy abroad.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to different communities, it has been proved time and again that the most successful solution in the world is the federal one. Fifty per cent of the people in the world live under federal systems to-day, and this is the most successful idea which has yet come forward in the world where there is diversity, because it reconciles diversity with an essential degree of unity at the top. Federalism has also had its failures, but so has democracy. Are we going to reject democracy because there a few countries in Europe to-day which have made a failure of democracy? I say that federalism has so far been the most successful idea where one is faced with the problem of diversity. Let me say to the hon. the Prime Minister that it has been my experience that it is not difficult at all to explain our problems abroad. People abroad understand the problem. They do not understand his solution so well, but the problem is familiar because the problem of diversity and of nationalities is a world-wide phenomenon. In so far as the Government attempts to have a decentralization of power between Whites and Blacks—a territorial division, as the Prime Minister calls it—I may say to him that there is a reasonable understanding of that attitude abroad, because it is actually in line with the federal idea. I found everywhere that there was no difficulty in explaining both the problem and this kind of solution to people; they understand it. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who has just resumed his seat, made a great fuss yesterday evening about his well-nigh Victorian correctness of conduct when quoting someone in this House about something he had said outside this House. He put it in this way—

He said this with reference to an allegation he had made that the Prime Minister had said that South Africa’s policy of separate development was a solution for the whole world. But what did we find this afternoon? The proof which the hon. member brought to us here, was only a headline to the report which appeared in a newspaper.

No, it was the report itself.

He did not read out the content of that report.

No, I read out the content itself.

You made a deduction from it.

He only read out the headline to us. A little later in his speech yesterday evening he said that the Prime Minister had on various occasions, not only once, said that the policy pursued by his Government was a solution for the world in general. Then the hon. member said—

Mr. Chairman, I take it that the hon. member was apparently referring to a speech which I made recently, not at Swellendam, but at Bredasdorp …

In the constituency.

You corrected it a great deal.

… and which was reported in the Burger of 1st April, in which appeared, inter alia, what I had allegedly said in connection with this matter. Again it is very clear to me that the hon. member only read the headline of this report and not the report itself, because the heading of this report reads (translation)—

But what does the first paragraph of that report say? It reads—

Nowhere in the report is it stated that the policy of South Africa offers a solution to the world problem. The use of the expression “holds out” alone implies that this policy only offers a possible solution to the race relations problem throughout the world, so that thereby is not meant at all that the policy of separate development is now being raised to a dogma which the Prime Minister and his followers want to impose on all countries.

So you have a solution for world problems, but not for South Africa’s problems.

In that speech I specifically mentioned that the policy of separate development was not an export article; that it was not a policy which we wanted to apply to other countries, but I added that in the light of what was happening in America at present the Americans could profitably come and look at how this policy of separate development was being applied in this country and with what measure of success this was being done. What is more, at that meeting I expressed my regret at the fact that bloodshed had occurred as a result of this problem of relations in America. That is why I said that in their case, too, there was a great possibility that they might find a solution for their problem if they were to come and look in our country at the policy of separate development which is being applied here. Mr. Chairman, what is wrong with it if the Prime Minister or any member of the National Party says, in view of the phenomenal success which is being achieved with this policy of separate development, that we have a message for the world; that the world may come and look in South Africa to see if there is not a solution for them too in the way in which we are handling this problem of relations?

But it is a failure here.

The allegation has been made time and again that the hon. the Prime Minister said that our solution should now be applied throughout the world. However, he repeatedly said the following in public. I am not reading newspaper headings now, I am reading what the report said, and I shall also quote from Hansard to indicate what the Prime Minister actually said. In his first major speech outside the House of Assembly after assuming office, the Prime Minister, according to the Burger of 18th February, 1967, used the following words (translation)—

On 11th April the Prime Minister also discussed this matter in this House, and the following words appear in Hansard (column 3960)—

This then is an accusation of dishonesty on the part of the Prime Minister when he is charged with making certain statements in this House but, when he appears in public, making other statements and then wanting to raise this policy of ours to a dogma which must be applied throughout the world. After all, it is clear that since the National Party came into power, we have always adopted the standpoint that we would not tolerate interference in this country’s domestic affairs on the part of any other country. Why would we then interfere in the internal affairs of other countries and suddenly demand, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout asserts, that our policy of separate development be made applicable to the rest of the world as well?

Talking about echoing the words of another, I have been accused—and it is actually a privilege—of having echoed the Prime Minister’s words. If my advice did not contain so many dangers for that Party, I could have advised them to-day to echo the words of their hon. Leader more often too. But in view of the tremendous dangers which that advice holds for them, I restrain myself from giving it to the Opposition Party.

I want to say something more in connection with “echoing”. The hon. member for Simonstown, if the Sunday Times reported him correctly, in the issue of 14th April, 1968, made among others the following statements. He expressed his disappointment at the fact that Botswana’s Minister of Health and Labour had been admitted to a white ward in a white hospital. He also expressed his disappointment at the fact that the Secretary to the Malawi Mission was living in a white area, and, to crown it all, in the constituency of his hon. Leader. He disapproved of the fact that non-white diplomats could enter hotels in this country. He disapproved of the fact that, as he expressed it, an integrated team from South Africa would go to the Olympic Games. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in response to what the hon. member for Cradock said, I want to say at once that the hon. member for Simonstown will put the matter to rights. It is very clear that he was completely misunderstood. He denies that he in any way advocated what appeared in the newspaper mentioned. He denies it most strongly. I rather want to return to the point raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He produced his clear evidence here, and we are now waiting for the hon. the Prime Minister to take the matter further. It is also clear that the hon. member for Cradock said the same as the Prime Minister. I want to add that the previous Prime Minister said, almost every time he spoke, that apartheid was a solution to the world’s problems. The previous Prime Minister said it morning, noon and night, and we have now been shown that the present Prime Minister has also said it.

I want to say to the Prime Minister that we on this side are very dissatisfied with his replies concerning Bantu policy. If hon. members opposite are satisfied, they are very easily satisfied, because we received no replies to many points which we had raised. We received no systematic exposition of the Prime Minister’s policy, we received absolutely nothing in substantiation of his policy. He also failed to reply to the very clear and friendly questions which I personally put to him. As I shall now indicate, he also failed to reply to questions put by my hon. Leader. I just want to say this. The Prime Minister confined himself to making a few statements. He said that this policy had now become South Africa’s policy, and that the fact that peace and quiet prevailed in this country, was proof of the success of this policy. But surely that is not so. There is peace and quiet in the neighbouring Portuguese Territories and even in Rhodesia, and their policies are quite different to ours. Indeed, this is the greatest non sequitur that I have ever heard in my life. It has also been said here that the policy of that side of the House has now actually become South Africa’s policy. If the policy is that our country must be cut into pieces, then that is surely quite untrue. There is a great deal of evidence that the Bantu do not accept this policy. The fact that they take what they can get, does not mean that they accept this policy at all. As far as the Coloureds are concerned, I need not say anything. What there is to be said has been said repeatedly in recent debates. As far as the Whites are concerned, it appears that the whole foundation upon which apartheid is built, as propounded and applied by the Government, is nothing but sand. It has been clearly proved that the foundation is nothing but sand. The hon. member for Primrose said here yesterday that while Rome was burning, the United Party was doing this and that. What did the hon. member mean by that? I do not want to say that we do not have peace and quiet in the country. It is clear to me, however, that he meant that our policy in this country was quite wrong. [Interjections.] Yes. The hon. the Prime Minister is laughing now, but it will be interesting to hear what the hon. member actually meant.

I want to say to the Prime Minister that it appears that the whole foundation of his policy is resting on sand. In support of my statement I shall quote what thinking individuals on his side have said. The basis was that the Whites and the Bantu would be more or less equal in number in white South Africa by the end of the century, and that entails a drastic reduction in the number of Bantu in the white areas. I shall now quote my witnesses. At a Sabra Congress Dr. Geyer said that unless the Bantu areas could absorb about half their population and unless we could drastically reduce the number of Bantu in the urban areas, it was a question to which separate development did not have the answer at all. In 1958 the Burger said that unless we could bring about this dreastic reduction, apartheid was “a hollow cry”. I now want to quote what “Woord en Daad” in Potchef-stroom said. (In view of this, I am not at all surprised by the fact that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development had to go to Potchefstroom to explain why they had shied away from large-scale development.) After “Woord en Daad” had quoted the facts more or less as I have set them out here, he continued as follows. I quote from the Burger of 13th May, 1965, where what “Woord en Daad” had written was quoted (translation)—

And this is what the hon. the Prime Minister is doing—

That letter was written by a United Party man.

These things are being said by important people, and everyone opposite knows it. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister if that is the only plan he has left for South Africa. But I want to go further. It has become very clear that this Government is not going to try to bring about a large decrease in the numbers of Bantu, a decrease which is essential to the policy. It boils down to what Mr. M. C. Botha said at Potchefstroom. This is also the entire trend followed by hon. members opposite in having swung away from large-scale development and beginning to speak of development in so far as the Bantu can absorb it.

The hon. the Prime Minister still owes this side of the House a reply in this debate in respect of the following matters. Is he going to retain the natural increase of the Bantu in the Bantu areas? If this is indeed his policy, how is he going to do it? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked him that. He also owes this House and the country a reply in this respect, i.e. whether he aims at equalizing the numbers of Whites and Bantu by the year 2000? If so, haw is he going to do it? We are tired of pious talk about this matter. Then I also want to know: What about the urban Bantu? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked a whole series of questions about that and the hon. the Prime Minister has not said a word about it. After all, is it not the most important matter in the country? The Rev. J. S. Gericke, who is a very important person, said this (translation)—

When he spoke in 1965, he was not simply speaking ad lib. He was giving evidence on behalf of South Africa in the South West Africa trial. I quote what the Burger reported about that (translation)—

In other words, it is very clear that the ment is now completely “in the middle” in this regard. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to reply to the speech by the hon. member for Pinelands. I see no reason at all why I should reply under the Prime Minister’s Vote to matters which he ought to raise under the Vote of the Minister of Bantu Administration. We shall discuss these matters under that Vote.

I now want to return to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout made the allegation here yesterday that the hostility at UNO was based exclusively on, not what was said by the Opposition, but on what was done by the Government. I just want to say this to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout: Unfortunately the people abroad do not take as little notice of him as we in South Africa do. Unfortunately they regard him as a fairly important person. But they are just as wrong in that as they are in most things. I now want to say to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that what is said by the Opposition and certain of its leading members is the main cause of the hostility towards South Africa in the outside world. We can apply one test in this regard. What has been the most important instance of South Africa’s conduct being discussed? Has there been any more important instance of South Africa’s conduct being discussed than at the World Court at The Hague? What did South Africa do then? South Africa said: Come and see what is happening here. Do not base your arguments on what members of the Government say, or on what members of the Opposition say, but base it on facts. I do not want to say anything about the fact that the World Court in its wisdom decided not to come. However, I want to rely on what happened then. That is that the two countries of UNO, namely Liberia and Ethiopia, after we had put our case and had invited them to come and see what was happening in the Republic of South Africa and in South-West Africa, withdrew every single charge which they had made against South Africa. It is therefore not based on what this Government does. When this matter was once more before UNO, the hate campaign against South Africa began again, supported by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He said here yesterday that UNO’s reports were based on facts. But when they were in possession of the facts before the only persons who could pronounce judgment, they said that they were not prepared to examine those facts and then the charges against us were withdrawn. But the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says that the reports of UNO are based on facts. Is he not aware of the fact that all these attacks and reports against South Africa are false from beginning to end? Has he not read Mr. Botha’s repudiation of the latest statement by U Thant? I think it is high time that South Africa was reminded of what the Opposition has said about it in the past ten or 15 years. In the first place I quote what Mr. Hamilton Russell said about the Sabotage Bill, when he was a member of the United Party. Now I want those hon. members to tell me that they agree with this. They agreed with it wholeheartedly at that stage, and slandered South Africa from beginning to end, with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition joining in. He shouted “Hear, hear!” while Mr. Hamilton Russell was speaking. I now want to know whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition still shouts “Hear, hear!” in respect of Mr. Hamilton Russell’s view of the Sabotage Act. He will not get away with that. He has improved a good deal, because it suited him politically to do so. As soon as it suits him politically not to improve, he will again slander South Africa just as he did in the past. I do not easily forget these things. This is what Mr. Hamilton Russell said—

The Act still stands on the Statute Book. Does he agree that this is a true analysis of that Act? The slandering from that side of the House in the outside world continued for many years.

I now come to the hon. member for Durban (North). I want to ask him whether he still agrees with what he said in 1963 about that Act—

I now want to ask him whether he still says that South Africa is a police state. But I want to proceed to what Mr. Hamilton Russell said in 1962.

You are afraid of discussing matters of major policy.

We shall discuss matters of major policy when the various Votes are being discussed. No, we are not afraid of discussing matters of major policy. The trouble with those hon. members is that they are scared to death of their own past. That is their trouble. To continue—

Is this the true picture?

When was that?

In 1962.

Which column?

Hansard, volume 4, column 6204. Go and read it, and bask in the disglory of your past.

To continue, Sir, that is how they fed UNO. I say that it is high time that these younger members learnt what happened in the years before they were here. This is what the United Party said in those years—

Do they still agree?

You were better in Ovamboland, Blaar.

The hon. member must not talk about Ovamboland.

I return to the hon. member who is now walking over to Hansard. He is free to consult it. It will be good for his soul. I now ask him: Does he still agree with what he said in Hansard of 24th May, 1962 (col. 6350), ten days after my birthday? This is what the hon. member for Durban (North) said—

Does he remember that? Does he remember that he accused this Government of passing an Act in this Parliament to hang children? Does he remember that? That is what reached UNO. When those assertions had to be examined by the World Court in the minutest detail, the World Court said, “We are not coming,” and then Ethiopia and Liberia withdrew every charge which they had made against us in regard to South-West Africa. And then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has the audacity, the temerity, the lack of patriotism to say that that hostility is not a result of what they said, but of what this Government did. Is any further evidence necessary to prove that what is happening in the outside world to-day, and what is happening again at this very moment, this ridiculousness, childishness and immorality which is at present the order of the day, is not based on facts? It is not based on what this Government does. It is based on the malice that was stirred up against us, and the malice which was spread by the Opposition over a period of ten, 15 years in every possible way. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am not rising to reply to the discussions in general.

Not to the Deputy Minister either.

I just want to address myself to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, and I want to do so immediately. The hon. member made great play of his honesty and his preciseness. He said yesterday that he would furnish me with the proofs which he had in his possession. He stood up here, produced his so-called proofs and read them out to the House. If I had left the matter at that, because I was waiting for him to send the report to me, and had taken the hon. heard it would have been under the impression that the hon. member had quoted correctly.

But you could have obtained it at any time.

No, Sir, we need not mince matters now; he knows what the relationship between us is. I just want to say to the hon. member now that I am shocked at his conduct.

You were shocked long ago; it does not matter.

Yes, but what shocks me now, is that I shall never again be able to accept that what the hon. member reads from any document is true and correct.

Point out where I misquoted.

I shall call the House to witness, because I have now asked a messenger to fetch me this article from the hon. member which he had in his hand. What is there in this article that the hon. member suppressed? It is here and the House can judge now; they have just heard him.

Where have I misquoted?

I shall tell the hon. member what he suppressed, thereby misleading the House.

I quoted it correctly.

No, Sir. This is what is contained in this article and what the hon. member suppressed with the object of misleading.

What does the headline say?

This is what stands here, and this is what Die Burger says I said (translation)—

This is stated in the article.

Disgraceful!

I continue—

Why does the hon. member mislead the House?

I am not misleading the House; that is quite correct. It does not clash at all.

All that the hon. member read was the headline, which was not taken from my speech …

The main point.

That the hon. member did not read, but the essence of my speech which is contained in this article …

Read it from the beginning.

The hon. member read the headline …

And the report.

No, surely this is an untruth which the hon. member is uttering across the floor of the House.

May I ask the hon. the Prime Minister if he will read the report from the beginning, from the date line?

I shall read it just as the hon. member read it—

That is stated in the report. It is the main point.

That is not what I said; it is the headline which the Burger gave to it. But now I want to say the following to the hon. member. He underlined it in red, but he had it in this same report. Did the hon. member read it?

Of course, but it does not clash at all.

Did the hon. member read that I had said that it was not expected of the world to endorse our policy or even to understand it? I now want to put this question to the hon. member: Why did he deliberately mislead the House by not reading that?

You are misleading the House.

Order! The hon. the Prime Minister may not say that the hon. member deliberately misled the House.

May that hon. member say that the Prime Minister is misleading the House?

He may not say “deliberately”.

He did say it.

No, I say that he is misleading the House.

The hon. member said the Prime Minister was misleading the House. I do not think that hon. members should use such language. The Prime Minister must please withdraw the word “deliberately”.

I willingly obey the Chair and willingly do what you desire of me in this regard. But to me this is the most reprehensible conduct which any member can display—to stand with an article in his hand and yet tell another story to the House, knowing full well what that report contains. I want to conclude by repeating …

You ought to apologize to me.

… that in future I shall take no notice nor attach any truth to anything quoted by that hon. member from any source, unless I have been able to study the document myself in order to ascertain whether what he said is the truth.

The hon. the Prime Minister has on more than one occasion expressed the point of view—therefore not only in that speech, but also in others

Where are they?

The hon. the Prime Minister made several such speeches. However, I do not keep cuttings of each of the hon. the Prime Minister’s speeches. But when I do quote, I quote correctly.

But what about the things you suppress?

Nothing was suppressed, absolutely nothing. The hon. the Prime Minister has said on various occasions that the world should accept us as we are. This does not clash with his statement that the policy he has is “a solution for the world”. There is no clash here whatsoever. But now the hon. the Prime Minister tries to get out of it in a dramatic way. Why does he not get up and tell us exactly what he meant? Surely I am not responsible if he makes contradictory statements. That is his concern. But now hon. members on the opposite side—the hon. member for Cradock, for example—create the impression that I only quoted the headline to the report. No, Sir. I first quoted the headline, which says: “South Africa has a solution for the world, says Mr. Vorster.” But then follows the main point of the report, which is spread over two columns. The main point is not at the bottom of the report. The main point, which the Burger noticed, and which I noticed in several of his speeches, is that he said that the policy which the Government is following at present, is an “answer to the problems of the world”. It has nothing to do with whether he said that the world should accept us as we are—that is something quite different. There is no clash and nothing was suppressed. It is a completely different point. This, then, is the position. Let me tell the hon. the Prime Minister that it will matter very little to me what his attitude is going to be—in fact, not in the slightest. What did the hon. the Prime Minister himself do? He stood here with the Hansard report of a speech which I made a month or so ago. I cannot remember exactly when it was. In any case, the hon. the Prime Minister was not here when I made the speech. I think the speech was about foreign affairs. I asked hon. members on the opposite side to draw the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister to it. In that speech I used precisely the same words as those which appear in the newspaper report. But what did the hon. the Prime Minister do yesterday? He said that I had put words into his mouth, words he had not used at all, and then attacked me sharply.

Japie, you are still just as sly as you were fen years ago.

To-day I came along and proved with chapter and verse that the words I had quoted were the correct words from the report in the Burger. If the hon. the Prime Minister says these words are wrong, then he must quarrel with the Burger. The report in the Burger contains the main point of his speech in Durban. Therefore the attack made by the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday falls away completely. I think the hon. the Prime Minister should apologize to me for saying … [Interjections.] … that I put words into his mouth. After all, I have proved that I did not put any words into his mouth.

You are still just as sly as you were ten years ago.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, do the rules of the House allow the hon. the Minister of Mines and of Planning to say to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that he is still just as sly as he was ten years ago?

Mr. Chairman, if I have to start elaborating on the slyness of the hon. the Minister …

Order! The hon. member may not say that.

But he is saying it of me, Mr. Chairman. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon. the Minister of Mines and of Planning say that the hon. member was still just as sly as he was ten years ago?

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Order! Then the hon. the Minister must withdraw that.

Very well, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member is no longer as sly as he was ten years ago. Interjections.

Order! The Minister must withdraw unconditionally.

I withdraw.

Mr. Chairman …

Order! Now the hon. member must also withdraw the words he used in regard to the hon. the Minister.

I gladly withdraw them, Mr. Chairman. Allow me to say that abuse has never been an argument. The use of abuse has always been a proof of weakness. The people who abuse most are those people who are always hiding behind fig leaves. But, as I said, I think that on account of what has happened, the hon. the Prime Minister owes me an apology, and because it is not forthcoming, I take it that this is just the way he is. He cannot be great and will never be great; he will remain small.

But let me return to what the hon. the Deputy Minister said a few moments ago. I can spend an hour producing one proof after another … Just forget about UNO, which was too spineless to come and take a look. How many other people have not in recent years come to fake a look at the affair here …

What affair? Our beautiful country?

Of course we have a beautiful country, but unfortunately it has a few ugly spots. Just recently no less a person than Sir Alec Douglas-Home visited our country. You must bear in mind that he is a friend of South Africa and that he promised that when his party comes into power again, it will supply weapons to South Africa. What were his impressions? After taking a good look, he had a good deal of praise for the Transkei effort and for what is happening in South-West. But what was the root of his difficulty in connection with South Africa? “The petty apartheid measures, which”, he felt, “led to hardship and cruelty”. This is the impression he took with him. Then there was also Professor Wilhelm Rӧpke, of Switzerland—he was also impressed by the Transkei, but depressed by “petty apartheid”. I have quotations here from what Professor S. P. Cilliers said when he recently returned from the Netherlands—“petty apartheid is shaping the opinion of the Dutch” against South Africa. I now want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister this—and here I can speak from experience to some extent—that when you have to explain South Africa’s policy abroad as it is, you get far when you deal with the idea of decentralization of power between White and Black. As soon as you have finished doing that, however, one question after another is asked about petty apartheid.

What is that?

Separate entrances, for example; race classification, and so forth. And let me tell you now, Mr. Chairman, that if people begin asking those questions, it is a shambles. I cannot use a better word for it. It is a shambles. When representatives of our country have to deal with petty apartheid and have to defend it overseas, the humiliating measures of petty apartheid—separate entrances, for example—their whole argument in favour of South Africa collapses. Then petty apartheid breaks down the whole great principle, the main principle of separate development. Every visitor brought here by the Government, every visitor brought here by the South Africa Foundation … you can begin with Lord Montgomery, who was a personal friend of Dr. Verwoerd, and after that you can pile up witnesses. When they return, they return with certain changed impressions. Usually they are quite impressed by what is being done in the material field for the non-Whites. But time and again the image that breaks South Africa down is the image of petty apartheid.

You have it all over the world.

Well, let us differ on that, but this remains a fact. And I am not the only one to say so. Must I now produce evidence from people on that side? The Burger, for example, has said so; Willem Van Heerden has said so; Dagbreek says so; Dawid de Villiers, the man who made such a great contribution in our behalf at The Hague, said upon his return that changes should be made as regards this petty apartheid. He too recommended that. I now want to say this to the Prime Minister. He cannot render South Africa a greater service. All the Whites in South Africa agree about one thing, and that is that in the long run you cannot maintain white domination, but neither will we ever accept black domination. We must find a solution. In this regard we do not differ on the fundamental principle, but the Prime Minister should appoint a commission consisting of prominent South Africans to see where we can eliminate unnecessary things which only cause irritation and do not solve anything and which have nothing to do with safeguarding the white man and his future, or with the security of the white man, which we are all seeking to establish. That commission must find out how we can get rid of these unnecessary, irritating, humiliating measures so that we may build up South Africa again and give it a decent place in the world community.

The hon member for Bezuidenhout said a moment ago that the hon. the Prime Minister was holding up the policy of apartheid to the world as a solution to their problems as well. This is the charge he made against the Prime Minister. I now want to quote from Hansard, where the hon. member addressed these words to the outside world. I want to quote from his Hansard speech of 31st March, 1955, when he used the following words (Col. 3667-8)—

This is what the hon. member now says the Prime Minister said, and he had said it in his own words in this House, but then he was not yet a member of the United Party; he still had some sense then. Now the hon. member does not want to know anything about apartheid. He now puts forward his federation idea, and I want to quote to you why the hon. member at that stage thought so much of apartheid I want to quote once again from his speech in this House on 31st March, 1955. The hon. member must listen carefully now. It is precisely on these grounds that he rejects the United Party with their policy of integration. He said the following (Col. 3666)—

Remember, this is what his Party wants to do with regard to the urban Bantu He said—

I am reading verbatim from his speech. He said that the first step which the Native would take, if he got a sufficiently large say in the government of the country, would be to exert pressure to have all barriers in the social sphere removed. Then he went on to say—

This, then, is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout who is now sitting there.

Then he was a Nationalist.

The hon. member virtually jumped out of his seat when the hon. the Deputy Minister leveled the accusation at him that the United Party’s speeches in this House and in the country were the main causes of the outside world being against us to-day, and once again I want to quote the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in this regard. I want to quote from a speech he made on 22nd March, 1958. It is a speech which appeared in the Suidwester. At that time I was editor of that newspaper and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout himself wrote this report for me. He said (translation)—

This is what the hon. member said about them, and to-day he says the very reverse. The hon. the Deputy Minister quoted from speeches made by a former member, Mr. Hamilton Russell, and others. I now want to quote a few examples from speeches made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout himself, to show how he has slandered this country and has tried to break a lance for U.N. and other enemies of South Africa. I quote from his speech in Hansard of 26th January, 1961, which is not so long ago.

One can go on reading in this way all week.

Then he said this, and this is how he described the Government of this country (Col. 180)—

I want to ask, where has any other member who is in this House to-day, said anything worse than this about the country which is his fatherland?

About the Government, not the country.

But I want to quote another example. In this speech he specifically echoed the words of U.N, and of the enemies of South Africa and tried to impress them by showing them what a despotic Government this was, what a Gestapo-like Government, as he put it. I quote from Col. 174. He said—

Do you deny that?

He went on to say—

Is that not true?.

This is the hon. member who now piously tries to pose here as a patriotic South African, who used these words with no other object than to slander and blacken his fatherland, South Africa, in the eyes of the outside world, as no other member in this House has ever done. I can only come to the conclusion that we must ignore the hon. member for Bezuidenhout completely in the future when he gets up in this House to speak. We cannot pay attention to an hon. member who has gone so far in slandering this fatherland of ours in the eyes of the outside world. And why did he say these things? Not to try and impress us here, but he used this House, the highest platform in the country, to speak, not to us, but to the outside world. Therefore I say: Let us give the hon. member for Bezuidenhout what he deserves. Let us treat him with contempt; let us ignore him.

I want to come back to the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote and deal with the question of the Dunn family in Zululand, but before I deal with that I should like to make one comment on the speech of the hon. Whip who has just sat down, the hon. member for Middelland, and the speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. Sir, both these hon. gentlemen, …

Made good speeches.

… referred to the besmirching of the good name of South Africa, and then they gave what were alleged to be quotations to that effect. Of course, that is not correct. The quotations were quotations of criticism of the Government, and the Government and South Africa are not the same thing. South Africa is far greater than any political party, and it will outlive the political parties; let us make no mistake about that. Provided it is within the laws and the regulations governing parliamentary debate, we can criticize the Government as sharply as we like, under your guidance, Mr. Chairman, but that is not criticizing South Africa nor is it besmirching the good name of South Africa.

Are we hanging children in this country?

Have you got a law that makes it possible?

May I turn for one moment to the vocal Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. He and the hon. member for Middelland have both got a reputation in this House. I do not know, Sir, whether you have ever slept out under the trees in a great forest when a south-easterly bluster blows up and you hear the wind roaring and blowing amongst the tops of the big trees. Sir, that is the reputation which those two hon. members are getting in this House—the roaring and blowing and wailing and shouting of the wind in the branches of the big trees while we, Sir, curl up in our blanket down below on the ground and let the wind blow. That is what these two hon. member are doing. There is a lot of blowing and huffing and puffing but we stay calm and warm in our blankets down below and to-morrow will be another day and we will get on with the job.

With regard to the Dunn family in Zululand, may I say this. Last year I raised this question again for the nineteenth successive year in Parliament. The hon. the Prime Minister asked me across the floor of the House whether I would give him the date of a certain interview which had taken place between the then Secretary for Coloured Affairs and a Deputy Minister of the Department of Bantu Administration. I did my best to get the exact date, and possibly further action was taken by the hon. the Prime Minister; I do not know; I was not informed on the point, but I do know that the Department of Bantu Administration have interested themselves in the matter, and I do know that the Department of Coloured Affairs have interested themselves. But, Sir, the matter must not rest there. The amount of interest that has been taken is quite inadequate. I am concerned, as I said last year, with my own personal honour because I gave my pledged word to the Coloured people for the good name and the good faith of the Government, and I took that from the then under-Secretary for Bantu Administration and the then Secretary for Coloured Affairs. They are both alive and they are both in Government service to-day and they can be called by the Prime Minister to come and testify whether or not what I say is true; they were there. They told me that I could pledge the good name and the word of the Government that the promise which had been made would be carried out. Sir, that is now nearly seven or eight years ago and nothing has been done. But, Sir, I want to go further because I have had a further chance to go deeper into the matter. Some 26 or 27 years ago Parliament passed an Act in terms of which a settlement was arrived at and surveys of land for the Dunn families were carried out. The surveys were carried out and the deeds were prepared. All that was necessary was to lodge the diagrams and then the Dunns could have taken the necessary steps to take possession of their land. But the diagrams were never issued. I cannot lay that at the door of this Government. It was not this Government. There was a United Party Government in power when the law was passed and when the surveys were carried out. But, Sir, I have for 20 years drawn the attention of this Government to the fact that the diagrams are lying there waiting to be issued. But what this Government did do was this: Six years ago it brought this matter before the Select Committee on Native Affairs, as it was then known, and it brought a resolution before this House for the excision of the land on which the Dunns are living. That resolution was passed by this House and the Senate in terms of the Act; there was therefore an excision of the land on which the Dunns were living so that it could be given to them and there was the acquisition of further land, in exchange for the land on which the Dunns are living, and that additional land was to be added to the scheduled native areas in terms of the Act. A minute then went to the Executive Council and was duly signed by the Governor-General of the day and all that was necessary was a proclamation in the Gazette to give effect to it, but that proclamation, under this Government, seven years ago, was not issued. The documents are all there. What authority there is for holding up a proclamation when it has been signed by the Governor-General I do not know, but the fact is that apparently it was never done. Sir, we talk about broken pledges; we talk about pledges and understandings between white and non-white; we talk about the promises that the white man gives to the Coloured man. I said last year that these people had been patient throughout the years—patient and patient and patient. They accept in a responsible manner the excuses that are made for the delay but, Sir, how long does this go on? What white group would continue like this, with the diagrams lying in the Deeds Office for 26 years and when Parliament decided six or seven years ago that that land was to be given to them? Sir, this is a matter which is now in the hands of Parliament. It is no longer in the hands of a Minister of Bantu Administration or in the hands of the Minister of Coloured Affairs. When Parliament passed that resolution excising that land and agreeing to the inclusion of other land in the scheduled native area, that was the end of the matter so far as the departments were concerned; they had done their stuff and Parliament took action, and Parliament has never had its law carried out; it has never been put into effect. Sir, I appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister please to bring pressure to bear to see that the promise made to the Dunn family is carried out. That is all I ask. They have waited a long time and they have waited patiently.

Sir, I would like to move on briefly to another matter and that is this question of the independence of the Bantu homelands. The hon. the Prime Minister evaded the question yesterday. I was interested in the remarks made by our mutual friend, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. [Interjections.] Yes, our friend. He was very cross with me the other day when I read out here from Hansard. I thought of reproaching him with it to-day but, Sir, I will not do that; that might be heaping coals of fire on his head because I know that he respects me and believes every word I say.

Does that Hansard from which you were going to quote date back to the days when I spoke the same folly as you do to-day?

Sir, let me accept that as a plea of mea culpa by the Deputy Minister that he has been guilty in the past of speaking folly? Do not let us take it any further than that; do not let us bring in another person, even if it is my own innocent self; we may be taking it too far. I do not to-day run in double harness with the hon. the Deputy Minister, not even in regard to folly.

Mr. Chairman, the point that I want to make in regard to this question of independence of the Bantu homelands is this: When I see the administrative work of the Deputy Minister, I begin to wonder whether the Bantu are deliberately being excluded from employment in the white areas. Let me repeat that: I wonder whether the Government policy is to exclude Bantu from employment in the white areas?

No.

The Deputy Minister says “no”. I am very pleased to hear that, because I was going to ask whether that is the policy on the assumption that the Bantu homelands are to get independence? Sir, we want the non-Whites—the Bantu, the Coloureds and the Indians—as much as we want our own labouring class to keep up the economy of South Africa. I think sometimes hon. members opposite forget that our military strength is due to our economic strength. Take away our economic strength and our military strength is nothing. We have to keep economically powerful if we are going to keep militarily powerful, and military power to-day is a very powerful factor indeed. Whatever the reason may be—and I suppose it is natural—military power is being held up in the world to-day as the big thing. I want to suggest to the Deputy Minister that he clarify the position with regard to the employment of Bantu from the reserves in our white urban areas. The position of the Bantu coming into our white urban areas is being made completely intolerable because of the number of regulations that they have to comply with. It is becoming an impossible situation. It is almost impossible for a Native who has been employed in a certain position perhaps for years and years and who has interchanged with another man from the tribe who comes to take his place when he goes off on holiday—a very common procedure—to get his job back.

No.

Yes, that is definitely the case. The hon. the Deputy Minister shakes his head. I wonder whether he would consult with me and we can have a small inquiry into specific cases so that we can bring the facts of the suffering of individual Bantu who are trying to keep their jobs.

Mr. Chairman, in the course of my speech I shall return to a few of the arguments used by the hon. member for South Coast. However, I first want to return to the accusation which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made here and which he has made repeatedly both in this House and outside, i.e. that petty apartheid is responsible for South Africa’s unpopularity abroad. Now I should like to ask him: What is petty apartheid? Is petty apartheid separate trains, is it separate transport facilities for Whites and non-Whites? Is it separate entrances at post offices? Is this petty apartheid? Are the separate group areas and residential areas which are being established for the various races in this country, is residential apartheid petty apartheid? Are these the things to which that side is objecting? Are separate universities petty apartheid? All these things were opposed by that side. They fought these measures tooth and nail. That side opposed all the measures which have brought these things into being in this country. They do not want to say what the petty apartheid is they are talking about. I am asking, are these things petty apartheid? This is the falsest kind of opposition to a policy that I have ever heard of, namely if one uses an argument one cannot substantiate. If one says that petty apartheid is so bad and that it causes unpopularity and enmity abroad, surely one should be able to say what it is. But that side does not tell us what petty apartheid is. If they are against all these things, if these are the things that are making us so unpopular, if these are the things that are so wrong, if these are the things they are so much against, they must tell us. Let them tell us whether they would do away with these things should they come into power. What is their policy in regard to all these things? What is their policy as regards these things which they call petty apartheid?

If one pins down the United Party to any particular point and one starts questioning them about specific points which they only want to make in a general way, they react like dead sphinxes; they refuse to react at all. Even the hon. member for Durban (Point), who loves fighting back and making interjections very much, simply refuses to reply to one single question, because they dare not do this, because they want to pander to both sides. They want to seek popularity in the outside world, because the outside world also criticizes these things. Instead of defending South Africa, instead of telling the outside world why these things are being done, why it is necessary for these things to be done, they condemn these things when they are abroad. But when they are in South Africa, where these things are accepted by all the race groups and where they are expected and demanded by all the Whites, and by their supporters as well, they simply refuse to admit their opposition to these things. Here they refuse to say that they are against these things. When they come to Swellendam, they criticize the National Party and say that the National Party is doing this sort of thing which they condemn outwardly, these things which they say are making us unpouplar abroad and are creating enmity against us abroad. They condemn these things at Swellendam and say these are things which the Government is doing. They want to pander to all sides. There is another petty apartheid item to which I should like to have their reaction, namely separate Voters’ Rolls. Are separate Voters’ Rolls also a petty apartheid measure? Is that side against separate Voters’ Rolls? Surely this is also a creation of this Government? Are they against separate Voters’ Rolls?

When did you create separate Voters’ Rolls? When were the first separate Voters’ Rolls drawn up?

These hon, members raise arguments and criticize the Government here. Well, if they criticize the Government and its measures, they must also be prepared to accept the implications of their criticism. At the United Party Congress in the Transvaal the year before last, when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said many unsavouring things, he said, inter alia, the following—

This is his view and his defence of the race federation policy. They can accommodate the aspirations of all the races in their policy. Then they must also accept the implications thereof. There is another point of view of the United Party which is very clear and the implications of which they will also have to accept. I refer to an article which one of their prominent figures wrote and in which he said, inter alia, the following, in contrast with the policy of the Government—

If they want to use this as an argument, they must simply say whether it is their policy to train non-white and Bantu labour in this country to occupy the same positions as the white worker. The second point this author makes is as follows—

I now ask the following question. If they blame our policy of apartheid for an infrastructure having to be created in the Bantu homelands, for roads, transport and other facilities having to be provided, do they intend not to create this sort of infrastructure? Is it their policy not to develop the Bantu homelands, but to leave them as they are? They must not blame the Government for incurring expenditure as a result of its policy, they must not hold it responsible for the expenditure involved in creating the infrastructure in the homelands. The third point the author makes is as follows—

The hon. member for South Coast told us a moment ago how important it was to any country in the world to have a strong military force. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Winburg spent a great deal of time attacking the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in regard to the term “petty apartheid” he had used. The foreigner who comes to South Africa to examine the position for himself cannot understand petty apartheid. The hon. member wanted examples of petty apartheid. If a man comes from another country and lands at Jan Smuts Airport, the first man who takes his case away for him, is a Bantu. But when he travels by train from Johannesburg to Cape Town and he arrives in Cape Town, the man who does the porterage on the platform is a White. If he then asks why the man who took his case on the station is not also a Bantu, he must be told that it is as a result of job reservation. I do not want to speak against or for job reservation as such. Of course a measure of job reservation has to be applied, but that a white person must carry around cases on a station is nonsense. This is petty apartheid.

All right, put the lid back on.

I am astonished that the hon. the Minister of Defence talks about the lid. Perhaps the House does not know that he was also one mof the senior officers of the Ossewa Brandwag. I am just as little ashamed of that as he is. It is time that the House also knew that he was a senior officer of the Ossewa Brandwag.

I should like to return to the statement the hon. the Prime Minister made yesterday when he replied to the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition when he contrasted the one policy with the other. We must make no mistake about this. This is the most deep-rooted difference there is between the members of the United Party and the members of the Government party. This situation will remain as long as the Government pursues the policy of having a multi-racial country together with the establishment of sovereign, independent states. Both these aspects form part of the Government’s policy. It is a multi-racial country plus sovereign, independent states. I noticed yesterday that the hon. the Prime Minister and certain hon. members began to shy away from this matter of independent Bantustans. The hon. the Prime Minister said, and I am quoting his words as far as possible, that every hon. member who gets up on the Opposition side condemns apartheid. This is not true.

Are you in favour of apartheid now?

It is no use asking me whether we are in favour of apartheid. Since when do we condemn the development of the Bantu areas? We on this side of the House are the people who have pleaded for that, and are still doing so. Heaven knows for how long we have been pleading for the better and more rapid development of the Bantu areas. But we go even further than that. The hon. member for Winburg also mentioned this. He said that we had always condemned separate residential areas for the non-Whites. Since when are we doing this? This is not true. We are the people who stand for that. We stand for social separation among the various groups. [Interjections.] It is not petty apartheid if one says that the people must not be integrated socially. It is no use accusing this side of the House of standing for integration. Then we can just as well accuse that side of the House by saying that as long as they pursue this policy of establishing sovereign, independent Bantustans, they are not acting in the interests of South Africa. But we must not make a mistake in this connection. A promise is an inexorable thing, and they have been promised this. It is no use saying that they will get sovereign independence if and when they are ready for it. It is no use saying that the timing rests only with that side and this Parliament. This is not true. We are already seeing how the Prime Minister of the Transkei, Mr. Kaiser Matanzima, is pleading for the white cities there. He also wants the administration of the University of Fort Hare, and a large number of other things. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education has kicked up so much dust already that he must sit still now for a while. The large smoke-screen which he put up a moment ago to get away from the question of these independent Bantustans will be of no avail. He may get up ten times more in this debate and put up such smoke-screens, and it still will not help him any. This Government must tell us how they are going to handle independent Bantustans and a multi-racial state. The hon. member for Middelland said that if independent states were created, there would be good neighbourliness among them and us. He also said that the European states were getting along so well with one another. But then they must tell us whether all those states in Europe have ever stood together in a world war. They have not. They separated from one another. One chose this side, and the other that. They fought each other inexorably. Does the hon. member for Middelland have any reason to think that the same situation will not develop here? Where there will be all these Bantu states and the one white state, if one can call it a white state, will all of them ever stand together in a world conflict? For what reason do we think that they will all stand together? It is easy to ask why the Opposition thinks this will be a breeding ground for Communism when we have such good relations with the protectorates, some of which are now independent. But what will the position be if a world conflict breaks out? Will they be on our side? What makes anybody think that they will ever be all on our side? It is all very well as long as they have not their independence.

The hon. the Prime Minister will have to tell us in this or in another debate …

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question? What makes the hon. member think that those Bantu states will not stand by South Africa?

Mr. Chairman, I shall use the same example which another hon. member has used. The eight or ten countries in Western Europe have never yet succeeded in doing this, and all of them are white—They never yet all stood together in a world conflict. What makes that hon. member think that black, white and coloured states will stand together if there is a world conflict? Surely this cannot be. No reasonable person will argue like this.

But I want to return to the point the hon. the Prime Minister made yesterday. He spoke of a multi-racial country, with the races at various levels of development. He asked how we would maintain the position if the non-Whites developed to the stage where they could also demand rights. For two centuries the Whites were on a much higher level of development than the non-Whites all over the world. But over the past few decades circumstances have changed so much, and the Whites have developed so rapidly, that after two decades the Whites have developed two centuries ahead of the non-Whites. What makes us think that over the next ten decades the Bantu will have attained the same level of development as the Whites? Do we not have more confidence in the development of the Whites and their science, than this? Will they not develop much more rapidly? How can we put forward the argument that once the non-Whites attain the level of development which the Whites have attained, they will overtake the Whites and will no longer be satisfied with this kind of representation? Speaking of this kind of representation, I want to say that this was the Prime Minister’s criticism of the policy of the United Party. This was his criticism of a federal idea with representation in this Parliament for the non-Whites by Whites. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin where the hon. member left off, namely with this story of so-called development, that the non-White is lagging behind and that he will never overtake the white man. I want to begin with that and I want to ask the hon. member quite specifically whether he regards the black African states as states which have caught up with the Whites in development or not. Has the black man in Ghana and Nigeria reached the level of development of the white man or not?

No, he has not reached it.

And yet the world gave those non-Whites, although they had not reached that level, full independence, absolute freedom and complete control of those countries, and the Whites were withdrawn from there. In other words, development as such can mean that one develops spiritually, scientifically and otherwise, but it bears no relation to the political franchise, to the right to draw a little cross. If you get the franchise, you are not asked whether you are a doctor or an ordinary non-White. Each vote has precisely the same value. The moment you give the black man the franchise, it no longer makes any difference whether the Whites are ahead of him in development or not. In other words, the whole story that he will remain behind as far as development is concerned falls away altogether. It seems to me as if this is the foundation stone on which the United Party is building its new policy; the foundation stone is that the black man will remain behind for ever. I now ask hon. members: Will the world, and will the black man of Africa and of South Africa, be satisfied if we say that he must remain behind permanently? Whether he remains behind scientifically or spiritually makes no difference, but politically he must remain behind the white man permanently, even though his brothers in Africa at the same level of development are free, even though they vote on an equal basis, even though they have their own government. “You in South Africa,” the United Party says to him, “must always remain behind the white man, also in this field. You will never become my equal, not politically either. Nowhere will you obtain freedom either.” Can the Opposition build their whole theme, their whole essential policy, on so foolish an understanding? It is quite unthinkable.

I should like to deal with the second argument of the hon. member for East London (City), namely the question of the independence or the sovereignty of the Bantu homelands which we have in mind. I want to make it quite clear to the hon. member that we as a party have adopted the attitude that those black people will develop in their own area at the rate which they are capable of, gradually and step by step, and that they will have to show that they possess the necessary responsibility to reach that stage, but that just as the British Government eventually had to decide to grant South Africa a status equal to its own in the dominion laws—the British Parliament in London had to pass those laws before they could come into force here—so we in this Parliament will have to approve of and agree to the Transkei obtaining its free independence. In other words, what will be applicable here is identical to the situation which developed in respect of Britain. But I want to go further and say to the hon. member that we are not afraid of the fact that black states are being created on our borders. I want to make that clear. We believe that as a result of wise statesmanship, as has been proved up to now, the friendliest relations exist and we believe that it will remain like that. But let me give the hon. member the full benefit of the doubt and accept that the black states on our borders are going to develop as hostile states seeking our downfall all the time. Then I also want to ask him: If it would be that black man’s tendency to become hostile towards the Whites, to become communistically inspired, if that is inherent in him—and I am now giving the hon. member the benefit of the doubt—surely it would also be inherent in him if he obtained a say here in white South Africa in his own way and according to United Party policy and displayed certain tendencies here? It would be twice as bad. In other words, here he would still have the grievance of having been wronged in the sense of having only a few representatives here, while there his ideals could be fully realized. In other words, I would then have to choose. And I ask the hon. member: What is the alternative? What would it mean if the black man attained full development in his own area and should become hostile, or if he should become completely hostile here? It would mean that, while we now have black states on our borders which may be hostile, we would in terms of their policy have hostility within this Parliament and within the Republic of South Africa, throughout the length and breadth of the country.

They want to nourish a serpent in their bosom.

I want to present it by means of an image.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I just want to complete my image, and then the hon. member can put a question if there is still time. I want to explain this by means of an image, because the hon. member apparently does not understand it yet. If I have to choose between a vicious and angry black bull seeking my downfall and wanting to kill me, but which is on the other side of a fence, where a boundary has been drawn, and a black mamba in my own bosom, which lives with me, which I carry in my own bosom every day, and which bites me whenever it suits it, then I will choose the black bull on the other side of the fence a hundred times rather than the black mamba in my bosom. The United Party policy means having a black mamba in the bosom of the Whites for all time. What is more, the United Party provokes the mamba too. It teases the mamba morning, noon and night by saying to it: “You can get certain rights in your area, but in this kind of super-parliament which we are going to have here, you are going to have a limited number of representatives. You are never going to be represented there according to your numbers. Because you are underdeveloped and can never become my equal, since I am superior as a White, you are never going to become my equal and will therefore always remain in the background.” That is a hundred times more a fertile breeding-ground for a malicious communistic attitude than our policy.

But in the last few minutes I want to return to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I think it is necessary that I get at the hon. member for Bezuidenhout a little.

Come back to the question of the Coloured homeland.

What question must I return to?

The Coloured homelands.

The hon. member need not try and pretend that we have been brought up short by the question of Coloured homelands. I want to make it quite clear that it is not at present the policy of the party that there will be Coloured homelands. The Prime Minister has made this very clear. But the Prime Minister also said very clearly that there was nothing wrong in thinking in that direction. In other words, it is quite in order for us to think in that direction. In future we shall have to think about it once again.

I want to return to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said here a few moments ago that overseas he was faced with the problem, among others, and that he always comes up against it, of defending “petty apartheid” abroad. Let me say at the very outset: I was with the hon. member overseas and he did not try to defend “petty apartheid” once. The hon. member went much further overseas. I think it necessary for this House to know two things which the hon. member said there. Fortunately I once again have a witness. I can also call the hon. member himself to witness. On a certain occasion the late Dr. Verwoerd and the attitude which he adopted were discussed. I mention this purposely to show how “loyal” that hon. member as a South African was towards South Africa abroad. While Dr. Verwoerd and the attitude which he had adopted at the Commonwealth Conference in 1961 were being discussed, the hon. member said: “It seems to me as if there are persons here who are under the impression that Dr. Verwoerd came to the Commonwealth Conference in 1961 to make a real attempt to keep South Africa in the Commonwealth. This is not the case. Dr. Verwoerd came to the Commonwealth Conference with the specific intention of taking South Africa out of the Commonwealth and he waited for an opportunity. When the opportunity presented itself, he used it as a God-given (this very word was used by the hon. member) opportunity and took South Africa out of the Commonwealth.” Then one of the English-speaking guests interjected: “That was not the impression we received; we were under the impression that Dr. Verwoerd had come here with the honest intention of keeping South Africa in the Commonwealth.” Then these dreadful words were uttered by that hon. member, which I think South Africa should now take note of, so that they may know whom they have to deal with in the person of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He said: “You must remember Dr. Verwoerd was the biggest bluffer South Africa has ever produced.”

Disgraceful!

I now want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself.

It is untrue!

That hon. member says it is untrue. I have a witness who was present, and if the hon. member wants to be honest with his own conscience and not walk round-here with a pink-washed soul, it is time he admitted that it is so. He said that Dr. Verwoerd was the biggest bluffer that South Africa had ever produced. Therefore I now want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition if he too agrees with the hon. member that Dr. Verwoerd was the greatest “bluffer” South Africa had ever produced. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am surprised that the hon. member for Randfontein raised the question of the British in Africa, and the British Parliament granting independence in Africa, because I think he knows one lesson that that taught us in this country. That is that once you have promised independence to somebody you find it very difficult to withhold it. Once you have promised it and the people demand it, it is very difficult to withhold it without using force. When it comes to the point that nationalism, which you have produced there and formed there in the form of a promise of their own nationhood demand their own sovereignty, it is very difficult to maintain the position without force, if you do not give it to them because you do not feel that they should have it. That is precisely what is happening to the north of us. That is the lesson that we have to learn here. If the hon. member is going to be logical, as he was as far as his own thoughts were concerned, he must realize that one must be able to say to all your people and all your separate groups that they are free. If you do not say this the people may look around them and find that all the other people are free. You therefore have to be logical, and you have to have for the Coloured people a Colouredstan. You then have to have for the Coloured people a homeland which can also develop a sovereignty. I appreciate that this is what the hon. member says. His whole argument, however, was knocked to the ground by the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday, who said that it was all right for “jong lede”. They can talk about this sort of thing. It is good for “jong lede” to talk about it, but as far as he was concerned, it is not a practical proposition. Speaking about the Coloured people and the Coloured representatives that are about to disappear from this House, I want to go back to what the hon. the Prime Minister said yesterday. The hon. the Prime Minister said, in effect, that he is following the same logical pattern that the Nationalist Party has always followed. He said that the whole question of Dr. Verwoerd being at variance with the policy that he is following now was not in fact so. Dr. Verwoerd was not at that moment thinking of it and he never said that they would remain where they were forever. He said that the position would be reviewed when the Coloured Representative Council was set up. I think that that fairly sums it up.

I quoted that from Hansard.

That is so. I want to remind the hon. the Prime Minister of something that I do not think he is aware of, because he was not here when this matter was raised previously. That is that when the Coloured Representative Council itself was being debated in this House during the second-reading, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said in his speech …

Did he quote from a document when he spoke?

No. I am now quoting from a document. I am quoting Hansard. What he said was this—

He is speaking of the Coloured Representatives—

That Minister was the present hon. Minister for Defence—

The hon. the Prime Minister is a lawyer. He will appreciate that words like this have meaning—

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout then said—

Surely this cannot be clearer. It is a solemn assurance that they will be a permanent part. This was at the very time that the principle of the Bill was being discussed, a Bill which it is now claimed by this hon. Prime Minister is to take the place of the right to have Coloured Representatives. So that there can be no doubt I want to quote what the hon. the Minister for Coloured Affairs, now the Minister for Defence, said …

What is your reference?

The reference of my first quotation is 1964 Hansard, vol. 10, col. 4175 and 4176. This quotation is from the same volume, column 4352. In reply to the debate—just to make sure that there is no mistake about what I have just read—the hon. Minister for Coloured Affairs said—

Surely that is as clear as a bell. The hon. the Minister of Defence knows what words mean and the late Prime Minister also knew the value of words. This hon. Prime Minister, more so because he is a lawyer, knows what those words mean. They mean what they say when they said “permanent part”. The Coloured Representatives have now gone, or are in the process of going. The Bill was passed in this House.

The hon. the Prime Minister says that be is going to set up some sort of liaison between Parliament and the Coloured Representative Council in place of the hon. members that are sitting here. I want to draw the hon. the Prime Minister’s attention to a matter which we have raised before and to which we did not get a reply. This is the question, and I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will give me his attention: If he is going to set up a “skakelkomitee” between Parliament and the Coloured Representative Council, in place of the Coloured Representatives here, I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister what he is going to do about the senators appointed in terms of section 29 (2) (b) of the Constitution. This provides that when appointing senators—

Here you have the extraordinary situation that in so far as this most important House is concerned, the Coloured Representatives are to go altogether. We are not to have the benefit of direct contact with the Coloured people. It is to be through a committee of some sort with the Coloured Representative Council. But, when it comes to the Senate, we have senators, appointed by the Government to act as the channel for the promotion of the Coloured people’s interests in the Senate. Not “a” channel, but “the” channel for the promotion of their interests. This situation is ludicrous. When we raised this matter with the hon. the Minister of the Interior he dismissed it and said that there was nothing to worry about; they are just Government-appointed senators. That was not very complimentary, but nevertheless, that was his attitude and the effect of it. But this is important. Is that provision in the Constitution going to remain? If it is going to remain we would like to know what the function of the senators is going to be. We would also like to know why it is that senators may promote the interests of the Coloured people directly in the Senate, but we may not have anyone in this House who can promote the interests of the Coloured people here.

You know of course that the one vacancy in the Senate was not filled?

Yes, that was the vacancy in terms of the Separate Representation of Voters Act. That is a different Act. That is a senator who was appointed because of his knowledge of the wants and wishes in terms of the Separate Representation of Voters Act. That was senator Olivier who died about two years ago and who was never replaced. The interesting thing is that that senator, in terms of the Separate Representation of Voters Act, was not required to act as the channel for the promotion of their interests. These senators are specifically charged with the duty of acting as the channel by our South African Constitution. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Durban (North) has once again, as several hon. members opposite have done, spoken about assurances allegedly given to the Coloureds by this side of the House, but if I were a member of the United Party, I would have been ashamed of talking about the assurances that were given by other people. When it comes to running away from assurance previously given, there is nobody to touch the United Party. They gave the Coloureds the assurance that they would never run away from the common voters’ roll, yet they did run away from it.

When did we run away from that?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also leveled this accusation. He says that under the new Prime Minister a change of policy has become evident. This charge we have been hearing for many years. The accusation leveled at the late Dr. Malan was that as far as colour policy was concerned, he had run away from General Hertzog. Adv. Strijdom was accused by the Opposition of having run away from Dr. Malan. Dr. Verwoerd was charged with the same thing. In spite of these ridiculous accusations leveled by the United Party, I want to state the fact to-day that what we are now doing with Coloured representation in this Parliament is continuous, like a golden thread running through our policy since we came to power in 1948. I want to concede that it came sooner than I expected, but why did it come sooner? It came sooner then any of us on this side of the House expected, but why did it come sooner? What happened? There has been that unsavoury interference in Coloured politics on the part of the Progressive Party. Now the late Dr. Verwoerd’s name is continuously being dragged into this matter, and it is being claimed that he gave assurances and that he would not have abolished Coloured representation here. I maintain that if Dr. Verwoerd had lived—and I knew him well, better than anybody opposite did—and he had had to introduce that legislation which was before the House, the legislation relating to political interference, which is legislation he initiated, we would have had the same position. I maintain that if Dr. Verwoerd had been alive and the Leader of the Opposition had gone to see him as he did with the hon. the present Prime Minister, and if a Select Committee had been appointed, as was done, exactly the same thing would have happened. What right has the United Party to lay any claim to Dr. Verwoerd’s words? I also want to remind them of something else. In 1959, when there was talk of allowing Coloureds to enter this Parliament—there was even talk of that in some National Party circles—Dr. Verwoerd convened the Federal Council of the National Party. Subsequent to that he issued an official statement on behalf of the Party, and he said that as far as the National Party was concerned, Coloureds would never have seats in this Parliament. What has the United Party done now? Last year they allowed their congress to decide that Coloureds should be represented by Coloureds in this Parliament—they did accept a separate roll, though. I maintain further that if Dr. Verwoerd had still been alive to-day, exactly the same thing would have happened as has happened now. Coloured representation would have been removed from this House, because as we all knew him, he would not have allowed the United Party to continue with this unsavoury propaganda amongst the Coloureds, i.e. that they would permit them to have seats in the Parliament of the Whites. It is largely for this reason that I agree wholeheartedly that Coloured representation in this Parliament should be removed.

Your facts are wrong.

That is absolutely wrong.

It is quite right that they had that old resolution, but on the basis of the common roll, and on the common roll not one single Coloured person ever had any hope of getting here.

I want to say this to-day. I have been listening to these debates for many years, because in the years during which I was an organizer, I was interested and I always sat in the gallery in order to listen when the Prime Minister’s Vote was under discussion. Now I want to say that this is the poorest debate I have yet listened to, and the Leader of the Opposition himself is the culprit. He reminds me of what Dr. Malan once said about Adv. Strauss, namely that a tortoise never grew bigger than its shell. What have we had in this session? We have had an overdose of colour policy. The Opposition used the no-confidence debate for that purpose. They used the Budge debate for that purpose. They conducted a five-day debate on the report of the commission of inquiry on the Coloureds. That report gave rise to three pieces of legislation which we discussed in this House. As regards this discussion which is in progress now, after we have had this overdose of Coloured affairs, considering the state of world affairs in which South Africa’s position is that of a spearhead, one cannot believe that this discussion is not taking place on a different level. In the world to-day there are disturbances which affect South Africa, but instead of throwing the spotlight on them, the Opposition is doing its level best to create disturbances in South Africa. Why are these debates being conducted? In order to arise racial feelings in South Africa. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition laughs. He has no mandate from the Coloureds or from the Bantu population to act here as he is doing. The Coloureds are the most taciturn section of any population in the world. The fact of the matter is that the entire Coloured population agrees to-day with what this Government is doing.

Let them vote.

The United Party has no mandate to act here as the mouthpiece of the Coloured population. [Time expired.]

We have had a lot of inaccurate historians giving us their views in this debate to-day and yesterday, and the hon. member who has just sat down is a classic example of this. I leave aside the fact that he did not even know that the official Opposition had as its policy the principle of Coloured people representing Coloureds as long ago as 1960, when Dr. Verwoerd was still alive, and therefore there would have been no change in Dr. Verwoerd’s attitude because, as he said, the United Party had changed to the principle of Coloured faces in Parliament last year at its Congress. That is the first of the inaccuracies that we have had to listen to. He also informed us that the whole of the Coloured group accepts unequivocally everything that this Government is doing for them, and other hon. members, including the hon. the Prime Minister, made that assertion during this debate. Well, he may be right and I may be wrong when I say that they do not accept what the Government is doing for them, but there is a very easy way of putting it to the test. Let us have a little by-election in Boland to fill the vacant seat for the Coloured Representative who would have sat here until at least 1971, and then let us see whether or not the Coloured people accept or do not accept what the Government is doing for them. Let us put it to the test. Or if they do not like the Voters’ Roll, let us have a referendum on a universal franchise basis, because after all this Government has introduced the principle of universal franchise for the Coloured Council. So let us have a referendum on the universal franchise basis, leaving aside the existing Voters’ Rolls, and let us see whether the adult Coloured men and women throughout South Africa accept what this Government is going to do for them, and we will soon see who is right and who is wrong.

Now let me have a word or two with the hon. member for Randfontein who has also given us examples of history to prove his point. He may have been a teacher, but heaven help his students because he has not learned one lesson from the post-war history in Africa, and in fact from the post-war-history of the world. He advances colonialism, absolutely broad colonialism. South Africa is the colonial power over the Bantustans. That is the concept he has advanced. He tells us, and the noisy Deputy Minister tells us over and over again, that we will give independence to those Bantustans not when they ask for it but when we, or rather when the Nationalist Party, the Government of South Africa, thinks they should have it. Every single example in the post-war history of the world has revealed that not a single colonial power can maintain itself in its colonial possessions if the colonial peoples demand their independence. Does the hon. member for Randfontein or the hon. the Deputy Minister seriously think that Britain would have left India had it been possible to retain that prize jewel in its Crown? Do they think that England would voluntarily have left Kenya if it had not been impossible to maintain those colonial possessions except by force of arms, which is untenable in the post-war world? That is the point. It is untenable that white people maintain their sovereignty over African people or Indian people or Coloured people by force of arms. Does he think that Belgium would have surrendered the Congo with its vast resources of copper, uranium and other minerals if it had not been forced to do so, if it had not known that in order to retain the Congo it could only do so by sending battalions of soldiers from Belgium? Does the hon. member think that France would have surrendered Algeria unless it had to? My argument is that no more can the South African Government, if the Bantustans seriously demand their independence as the colonial outposts of this Government, refuse to grant them that independence, except by the use of arms. Is this Government prepared to use force of arms? I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister that question, because when he says, “We will only give them independence when we think the time is ripe for it,” then he will only be able to carry that out if he uses force of arms.

Fortunately our homelands will not listen to your stupidity.

The hon. the Deputy Minister must not try to crawl out of his difficulty with his absolutely silly, adolescent arguments. Let him answer my question; let him not be adolescent. [Interjections.] He is a very noisy Minister and he does not improve his image, such as it is, with these childish interjections. Sir, I am glad to see that the hon. member for Primrose is back. The hon. member had some interesting things to say. He told us that South Africa was the only country in the world, except Britain, that had managed a peaceful transition from a rural to an industrial economy. I hope I am quoting his deathless words correctly.

Yes.

I am glad to hear that. Well, he is absolutely right.

Of course I am right.

Wait a minute, I have not finished with the hon. member yet. Britain is one of the few examples of a peaceful transition from a rural to an industrial economy, but does he not know what happened in Britain throughout the whole of the 19th century? Britain voluntarily made the necessary concessions to the working classes.

That is exactly what we are doing now.

No, that is exactly what we are not doing. Has the hon. member never heard of the Reform Acts.

Of course.

Does he not know that Britain gave the franchise to the working proletariat in the areas where they lived and worked, not in the rural areas that they had left? They were given the franchise in the urban areas where they came to live. Does he not know that Britain gave the workers collective bargaining and trade union rights, and that Britain improved the conditions of the working classes by means of emancipation and reform? That is not what this Government is doing here. This Government is not granting political rights in the urban areas to which the African proletariat, our corresponding working classes, have emigrated from the rural areas, on the basis on which Britain introduced her Reform Acts. The hon. member needs to learn his history a little better before he comes and reads these highly inaccurate history lessons to us in this Parliament. Both he and the hon. the Prime Minister have repeatedly said in this debate that everything is peaceful in South Africa. They said that we had law and order here. I believe that they are sincere about this. They actually believe that we have peace and order because the non-white people of this country accept, enjoy and approve of what is being done to them. They have not the slightest conception apparently that the peace and order that this country is enjoying at the present stage is peace under duress. There is peace because there is no alternative for these people. They have no vote whereby they can register any disagreement with what the Government is doing. They have no political organizations which mean anything because the Government has deliberately, step by step, smashed every political organization amongst them, including the multi-racial organizations such as the Progressive Party which will lose its multi-racial character under duress. Or does the hon. member think that we approve of what is being done? Does he know that every time any African or Coloured or Indian opens his mouth on a political issue he is visited by Major Rossouws’ boys of the Special Branch—I am sorry, I demoted him yesterday, I referred to him as a captain—or by a member of the Special Branch of the Minister of Police and that warnings are issued and intimidation is carried out?

That is not true.

Is this acceptance and approval of this policy? Of course it is not, and hon. members bluff themselves if they believe that that is so. They bluff themselves if they think that the Indians of Fordsburg have enjoyed being moved out of their businesses and residential areas; that the Coloured people of District Six enjoy being moved out of District Six to Bonteheuwel and the wastes of the Cape Flats; if they think that the African people enjoy being moved from their homes in Meran to Limehill, and if they think that the Africans sitting in gaol under the pass laws are enjoying what this Government is doing to them. It does not need me to tell these people that they are not enjoying these things; it is obvious to them because they as individuals are suffering as a result of what this Government is imposing on them. Sir, I understand what “baasskap” means; I fully understand the philosophy of “basskap”; the philosophy of self-preservation, the law of the jungle, the law of the survival of the fittest and all the rest of it, but what I cannot stand is the hypocrisy that goes with all this. Hon. members opposite bluff themselves that the non-white people accept and approve of these things. I know that that is not so.

How do you know?

Because every week letters reach my desk from people who are suffering under these laws. [Time expired.]

This afternoon the hon. member for Houghton once again went out of her way to tell the world how badly things were going for the non-Whites in South Africa.

As if they do not know!

She nods her head; she agrees with this. I think it is a disgrace that this is happening in these times, in these times while Black people and other people beyond our borders would simply do anything to enter the Republic of South Africa in order to make a good living here. The hon. member also referred to our policy of Bantu homelands as though that was supposed to mean that we were assuming in advance that they would be friendly people. In that respect she agrees with the United Party which takes the view that we may not assume that they will be friendly states. She says that other colonial powers which have withdrawn from territories in Africa, have left chaos behind. Mr. Chairman, if adjoining black states such as Malawi. Botswana, and Lesotho have from their own experience found it necessary to establish ties of friendship with South Africa in their own interests, what then would prevent emerging Black States within the present borders of South Africa from entering into friendly relations with South Africa in the same way? She was trying to imply here that this Government would supposedly give way to the pressure which would be brought to bear upon it by such emerging territories, and would grant them independence when they wanted it. After all, this is a case of territories which are dependent economically and otherwise …

Yes, certainly.

These are territories which are not only economically dependent, but also educationally dependent. They realize what their shortcomings are. I think that in this respect the leaders of those territories have much more wisdom than has the hon. member for Houghton.

But. Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to devote any more of my time to the hon. member’s tales about removals. I should like to return to a topic that was raised in this debate; it was also raised by the hon. member for Durban (North) not so long ago. Yesterday the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said here—and I can also see the object of it—that in future it will no longer be possible to attach any value to the solemn assurances given by leaders of this Government, with reference to the question of Coloured representation in this House. Arising from this reproach, i.e. that it will no longer be possible to attach any value to the solemn promises of Government leaders in regard to the Coloureds vote, I want to out this question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: What is a promise of an undertaking: should it only be expressed here in the House of Assembly or can it also be expressed in another way? I hope the hon. the Leader of the Opposition follows me.

He is dense.

I shall be more specific. Here in my hand I have the “Guide to Better Race Relationships” which the United Party issued in August, 1963. I believe that it comes from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself. Amongst other things guarantees are published in this guide. They say (translation)—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows what I am referring to now. In these guarantees and undertakings which are given to the Coloureds by name and to the white voters of South Africa, the United Party says, inter alia—

You misunderstand my entire charge.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that I misunderstand his entire argument. I do not think that there can be any misunderstanding in this regard. Here it is said explicitly—

If words have any meaning, then, surely, it is clear what these words mean.

What was my intention?

In this plan it was also the intention of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to give guarantees, and I shall deal with that as well. My question to him is this: Can the Coloureds of South Africa, can the white section of the population of South Africa, attach any value to undertakings such as these, if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his Party does with them what he did recently?

Of course.

Read your policy in regard to the Coloureds.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that it stands to reason that one can attach value to them. Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to a matter which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned here before, when he spoke of increased parliamentary representation being granted to non-Whites and said that he would give guarantees that the number of representatives would not exceed a certain figure without a referendum being held. Last year as well as earlier this year I repeatedly asked the hon. the Leader of the Opposition what the use was of a guarantee that they would hold a referendum if he told us that in such a referendum he was going to advise that the voters should not vote for it. I asked him why they wanted to hold a referendum on the matter at all, and then he cleverly replied, “No, it is to protect the population of South Africa against a future Nationalist Government”. That is the kind of smartness that is thought up by the hon. member for Yeoville, who is not here to-day. But, Sir, the National Party is after all outspoken in this regard: it does not even consider the possibility of more representatives for non-Whites in this Parliament; it says that there should not be a single one of them here. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that he is going to hold a referendum if there is any pressure for more representatives for Coloureds or for Bantu in this Parliament, and he says that the purpose of this is to protect the population of South Africa against a National Government. As I have already said, that is so much nonsense, for this Government does not consider the possibility of having one single representative for non-white groups in this Parliament. But now I shall return to these guarantees which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition described in this guide to better race relationships. I want to put this question again: If things are done as they were done here in connection with this solemn undertaking that the Coloureds would be reinstated on the common voters’ roll, if that solemn undertaking is scrapped and a different tune is sung within a few days after hon. members of that Party still voted in favour of it on a commission of inquiry, what certainty can the population of South Africa have that these so-called guarantees of referendums, etc., guarantees which would allegedly be written into the Constitution, would have any meaning if the United Party were ever to come to power? That is why I want to make the statement that any guarantee which the United Party has in the past described in documents such as these and any undertaking which they give here in respect of the number of non-white representatives in this Parliament, will be meaningless, in the light of our experience of them. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, firstly, I want to reply to the hon. member for South Coast. He raised the question of the Dunn reserve last year. As the hon. member knows, I wrote him a letter in regard to the matter on 26th June, in which I set out the position. The hon. member is aware of that, because I received a reply from him, dated 28th July of last year. In that letter I set out the problems to the hon. member, and the hon. member knows that the only thing standing in the way is the fact that certain Bantu are living on the land at present, and that alternative land has to be found for those Bantu. This matter is not an isolated one, but must be seen against the background of the removal of black spots and the acquisition of land in that area. The hon. member is also aware of the fact that the Deputy Minister, and the Minister of Coloured Affairs too, have visited that area. I have had an opportunity of discussing it with them. I have also had the opportunity of discussing it with the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. As soon as it is practicable to remove the Bantu who are living on that land, they will be removed and that matter will be rectified. The hon. member knows that that is the case. The hon. member must also remember that the appropriate time for having returned their land to the Dunns was after 1935 when this legislation was passed and when circumstances were much easier. The hon. member will also concede to me that his Government, which formulated the Act, sat on that Act from 1935 to 1948 and did nothing about it. It is as a result of the things which happened during those first few years, those 13 years after the Act was passed, that it is now so difficult to unravel the matter.

But Parliament agreed to the exchange of land.

That is correct, but it is subject, as I wrote to the hon. member, to the fact that we must first find the Bantu on the land a place to go to, because if we do not do so and go ahead and proclaim, then those Bantu would be squatters on that land. The hon. member knows that. Then one would be creating—and nobody is more aware of this than my hon. friend himself—problems which would present you with more insurmountable difficulties. I asked the hon. the Minister concerned to give particular attention to that matter. We are as eager as the hon. member is to clear up this matter, and I have asked the Minister to give his personal, attention to this matter again and to clear it up as quickly as possible.

Is that Mr. M. C. Botha?

Yes. The hon. member need feel no concern and think that we are ignorant of the fact that he held certain discussions. The undertaking which was given to the hon. member at that time will be honoured. But it is going to take time, and the hon. member is thoroughly acquainted with the specific circumstances prevailing there. I do not blame the hon. member; he has every right to complain, because it is taking a long time. But in all fairness the hon. member will concede that I am correct in saying that the main complaint he should have is that the relevant Minister of the United Party who was responsible for implementing the 1935 Act, did not do so. Be that as it may, I have once again taken up the matter and I have the assurance that, as soon as it is practicable, attention will be given to the matter, or at any rate that it will be solved to the satisfaction of those people.

I should like to reply to one aspect which has been raised. Many other aspects have been raised here to which, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will agree, I cannot even be expected to reply. The aspect to which I want to reply is the one to which the Leader of the Opposition referred. The hon. member for East London (City) also referred to it, and now the hon. member for Houghton has also done so. She mentioned the examples of India and other states. But those hon. members who argue as does the hon. member for Houghton in particular, have not learnt the lessons of history at all. What is the difference between the ultimate attainment of independence of our Black nations, and of nations such as that of India, to mention only one example? In the case of India it was, in the first instance, a nation which had been conquered by the British. They held the country for many years, but eventually independence movements developed. These movements were suppressed very strongly by the then colonial power, Britain. There one already has the first difference. While the independence movement in India was suppressed, the movement here is being encouraged by this Government. That is the difference.

It will not make any difference if you do not let them …

The hon. member has had her opportunity now. I am explaining the matter. I have said that the first difference is therefore that we are encouraging it, whereas in the other case it was suppressed. The second difference is that we are preparing the people fundamentally for the day they attain independence, whereas in the case of India and other states which I can mention there was no preparation whatsoever. The people there did not obtain their independence as a result of the interaction and co-operation between guardian and ward, as is the case here. On the contrary. There was continual conflict between the subordinate and the conqueror who stood over him. While there is the closest contact and consultation in our country, what happened in those countries was that the people did not understand one another at all; to tell the truth, people were thrown into gaol because they agitated for independence. In South Africa not a single Black man has been penalized or thrown into gaol because he advocated the independence of his Black area. That is the major difference. People who have in fact been thrown into gaol are those who wanted to undermine the entire state and who wanted to take over all of South Africa for their own purposes. While speaking I am going to look for a quotation I should like to read to the hon. member for Houghton. It does not suit the hon. member for Houghton at all—and I have now found the quotations I was looking for—to speak so piously here as she did to-day. She is aware of the fact that if she could make it possible she would allow the P.A.C. and A.N.C. to be resurrected. She does not deny that. The hon. member will not deny it.

I think there should be political organizations allowed for non-Whites.

She would want to have the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. resurrected. Neither do I think I am doing the hon. member for Houghton an injustice—if I am doing her an injustice, I shall apologize to her immediately—if I say that if there should be a motion in this House to the effect that the Communist Party should be declared legal again, she would not vote against it.

I should rather have it above ground than below ground.

The hon. member says she would vote for it, because the hon. member says she would prefer to have it above ground. Does the hon. member expect that we in this House, taking into consideration what has happened in South Africa, should take any notice of an hon. member who is in favour of the Communist Party and the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. being re-established in South Africa? But I also want to tell the hon. member that she professes to stand for the freedom of all people. If the Progressive Party were in power it would be one of the most intolerant governments we will ever have had in South Africa.

Certainly we will not have Communism.

This to me is a jewel which I have sought and found, and which I think ought to be placed on record. For the edification of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout I am quoting this paragraph from the book by Allen Drury, “A Very Strange Society”, page 426, and it is my reply to the liberalists here in South Africa According to Drury this conversation took place in Johannesburg—

What is the relevance of that? [Interjections.]

The hon. member is asking me what relevance that has. It is to my mind a little glimpse into the public utterances of the liberalists on the one hand and their private relationships with black people on the other. That is my reply to the hon. member for Houghton, who talks of “peace under duress” and that kind of thing.

[Inaudible.]

Order! I asked the hon. member last night to stop her running commentary on the Prime Minister’s speeches.

Then I would ask hon. members to stop shouting “Shut up!” like a lot of hooligans. [Interjections.]

The Prime Minister may continue.

I do not like taking up the cudgels for hon. members. It is not my task and my function—but you must kindly pardon the hon. member for Houghton. She saw herself in a mirror while I was reading.

I want to continue my argument with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the 1936 legislation, and particularly with reference to what the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education has said in this regard. It will be a bad day for me if I have to deduce from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s argument that he, apart from the land allocated to the black people in the 1936 Act—and I think the hon. the Leader must state this very clearly to us—is foreshadowing, or wants to say to the black people by implication, that they can lay claim to more land than is given to them by that Act. For if we should do that, we would be unleashing forces which we would find it difficult to bring under control again in South Africa. It is a dangerous argument even to touch upon by way of insinuation. I should be very glad to hear very clearly from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that it is not the policy of his Party, or that he does not envisage any such thing. But the hon. member has once again returned to the old argument—on which we have fought elections already, and which the hon. member for Randfontein dealt with very thoroughly to-day, and which I want to take just a little further—by expressing his concern in regard to the Bantu homelands. For this is also the scare-story which the hon. member for Simonstown probably used to best advantage in the Swellendam by-election, because even their own newspapers had to reprimand him on the irresponsible statements he made there.

We have no official newspapers.

I do not blame you for not having any official newspapers; I should not like to support you officially either, but they nevertheless do support you. But enough said about that. Even in those newspapers which support the United Party, if you like, they had to reprimand him on the irresponsible statements he made there.

Because I have heard this tory ad nauseum, let me say at once to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: There may be many things I do not know much about, but one thing he will grant me—I know how to fight communists. I not only have experience of that, but in the years when I was charged with that task I gave this House ample proof that I could fight them, notwithstanding the fact that in my fight against them I was often hampered by the Opposition. This is true, and I want to repeat it now for the umpteenth time. I have also stated this on platforms outside, and I have said it to foreign correspondents as well. Any independent country runs the risk of being attacked by some other independent country. It goes without saying that we run the same risk, but it is not something to flinch from. Nor am I afraid of it. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition reproached me for saying, in reply to a question as to what our standpoint would be if a neighbouring state accepted Communism as a policy, that I would not like it, but that it would be their concern. Surely it would be irresponsible of me to say that we would attack and destroy them because they had adopted a communist policy. What would in fact not be irresponsible of me would be to say that if they should attack me, I would destroy them. Our entire policy is based on the fact that we are prepared to co-operate with all neighbouring states, White and Black, on a friendly basis, provided they respect our independence, provided they do not interfere in our affairs and, naturally, provided they do not attack us. That is the basis of our policy. But as we know Southern Africa, and more specifically as we know our Bantu areas, what chance is there of their attacking South Africa by force?

Surely there is not a single one of us sitting in this House who even remotely entertains such a thought. After all, it is the kind of threat one can deal with before breakfast if necessary. I do not see it happening. I want to state very clearly that I have every reason to say here to-day that, notwithstanding the fact that they did not have much preparation for independence, in contrast to our own black people, who are going to receive it from us, the black leaders of our neighbouring states have acquitted themselves very well of their task, and their conduct towards South Africa has been what it should be and has led to the friendly relations which exist at present and which I visualize as continuing to exist in future, even if for no other reason than that our mutual economic dependence is such that there can simply be no question of any other kind of relations.

But, Sir, you must not underestimate the black people of South Africa. The lessons of Africa have not passed them by unnoticed; on the contrary, they have made a very deep impression on them. In numerous discussions which I have held with their leaders, this refrain has often recurred: “We are grateful to know that South Africa is controlling and governing matters in its black areas in such a way that a second Congo will not occur there.” This they have told us on numerous occasions. But there is another thing as well that they have told us. The hon. members on the opposite side who have held discussions with these people will also have heard it already. Another thing they have said to us very often is: “Please do not let go of our hand before we are in a position to govern ourselves.” Sir, can you see the difference in relations, to take the Indian example once again, between a state such as India, which had to fight and whose leaders had to go to gaol before it could obtain its independence, and a state such as South Africa, which is leading its black people along the road to independence in such a way that they understand each other so well that the leaders of those black people say: “Please do not let go of our hand before we are in a position to govern ourselves.” The black people realize that the mere cry of uhuru, which was heard a few years ago, does not bring any money home, does not provide food for the little ones, and does not provide warmth in the winter.

Nor does it bring in any lobola.

Yes, that too. They realize only too well to-day that independence implies certain responsibilities. They realize only too well that to govern a modern state does not merely mean to raise a flag and take up a cry, but that it requires much more than that. It is in that spirit that this Government is acting towards those black leaders. Notwithstanding the fact that certain sections of the Press are going out of their way to drive wedges between Chief Matanzima, for example, and the Government of South Africa, and to play the one off against the other, I want to say that these leaders of the Transkei are conducting themselves with exemplary responsibility. It is not going unnoticed. That is why, if we speak so lightly, I know that there are problems in store for us in the future. But the black people are much more aware of the problems lying in store in the future than we ourselves are.

However, I am not visualizing those problems, because I not only believe that we will help them to develop to such an extent that we will overcome those problems, but I also believe, and I have reason for doing so, that they too realize that it is in their own interest that they do not become independent until they are economically viable. I believe that they realize their people have a backlog to make up. If this question were to be put to me now, as the hon. member for Pinelands has done, i.e. what I am going to do in the year 2000, then I can only reply: I shall not be able to do anything, because I shall no longer be here; I shall be resting peacefully where I ought to be then!

What I meant was whether you are aiming at an equal number of Whites and non-Whites by that year.

One can certainly undertake the planning, but it will nevertheless be extremely foolish to say, when one is dealing with human development, that by the year 2000 four, five or six of them would have attained independence. Reference was made here to what the hon. member for Heilbron said in this regard. I want to endorse wholeheartedly what he said. In Africa to-day you are paying the price of having walked faster than the legs of the people of Africa could carry them. You are paying for that to-day—not only Africa, but the whole world is paying for that. We shall be able to discuss this later on, if and when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition broaches these matters. I should then like to state my attitude and view in regard to the matter. It is sufficient if I state to-day that we did not merely talk about the matter and leave it at that. And I do not have it from hearsay, but I have gone out of my way to see the development myself. We have in fact set the necessary development in motion. For some it may be too slow, and for others again it may be too rapid, but, taking into consideration all the circumstances, we have proceeded as rapidly as we possibly could. Hon. members are aware that in the Transkei alone we have created employment for, if my memory serves me correctly, plus-minus 3,000 officials. They are preparing the people there for the task they will one day have to undertake. To hold out the prospect now that these people will rise against us after independence, as India revolted and as Zambia revolted, is simply not a parallel. On the contrary. There can be no question of an uprising, because, after all, we are co-operating with these people to bring about independence for them. They are aware of that. Hon. members are doing us an injustice if they continue to insinuate that it is not our intention to follow that course with them. Why should that not be our intention? On the contrary. We have never brought this intention more firmly to the fore than we did on those very occasions when we stated repeatedly—and as recently as during the last election I adopted this attitude on one platform after another—that even if they wanted to give us the former protectorates to-morrow, we would not want them, because we were busy leading our own Black people along the road to independence. Why should we want those additional black states? We want nothing that they have. Hence my attitude towards an otherwise hostile person such as Kaunda of Zambia, when I told him that I wanted nothing from him, except that he should govern his country to the benefit of his own people, because it was in the interests of the whole of Southern Africa that his state should be governed well. I therefore foresee no difficulties or problems whatsoever. There are no conflicting interests between the Black leaders in South Africa and us. Such a conflict of interests could only arise if we told them that they dared not become independent, and that we would break them if they wanted to do so.

Can the hon. the Leader of the Opposition see now that, if his course is adopted, there will be the same violence as there was in India and in Africa? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows our country’s history as well as I do. If the British had not, in accordance with their colonial policy, annexed these Black states, they would have remained free territories all these years. South Africa would definitely not have annexed these states. It was not the policy of English-and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans to annex those territories. On the contrary. The policy of our forbears was to acknowledge those people in their territories, and to acknowledge their dominion over their territories. The policy of our forefathers at that time was to respect the chiefs of those nations as the leaders of their respective peoples. That is the South African tradition.

Is that why we had the Kaffir Wars?

The hon. member can give me no example of a case where we waged war against the Bantu because the Whites of South Africa wanted the land of the Black people, o wanted to make them South African subjects. That has never been our policy. It was in fact the policy of Britain to make British subjects of all and sundry. Of course we had our difficulties with Black people, and when they attacked us, we hit back and hit back hard. Our history is full of examples of that.

Is it true that in terms of the policy of the old Z.A.R. no reserve could be larger than 3,000 morgen?

That may be so, but I am not very well-informed at the moment in regard to the precise size of the reserves at that time. What I do know is that in those areas in which the Black man had established himself our forefathers acknowledged the right of the Black man to his property. Not only did they acknowledge his right to his property, but they also protected him there. Surely the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is aware of the fact that if our forefathers had not protected the proprietary rights of the Black people to their areas—I am now discussing the time before the 1936 legislation—then the Black people in South Africa would not have owned a square inch of land to-day.

There was still the legislation of 1913.

But if our forefathers had not, prior to 1913, protected the rights of the Black people to their own areas, the Whites, with their greater initiative, working capacity and capital, would have had all the land in South Africa. But that did not happen. The Black man’s land remained in his possession, precisely because our forefathers respected the proprietary rights of the Black man. Nobody knows this better than the hon. member for South Coast, who grew up in Natal. He knows that that was the attitude of his forefathers. But it was the colonial power that wanted to bring everybody under one aegis, that wanted to make British subjects of everybody, that wanted to place everybody on the same footing, just as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, with his policy, now wants to bring everybody under the same aegis. The lesson of history has passed the hon. the Leader of the Opposition by completely, and if he should ever come into power in South Africa and want to implement that policy, then South Africa would pay the same price Britain has paid in this regard. I have no doubt about that at all. One can under no circumstances place White and Black on the same footing in South Africa. If one does that, one will be creating a source of friction for which one will have to pay the price. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is so often inclined to ask me what the price of separate development is. I asked him a question on a previous occasion. He evaded that question. I asked him the simple question: What are we spending at present in respect of separate development which you would not spend in terms of your federal policy? I have never yet received a reply to that, and the reason is obvious. No matter what policy one applies, one will have to pay the same if one is honest in regard to the implementation of one’s policy. The question arises whether we are being honest in regard to the implementation of our policy.

Reference was made here to Dr. Van Eck. I replied to that only in passing yesterday, and I should like to elaborate on it now. Every plea ever made by hon. members opposite, their complaint against the hon. the Minister of Planning and his Act, is that he does not simply allow unskilled labour to keep on flowing in. You might serve the economy of a small group of people by doing so, but you will not be serving the interests of South Africa or the Black man; for what is the basis of that economic programme which was drawn up in 1964 and in which Dr. Van Eck collaborated, and to which he referred? It is that you must not only prepare the Black man politically for the day of independence. Of what use is it Chat he has a lot of political slogans or can display skill on a political platform? It is not by that means that he is going to retain his independence. You must also prepare him economically for his independence. In other words, you must give him Che skilled people which will enable him to maintain that state once it has become independent. That is the basis of our entire policy, namely the training of the young Bantu so that they can provide services and perform duties in their country to the benefit of their people, services and duties which very often have to be provided and performed by Whites to-day because the necessary Black people are not as yet available to perform all those duties. And if the question is put to me by hon. members: “What about the Black people you are training; what must become of them?” then the Minister of Bantu Administration furnishes me with the reply, and the reply is the right one, namely that all those people who have been trained you can utilize productively in their own areas to the benefit of their own people. You need them in the Bantu areas, and I have seen this myself in those Bantu areas which I visited and where I held discussions.

Keep them busy filling in work permits for the migratory workers.

The hon. member is not interested in the upliftment of those people. The hon. member is, as of old, only interested in the voting cattle she can turn these people into. That is all she is interested in. But she has never displayed any interest in the sound upliftment of the non-Whites. She has only displayed an interest in the political matters. Our standpoint in principle is that we want to make it possible in all fields for the Black people to maintain their state when they attain independence one day, and to an increasing extent, until that day arrives, to help themselves by means of their own people who have been trained to perform the task. It will not be easy, because we know the circumstances; we know the background and even the limitations prevailing in that regard. You can accuse this Government of anything, but you cannot accuse this Government of not being honestly engaged on an upliftment programme for the Black and the Brown people of South Africa. And we are doing it on the basis of separate development, and in the knowledge that it costs money, but also in the knowledge that the price of integration would be ten times greater than the price of separate development will be. Ultimately, in money and in hate and in suffering, friction and bitterness, as one finds in other countries of the world, the price is too high for us, or any other country, to pay. I reject with contempt the suggestion made in this House that the peace and quiet prevailing here in South Africa is attributable to the fact that the Black people are being intimidated by the Police. Any person saying so outside this House would be uttering an infamous lie. It would not only be a lie, but I cannot think of any greater injustice any person could do his, I do not want to call it a fatherland, but the country which has offered him sustenance, as that a person can do this to the country in which he lives. I never thought one would still be experiencing a thing like this in South Africa in the year 1968. But we who take an objective view of the affairs of South Africa are very grateful that mat order and quiet—and here I am not discussing this matter from my point of view only—which is prevailing in South Africa to-day, is attributable to the actions of all our people here in South Africa who have not allowed the lessons of history to pass them by.

The hon. the Prime Minister has put certain questions to me, some of which I shall answer at once and some of which I shall answer in the course of my further remarks. He asked me whether it was the policy of my party that more land should be made available to the Bantu in terms of the 1936 Act. No, it is not the policy of my party even to buy the land under the 1936 Act if it is going to be handed over to independent Bantustans.

Hear, hear!

I go further and make it quite clear that my complaint against the Government is that I believe that under their policy they will be forced to buy more land than under the 1936 Act because they are not developing the Reserves properly and they will not be able to maintain the population there.

Then the Prime Minister referred to the Sulzberger interview and defended his statement in respect of what he would do if there were a Bantu state which went communist. Sir, there is no need for him to defend that statement to me. I was not attacking his statement. What I wanted to attack was the fact that in making that statement he recognized the force of my criticism that I thought it was wrong to give up the right to go into a neighbouring territory as of right to attack terrorists who were communists and who are trying to form up to attack South Africa. When we already have that right, why give it up by giving independence to people who probably would not want it?

Then the hon. gentleman said I could show him no war where the fight was over ground or where the attempt was to conquer the other parties. I do not know what history books the Prime Minister studied. I have been amazed at the differences between some of the history books in South Africa. But I want to tell him that my understanding of virtually all the Border Wars along the Fish River was that they were over ground and over grazing. I want to ask the hon. gentleman why the Basutos under Chief Moshesh put themselves under the protection of Great Britain? Was it not because of the fighting and the difficulties with the Free Staters as to who was entitled to the grazing on the plains near the mountain? [interjection.] I do not want to give other examples.

I want to come back to the original criticisms leveled by me at the Prime Minister and his policy and the many speeches made on the other side of the House in an attempt to draw a red herring across the trail, and the attempt to suggest that criticism of this Government was criticism of South Africa. Let us get it quite clear that this Government is not South Africa and never will be. We are in this tragic position that many of these criticisms have not been replied to. One of the criticisms was that the emphasis in respect of consolidation had changed. It was understood to be important but that it has already been realized in many cases that it would be impossible. I made the point that if consolidation were not proceeded with, it would not be possible to grant independence to homelands consisting of 10 or 12 areas which were not contiguous.

This is a process that goes on everyday.

The hon. gentleman says that that is a process that goes on every day. Is he going to give 10 or 12 independent states for each Bantu ethnic group? It is all very well to say that this is a process which goes on every day. I concede that it has happened in the case of Pakistan with two non-contiguous areas. I concede that it might happen where there were four or five areas, but when there were TO or 12 areas I said that it was so impracticable and impossible that it meant that there could never be any independence; that his policy was failing before his eyes. Then. Sir, I questioned him on the question of urban Bantu labour and I asked whether the policy was that we were moving in the direction of no Bantu labour at all or, if not, what ratio would be considered to be satisfactory? I quoted to him what the hon. the Deputy Minister had said, namely that the time had come when black labour would be available to no one in South Africa. We saw the leading article in Die Transvaler and we saw the other leading article in Dagbreek. I pointed out to the hon. the gentleman what confusion there was and I asked him to state his position clearly and categorically. Up to this stage I have had no answer whatever. I pointed out to him that the development in the reserves was so slow that if it went on at this pace, his policy was already failing, as his own intellectuals were telling him, because the reserves could never give a living to their existing population and to their natural increase. I have had no reply to that from the hon. gentleman. He was reminded of the statement made by the late Dr. Verwoerd that he would be satisfied if the ratio of black to white outside the reserves by the year 2000 was one to one. I do not even ask him to tell me that, but what percentage does he think he is going to get back to the reserves? Is he going to get any back to the reserves at all? Then, Sir, when I complained about the cost he said, “What would your policy cost?” He forgets that I did reply to him. I said that my policy would cost far less because I would make use of private white capital and private white initiative, under certain controls, to develop those reserves, and I said to him, secondly, that I would not waste money forcing industries artificially to the borders of the reserves where it would cost a great deal more to develop them than it would if you let them take the natural course of decentralizing to the areas where they would be most economic. Sir, the hon. member must remember those things. Then he suggested that I had been quoting Dr. Van Eck out of context. No, I was not quoting Dr. Van Eck out of context. I conceded straight away that Dr. Van Eck was pleading for the decentralization of industries to border areas and pointing to its advantages for Bantu living in the reserves. The point I made was that Dr. Van Eck had made it clear that we could not maintain the rate of growth envisaged in the economic development programme without teaching skills to the non-Whites and particularly the Bantu.

But we are already seeing that to-day.

Those skills are going to have to be used outside the Bantu areas; that is the point, and that is the point from which the hon. gentleman is running away all the time. He tells me that we must train and prepare them for independence. Sir, that is well and good; I am prepared to support him and to help him to industrialize the reserves, but he cannot run his white economy here in South Africa without the help of skilled non-Europeans, and if he does not know that let him talk to the Minister of Transport and hear what trouble that hon. gentleman is having at the present time. The hon. gentleman made it clear that he was committed to grant independence to these areas when they were fit for it and if they so wished. He said that the difference between him and the other areas in Africa was perfectly simple; he was training them for independence; he was assisting them in that direction, but he was their guardian; he would decide when the ward was fit for independence. Has he never heard of a quarrel between the ward and the guardian before? He is a lawyer. How many times has just that thing not happened? Is it not natural for young people to think that they are far better developed than they are in fact? Is this not one of the troubles throughout Africa to-day?

Long after Britain had decided on her withdrawal from Africa, she was still having trouble with states which she did not think were fit for independence. She got out rather than use force. Look for how long she was preparing India for the Indianization of the civil service preparatory to independence? Look how she sent a Viceroy out there to bring about independence and look at the trouble she had. I cannot see that that is any guarantee that we are not going to have trouble. I cannot see any guarantee at all that that is not going to give us trouble. Sir, the lesson of Africa is this, that when you promise a simple people independence one day, then they believe that they will get it to-day or tomorrow and they become impatient. The trouble that Britain had in Africa started from the moment she started promising independence, and this hon. gentleman is making exactly the same mistake without learning the lesson of history on the Continent of Africa. [Time expired.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has now repeatedly—yesterday afternoon in this House and again this afternoon and also on the platforms where the question was put to him whether he was going to implement the 1936 Act and whether he was going to purchase the land as prescribed by that Act—given the reply that he is not going to purchase the land if, to use his own words, those areas are going to become independent Bantustans. That is not the point, Mr. Chairman. What we want to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is this: Suppose he comes into power and carries out his race federation plan in South Africa, is he going to purchase that additional land in terms of the 1936 Act? Is he going to leave further unfavourably situated areas there, i.e. scheduled areas under the 1936 Act, or is he going to purchase compensatory land adjacent to the homelands? Is he going to purchase black Spots, i.e. land which is unscheduled but which does, in fact, belong to the Bantu? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must not think he can get away with the excuse that he is not going to purchase any land if the areas become free Bantustans. What we want to know from him is whether he regards the position as far as Bantu land-ownership is concerned as being a static one or whether he regards it as one which will develop in an evolutionary way until, eventually, all the land as prescribed by the 1936 Act is purchased and until the unfavourably situated areas, which are causing points of friction to-day, and the black spots which are owned by the Bantu and which are situated within the White areas have been cleared to the homelands, or must they remain as they are? This is the question to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must reply and he must not try to evade this question.

He has replied to it.

I am putting my question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. That poor back-bencher does not know yet what is going on here. The hon. member must exercise a little patience. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for King William’s Town is one of those who come to see me every day to enquire what is going to become of the unfavourably situated areas in King William’s Town. He should rather wait a little; we shall rectify that position as well. If this position must not remain static, if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, if he comes into power, will continue to clear up the unfavourably situated areas and black spots from time to time, and will buy the additional quota land, he should tell us, and he should also tell us Where the boundaries are going to be. That is the question, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should stop playing this game of hide and seek by saying that he is not going to purchase any land because the areas are going to become free or independent Bantustans. No, that is not the question. The question is quite clear and quite straightforward; anyone can understand it. All the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must do, is to state honestly what the attitude of his Party on this matter is, and he should stop trying to sow suspicion and to have suspicion sown, because some of the members of his Party want to suggest that land is being purchased by this Government at the expense of the Whites and at the expense of the White land-owners, and that his Party will not do or tolerate such a thing. Sanctimonious, Mr. Chairman. We should like the Opposition to give us an honest and straightforward reply on this matter. I am glad the hon. the Leader of the Opposition explained this afternoon, while I was present, what he had said here yesterday. Unfortunately I had not heard what he said yesterday afternoon, as I was engaged with a deputation, together with one of his supporters.

Has he still got a supporter?

Yes, he does have one left. He stated clearly this afternoon what he had said yesterday in regard to consolidation. My Minister, my colleague and I and, as a matter of fact, all of us on this side of the House, have said that consolidation is not a prerequisite for self-government. But I want to repeat what I told him yesterday afternoon, i.e. that consolidation is an inseparable part of our policy and that it is a process which is taking place continually. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition now comes along and makes the same mistake which other people have made and which I dealt with in my Sabra speech, in which I stated the position clearly. He says it is impossible to grant people self-government unless you first consolidate the homelands. Mr. Chairman, I think that I have already given a sufficiently clear reply to that. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in fact, used an example which I myself have used, namely that of Pakistan, but he could also have used other states as an example, and it should be clear to him that consolidation is not a prerequisite for self-government. I should just like to refer to the Natal complex by way of an example. Yesterday afternoon I said here by way of an interjection that there were more than 200 unconsolidated Bantu areas in Natal, areas which were not created by this Government, but which were created historically and recognized by both the 1913 Act and the 1936 Act. The fact that these areas are disappearing is the result of this Government’s policy of consolidation, a policy in respect of which we are not always getting the necessary support from people who should actually take the lead in supporting us in solving those problems for them, people who come along and blame us, as was done by the hon. member for Durban (Point) yesterday afternoon, for the fact that, as he put it, there are 150 such areas. I pointed out to him immediately that there were not 150 of those areas, but more than 150. Those are the people who throw a spanner into the works for us when we proceed with consolidation. Those are the people who are actually committing an act of sabotage against you as far as the implementation of your policy is concerned. I now want to put this question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Take these 150 areas, which is the figure according to the hon. member for Durban (Point), or these 200 areas, according to my figure, all of which belong to one ethnic group, namely the Zulu. What is there to prevent the Zulu people from obtaining self-government? As we all know, the ideal position would be for areas to be completely consolidated, but I do not regard this as being possible in the foreseeable future. In any case, there need not be 200 unconsolidated areas, but there is a great possibility that these areas may be consolidated into two or three or perhaps more areas, which may then be governed by a Zulu national authority. Why does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now want to make consolidation a prerequisite? If there are so many unconsolidated Bantu areas in Natal as to make it impossible for them to obtain self-government until such time as consolidation has been carried out then, according to his argument, the disconnected white areas, which have not been consolidated either, should not have obtained self-government either. This is what his argument really boils down to. There is no reason why all the Bantu homelands of the various peoples should first be consolidated completely before they can get self-government.

And independence?

That hon. member has made enough noise already.

Answer my question.

The hon. member can get up again and put his question, and then I shall reply to it; I am dealing with the Leader of the Opposition now.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has asked repeatedly what the ratio will be by the year 2000, or at this or that stage. He wants to know what the ratio between the Bantu in the white peri-urban areas and the white areas and the Bantu in the homelands is going to be. Sir, I am not concerned about the ratio, because this is not the essence of our policy of separate development. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I had reached a stage with the hon. the Prime Minister where I said he had committed himself to independence and I tried to view the situation as he saw it and as seen by me. I believe we have now reached the stage where we can make a comparison of what it is he wants and what it is I want. I think if that comparison is made then it is clear that firstly we on this side want one authority over the whole of South Africa. He is prepared to see South Africa break up into eight separate Black states and one white Parliament over the smaller and poorer Republic. In other words, he is prepared to destroy the Republic as it exists at the present time. Secondly, we want the Bantu reserves developed and administered to a large extent by the Bantu themselves. We want them to remain a part of the Republic on a federal basis. We are prepared to buy the additional land necessary in terms of the 1936 Act if it is necessary for that development. I believe that under our policy it will be far less necessary than under the policy of the present Government.

May I ask the hon. the Leader a question?

No, I am sorry. The Prime Minister by contrast wants eight independent black states, each with its own parliament free to decide on every issue, including their foreign policy.

Yes, and we have fought numerous elections on that policy.

Let us get the picture clear, then we know exactly where we stand. I would say, thirdly, we want a communal council for the urban Bantu who have become detribalized and we want them to remain a part of the Republic with a federal relationship with the Central Parliament. They want to give to those Bantu political rights outside the Republic with all the dangers attached thereto.

What about land ownership?

The hon. gentleman asks what about land ownership. In the established Bantu townships we are prepared to give them controlled home ownership, but not outside.

What does it mean?

Controlled home ownership means that it will be given to the law-abiding Bantu who has established himself and can be used as a bastion against Communism, the very thing which the hon. the Minister of Planning would like to see in the townships at the present time.

Then we come to the fourth difference, and that is, we want the Bantu reserves and the urban Bantu to be allowed a voice in the Central Parliament. We have said what that voice should be and how limited it should be. The hon. the Prime Minister wants no representation for these people in the Central Parliament, even though they have not yet got independence.

Yes.

Even though in many cases they will never have it.

Yes.

And even though in many cases millions of them will have to live always in the white areas because their own Bantu reserves will never support them.

Yes.

The trouble with the hon. gentleman is that his policy is failing before his eyes, and it will never be realized in full as I have tried to show in the course of this debate. The fact is that he and his Ministers cannot do the job. The question is: What are we going to be faced with? I think we are going to be faced with a half-baked scheme, with all the disadvantages of independent black states and very few of the advantages. The policy must end in disaster for South Africa.

Already there are doubts. I see a leading South African addressed the Kajuitraad, an Afrikaans discussion group, some time last week. He said the following—

Then here is a passage which is so true—

It is not I who say these things. I continue—

The speaker of these words was not me, it was not even the hon. member for Houghton—it was Mr. Theo Gerdener, the Administrator of Natal. [Interjections.] I think we must ask ourselves where are we going to land when we find ourselves in the position that the Prime Minister’s policies fail, as we shall do. I think we will find a number of black states not properly consolidated, some of them independent but not viable, many of them consisting of non-contiguous geographical units, all seeking aid from whoever will give it to them. Many millions of Blacks in the white areas with no permanence and no right to stay there permanently, with no political rights there, will probably be developing disloyalty to this Government because they are going to be taught by this Government to be loyal to independent black states and not the Central White Government in South Africa. He said he had lions in his path. He has. One of those lions is the danger of independent states, the dangers of a rightless proletariat, the dangers of demands for more land, and the dangers of demands for more money and more help in competition with the outside world. He is going to say I have a lion in my path. I have. The lion in my path will be the demand for more rights. But I believe we can resist that.

How?

They have demanded more rights for 300 years and yet we are still in control in South Africa, and there is no danger that we should not be in control. We have made it perfectly clear we are not prepared to consider more rights without a referendum or a general election where that is the issue. I have said to the Prime Minister before I have faith in the white man in South Africa, and it seems to me that that is the difference between him and me. One hon. member said that if he had to choose between a black bull that wanted to kill him behind a barbed wire fence and a black mamba in his bosom, he knew which he would choose. As far as I am concerned he has got both, he has got no choice. He has got the black bull, and it is not even beyond the fence, and he has got the black mamba in his bosom here because he cannot repatriate all those Bantu, despite this hon. Deputy Minister, because he cannot give them work where he wants to send them. That is his trouble. He cannot give them a decent living where he wants to send them. We will have a very different proposition. We will have two groups of human beings with loyalty to one state, working together for the common good and the welfare of one South Africa. I believe that is a much sounder and firmer basis on which to build for the future as any outlined by this Government up to the present time.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition quoted something a moment ago which was said by the hon. the Administrator of Natal. But there is nothing wrong with what he quoted. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. It only surprises me that the Leader of the Opposition did not see the lesson he could learn from that quotation. Because what is the Leader telling us now at the end of this debate? He says he will have only one authority for both Black and White and that he will maintain that authority. Surely he cannot get away from the fact then that the lesson he now wants to teach me, the lesson contained in what the Administrator of Natal said, is the very lesson that he should learn. What did the Administrator say?

He said that was the present position.

He did not say that was the present position at all. He was in fact warning the people, something which this side of the House has been doing for years, and I am going to apply it to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now. He warned the people not just to let apartheid suffice, but, in fact, to create the necessary facilities for the Blacks. In other words, he deemed it necessary to warn against the attitude displayed by the Opposition during elections as well, namely, on the one hand, to enjoy the blessings flowing from apartheid, but, on the other hand, to sow suspicion against apartheid for political purposes. That is what he warned against. We have made progress and I measure that progress by what was said by the hon. member for East London (City). He disclosed what was going on on that side of the House, i.e. that they have already reached the stage where they are only objecting to petty apartheid. They are not opposing the principle of apartheid any more. They are only opposed to petty apartheid. That is how I understood the hon. member for East London (City). Did we understand each other correctly?

I said that this was what was irritating the outside world. This is what you cannot understand.

I want to accept that this is all that is irritating the hon. member too, or are there other things which irritate him; are there things which abroad irritate him, but do not irritate the people abroad?

What about what was mentioned by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition?

I should like the hon. member to tell me that. There was a time when he and I understood each other. I hope we understand each other now, too.

I want to come back to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. In spite of his race federation policy, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will be faced with a problem if he says that Black and White must be under one authority. I want the hon. Leader to give me a reply on this. If Black and White are to be governed in this way for ever, whether they want to or not—because, if I understand him correctly, his policy is that Black and White must be under one authority and that he will not tolerate any unwillingness on their part to be under the same authority—is he going to give them one citizenship? Is he going to have the same citizenship for all, or is he going to have first and second class citizens? Is he going to have different classes of citizens in that one central state of his. That is his problem. If he tells me he is going to give them different classes of citizenship, I shall accept his argument. However, does he realize what dilemma he will be in if he tells me that he is going to give them only one class of citizenship, because if he gives them only one class of citizenship, he will have to give them the same privileges attaching to citizenship. On what grounds, then, will he discriminate? That is the question. On what grounds, then, will he give a certain number of representatives to one class of citizen and a different form of representation to the other class of citizen?

They are already citizens, and what are they now?

This, then, is the charge which is being made against us, namely that we refuse to accept that black people who are in the white areas, are in those areas permanently. That is the difference …

After all, they are citizens to-day.

Yes, they are citizens in the juridical sense of the word. We all know that. However, we say that they are not here as citizens who can obtain rights of ownership, because this is not their fatherland. If they want rights of ownership, the citizenship that goes with ownership, they can only get it in their own territory.

The Coloureds are citizens, too, and in their case we have differentiation in rights as well.

Because we differentiate in the political sphere, and this is the very difference between our policy and that of those hon. members.

But this has been the position all along.

But why did you become a United Party man if this has been the position all along?

But you want to do away with it. You want to destroy the existing order.

It has always been the position, that the Coloureds have not had any political rights, except for the small group to which the British gave such rights for their own purposes. This has always been the position. [Interjection.] The hon. member does not even know his own history; how could he know the history of South Africa? Sir, the hon. Leader asked me repeatedly: What about those who remain in the white areas? I shall wait until the hon. member for Durban (Point) has finished. The hon. Leader asked me: What about those who remain in the white areas? Sir, why do they remain there? Has the hon. member ever asked himself this question? They remain there because they cannot provide employment for themselves. But the fact that you employ those people, does not place you under any obligation to grant them political rights in your Parliament. Surely the fact that you work for a man does not give you the right to run his affairs? Surely no such political principle exists anywhere in the world? It is true that there are Blacks working for us. They will continue to work for us for generations, in spite of the ideal we have to separate them completely. Surely we all know that?

And for all time.

I hope that will not be the case. I hope the day will come when we achieve the ideal.

But you do not see it now in the immediate future?

No, Sir. Surely it will be foolish of me to say that I see it now in the immediate future. Surely it will be foolish of me to say that, because one is dealing with millions of people here. But the fact of the matter is this: We need them, because they work for us, but, after all, we pay them for their work. What would have become of them if one had not created those employment opportunities for them? Surely they could not have survived? But the fact that they work for us can never—if one accepts this as one’s criterion one will be signing one’s death sentence now—entitle them to claim political rights. Not now, nor in the future. It makes no difference whether they are here with any degree of permanency or not. The principle one applies—and this is the principle we apply—should be that if they want political rights, they should seek those rights in their homelands. But under no circumstances can we grant them those political rights in our own territory, neither now nor ever.

What about the Whites who remain in the non-white homelands?

They will not obtain political rights there any more than the black man will obtain political rights in the white areas, because what applies to the Bantu in the white area, also applies to the Whites in the Bantu area. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has now repeated for the umpteenth time that he would employ white capital and initiative in the homelands. Surely he knows that he is chasing a phantom in this regard? I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that if one threw open all the homelands in the world to white capital and initiative to-morrow, one would not find one single industry being established there, except those that would go there to exploit the non-Whites. Those are the only ones one would find there. The homelands have been open all these years and not one single industry has been established there. Why would industries be established there now all of a sudden? Why are industries not being established in Basutoland? Why are industries not being established in Botswana or Swaziland? Surely industries cannot be established in that way? But for us this contains a principle, and the lesson has escaped him once again. Let us not forget what happened in Zambia just recently. We must not fail to take note of that lesson of the nationalization of not only industries, but also business undertakings.

It is an independent country.

But that is what I am telling you. It has happened for the very reason that they were not prepared for managing their own affairs in their own territory. Cannot hon. members see the lesson? We do not want to experience the same thing. We have provided the organizations and the means for the establishment of black industries and business undertakings in the land of the black man to his own advantage, industries and business undertakings owned by the black man. That is the difference in approach and in policy. Then, surely, the black man will not have the grievance, as he would have otherwise, that the white man has exploited the black man and has enriched himself at the black man’s expense. I am very grateful that the Nationalist Party has spared itself this reproach and that it has adopted the attitude in regard to white capital and initiative which it has in fact adopted, because this attitude will not fail to yield dividends in the years ahead.

Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated blatantly that my policy “is failing before my eyes”. In that case surely, he should be very glad, because, after all, he would like to see our policy fail.

We do not want to see South Africa come to grief.

You do want apartheid to fail, and our policy is separate development. The United Party is fighting elections to cause it to fail. Why then does that hon. member cry if it is failing in practice? It is too silly for words.

We are thinking of South Africa.

No, Sir, I shall tell you where that hon. member’s difficulty comes in. It has already been discussed this afternoon. We as the National Party do not think we are South Africa, but the Opposition thinks we are. For that reason they think they are hitting us when they hit South Africa. That is the fact of the matter. You think you will hurt us if South Africa is hurt. [Interjections.] I am prepared to argue this with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for a full day. On what grounds does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say that our policy is crumbling before our eyes? On the other hand, he levels the charge against us at elections and elsewhere that our policy entails the money of Whites being used for the Bantu. No, our policy is not failing. Our policy is being applied in practice every day. It has taken us years to complete the process of breaking down on the one hand, and we have passed that stage now. We have now reached the positive aspects of our policy, and we are applying those positive aspects in practice every day. I again refer to the fact that the very reason for the exceptional peace and quiet prevailing at the moment, is that the coloured groups feel to-day, and are experiencing in practice every day, as our policy is succeeding, that the policy of separate development is operating not only to the benefit of the white man, but also to the benefit of the black man and the brown man in South Africa. That is why our policy is succeeding and that is why we have this state of affairs in South Africa to-day.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Prime Minister has raised a number of interesting subjects. He has asked me whether under the policy of my party the Bantu will be citizens of South Africa. They are citizens of South Africa at the present time.

Yes, but you know in what sense I meant it.

Yes, but I do want this understood properly. The hon. the Prime Minister asked me whether they will be citizens of South Africa under my policy. They are citizens of South Africa at the moment just as Europeans and Coloureds are. Under the Citizenship Act they have certain rights. All the citizens in South Africa do not have the same rights. Some have more rights than others. That has been the case ever since we have had a Union in South Africa. It was the case under the old South African Republic; it was the case in the old Cape Colony; it was the case in the old Free State Republic and in Natal. There is nothing new about that. If the hon. the Prime Minister says to me: “If you are going to give these men citizenship, are they going to have exactly the same rights as all the other citizens of South Africa, and will each group of citizens have the said rights?” my answer is no. There is nothing new about that. I can see no worry or problem in that regard. It has been so ever since we have existed as a union and I cannot see why it should not be so. Some people will have more rights in certain respects, and some people more rights in other respects. There is no difficulty in that regard. It happens in many parts of the world.

Then the hon. the Prime Minister also asked me: Why does the non-White stay in the white area? He does so for two reasons and not just one reason. The Prime Minister gave one reason. He said that it was because he had no work where he came from. That is true but he stays in our area because we want him to stay here and because we need his labour. That is the essential point which the hon. the Prime Minister and hon. members on that side of the House keep forgetting. They forget that without those black hands you do not run South Africa. We need that labour just as much as they need our employment. We are inter-dependent and it is no good the hon. the Prime Minister saying that we need them more than they need us, or that they need us more than we need them. The fact of the matter is that we have developed a society here in which the one cannot get on without the other. We have become inter-dependent. If the hon. the Prime Minister wants to change that, then he is going to bring about a revolution in South Africa, socially, economically and politically.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege for me to represent the constituency which produced the First Citizen of the Republic of South Africa, and it is my privilege to pay tribute to the political heritage of our honoured State President, a heritage which is characterized by correct conduct and proper execution anf fulfillment of section 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Therefore I feel free to say in this House to-night, to the rest of the Republic, that in emulation of my predecessor we should like to make this our slogan: Let us conduct ourselves qualitatively and let us properly and correctly fulfil section 1 of our Constitution.

My constituency is a compact urban constituency. The constituents are pensioners, artisans, railwaymen, teachers, housewives and mothers. There is hardly any section of our white population not represented there. Those constituents of mine are grateful for the peace and quiet and the economic prosperity which continues to prevail in this country under the sympathetic guidance of the hon. the Prime Minister. All my constituents also have an interest in the proper planning for our future in this country. Therefore I am not ashamed to say to-night that I stand here as a Nationalist to participate in the planning of that secure future. This brings me to the subject of planning.

It has on occasion been authoritatively declared that this Department was established to co-ordinate and activate the various departments and to promote inter-action. Since this Department is in its development stage, I can accordingly give free rein to my thoughts.

I want to plead to-night that the Department should consider concentrating on such resources as do exist, but which have not yet been properly and usefully exploited, and I mean resources in the widest sense of the word. These can also include abstract resources, such as labour resources, brain power and productive capacity. Let me illustrate what I mean by this.

From Bloemfontein to Durban there was an average of about 1,920 empty seats available per month on second-class train journeys, and from Bloemfontein to East London there were 1,298 available, and this on an average over a period of four months, from August to November, 1967. In this year we have figures of 1,950 and 1,450 seats available per month on an average. The fares for the Durban and East London journeys vary from approximately R20 to R15, respectively. On the other hand we have thousands of social pensioners for whom an increase of R1.50 would mean a very great deal. The one matter falls under the Department of Railways and the other under the Department of Pensions. You may, therefore, see, Sir, that I have overall planning in mind. On the one hand we have the resources, and on the other we have the need. I therefore want to make a strong plea that this matter should receive the attention of the responsible Ministers.

Another matter is this. Every year a large number of people between the ages of 60 and 65 retire—I do not have the statistics, but I would venture to say that there are thousands of them. Can this manpower not be utilized? It can be done with planning. Planning will probably make it possible to classify those persons who are still active, in the same way as tests are conducted to-day by the Department of Labour, and then these persons can be usefully employed and can again be absorbed in the economy. I discussed this matter with a former director of the Institute for Socio-Economic Research of the University of the Orange Free State, and he assured me that it was practicable to utilize this arsenal of knowledge and experience and not to have it lost to the Republic. It is unnecessary to declare that we need these people desparately in our particular circumstances.

Bloemfontein lies in the middle of a large number of development areas. Bloemfontein is the appropriate point to serve as a distribution centre for those areas. It has the railways and the roads. It is the natural focal point. I want to plead that in the development of these areas this be borne in mind. Again we already have the existing facilities on the one hand and the need that will come on the other hand.

Then there is a movement afoot to disengage research laboratories from the Government Departments and to add them to the universities. This is a natural process, because a university is there to serve as a research centre so that research may be done for that particular area, and those young men know what the problems are of the community which they are going to serve in the future. In my constituency there is a university of which we are all very proud, and I want to plead that it be kept in mind that we already have existing facilities there which must be extended and to which the laboratories can be added.

We have indicated that by utilizing resources with due regard to the needs, we eventually arrive at the results, which is saving, and this is what I am trying to stress with this idea of overall planning among departments.

It is my privilege to congratulate the hon. member for Bloemfontein (West), who has just spoken, on a constructive and well thought out speech. I felt a bond of sympathy with him as he spoke, because we have a link, as he pointed out, through so many of his voters who come down every month to my constituency to bask on the beaches of Durban Point. I hope that that bond of sympathy will continue to develop and that he will continue to make constructive contributions to our debates.

Having dealt with that constructive speech, I must now unfortunately come back to this Disneyland in which the hon. the Prime Minister and those who supported him have dwelt while conducting this debate, this fantasyland, this dreamland in which they live.

Are you Jumbo the elephant?

No, but I am trying to find somewhere in this philosophy of the hon. the Prime Minister, some point on which you can anchor his speech to reality and get down to the real issues that face us in South Africa. We heard from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development this afternoon of the over 200 unconnected, separate Bantu areas—“Losliggende” was his word—in the one province of South Africa.

What was your figure which you gave yesterday?

156 is the number of the proclaimed scheduled Reserves. The Deputy Minister has proved my point even better. I dealt with the scheduled Native Reserves. He has added another 50 odd black spots, etc. This makes my point all the stronger, because the Deputy Minister spoke glowingly of the local self-government they would have in these 200 odd areas. Having eliminated the white spots, they will start running their own affairs and looking after their own domestic problems, and handling the matters peculiar to themselves in their own area. Sir, he could have been expressing United Party policy.

That will be the day!

We hope that the day will arrive when he will divorce himself from the consequences of his present thinking and follow the logical policy of the United Party. But it is difficult, Sir, because as soon as you give facts to an hon. member opposite you confuse him. He has made up his mind in advance; he does not want to be confused by facts. We have always stood, and still stand, for local self-government. Our policy is based on regional councils for the Bantu.

I want to deal with this so-called separate development. If separate development means the running by the Bantu at their own local level and at regional level, of the affairs peculiar to themselves, then we believe in separate development, because we believe in local self-government. It is enshrined in our policy; it has always been part of the philosophy of the United Party. Long before the Nationalist Party ever conceived this new vision, we had the Bunga in the Transkei. We had a Native Representative Council and we had Bantu advisory boards in the cities, the nucleus of urban councils. This has always been part of the thinking of the United Party. When the Prime Minister says that South Africa accepts separate development, if he is referring to the policy of the United Party of social and residential segregation, of the different races living their own lives, of local self-government, of the Bantu handling their own affairs, then I agree with him that that is what South Africa accepts, and that is what his own supporters accept. Where our paths separate is where the point is reached where the Nationalist Party and the Government talk of the “self-determination” of the Bantu races. It is interesting, in passing, to note that the Government has run away from its original phrase, which was “separate freedoms”.

Do you accept separate universities?

The hon. the Minister asks whether we accept separate universities. When the Bill was before this House we said that we had no objection to establishing separate universities. We objected to the removal of the right of universities to determine who should be admitted. Mr. Chairman, I will not be diverted by hon. members opposite. This is what has happened throughout this debate. When you get the Government on a spot, then they try to draw a red herring across the trail to divert attention. My point is that the Government having talked of separate freedoms for a long time has run away from the term “separate freedoms” and has now come back to the term “separate development”. My point is—and I make it again—that separate development in the eyes of the people of South Africa is the United Party’s philosophy. What they do not accept is the next step, the step towards self-determination. I am prepared to state that 75 per cent to 80 per cent of all Nationalist supporters do not believe in sovereign independence for the Bantu areas of South Africa. They are prepared to accept segregation; they are prepared to accept the trimmings of the policy but they do not accept the ultimate consequences of sovereign independence. Sir, let me put this very pertinently to the Prime Minister: Let us look at this self-determination which is offered to the Bantu people. They are offered—and it was confirmed in this debate—the choice of becoming independent, not when they want it but when this Parliament is prepared to give it to them; in other words, they may not themselves determine when they are to get independence but they have the right to ask to determine their own future by becoming independent—if we agree. What is their alternative? The alternative is not to become independent but to remain in South Africa with no rights whatsoever. What is being offered to the Bantu of South Africa therefore is not self-determination. A pistol is being held at their heads and they are being told that their choice is either nothing or independence—when we are prepared to give it to them. Sir, I am not going to repeat the arguments advanced so effectively on this side about the complete fallacy of imagining that the Government can control the date of independence. What I want to say is that, contrary to what the hon. the Prime Minister has said, what they are doing is to create the very Congos which the Prime Minister said they would not have in South Africa. They are setting South Africa on a road which they will not be able to control, and the very frustration which the hon. the Prime Minister referred to is inherent in their policy, the frustration of saying to the Bantu, “Your choice is either nothing or what we give you, and what we give you we will determine in our own time”. The effect of this on the province of Natal is that in Natal you will have somewhere between 150 and 200 separate areas which are to develop to total sovereign independence.

Not if I have the time.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says that that is not going to happen if he has his way. But at the very best there will be 50 or 60 or a 100 such areas, and not one single town in Natal will be more than five miles away from an independent sovereign Bantu state. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Durban (Point) said at the outset that we were engaged in an unrealistic debate here. I want to say to the Opposition that I have sat here listening since yesterday. The Opposition asked a few important questions and I heard them receive a reply to every one of those questions. The Opposition asked whether the Bantu homelands were going to become independent. The Prime Minister answered them very clearly on that point.

When?

Yesterday and again this afternoon. He answered it very clearly, and tonight the hon. member comes along again and, just to create confusion, suggests that we have deviated from this policy. Sir, this is surely not the case. The Prime Minister of South Africa told him during the past two days where we stand in this matter, and to-night he comes along and, just to create confusion, he makes such an assertion.

Is it self-determination or not?

Ten minutes is so short that I cannot reply to all questions. As if the voters of South Africa do not know what the National Party’s policy is, after all the elections in which that hon. member, amongst others, told the electorate in my constituency and many other constituencies what our policy is. If we have not done it ourselves, then that hon. member is free to come to my constituency when I hold a meeting; he can sit in the audience and ask me questions about this matter; I cordially invite him to do so. I say that we were honest with the people of South Africa; we were honest and we are honest today and the people know what our policy is. The hon. member said to-night that 70 or 80 per cent of the people do not support us. If that is the case, then it is surely the easiest thing in the world for that hon. member to come to Queenstown, Sterkstroom and Dordrecht and convince that 70 to 80 per cent of the people to support him and vote for him. If the people do not support us, why does he not get them to support the United Party?

That was one of the question which the Opposition asked. Another question which they asked the Prime Minister is this: If we reach the end of the road and the Bantu say that they do not want to be independent, what then? I sat here listening how the Prime Minister gave them a very clear reply in that regard. The hon. member for Durban (Point) came forward again to-night with the danger story with which the hon. member for East London (City) had come forward—the dangers of independent countries. He again spoke of Congos to-night. Hon. members opposite have already told that story to the voters as well The hon. members for Transkei and East London (City) told that story to the people in the Eastern districts. They talked there of these so-called dangers, but the hon. the Prime Minister also dealt with this point in his speeches. Every conceivable point has been raised by the Opposition. They asked in this debate what our policy would cost. A reply was given to that. Questions were asked about the future of the Bantu worker in the white area, and the Prime Minister replied to them. Honestly, it appears to me as if the Opposition simply wants to make an ordinary no-confidence debate of this occasion.

Since the hon. member for Pinelands is sitting there staring at me and since he said that we should discuss major policy, I want to ask him whether it is still the policy of the United Party that Bantu should get proprietary rights in the white areas of South Africa. Surely that is major policy, since it affects the future. Is that still the United Party’s policy?

Why do you not listen in this House?

I know that it is still their policy. Let us just take a look at one small part of South Africa, at the Western Cape, and now the hon. member for Pinelands must listen carefully. If I am wrong, he must get up and tell me where I am wrong. At the last count there were 255,000 Bantu here and of the 255,000 Bantu 123,000 were in family units of husband, wife and children. The other 132,000 were solitary Bantu. Let us assume that only one half of those solitary Bantu in the Western Cape were married persons. More than half were probably married, but let us assume that only one half were married. Under the United Party’s policy, in terms of which family life must be restored, those 65,000 Bantu should immediately be allowed to bring their wives and children to the Western Cape. The hon. member for Pinelands would not dare deny that without laying himself open to the accusation that he is politically dishonest. If each of those 65,000 Bantu only brought in a wife and three children, it would mean that they would bring 260,000 additional Bantu here. Add that to the 225,000 and you have 515,000 Bantu, and then, in addition, you would probably allow the remaining 65,000 bachelors to go and fetch themselves wives. If you brought in those 65,000 women as well, you would have 580,000 Bantu, immediately, under the United Party policy. If my figures are wrong, I ask hon. members on that side to prove it to me. In this debate, to which I sat listening here, the Opposition also created the impression that under their regime the industries, farming and the fishing industry would not suffer a shortage of labour. They would allow Bantu to enter on a larger scale than we are allowing it. Suppose very few additional Bantu enter and that we only take the additional increase of 28 per 1,000. On 580,000 the increase in 20 years would be 325,000, and then we would have 905,000 Bantu in the Western Cape in 20 year’s time, without any additional entrants—people who would have proprietary rights under that Party’s policy! I put it to the hon. member for Pine-lands: This is major policy.

Will you tell us how many Bantu there are in Johannesburg and in the urban areas under your policy?

We can discuss that on other occasions. [Laughter.] Hon. members may laugh. I give the undertaking now that I shall make a study of that aspect and then we can discuss it on another occasion. Whatever the position under our policy may be, hon. members on that side must admit that the position under their policy would be infinitely worse.

There will be no essential difference.

I find it so strange that hon. members on that side object to that, because surely it is their policy to let the people come in and not to send them back to their homelands? Surely it is their policy to follow economic rules in politics and to take nothing else into consideration? Surely it is their policy to allow them to bring their families in? Is that not true?

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Transkei stood up here and pointed a finger at us.

You are distorting our policy.

On a point of order, Sir, does the hon. member have the right to say, “You are distorting our statements”?

I said, “You are distorting our policy”. On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the same point of order was taken when one of our members was accused of saying this and the Chair ruled that it was Parliamentary.

Order! The hon. member did not say that it was being done deliberately.

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, may I ask for the privilege of the second half hour? I do not propose to follow the complicated mathematical calculations of the hon. member for Queenstown, based on a whole series of hypotheses which are entirely inaccurate. I want to divert this debate to a number of other important matters connected with external affairs, and perhaps I should start by making mention just in passing of the news that we have had this afternoon of the final decision to exclude South Africa from the Olympic Games. I believe that this is a grievous disappointment to all sportsmen and women in South Africa, whatever their colour or race may be, and I believe it is a sad reflection on the Olympic Games Organization which seems to have very manifestly capitulated to the political pressures of a militant group with far less interest in sport than in politics, a group which I do not believe has ever or is ever likely to make any meaningful contribution to the Games.

I believe it is a hard blow especially to our non-white sportsmen who have been deprived, I think most unfairly, of the opportunity of making their first bow in this international sporting arena. I believe I am speaking for everyone on our side of the House when I say our deepfelt sympathy goes out to those fine young men and women who have been assiduously preparing themselves for many months to carry the colours of South Africa with distinction at those Games. I think there should also be a word of praise and very real appreciation to the officials of our Olympic Games Organization for the efforts they have made to get fair play for South Africa and a square deal in respect of this matter.

Now I want to raise a number of matters which I believe are perhaps of more controversial nature and they concern South Africa’s relations with the external world which I should like to group under four heads: First of all, our relations with the Western world; secondly, our relations with the countries within our borders and to the north of us; thirdly the problems of our eastern seaboard; and fourthly the position and the influence of Communism generally upon Southern Africa. All, of course, are interconnected. The problem of our eastern seaboard is an example. It is potentially the most dangerous and is tied up, of course, with our relations with the Western world, with our relations with countries to the north of us, and with the influence of Communism generally. It has been debated before in this House and I intend setting out the problem only sketchily and in so far as it is necessary for me to put certain questions to the hon. the Prime Minister and make perhaps certain suggestions to him.

I think the problem arises basically because of the announced intention of Great Britain to withdraw from east of Suez within the next few years, by 1971 I believe. Already Aden has been evacuated, Singapore is next on the list, and plans for a joint British-American base near the Seychelles at a place which I believe is called Aldeberan have been abandoned. The general result has been what has been called I think by the hon. the Minister of Defence a “power vacuum” in the Indian Ocean.

Peace in Vietnam, if it is achieved, merely means that the eastern borders of that vacuum will be less assiduously patrolled by the U.S.A. Australia has already indicated that she has not the resources to take over from Britain, and a measure of dismay has been expressed in Washington at that withdrawal as well. Britain we know has plans for flying assistance out to maintain her commitments in that area, but I think to everyone that must mean very real problems and it must be clear that her assistance can be of limited scope. France has got a base at Malagassy and perhaps in French Somaliland, but I think we are all agreed that her policies have tended to be ambivalent in the past.

Into this vacuum it can be expected that two powers, both communist, will move, namely Red China and Russia. I think we should have a look at both before I put the question that I want to put. I think Russia has already been offered a base in Aden. She has a large naval force in the Mediterranean. She has only to secure the reopening of Suez and to maintain the free passage which she has through the Dardanelles at the moment to be in a very strong position to infiltrate into the Indian Ocean.

All this we knew before, but now we know some more which probably the Government knew and of which we as an Opposition were not informed, and that is that Sunday’s Press reports a Soviet naval presence in the Indian Ocean. This was apparently first observed by our people and it has now been confirmed according to the Press reports by the U.S.A. intelligence sources. The force has been variously described but apparently it indicates that there is contemplation of an extended stay in these waters because the force is accompanied by an oiler and by a freighter-type auxiliary. Of course there have been Soviet forces in the Indian Ocean before. I believe I am right in saying there have been frequent cruises by Soviet submarines in the Indian Ocean but in the present circumstances surely the position has changed and it may have very sinister implications indeed, not only for us but for the whole of the Western world. At the same time we are faced with communist China seeking spheres of influence outside her own territories. Obviously India for her is merely an additional embarrassment and she must look south-east via Indonesia and New Guinea towards Australia, and south-west towards the eastern coast of Africa. Already there is an indication that she has got some sort of a foothold in Zanzibar and is extending her influence in Tanzania and to an extent in Zambia. Mauritius, recently independent, remains an entirely unknown factor, but there seems to be Considerable danger that she may be exposed to influences from the Chinese sphere.

Against this background Britain’s failure to make arms available to South Africa to play its part in the protection of the route round the Cape, especially after the closing of Suez, is incomprehensible to me and absolutely indefensible. It is doubly so when regard is had to the Simonstown agreement, to which the Minister of Defence gave us sight not so long ago, and when regard is had to the fact also that we have fulfilled completely our obligations under those agreements.

When this matter was last discussed in the House I expressed concern at the fact that the British Prime Minister was apparently able to say as at 6th February of this year that he had not received any communication from the South African Prime Minister about the future use by the Royal Navy of the naval base at Simonstown, and certain allied matters. When I raised that matter the hon. the Minister of Defence was good enough to assure us that he himself had been in correspondence with the British Defence Minister in respect of a shopping list presented by us and that despite several reminders we had received not one official communication.

I know that our Prime Minister has reacted publicly, I believe only after Mr. Wilson’s statement in the House reiterating the ban on the sale of arms to South Africa. Is that enough? Surely in the light of the present situation this matter has become important enough and of sufficiently urgent importance for South Africa for direct communication between Prime Minister and Prime Minister. You know, Sir, we live in an age of personal diplomacy at the top level. Mr. Wilson flies off to see President Johnson, Mr. Wilson flies off to see the top men in Moscow, the British Prime Minister and the American President meet. All over the world we hear of Prime Ministers meeting each other. We hear of President De Gaulle meeting the top men in Germany, and of the top men in various countries holding conversations. It seems to me that this is something that must be investigated on that level.

You see, Sir, the position of Britain has changed recently. With the Russian naval presence in the Indian Ocean the situation is quite different from what it was. The threats to the oil supplies in the Persian Gulf must be obvious to everybody. She has, according to estimates given before, at any one time some 800 ships in the Indian Ocean, 40 per cent of the total shipping in the Indian Ocean is probably flying the British flag at the present time. The times have been influenced also by the fact that the official Conservative Party Opposition in Great Britain has reacted very strongly. Mr. Douglas-Hume, who visited South Africa, has left no doubt as to their views and their willingness to reverse the decision of the present British Government. There are one or two other statements from Opposition sources in Britain which seems to me to be important. The first is from Mr. McLeod of 17th January of this year, and the second is from Mr. Heath, the official Leader of the Opposition, of 5th March of this year. After the Government had announced its speeded-up withdrawal east of Suez, Mr. McLeod said—

Then, on 5th March, we have the statement made by Mr. Heath—

On the question of the supply of arms to South Africa he also made it clear that a Conservative administration would reverse the Labour Government’s embargo on the sale of arms for external defence to South Africa. No country has ever challenged Britain’s interpretation of what is used for external defence and what for internal defence. They would be ready once more to supply us with arms and to sell us submarines and naval vessels as long as they are used for external defence. Since Sir Douglas-Hume has returned to Britain he has written—

Mr. Heath himself, in the defence debate, stressed the dangers of Russian penetration in the Indian ocean. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that I believe that if ever the time was ripe for this matter to be taken up on the highest possible level, and the level of Prime Minister to Prime Minister, then that time is now. I want to indicate also the fact that Washington itself has expressed dismay at Britain’s withdrawal east of Suez. This indicates that the time for a diplomatic offensive is now. I think that we on the side of the Opposition are entitled to ask what the Government is doing and what it is going to do. Its failure to obtain the lifting of the arms ban has been something of a diplomatic failure which has been regretted by everybody in South Africa.

Are you blaming us for this?

The hon. the Prime Minister asks “Are you blaming us”. I will reply to that when the hon. gentleman has replied to me. Must I accept that there has never been any contact between our Prime Minister and the British Prime Minister on this arms ban?

I am not talking about that. What I am asking you is whether you are blaming me for Britain’s refusal to sell arms to South Africa.

That is not the question. The question is a very simple one. I am prepared to give my judgment when I know whether or not this hon. Prime Minister has been in personal contact with the British Prime Minister. I will give my judgment, and the country will give its judgment, when we know whether this exchange has been conducted on the basis of long-term diplomacy from the hustings, or whether there has been proper communication between our Prime Minister and the British Prime Minister on the subject. I think that South Africa wants to be sure that this matter is being properly handled. If it is being properly handled, then the situation is just too bad. If it has not been properly handled, then we want to be assured that it is going to be better handled in the future, especially in the light of the exceptionally favourable circumstances that exist at the present time. There have never been more favourable circumstances than at the present time for some sort of approach to get a change of policy on behalf of Great Britain and perhaps other Western powers. I know very well that this whole situation is closely bound up with our relations with the nations of the Western world. Here the situation is complicated by many factors. Of course it is complicated by the international implications of Great Britain’s dispute with Rhodesia and her decision which is indefensible, I believe, to throw that matter to the United Nations Organization, which is only too anxious to get South Africa involved. Clearly, escalation of that dispute with Britains reference of that domestic matter for the second time to the security council can only make the situation more delicate and there is increasing danger of attempts being made to exert pressure, I believe, not only on us, but also on Portugal. I think I have made it evident in the past with what sympathy we of the Opposition have regarded the problems of our friends across the borders in Rhodesia. Although it may be necessary to jog the Government’s elbow occasionally, particularly in the early stages, I think we have managed for some little time now to have a similar approach on this issue. Quite clearly we must support orderly, civilized government in Rhodesia. We must be prepared to take risks to see that it is maintained. I believe this Government has been prepared to do so. The position is clearly entering a new phase, and I would like to suggest to the hon. the Prime Minister that it would be in the interests of the country if there was as full consultation as possible on this issue. I would not like to see South Africa divided on it. I believe that that would be his wish as well.

The situation in respect of South West Africa is also entering a new phase, but one in respect of which I think there is substantial agreement between us. I am worried, however, I want to say at once, by the Government’s plans to move in the direction of implementing the political recommendations of the Odendaal Commission’s report. Of course, it is not planning to go the whole hog, I know that, and I know it is at pains to stress that this is not the implementation of the Odendaal Commission’s report I accept that. But by the same token I believe it is laying a foundation, and I think the Government should be very careful at this stage not to lose friends which it may have gained as a result of the decision of the International Court of Justice in our favour on the South West African case. We are faced with this fact that there are previous decisions of that Court, indicating that we cannot unilaterally change the international status of South West Africa, or for that matter any part of it. I leave it there, because it is difficult for us to accept one judgment and not accept another.

This brings me to our relations with the countries on our borders and to the North of us. Here I want to say at once that I find myself very much in agreement with what was recently said by one of our Administrators to the effect that (and I quote)—

The story of the escalation of these activities from the Congolese border of Angola to the Zambia border of Angola, from the Zambia border of Rhodesia and its build-up in Tanzanian territories to the north of Mozambique, makes sorry reading. It makes one wonder what standards are applied by the United Nations Organization and indeed by certain Western countries, who are prepared to sit by and see countries, who claim to be members of the United Nations Organization, allowing insurgents to train in their territories and prepare for attacks upon what are alleged to be friendly states on their borders. That is incomprehensible but it seems to be one of those things with which we are faced at the present time. I know also that Communism plays a very big part indeed and that there is ample evidence that terrorist activities have been financed from sources in, I fear, a steadily growing number of countries, sometimes even from sources in Western countries. Complicating factors, I believe from reports made available to me by the Press, is the fact that we are seeing so-called advisers appearing in these training camps from Cuba, China, Russia, Egypt and other communist countries, that were not there a year ago. It is against this background that this side of the House approves completely of the Government’s action in making members of our Police Force available to assist in policing the northern boundaries of Rhodesia against terrorist insurgents, many of whom were headed towards the Republic and South West Africa. I want to say that I appreciate that the position in Angola and Mozambique is very different. I believe from my own observations in Angola where I took the trouble to look at conditions there personally and from hearsay in the case of Mozambique, that the Portuguese are doing a pretty good job. I wonder whether the time has not come for us to consider what assistance we can give of a non-military nature, bearing in mind that in a sense these people are fighting our battle and that should they lose, we would have a most unpleasant situation on two most important borders. They are also acting as most effective buffers for us at the present time.

It is against this background that I want to raise the question of the Ruacana Falls hydroelectric and water supply scheme and a similar scheme at Cahora-Bussa on the Zambesi River. Both schemes are of course of great importance and enormous value for the development of Southern Africa. They could have tremendous advantages both for us and the Portuguese territories. One gets the impression that there has been undue delay in respect of the Ruacana scheme and we should like to know from the hon. the Prime Minister, if he is able to tell us, just exactly what the situation is at present and to what extent it is affected, if at all, by the security situation in that area. We know that the entire works connected with this scheme will not be on our territory. The Cahora-Bussa scheme is without doubt a most ambitious scheme. It seems that in respect of this scheme there has been greater progress than has been made in the case of the Ruacana scheme. I see from the Press that tenders have been called for. Here again we should like to have a progress report from the hon. the Prime Minister as to what the situation is. I think that it would also be helpful if the Prime Minister could indicate whether these schemes are regarded purely from a business point of view or whether there are other strategic or diplomatic considerations involved. Portugal is our most ancient ally and the contribution she is making to the development of Southern Africa at present has a vast potential which can be of enormous value not only to her but to us as well. I know that our relations with here are friendly. It does seem to me that despite the barrier of language, there are few peoples with whom we have more in common than these people and that an intensification of that exchange of knowledge and experience, particularly technical knowledge, which is so valuable to both of us, should be considered most favourably.

Moving further south we find ourselves on a friendly footing with the independent states of Lesotho and Botswana and with every hope of happy relations with Swaziland. We already have a customs union with those territories, a customs union which demands the closest association between our four countries. The political independence of the participating states has now been, or soon will be, fully recognized But the fact of our economic interdependence cannot be ignored and with the cordial agreement of the participating parties, this could lead to a full-scale common market with a higher level of economic activity and improved standards of living for all concerned if it could be achieved. Whether an arrangement of this kind could be extended further afield, is of course a matter which should be constantly before our minds. It is possible to think in terms of a federal concept which might unite widely differing elements in a bond of mutual advantage, however modified the form may be. I know that in this Budget R5 million have been set aside for assistance to under-developed countries. We should like to know from the hon. the Prime Minister what he has in mind. I gathered from previous statements that it is not so much financial help that the Government is contemplating but technical assistance and advice. We should like to know whether it includes the preparation of ground for investment of capital from the Republic in those areas. We should like to know whether it includes training. I think we need some idea of what the Government has in mind.

One is impressed in a survey of this kind by the fact that everywhere there is the hand of Communism except in the Western world. One wonders to what extent it plays a part in our relations with the United Nations Organization. I think that we are a united country in our opposition to Communism. We are united in our determination to fight it, wherever it may be and wherever we have that opportunity. I think we have to be careful in conducting that fight that we do not leave gaps or create conditions by which we tend to believe that what is black nationalism is in fact Communism. I believe that Communism is exploiting black nationalism in Africa to a large extent. It is exploiting it in those territories to the north of us to our disadvantage. We must be careful in conducting our campaign in being sure that we meet this threat and that we recognize it for what it is and make the sort of propaganda that will have an effect on the man who is a nationalist first and a Communist second.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. Leader of the Opposition touched upon quite a few matters of great importance. One is grateful to him for the calm and intelligent way in which he touched upon many of the matters. I do not want to reply to all those matters. I think that the hon. the Prime Minister will enlighten him thoroughly about them. There are nevertheless two matters about which I would like to say a word.

The first is the reference made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to the withdrawal of the British forces from the areas east of Suez, which has of course become a great problem to us, not only for South Africa, but for the Western world as a whole. We know that Great Britain had forces stationed in those areas in the past and that it afforded great protection to the Western world as a whole. The fact that she is now withdrawing from those areas in the first place stresses the fact that a greater responsibility will now rest on the shoulders of the Western countries in regard to the protection of those areas against the onslaught of Communism.

But in the second place it once again stresses the important strategic position which South Africa occupies in the struggle between the Western world and Communism. We know that South Africa is not only strategically situated in respect of the entire Antarctic area, but also occupies such an important position in respect of this very area from which Britain will in due course withdraw herself that the Western world will have to take notice of it. One would like to see the Western world adopting a more responsible attitude towards South Africa at this stage, in which these things are happening, and realizing what an important role she will be able to play. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also referred to the attacks by terrorists in the neighbouring areas. He suggested that, not only in the case of Rhodesia, but also in the case of the Portuguese areas, South Africa would have to make a contribution in some way or other.

Not in a military way.

I agree with you. I want to affirm that. I believe we have reached the stage in modem world politics to-day where the communists are directing their attacks at South Africa by means of terrorism and that in the coming years or even decades we will have to deal with attacks by terrorists. The position is that trained terrorists who were previously used for the struggle in Cuba and Algeria have their hands free there at the moment, and also that they are professional terrorists. One may therefore expect that they will not return to their own countries now to be idle there, but that they will be used in the struggle of the communists against this important stronghold of Western civilization in Southern Africa. Therefore I want to agree wholeheartedly with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that we will have to consider making a contribution, not only in the case of Rhodesia, but also in the case of the Portuguese territories, in order to ward off these attacks, which are really aimed against South Africa—the white stronghold in Southern Africa. Actually I am sorry that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who raised a large number of interesting problems, did not also refer to the improvement in the attitude of the outside world towards South Africa. I am referring particularly to what has happened during the past year or two. It is my opinion that a noticeable change has occurred in the attitude and disposition of the outside world towards South Africa. Perhaps it is necessary that I should just refer to one or two cases.

In the United States of America, for instance, there is a policy study group, the present chairman of which is a certain Richard Thomas. The task of that policy group is actually to stir up hatred against South Africa. If one reads their latest report, it is very clear that they are experiencing more and more setbacks. In their latest annual report they declare with regret that there has been an improvement in the attitude to South Africa, mainly as a result of three reasons. The first is the prosperity and development being experienced in the Bantu homelands in South Africa; the second is the fact that the World Court gave judgment in favour of South Africa; and the third is the closing of the Suez Canal and the important strategic role the southern part of Africa is playing in world politics to-day. It is significant to us if these people, who are seeking the downfall of South Africa, experience setbacks of this kind. I also want to refer to a survey which another important group made in regard to foreign opinion. This is the Charles St. Thomas group, which made a survey amongst American and Canadian businessmen in South Africa in respect of their views regarding foreign affairs. They sent a questionnaire to all these persons. It is interesting to note that 25 per cent of them said that if they could vote in South Africa—these American and Canadian businessmen—they would vote for the United Party. Fifteen per cent of them said that if they could vote they would vote for the Progressive Party. And then it is significant to note that 40 per cent of them said that if they could vote they would vote for the National Party. It is interesting that 60 per cent of them declared there had been a large improvement in America and Canada as regards the attitude adopted towards South Africa by Canadians and Americans. I want to mention a further case—and I see my time is getting short—of improved relations as far as our neighbouring states are concerned. In this connection I want to refer to Malawi in particular. I have here an extract from a Hansard report of what was said in the Malawi Parliament. To me this is a very good barometer. You will remember that a very distinguished official of South Africa, Dr. Rautenbach, went there to help Malawi in connection with planning. On this occasion they were discussing his report. The Prime Minister of Malawi, Dr. Banda, was speaking and with reference to Dr. Rautenbach he said the following—

But actually I just wanted to mention the following statement by him—

Unfortunately I have to skip parts now. His speech was applauded throughout. He went on to say—

[Time expired.]

It seems to me that as a result of the settlement here in 1652 and my surname, you cannot divorce the Hottentots from Holland. But let that be. I do not want to follow up the speech of the hon. member for Middelland, although I shall return to it later. I just want to state my own point of view. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a stimulating speech tonight upon which I should like to congratulate him. He spoke about international affairs. My standpoint in this House on a previous occasion was that we in South Africa should, as far as international affairs are concerned, seek unity between the Opposition and the Government, and I specifically mentioned the matter of South West Africa. A reply could not be given then, during the administration of the previous Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, because the matter was sub judice in the International Court. But I hope that most of the matters mentioned here this evening by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will be resolved between him and the Prime Minister, because the less the outside world knows of our standpoint in respect of our neighbouring states, the better for us under present circumstances. But this gives me occasion to say something about some of the things which have been said in this debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote, especially as a result of the statements made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and quotations from what the hon. member for Simonstown and others allegedly said.

The quotations from what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout allegedly said or in regard to alleged standpoint and the alleged standpoint of other members of the Opposition were either silently or vociferously supported here by members of his Party. I do not want to profess to be an authority in the field of international affairs or on what the feeling overseas may be. I have never been able to make trips at my own expense to see what is going on in America, and international bodies have not yet made those funds available to me. So I am limited to what I read in the newspapers and hear on the radio, and notice as a member of this House. [Interjection.] If the Americans had given me the money, I could have gone with Japie and then I would have been there long before him. But enough of that. It is not my intention to stir up enmity. But in my humble opinion it is essential to have an Opposition in a democratic system of government such as South Africa has at present.

An Opposition like this one?

Leave out the commentary. It is also essential that the Opposition be as strong as possible, to keep the Government on its toes.

Are you flirting with the United Party now?

I cannot pay any heed to what persons who do not know constitutional history have to say about the matter. It is also a good feature that the more stimulating and aggressive an opposition can be in respect of a government, the stronger that government must stand to keep its domestic affairs in order, and now I am confining myself to within the borders of South Africa. Under the circumstances I regard myself as part of the Opposition, as I began in this House—that is simply how it is—and until I am kicked out of here, I shall try to act as such, but taking into consideration the borders of the Republic of South Africa. But where I feel that things are going wrong, is when we indulge in politicking and scoring debating points here in regard to matters which can harm and are harming South Africa beyond its borders. I represent my constituents and I am a citizen of the Republic of South Africa, and if I understand my history sufficiently well, there has from the earliest years always been a tendency towards separation between the race groups. Even the Progressive Party, which is called liberalistic, admit it in their constitution and their composition. There has always been that differentiation. Then there was the criticism of the Government on account of its granite policy, and I was sitting in this House when the then hon. member for Turffontein, who exceeded in length the present member for Turffontein, who now sits there broadly, was the main speaker for the Opposition on foreign affairs. Great emphasis was placed on our relationships and the ties which we should create with the developing African states. Considering all that, we now have the position here that we have a Government which welcomes diplomats from north of the Zambezi in South Africa and even provides accommodation for them here, which welcomes and provides accommodation for Prime Ministers from north of the Zambezi and neighbouring territories, but now debating points are being made of that. Now I want to ask who is being false now? Who is wrong now? Do we now welcome the so-called relaxation of the granite policy and the establishment of ties beyond our borders, or must we now use these things as debating points here to harm South Africa beyond her borders? I leave it to you to judge, Sir. The hon. member for Karoo stood up here last year and asked whether the Prime Minister had obtained a permit for the Prime Minister of Lesotho to stay at the Mount Nelson Hotel. I must say that it gave me cold shivers, because I could not understand how someone with common sense could say something like that in this House. [Interjections.] I am now speaking of what is happening beyond the borders of South Africa and of the repercussions it had. Is it necessary to exploit in this House what the Government in power is doing, and the way in which the links are being forged which we have wanted all along? Is this not disloyalty to South Africa? Must we now have a diplomat from north of the Zambezi, if he should be transferred by his Government to Ottawa or Washington or Nairobi, to go and defend there, after the able way in which he conducted himself here as a diplomat, what was actually said in the House of Assembly, and which he could not reply to as a diplomat? I feel that we must draw the line somewhere. If we want to criticize and attack the Government, and if we want to find fault with what the Government is doing and want to point out anomalies and contradictions which may exist, let us restrict it to what is happening inside South Africa. Do we now want to place foreign diplomats, whatever their colour may be, from north of the Zambesi, in the position that within South Africa they must conduct themselves so ably and gain so much praise from the Press, so much so that we do not have a word of criticism about them, but that when they are transferred from this country, they must go and put up a defence against what is dished up to them from the Hansard of South Africa in regard to what was said about them, about their stay here, etc., which they could not reply to at the time? I am deeply convinced that when we want to criticize the Government, when we have points to attack it on—and this is the duty of an Opposition; it is my duty on behalf of my constituents—we should do so, but that when we go beyond our borders, we must take into consideration that a change of administration might come and that if that happens, the Prime Minister of that new administration is going to accept the responsibility of the previous Prime Minister. He will not be able to say: Yes, but Vorster was Prime Minister then, and now I, Graaff, am Prime Minister, and I think differently. It is still the Prime Minister of the South African Government. [Time expired.]

I should like to deal with a question put by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition regarding the Kunene scheme. The hon. the Leader intimated here that it seemed as though there were unnecessary delays in the implementation of the Kunene scheme. I want to say that it must be borne in mind that this scheme is being undertaken by two different countries, Portugal and South Africa, and in the case of such a scheme, which may very well be called an international scheme, delays are unavoidable as negotiations must take place between one country and the other. If it were a scheme which had to be drawn up and implemented by South Africa alone, then obviously less time would have been lost.

What then is the reason for the delay? In the first place, the Odendaal Commission had issued a report and had suggested a scheme. There were no engineers on the Odendaal Commission who had sufficient time to work out a proper scheme, but after they had investigated the matter, they made a recommendation that a certain scheme they had in mind, should be further investigated and, if necessary, developed. The scheme they had in mind was the installation of a new power generating plant by the Portuguese at the existing dam in Angola, or Matala, and the construction of power lines from there over a distance of approximately 150 miles to the South West African border, and that we would, for the time being, purchase power which was to be generated there, by the Portuguese, until such time as the power station at Ruacana was completed. Now, there is an agreement dating back to 1926 between South Africa and the Portuguese Government regarding the utilization of the water of the Kunene, but that scheme alone was not sufficient to enable South Africa to develop the proposed Kunene scheme. The result was that new discussions had to be held, and these took place in Pretoria in 1964, between representatives of Portugal and South Africa. At these discussions a new agreement was drawn up in terms of which investigations were to be conducted as to how the waters of the Kunene scheme could be utilized by both countries to the greatest benefit of the two regions. It was furthermore agreed that that scheme was to be further investigated by two teams of engineers, namely a Portuguese team and a South African team, and that the two teams would compare their plans after the investigation. It goes without saying that this is a large scheme and that such an investigation would take a long time. The investigation was carried out and both sides found that a more profitable scheme could be developed than the one which the Odendaal Commission had had in mind.

In the first place they felt that the original Matala scheme should rather be abandoned, that the generation of hydro-electric power at Matala should no longer take place, that that power line should no longer be built and that we should rather concentrate on building more dams in the Kunene River to regulate the water so as to have a steady flow at Ruacana. It was then decided to abandon the Matala scheme, and in its stead to build a large dam at Gove, a place north-east of Matala, and that water would be supplied out of that dam to Matala Dam, where the Portuguese would generate power for their own purposes, and that from that dam the flow of water could be regulated right down to Ruacana. This would therefore be the first step in the new scheme, the dam at Gove. This dam would cost R8⅛ million. Then another dam would be built at Calueque, 30 kilometres north of the Ruacana Falls, that is, the original dam that had been intended for the first scheme, and at Calueque, which is about seven or eight miles from our border, a pumping station would also be erected to supply a stream of water of six cubic metre per second to South West Africa from the Calueque Dam. Calueque would be the second regulating dam for the generation of power at Ruacana. The third step in this scheme would be a diversion wall at the Ruacana Falls to canalize the water for the hydro-electric scheme; and the fourth step would then be the electric scheme at Ruacana, all of which would be situated in South West African territory, and from there the power lines would run through Ovamboland down to the southern areas for use in South West Africa. To our mind this is a much more profitable scheme, but it goes without saying that it is a complicated scheme, that it is not a scheme to be undertaken lightly, and that we would expose ourselves to blame if it were rushed. Then we will be told: “Why did you not rather take more time about it and investigate this scheme very thoroughly?” I may say that we have now progressed to the stage where the final discussions were held here in Cape Town between the representatives of Portugal and South Africa a short while ago, on 28th, 29th and 30th March. I want to quote a phrase or two from a letter which I received a short while ago from Dr. Van Eck, the Chairman of the Swawel Board which was established to deal with this matter. He wrote me the following—

I am therefore glad to be able to say that we have made this much progress and that the Government will now pay attention to the matter to see whether it is satisfied with the latest plans that have been worked out and with the scheme that is now being submitted, and not only whether this Government is satisfied, but also whether the Portuguese Government is satisfied, because until now the negotiations have been conducted by diplomatic and other officials, and it is obvious that both Governments must first signify their agreement before we can proceed. This is the information I can give to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and I hope he will be satisfied with it.

I want to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for the information he has supplied to this Committee. I can assure him that these are matters which both sides are very interested in, and we hope that the Government will keep the Committee or the House informed about developments of this nature.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to certain matters in South West Africa, and I just want to make a few supplementary remarks in this regard. In the first place I should like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether we may expect legislation in this Session pertaining to the powers of the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa, and, if so, whether the hon. the Prime Minister will see to it that this legislation comes into our hands in time, together with an explanatory memorandum. Then, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I am one of those who had the privilege—and I underline the word “privilege”—to visit the northern regions of South West Africa recently with the parliamentary team under the leadership of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. Let me say at once that anybody who is not impressed by the endeavours being made to develop that territory and to help those people, must be a wilful person. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that I cannot say, in regard to this matter, that we on this side will never express criticism, if it should be necessary, of the way in which funds are spent, but as regards the spending of funds, I hope the Government will not allow itself to be influenced by narrow-visioned people (verkramptes). I am convinced that what is being done for the development of those areas will yield rich dividends for South Africa. I want to stress once again that in so far as those areas are being developed and the people there are being helped, the hon. the Prime Minister has the full support of the Opposition. One is deeply impressed by the dedication of the officials there. Those people are more than just officials; one gains the impression that they are engaged on the accomplishment of a task. They are certainly not unwilling to work after hours. There is one shortcoming that I want to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister. I think this Government can make better provision for sporting facilities for those people on the frontiers. We had the opportunity of going as far as Otjikango, where the terrorist attacks had been made and the first shots, as it were, had been fired at South Africa. The only complaint of the officials there is that there is a lack of sporting facilities. I know the Government will say that these things will come, but this should not be the attitude. When people are defending you on the frontiers, then the facilities must be made available beforehand. Those people are working under extremely difficult conditions, and I think this is a matter that must receive preference. They are not unhappy there, but this is their one complaint, and one finds that particularly the young people, owing to complete lack of recreation facilities, such as bioscope facilities, simply have to go and sit in the bar. I hope this matter will receive very urgent attention.

The hon. member for Brakpan tried here to-day to hold up the position in Ovamboland as a product of Government policy. Ovamboland has always been a territory with self-government on a tribal level.

What language are you speaking to-night?

When General Smuts held a referendum there in 1946, the Ovambos voted 100 per cent for incorporation with the Union of South Africa. We have always had the goodwill of those people. There was no white settlement in that region, and fortunately the Ovambos and the people in the north were among those who were the furthest removed from measures of the kind that is troubling the urban Bantu to-day. The point I want to make is this: When visiting South West Africa one cannot help but feel that it is not a matter that we must treat lightly. Mr. Chairman, one con only go by one’s own opinion, and that opinion is usually based on information, on research, on what one hears and what one reads, and my opinion—I hope I am wrong—is that the South West Africa issue is going to become South Africa’s most serious problem in future. I say I hope I am wrong. I am convinced that the outside world may perhaps leave the Republic alone, but, rightly or wrongly—I am merely stating the fact—South West Africa is seen as a region that is in the position of a colony, and I do not think that the world as a whole is going to leave us alone in that regard. There will be one action after another, one embarrassment after another, one crisis after another, and I was struck by the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister and other speakers have recently made speeches suggesting that some of our darkest moments still lie ahead. In the light of that I just want to say this to the hon. the Prime Minister: At the moment, for example, we have here on the Table legislation concerning South West Africa, and I want to tell you what my first reaction was when I glanced through the legislation. My first reaction was that it was a pity that everything that was being done in connection with South West Africa was being done in a one-sided way by the Government. It cannot be expected of an Opposition, when a Government comes forward with legislation or measures, simply to acquiesce because it is a delicate matter. Since South West Africa’s difficulties can only increase, I am convinced that an opportunity should be afforded for consultation between Government and Opposition. I am personally thinking of something like, for example, a standing committee—not a bipartisan policy. A bipartisan policy is a difficult thing for a government, and it is a very difficult thing for an opposition, and this is not what we are asking at all. But I believe it is necessary that there should be some kind of channel through which the Opposition may be counselled when the Government wants to take steps concerning South West. If the Government wants the greatest possible measure of agreement, then, surely, it is the duty of the Government to consult in advance in order to achieve as much agreement as possible. I am not saying that such a committee should have any decisive power, for example, nor am I asking the Government to commit itself to necessarily submitting everything that is done concerning South West Africa, to such a committee for discussion. All I have in mind, is that there should be a channel by means of which proposed steps may be submitted for consultation beforehand, because I am convinced that all the wisdom is not to be found on one side only, and in the case of a matter such as South West Africa, which involves the security and the interests of everybody, to whatever party he may belong, there ought to be a better understanding between Government and Opposition. When Dr. Malan wanted to give South West Africa a new constitution, the first step he took was to say: “I am acting here as Prime Minister, not as party leader of the National Party.” He had been in power for three months and he immediately asked the two parties in South West Africa in 1948 to meet so that he could speak to both, and on that basis the South West African Constitution of 1949 was drawn up. Dr. Malan approached the matter in his tactful way, and there was so much appreciation for the way he consulted with all parties, that when he left there, he had many friends more than he had had when he came there, arid he had a Bill drawn up that was supported by both parties on both sides. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked the hon. the Prime Minister a moment ago whether we could expect legislation during this Session concerning the proposed readjustment of financial and administrative matters between South West Africa and the Republic. As the hon. member knows, that recommendation was made by the Odendaal Commission, but the Government decided at the time that this was a very intricate matter, and in the White Paper of 1964 it was announced that the Government would appoint a committee of experts to investigate this matter and to make recommendations to the Government on the details of how this readjustment could be made. That committee was subsequently appointed; I was its chairman, and the committee had a tremendous task to examine this readjustment in detail. I do not want to go into too much detail now, but I may just mention that, with the leave of the Prime Minister, I appointed a number of study groups at the time, which consisted of representatives of sections in South West Africa and the Departments of the Republic, and which then had to advise the central committee. On the basis of the information presented to me as chairman by those various study groups, the committee of experts considered their proposals, and the committee then submitted a report to the hon. the Prime Minister. After considering that report, the Prime Minister announced last year at the meeting in Windhoek that the Government had accepted that report, but undertook to issue a White Paper explaining what the Government had decided concerning the recommendations contained in my report. Now, I may say that drawing up that White Paper was a tremendous task. Hon. members will realize that such a readjustment involves almost every department as well as the Administration of South West Africa. The principle we adopted was that there was to be as little disruption as possible in connection with the readjustment and that it should cause the inhabitants of South West Africa no hardships. I may mention that the White Paper has just been completed. I must, however, still discuss the final draft with the hon. the Prime Minister. Then it has to be translated and printed. It will therefore not be very long before that White Paper will be laid upon the Table here. This Paper will set out the Government’s decisions in respect of this readjustment. I want to say, furthermore, that I am already preparing legislation to empower the various Ministers here to exercise those functions in South West Africa under the sections they will take over, and which will in future fall under the various Departments of the Republic. Whether that legislation will be passed during this Session, depends on whether the time will he available. It is the intention to do so, but it will depend on circumstances and whether there will be sufficient time to put the legislation through. Hon. members will appreciate that this legislation, too, still has to be examined by the various Ministers and their Departments in order to satisfy themselves that it will enable them …

I should like to have the assurance that no attempt will be made to force this legislation through at the end of the session.

The White Paper will provide hon. members with all the information they want. The only purpose of the legislation will be to empower the Ministers to implement the decisions contained in that White Paper. When the White Paper is laid upon the Table, hon. members will be given sufficient time to study it.

Mr. Chairman, the subject which I wish to raise with the hon. the Prime Minister is one that I discussed in the House some six years ago. It is the question of Ministers in the Cabinet being directors of companies. This subject was first raised in the days when the present Nationalist Party were the Opposition. It was raised in a splendid and dignified manner by a front bencher of those days, namely Dr. Dӧnges. He said he raised it in the interest of sound government and in the interest of the dignity of the Cabinet, and not of the Cabinet of the day only, but of the Cabinets of all time. We have had an old tradition in South Africa. I should like to say when this matter was raised by Dr. Dӧnges, he raised it in a manner which I should like to emulate to-day. These are extracts from what he had to say (Hansard, vol. 48, col. 3637)—

I should like to raise the question in that spirit. In the days when that was raised, in the days of General Smuts’ Government, no rule had been laid down. They carried on in the old traditional manner from the time of the Cape Parliament, which went back 50 or 60 years. At a later stage Dr. Malan took over and carried on in the same way. The matter was never raised. And then in the days of Mr. Strijdom it was raised in the House; Mr. Sauer replied then on behalf of the Government, and he said this (Hansard, vol. 96. col. 570)—

The case I wish to make, is the following. The companies of which the hon. Ministers are directors are not really newspapers and mutual insurance companies. They are very much more to-day. They are, in fact, printing companies and publishing houses, and the mutual insurance companies have to-day become financial investment corporations in addition to being good mutual insurance companies. There the position was laid down that only in the case of those two classes of companies could Ministers become directors. We know to what extent this has developed. I want to say that we had an investigation here by three wise men who advised on our emoluments in Parliament. When they met together, the eminent judge and two eminent South African financiers, they discussed this matter as well. This is paragraph 46 of their recommendation. They said this—

Now, Sir, I do not think it is strictly interpreted, because to-day we have—let us take only two cases—two well-known mutual insurance companies in South Africa, the South African Mutual and Sanlam. Anyone who reads the papers to-day, will see that there are such things as mutual investments, and will see that the Old Mutual has a mutual investment company and Sanlam has a mutual investment company. When we discussed this six years ago, an eminent member of this House said that one of these financial companies had invested R100,000,000 during the financial crisis we had about 1961. Therefore the point I wish to make here this evening is that we are not dealing now with the simple government of a newspaper, or with the simple government of a mutual insurance company. We are dealing with Ministers of a cabinet being directors of printing and publishing companies which have contracts with the Government. The matter has gone one stage further. We have now read in the Press that the Administrator of the Transvaal has been appointed a director of one of these companies. Administrators are our most senior civil servants and it is in that light that I regard them. In the Transvaal the Administrator is responsible for the control of local government. Any member of this House who has served on a city council will know that a member of a city council may not be concerned with any tender to that council. Here we have the Administrator himself who has become a director of a company, a company which tenders for Government’s contracts. That I think is undesirable—to say the least. Let me say immediately that there is no question of casting any suspicion or any insinuations. I am concerned about this system and it is of that only that I am speaking. I think it is most unfortunate that we should have this situation in South Africa to-day, and therefore I should like the Prime Minister to tell us what his policy is in this regard.

It is true that 30, 40, and 50 years ago the question did not arise. Then there could not possibly have been this conflict of interests. But that situation has since changed through our industrial and financial development and it is especially during the past 25 years that this question has arisen. Let us take the position of members of this House. A member of this House may not be a member of a Government company—of the I.D.C., of Sasol, of Iscor, or of Escom. Members may not be directors and when a person is elected to Parliament he has to resign his position on those directorates. [Time expired.]

Let me start with the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. He asked me to state my policy in regard to the participation of Ministers in the directorates of companies. It is of course a peculiarity of politics that an opposition always expect a government to do things which they themselves were not prepared to do when they were sitting in the Government benches. Here we have it again. The hon. member rightly said that this matter was raised for the first time when General Smuts was still Prime Minister. General Smuts did not see his way clear to doing something about it. The tradition in our country has been that Ministers may become members of directorates of newspaper companies as well as certain kinds of insurance companies. It was also like that in the days of the United Party Government, when there were also Ministers who served on the directorates of newspaper companies and insurance companies.

Mutual insurance companies.

Yes—that type of insurance company. This has also been the position in our time. As far as insurance companies are concerned, is the hon. member aware of the fact that in the time of my predecessor already a rule was laid down which stipulated that when Ministers who served on the directorates of those companies retired from the Cabinet, they were not to be replaced by Ministers who found themselves in a similar position? That is the policy of the Government to-day and that is what it will be in the future as well. Ministers who at the time of their appointment were not members of directorates of insurance companies, will not have the right to serve on those directorates in the future. When Mr. Louw, as far as Sanlam is concerned, and Mr. Sauer, as far as the Old Mutual is concerned, retired from the Cabinet, there was no other Minister left who was serving on those directorates. What has remained is newspaper companies. It has become traditional in our country for Ministers to serve on the directorates of newspaper companies, and this is so for obvious reasons. In the time of the United Party Government this was also the position. The hon. member will recall that Minister Conroy, for instance, was a director of the Suiderstem. The hon. member will pardon me if I take a little malicious delight in this. I think he will appreciate the spirit in which I do so. The only difference between the directorates of newspaper companies on which National Party Ministers have served, and those on which United Party Ministers have served, is …

I know what is coming.

I notice that the hon. member does not know his politics, but he knows his political business. That is quite obvious. As for me, I do not serve on any such directorate. I used to do so.

May I congratulate you on your attitude.

For reasons I mentioned at the time, I renounced it. But now I want to state very explicitly that I do not expect any Minister to resign from any directorate on which he may be serving. On the contrary, I regard it as his inalienable right to serve on the directorates of newspaper companies.

Of printing houses, too?

In most cases such printing houses are subsidiary companies on which Ministers do not serve. I know what I am talking about, for I myself served on the directorates of two newspaper companies. In any case, such a Minister has nothing whatsoever to do with the business aspect of that newspaper company. In point of fact, the less he knows about it, the better it is for his own soul and salvation—and probably for the newspaper world as well. In any case, the business aspect as such is no concern of his at all. Hon. members know that from a business angle a newspaper company can derive absolutely no benefit from the fact that a Minister is serving on its directorate. That is the case because all the work that comes to such a newspaper, does so by way of tender. I am speaking of work for the State, to which the hon. member for Kensington referred. That is how it has been all the years, and that is how it will be in the years to come. And if the Opposition should come into power one day, there might be newspapers which might invite some of them to serve on their directorates. Should those newspapers do so, they would accept those invitations.

Now I want to reply to questions put to me by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Like the hon. the Leader of the Opposition I also want to refer merely in passing to the Olympic Games and the decision, by 41 votes to 13 according to the news, to exclude South Africa. In addition to everything that has already been said and will still be said about this matter, it struck me during the seven o’clock news that Mr. Brundage had reportedly said that it was not South Africa’s fault that we are out of the Gems, but that it should be attributed to the chaotic position in which the world found itself. I want to agree wholeheartedly with that view. I do not want to pronounce upon matters relating to sport. An attitude will be adopted in that regard. But I do want to say this. If what is happening now is to be the pattern according to which matters will be arranged in the world in future, then we are literally back in the jungle. Then it is not necessary for us to hold Olympic Games; then we should arrange tree-climbing events, for then we are in the jungle. If it is correct, and from all newspaper reports it appears to be so, that it has been said by Lord Killinan that the reason for this recommendation being made is that there are powers which—in view of the fact that they have at their disposal large financial resources and organizing capacity and are experts in their field—would wreck the Games, and if they give way to those powers, then the world may ask itself where it is going. The lesson to be learned from that is the lesson South Africa has brought to the notice of the world before, namely that if you are familiar with children they will take advantage of you.

Like the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, I want to express my sincere regret that our young people, who have very much looked forward to participating in the Olympic Games will no longer have the opportunity of doing so. Our swimmer Karen Muir quite rightly said that this was not the end of the world. I found it particularly gratifying that these words came from the youngest of our athletes. It is with very great appreciation that I take note of what this young girl has said. I am convinced that in this instance, too, South Africa has conducted herself in this international sphere as we always conduct ourselves in the international sphere. In fact, this is the cornerstone of our entire foreign policy: correctness, dignity, but firmness. That is how we conduct ourselves abroad; that is how our sportsmen have conducted themselves in this regard as well.

Hon. members will have read in the report that I gave the representative who interviewed me in Pretoria a very clear statement of our policy, but I also told him that to my mind the salient feature was this, and to me this is the most important thing. The Olympic movement will have to decide about that. We want to and we are prepared to afford our non-White athletes, who can be selected on merit, the opportunity to participate in those Games. Now it is for the Olympic world to decide whether or not they will grant our non-Whites that opportunity. We have done our share in that regard. While I am speaking about this matter, you will permit me, Sir, to bring one thing very clearly to the fore. Prior to the Tokyo Games the question of the participation of our non-Whites was never a relevant one. It was not relevant in 1908 or at any subsequent Olympiad. The simple reason was that we did not have any non-White athletes of any standard or merit. It is only in recent years, thanks to the facilities that have been made available to the non-Whites in the meantime, that non-White athletes of merit have come to the fore. Therefore, the decision in principle that was adopted in Dr. Verwoerd’s time, i.e. that non-Whites may participate in the Olympic Games, was not a new departure or a new decision. It was a recognition of a situation which had arisen in the meantime and which had never existed before. On the contrary, it was a situation which had arisen as a very result of the facilities the Government had provided for these non-White athletes and other sportsmen. It was a further recognition that the Olympic Games was the one place in the world of sport Where athletes and sportsmen of all countries, representing all colour groups, had the opportunity to compete against one another. Now our sportsmen, White and non-White, have been deprived of the opportunity to participate in those Games. They will also bear that disappointment with dignity, as is already evident. If it appears to be necessary, one may at a later stage wish to make a few observations in regard to this matter again, but I shall content myself with these few observations.

I shall now deal with the questions put to me by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. the Leader told me something which rather amused me. His request to me was that I should be careful not to “confuse black nationalism with communism”, to use his words. I shall not make that mistake. I shall tell you, Sir, why I shall not do so. When I introduced my first or second piece of anticommunist legislation here—I am no longer sure which one it was—I eventually landed in the Senate. Speaking on behalf of the United Party, the late Mr. Fagan reprimanded me for having made a mistake: What I wanted to combat was not communism but black nationalism. Then I had the task of convincing him that it was communism I wanted to combat and not black nationalism. Therefore the hon. the Leader need not be afraid that I shall make that mistake, because I was the original tutor in this regard.

The hon. the Leader quite rightly made certain summaries. Let me say at once that I cannot find any fault with the summaries he made in the course of his speech. I am pleased that there is a very large measure of agreement in respect of these foreign matters, not only between the Leader and myself, but also among our people in South Africa. One is very grateful that this is the case, not only because one wants to present a united front to the world in time of peace, but also because one has the knowledge, and I have already expressed my gratitude for that in public, that if a crisis arises one day—and may God prevent that—we have the knowledge that our people will meet that crisis as unanimously as people of this country have ever been. One is very grateful for that.

What about 1939?

Why does the hon. member make that remark? Surely the hon. member knows very well what the situation was at that time. Does he want to re-open that debate now? If he wants to do so, he has only to tell me and then he would be quite welcome to do so. I shall be only too glad to discuss that matter with him.

To continue, I say that one is very grateful that this is the position in our country to-day. I share the hon. the Leader’s concern in regard to the withdrawal of Britain from east of Suez. On a previous occasion my colleague the Minister of Defence stated the Government’s point of view in regard to this matter. I do not deem it necessary to reiterate it, except merely to say this, that the words of the old hymn we have been singing all these years are and remain true, namely “Vest op prinsen geen vertroue” (Put not thy trust in princes). The fact we shall have to face is a fact which I have often emphasized outside this House and which, for the purposes of this debate, I find it necessary to emphasize again. I am very grateful that our people realize that, small as we are, we shall in future have to fend for ourselves. It will be difficult. But small nations can—with a good case such as the one we have, with unity of action as we have, with due regard to the fact that economically one is as viable as one can possibly be, with due regard to the fact that in past years one has prepared oneself in the military and other fields, and with due regard to the fact that one’s faith in one’s survival has always been and will always remain with one—as we can and we shall, with the aid of Providence, construct a rampart against any situation which may arise and which may entail having to stand alone.

The hon. the Leader referred to the foothold Russia is gaining for itself in the Indian Ocean. That is not the only cause for concern one has. One is concerned about the apparent hold Red China is gaining in Tanzania, and that is a state which may still be—it is difficult to determine what the circumstances are—a member of the Commonwealth. It is astonishing that little or nothing is done about this situation by Britain and other countries which have for more interest in the matter than we have. Let us assume that South Africa would stand alone in future difficulties. If that were the case we would experience difficulties. But we would be able to survive. In view of the fact that the Suez Canal has been closed and will probably remain closed for a very long time, if not permanently, one shudders to think of the tremendous disruption which would be caused, not so much for South Africa in the first instance, but for Europe, if shipping round the Cape were to become impossible or unsafe for them. It would not be South Africa which would in the first instance be hard hit as a result. One is simply amazed that this elementary fact is not being taken into account by a country such as Britain.

The hon. the Leader asked me whether there had been any communication at the highest level between South Africa and Britain in regard to the supply of arms. My reply is in the affirmative. But the Leader knows what the outcome of that was. He knows that political expediency tipped the balance when the decision was taken.

Now the Leader wants to know whether I intend holding further discussions in regard to this matter with the Prime Minister of Britain. My reply to that is no, I am not going to discuss this matter any further with him, for very obvious reasons. We have already said what can be said and should be said in regard to this matter. It is undoubtedly very clear where the obligation lies. The Leader himself referred in this House to the Simonstown agreement, and he and I agreed that that agreement was, in point of fact, a “gentleman’s gentleman’s agreement”. This is my reply as to why I shall not discuss this matter any further with Mr. Wilson. My colleague the Minister of Defence stated the Government’s attitude in regard to Simonstown and the future use by Britain of those and other military facilities in our harbours very clearly and unequivocally. I think that at the present moment there is nothing more to be said about this matter than that. This was not of South Africa’s seeking. It can never be said that it was South Africa’s fault that the situation arose. Mr. Wilson has to decide for himself about the road ahead, but for reasons I have given, I do not regard it as my duty or advisable to pursue this matter on that high level.

I now come to the question of Rhodesia. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition wanted to make a little political capital out of this matter by saying “we”—and the “we” is the United Party—“had to jog the Government’s elbow from time to time”. I think that is ridiculous.

At one time.

Never at any time. [Interjections.]

Order!

I do not even want to argue this matter with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I think it is ridiculous to say a thing like that in view of the history of this matter. Our attitude in respect of Rhodesia is very clear. To this day our attitude is that it is a matter to be resolved between Britain and Rhodesia. I am more convinced of this than ever before. Before it was done we warned that it was a fatal mistake to drop the matter in the lap of the United Nations Organization, where it never belonged and should never have been dropped. I regard it as my duty to say to the Prime Minister of Britain in all seriousness that South Africa—which is no longer a colony of Britain which has to take orders—cannot allow itself to be dictated to as regards the countries with which it may or may not have friendly relations; as regards the countries with which it may or may not do business. South Africa simply dare not allow this under any circumstances. It is wrong in principle. In principle it is as wrong for one country, particularly a big country, which is having difficulty with a small country to call in all the other bullies to come to its aid against that small country. I believe that in principle it is completely wrong to act in that manner. To do so is, to say the least, to create chaos and anarchy in the world, if that is the principle in terms of which states operate. This simply cannot be allowed to happen.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.