I move the amendment standing in my name as follows—

To omit the definition of “armaments” and to substitute the following definition:

The effect is to omit the proposed definition of “armaments” as defined in the original Munitions Production Act. I do so because this definition as it stands in the Munitions Production Act was designed to cover all the requirements of the armed forces and to enable the Munitions Board, now the Armaments Board, to purchase whatever was required of any type and from any source. That was in order and it was accepted, but the extension of that Act to production now creates a different set of circumstances. We are now expanding, by subsidization, the operation of the Munitions Board into a wider field than it covered originally with the purely State-owned factories. I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister that the proposed amendment gives him scope to handle every item which is likely, as we see it, to be needed to be manufactured by State-subsidized industries or any industry which will be created, expanded or operated in terms of the Bill. Without taking the matter further at this stage I would like the hon. the Minister to say whether there is in fact anything which would not be covered by this amendment. I realize that in a later clause we will deal with the question of consultation, which may to a certain extent meet the situation. But we feel that this definition inserts in the Bill what the Minister has said to be the intention of his Department and of himself.

When one considers the amendment that has just been moved, it is necessary to look at the definition of the word “munitions” in the original Act of 1964. That definition reads as follows—

It is also interesting to note, particularly in column 8515 of the 1964 Hansard, that this same hon. member for Durban (Point) who has now moved this amendment, strongly insisted that provisions should be made in the various clauses for reference to the Minister of Economic Affairs. But what is important here, is the “other purposes” for which it may also be used. The amendment now before the Committee, reads that “ ‘armaments’ means any vessel, vehicle, etc.”, but the crux of this is “for military, naval or air force purposes”. In other words, by his amendment the hon. member is limiting the definition of the word “armaments” to armaments for military, naval or air force purposes—nothing more. Therefore it may only be used for that limited purpose. But that is not the intention of this legislation. The definition of the word “armaments”, as now proposed by the hon. member, in fact negatives the objectives of this legislation. If we have to confine ourselves to the manufacturing of armaments for military, naval or air force purposes, then it cannot meet all contingencies as provided in the original Act and also in this Bill. This measure makes provision for much wider contingencies. For example, one thinks of the combating of terrorist activities. If the hon. member’s amendment is accepted, it will mean that armaments may not be manufactured and produced for the combating of terrorist activities. We are not in a state of war at the moment, but at certain places within our own borders we have to act as though we are. But we cannot apply the definition proposed by the hon. member for those purposes. We are now in the situation that this armaments corporation will have to manufacture armaments to be used, for instance, by our Police in South West Africa. That is not for military purposes. Furthermore, if one looks at the objects of the legislation and if one takes into account what the hon. Minister said on this matter in his second-reading speech, and particularly if one looks at clause 3, then it is very clear that the objects include the export of armaments. The armaments which can and possibly will be exported, may, for instance, include ammunition supplied to friendly countries, ammunition which may be used in those countries for non-military purposes. It may be in our interests to export that ammunition in terms of the objects of this Bill, but this could then not be done because it would not be used for military purposes. A further object of the Bill is, for example, to supply arms and ammunition to the public. This, too, is not included under “military, naval or air force purposes”. Furthermore, this Bill is specifically intended to support private industry which is to manufacture arms and ammunition which may be used for private purposes, but if the hon. member’s amendment is accepted, it will negative the entire object of this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Potchefstroom has given the hon. member for Durban (Point) a conclusive reply. I furthermore want to point out to the hon. member that this particular section was contained in the Act relating to the Munitions Production Board all these years. In other words, that Board possessed these same powers. No objection was ever raised against the Board having to perform these functions. I explained here yesterday that we are living in a time in which tremendous progress is being made in the technological field and also in the scientific field. If we are going to allow ourselves to be limited because of spectres which we conjure up in this regard at this stage, then neither we nor this Armaments Development Corporation will be prepared for future contingencies. In the second place there is a safety-valve, because action will only be taken in consultation with the Minister of Economic Affairs. If I accept the argument and amendment put forward by the hon. member for Durban (Point), it will mean, in the third place, that the definition of “armaments” in the Act which establishes the Armaments Board, will differ from the definition contained in the Act which establishes the Armaments Development Corporation. Then there will be two different definitions of the same thing. I think this will only create confusion. The Armaments Development Corporation will only act after the Armaments Board has made certain recommendations to the Minister. I think, in order to be logical, we must retain the definition as it has been all these years, and it must be the same in both cases. Accordingly I regret that I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I see the Minister’s point inasmuch as it is desirable to have the same definition in the two measures. But there is nevertheless a difference. The one is a procurement organization whilst the other is a manufacturing organization.

In the past it was a manufacturing organization too.

It was manufacturing in state factories, that is correct. But it did not have any power to expand into the field of private enterprise. We should like to know what sort of operation the hon. the Minister has in mind which would not be covered by the proposed amended definition. If he can give us some indication he may be able to satisfy us that it is in fact necessary to have the wider definition.

The argument of the hon. member for Potchefstroom is not valid because, provided manufacture is for military purposes in the first instance, surpluses can always be sold to the public or exported or whatever the case may be. What we are trying to get is an indication in the measure itself that the purpose is to deal solely with military, naval and air force requirements. Weapons or ammunition or whatever it may be could be sold to the public, or could be exported; I am talking about surplus stocks now. As I see it, those items would not be excluded by this definition, provided they were items required in the first instance for military, naval or air force purposes. The definition is very wide indeed and covers any bomb, aircraft, weapon, ammunition, instrument or technical equipment. That seems to cover the whole field. Could the Minister say what he has in mind, what he envisages which would be excluded in terms of the proposed amendment?

Mr. Chairman, with a little bit of imagination it should not be difficult to reply to the hon. member for Durban (Point) on this. One gets the impression that he is still trying to protect his shoe factory, as he did in the second-reading debate yesterday. He seems to be afraid that the hon. the Minister is going to establish a shoe factory which will land him in difficulties. Let us consider only one field now, namely that of electronics. The Defence Force is an extremely large consumer of electronic equipment. There is, of course, tremendous diversification in the manufacturing industry in this field. If one takes all this into account, then no imagination is required to see a number of purely civil manufacturing processes which are going to become suppliers of electronic equipment to the Defence Force. It is a tremendously wide field.

When does the hon. member want the definition to be applied as he formulated it in his amendment? Let us analyze his amendment. He wants to prescribe specific limits, in contrast to the original section, which leaves it to the discretion of the Minister. There is a safety-valve. The hon. the Minister, in consultation with the Minister of Economic Affairs, must from time to time determine the limits in respect of military use. If we were to accept this amendment, we would deprive the Minister of those discretionary powers and we would limit the Minister to the manufacturing of such articles as are defined in this particular clause. If we were to do that, we would have no discretion as to what is purely military equipment and what is not. We would again be faced with the problem that, when the Defence Force required anything and it bordered upon the definition as contained in the hon. member’s amendment, or, on the other hand, in the case of a purely civil article that has military applications, we would have to have somebody who could judge whether this article was a purely military requirement or not. As the definition reads at present, we have that safety-valve. As a matter of fact, we have a double safety-valve. We have the hon. the Minister who may determine a requirement through the agency of his Armaments Board and who in consultation with the Minister of Economic Affairs, decides whether it is a military requirement. If we were to accept the amendment, then that right and that discretionary power would fall away. Then we would be pegged down and we would have to amend this law again in the case of such an eventuality arising.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer the hon. member for Durban (Point) to the provisions of the principal Act in regard to the Armaments Board. If the hon. member would care to look at section 4 (c), he would find the following:

and we have altered this now—

Section 4 (e) reads as follows:

In other words, this was a power possessed by the Armaments Board up to the present. It performed this function. The board not only had an interest in two factories which fell directly under it. The board also had other interests. It also took the initiative by making funds available for the development of other articles. But now the hon. member is asking me to give him some examples. I can easily give him probably 10 or 12 examples of this. The hon. member expressed his concern yesterday about the manufacturing of, for example, shoes. He mentioned an absurd example, but there is, for example, headgear which is perhaps in general use. It may be any other garment which is commonly used by the public, but which, with some modification or another, which is the property of the Armaments Board or the Development Corporation, may be applied in such a way that one would prefer not to make it available in that form to the general public. In that connection there may have been a new development by means of which the safety of our troops may be increased. Then we must have these powers. This may apply in the case of parachutes, which are used by the general public to-day and which are also manufactured by private industry. It may apply in the case of several articles which in the normal course of events are generally used by the public in their normal form, but which after a small modification do not necessarily fall under the strict classification of military purposes for the Army, Air Force or Navy, and in respect of which one must retain control over the modification which has been introduced. Since we know that we are on the eve of tremendous developments, in the electronics industry as well, we simply do not want to close the door so that we will find that our hands are tied when we have to act in the interests of the security of South Africa. That is the intention of this.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The Minister indicated during the second-reading debate that he would accept a limitation requiring consultation with the Minister of Economic Affairs to meet us part-way in regard to the questions of definition and powers. For that reason we did not press our amendment to clause 1 dealing with the definition, and I hope the Minister will accept the amendment as it is proposed.

Mr.

Chairman, I hinted to the hon. member yesterday that I would accept this amendment, but he should have listened to me more carefully. I said that I would accept an amendment which changed this clause, and the amendment which he is proposing does not change it. The hon. member has moved—

†It means nothing, because I can consult the Minister of Economic Affairs, and yet I can proceed and do as I like.

But that means the same.

Oh no! What I want, is to insert “in consultation with the Minister of Economic Affairs”.

*Then it would mean that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and I must decide together. But if I say “after consultation”, it means that I can still do as I like after consultation. If the hon. member would amend it to read “in consultation”, I would accept it, otherwise not.

Mr. Chairman, I then ask permission to withdraw my amendment.

With leave, amendment withdrawn.

I now move—

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the amendment standing in my name on page 366 of the Order Paper, as follows—

Referring to the principal clause, one finds that, after the word “session” in line 26 it reads—

Under the Minister’s clause, as it now stands, if anything in the report will jeopardize the safety of the State, we are going to get no report at all. That is the effect of the clause as it now stands. Under my amendment, if the Minister finds anything in the report which may jeopardize the safety of the State, he may delete that portion of the report and table the rest of the report. Then the House can have as much information as may be made available. Under the present circumstances, the House will not get any report at all if there are only one or two lines, the disclosure of which may jeopardize the safety of the State. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment which I have moved, in preference to the clause as it now stands.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member intimated that actually his amendment only boiled down to the fact that the hon. the Minister could leave out those portions of the report which he considered it in the interests of the safety of the State not to disclose, and then table the rest of the report. But it is not so simple if one looks at the hon. member’s amendment. The hon. member’s amendment amounts to this, that the hon. the Minister can omit the names of the suppliers, details of armaments and confidential information, but must disclose the particulars of the financial figures. In other words, the hon. the Minister can omit seven-eighths of the report because it is in the interests of the country’s safety not to disclose it here, but he must make the figures available. If something of this nature were ever accepted by this House it would surely give rise to absurdities. I want to refer to the White Paper published in 1964-’65. The Minister must now omit his references to suppliers, armaments and confidential information in such a report. This web of figures must then be submitted to the House. I think that the hon. member’s proposal amounts to an under-estimation of the intelligence of the hon. the Minister and this House, if that is what it boils down to. Hon. members opposite have already been pleading for years—what they said yesterday during the debate was virtually said word for word during the debates of 1964 by the hon. member for Durban (Point) and the hon. member for Pinetown—for the appointment of a Select Committee on Defence, and for financial reports to Parliament by the hon. the Minister. All that remained was for them now to come with this ridiculous amendment which boils down to the fact that the hon. the Minister should annually make virtually a fool of himself and his officials in submitting a statement to Parliament which is just a heap of figures.

Which looks like a Rhodesian newspaper.

Yes, it will look like a Rhodesian newspaper which is subject to Press censorship. I am therefore convinced that the hon. the Minister will not consider this amendment either.

Mr. Chairman, I do not agree with the hon. member. Surely the hon. the Minister is responsible for accounting to this House for the amount of money which has been spent by his organization. Surely the hon. the Minister does not intend to keep us in the dark altogether? If the hon. the Minister so wishes, all he has to do is to find one item in that report which he regards as detrimental to the safety of the State, and he will give us no report at all. If that is the hon. the Minister’s intention he is trifling with the House. Then he does not intend to give us any information. If there is one clause in that report, and it is damaging to the State, we get no report at all. At least we are entitled to get the figures to see what was spent during the course of the year, and how it was spent. I reject the argument put up by the hon. member, and I suggest that the hon. the Minister reconsiders this matter.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinetown’s argument is surely quite incorrect. The subsection referred to by the hon. member reads as follows: “As soon as may be after the completion of every audit the Board shall furnish the Minister with the report of the auditor containing such particulars as may be prescribed by the regulations …” The additional report is then proceeded to. Surely we receive an audited report in every case. The hon. the Minister has an audited report in every case, and it is clearly stated in the subsection: “containing such particulars as may be prescribed by the regulations”. After all, a report is submitted in every case.

Who are “we”?

I am referring to Parliament at the moment. Surely, that audited report is available in every case. In addition the hon. the Minister may submit a further report containing the details, if in his opinion it is not harmful to the country. The hon. member for Potchefstroom very clearly said what would happen if we accepted the hon. member’s amendment. Let us consider the argument about harm to the country. If a purely financial report is submitted which reveals to the world in the finest financial details the productivity of the corporation in the financial field, one can gauge the activities of this organization precisely to the very last cent. One can then determine in respect of every cent they spent, in the minutest detail how and on what it was spent. It is then not necessary for us to guard against harm being done to the country. By means of financial figures which require only a minimum of interpretation, we shall then in any case disclose every possible activity of this corporation. The imposition of an obligation in respect of the disclosure of the financial figures therefore cannot be accepted.

The financial reports may contain facts and disclose details which the hon. the Minister regards as harmful to the country. Some of the greatest secrets in regard to this corporation’s activities may be disclosed in this way. It is most surely not the intention of the hon. member’s amendment that this should be brought about. We should leave it to the hon. the Minister to decide whether or not to make particulars, financial or otherwise, which are in the country’s interests, available to this House. This is not a new principle; it is an old principle of defence budgets, of the Defence Department’s reports throughout the years, that the Minister concerned decides what is in the interests of the country and what is not. That principle is in no way being assailed and should be accepted as such. We cannot place an obligation on the hon. the Minister to submit such a report without exercising his discretion.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just spoken, is of course talking utter nonsense—complete and utter nonsense. In the first instance he says “Ons sal ’n finansiële verslag kry”. That is quite untrue. A report will be lodged with the Minister, and not with us as Parliament. However much the hon. member may wish that the hon. the Minister was Parliament, this Parliament is still the mouthpiece of the people. It is still responsible for the taxpayers’ money and for watching over and commenting upon the expenditure of the Government. It will be a tragic day for South Africa when a Minister becomes identified as substituting for Parliament. In the first instance it is incorrect that Parliament will get the figures. In the second instance both the hon. member for Middelburg and the hon. member for Potchefstroom have stated that a report will be ridiculous if it just had figures. It would take very little intelligence, and perhaps we could help them if they cannot work it out for themselves, to draw up a report which indicates expenditure by stating “Purchases: confidential purchase —and then the amount; Support for X company for manufacture—and the amount.” We Will then be able to see what is being spent. We are being asked blindly, to vote R100 million, and then never again in the future to hear a word about it. In 1964 we asked for a similar provision, but we accepted the provision as it is now proposed to be repeated. We have in fact not had a report. The hon. the Minister therefore has made it clear by not having tabled a report in the past, that he has no intention of tabling a report in future. We are therefore asking for provision for us to get some information, other than an occasional handout in a White Paper which covers what the Minister wants to disclose, on an initial amount of R100 million, which the hon. the Minister himself has said is only a token allocation and will become much more.

When we come to voting the Budget for Defence, it does not say so much for Mirages and so much for Buccaneers and so much for this or that. It just refers to the purchase of aircraft and a globular sum is given, and Parliament votes it. It votes each item group specifically and individually, as a group allocated to a heading. If it is possible for us to vote the R256 million which is spent every year by Defence under certain heads, surely the least that Parliament can ask is to be told how this money will be spent. If the name of the person is suppressed then the type of expenditure that is taking place should be given instead of asking us for a blank cheque. I know hon. members will say that we must trust the Minister. I am sorry. I do not care whether you trust the Minister or not, but Parliament lays down a procedure. You can have the greatest confidence in the Minister, but that does not derogate from Parliament’s right to demand information on the expenditure of money. It is not a question of trust or otherwise. It is not a question of handing over funds and saying everything will be safe in the Minister’s hands. It is a question of principle, the principle of Parliament controlling the expenditure of the money extracted from the public in the form of taxation. That is our job; that is how the system works, and we should be chary of any departure from the right of Parliament to examine the spending of public money.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) should really not try to present himself here as being so intellectual or so academically minded. A few moments ago he did not even know the difference between “in consultation” and “after consultation”. If the Chair had not helped him out of his difficulty, he would still have been standing there without knowing which way to go.

This hon. member as well as other hon. members opposite are very concerned that the Minister should now be taking the responsibility in respect of these financial reports which must be submitted, but it is important to note that in actual fact the word “Minister” in any legislation is interpreted as meaning the Cabinet. It is therefore not the person who is the Minister of any specific portfolio who alone is responsible for this, but the entire Cabinet.

That is still not Parliament.

With all respect to the hon. the Minister, we are all convinced and satisfied that no Minister, and not this Minister either, would be so irresponsible as to carry the responsibility alone where these large amounts are involved. The entire House, including hon. members opposite, ought to have the fullest confidence that these reports will be considered by the entire Cabinet, and we on this side of the House have sufficient faith in the Cabinet and in this Government of ours to know that these matters which are disclosed to them in confidence and which in the interests of the country they cannot divulge, must remain so. And we have sufficient assurance in this connection. We received assurance that White Papers will be published from time to time. We have received that assurance, and we also know how the Armaments Board will function and how it will requisition its supplies and what evaluation they will make. We also know how the matter will get to the Armaments Corporation. There is still the Controller and Auditor-General and there is the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and then matters are still submitted to the Cabinet by the Minister. Therefore it is my view that sufficient assurances have been given to this House by the Government for the House to accept that the provisions of the clause as it stands are in order and will suffice.

What the hon. member for Pinetown is asking me is this. When I receive an annual report from the Development Corporation, and the Corporation states in that report that they spent so many million rands or so many thousand rands on the manufacture of such a quantity of this equipment or armament, and they manufactured it in collaboration with so and so, or they had it manufactured themselves by this factory, then he says according to this amendment of his that I may omit from that report the details, “… any names of suppliers, details of armaments or confidential information”. If you omit the name of the manufacturer with whom you are collaborating, but you say that you have ordered or made so many of these specific kinds of bombs or rockets or projectiles, then the whole world immediately knows from whom you obtained them. If I say that I spent so much on so many projectiles, so many bombs, so many armoured cars, so many aircraft, so many fighters, so many bombers, or I spent it on such a certain type of electronic equipment on ships or armament systems, then, although I omit the names, by the very fact that I identify those objects, I already divulge our source. And in doing so we shall be playing the most dangerous game of all times. Do hon. members not realize that South Africa is under an arms boycott at the moment, and do they not realize that South Africa’s friends in the world are under pressure to boycott us? Does it pass hon. members by?

Now, what are we doing to safeguard the rights of Parliament? In the first place we are coming to Parliament and saying that we shall establish a corporation at the head of which we shall place responsible members of a directorate. We will not issue share capital to any parties other than the State, and this Parliament will decide about the issuing of share capital. But I went further yesterday and said that I would try to inform Parliament as far as possible, and I have done so to date, last year by means of a White Paper and this year by means of a policy statement in the Other Place, and it is my intention to continue doing so. But in that case we can prepare a properly compiled document which will have sense in it. If, however. I must prepare an annual report containing a whole series of figures and I say that so much went for aircraft, the hon. member for Pinetown will get up and ask what kind of aircraft I ordered. If I say that I regret that I am unable to tell him because this is the first instalment which we are paying on those aircraft, he will say that he wants to know what kind of aircraft they are, because it is his right as a member of Parliament to know whether they are the best kind of aircraft. Then the hon. member argues with me, and we are both laymen, as to whether they are the best kind of aircraft. What do we achieve by that? We achieve only one thing by that, and that is that we disclose our confidential defence matters to the public and to the whole world. Hon. members may say to me that it happens in other countries, and why not in South Africa? The reason is that the other powers are great powers which can afford to blurt these things out, but South Africa cannot always afford to do so. Here is no question of unnecessary secrecy, but it is simply a fact that we do not always live in a period of cold war only, and the hon. member for Pinetown knows it. We are no longer living in a cold war only; we are living in a world situation in which there is no longer a proper demarcation between peace and war. Therefore the State, and State institutions of this kind, must have powers which would not be requested under ordinary circumstances. This is my reply to the hon. member. I cannot possibly accept this illogical amendment of his. I think it would be irresponsible of me to do so.

I think the hon. the Minister is over-dramatizing the position and exaggerating it. I am quite sure that we have a far greater sense of responsibility than the Minister gives us credit for. Some of us have had quite as much experience in keeping official secrets as the Minister has had. I suggest to the Minister that if he will not accept that amendment, he should consider this one, which I now move—

It is just like your Bantu policy.

Sir, I wish the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development would show a little more sense of responsibility and start acting like a Minister.

That is impossible.

We are very anxious to get some form of parliamentary control. If the Minister does not want any parliamentary control he should say so. We are anxious to get it and we want to help the Minister with this Bill. We want to get adequate information, having regard to the safety of the State. We know from experience in the past that money can be spent in the wrong way and wasted by a State Department of this kind. The Minister knows from reports which he had recently from the United States that in the United States there has been very caustic criticism by a joint committee of both sides of the House dealing with Defence expenditure, and only a year or two ago there were very serious criticisms in Britain of Defence contracts awarded to one of the big aeroplane factories, and a substantial refund had to be made by an overseas firm to the British Government. When we know that things of this kind take place in peace-time in the United States of America and in Britain, surely we must act with a full sense of responsibility and not simply say that it cannot happen here. We are asking for parliamentary control and we are asking the Minister to accept our bona fides in this matter and to give us better control than is envisaged in the clauses which are before us to-day.

I am afraid that I am unable to accept this amendment as documents may only be referred to a Select Committee by resolution and after such Select Committee has been appointed by the House.

On a point of order, Sir, did you say that you could not accept the amendment because the Select Committee has to be appointed by the House?

Yes, by resolution of the House.

The amendment was that the accounts be referred to the normal Public Accounts Committee, which is appointed by this House. The hon. member is not asking for a new Committee.

The hon. member for Pinetown is again splitting hairs about something which goes without saying. You have ruled the hon. member’s amendment out of order and now we are back at the proposed amendment as printed, namely—

In effect circumstances may develop in which it is necessary for the hon. the Minister, the Supreme Command and the Armaments Board to refuse to make this information available, and all that remains then is a set of financial figures, in which the hon. member said a moment ago he was not interested; he wants the other particulars. In the preceding clauses, which have already been approved, it is specifically provided that the objects of the corporation are to meet as effectively and economically as may be feasible the armaments requirements of the Republic; then the composition of the directorate of the corporation which must deal with this matter is set out. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs must also be consulted in this matter. The Supreme Command must be consulted. There is a long list of responsible persons who will from time to time deal with highly secret information, and from the publication of only this financial information which the hon. the Minister may publish in terms of this amendment, any military enemy of the Republic can obtain a mass of information by co-ordinating and analysing it. Surely this is dangerous to the country. I want to endorse what was said by the hon. member for Potchefstroom, i.e. that the amendment as proposed by the hon. member for Pinetown makes no sense at all.

With reference to the arguments of the hon. member for Pinetown I just want to say that I fully accept the bona fides of the hon. member, but I want to tell him what I told him yesterday. In the first instance this Parliament is a legislative body. This Parliament gets the opportunity under the existing law to exercise the powers that it does exercise. In the first place in regard to moneys voted for this corporation. Parliament gets the opportunity of considering the matter before the money is made available. But this Parliament is not a body which must concern itself with the ordinary administration of such an undertaking and therefore a board of directors is appointed. The hon. member is free, after that board has been composed, to call the Minister to account here on his Vote if he does not have confidence in the board. But Parliament or the State has certain methods by which it has matters handled on its behalf, and one of these is by a board of responsible directors who have to act in accordance with the provisions of the Act passed by this Parliament. Secondly, the State President appoints that board. It is not the Minister alone who appoints it; the Bill provides for that. In other words, the Cabinet as a whole is charged with the task of appointing a responsible board. It seems that our only remaining point of difference is this: the hon. member thinks that this report can be submitted to this Parliament, without making a farce of it, by eliminating quite a number of things. I just have to mention a long list of figures and then say, for example, “R2 million for aircraft”. What does the hon. member want to do with that information? The natural thing for the hon. member to do is to get up with that report in his hand and to say: “I want to know what you paid for these aircraft; from whom you bought them; why you bought this particular number; and when they are being delivered”. The publication of that information can embarrass not only South Africa, but the hon. member must take my word for it that it can also embarrass our friends, and I am not prepared to have either us or our friends embarrassed. That is why I am adopting this attitude. I want to make an appeal to the hon. member. All possible steps have been taken; I think he has already satisfied himself that both the Government and I are in earnest as regards ensuring that there will be the greatest measure of control in respect of costs, quality and method of acquisition as far as the procurement and manufacture of armaments are concerned, and if the hon. member will also accept my bona fides, I think that in the interests of South Africa we should leave the matter at that.

Mr. Chairman, I think a correction is required here. The Minister said now it is the right of Parliament to vote money but it is not the right of Parliament to investigate the bodies to which the money goes.

Nobody ever said that; you are talking through your neck.

The Minister has now been caught in his own trap. The Government wants to accept the responsibility, which is a very serious responsibility. We on this side are not happy about this responsibility being theirs alone. In the past we asked the Government to appoint a confidential committee to investigate and report on all matters pertaining to defence. We know there are certain dangers in the world to-day, but Parliament cannot blindly vote money without knowing what is being done with it. It has nothing to do with the bona fides of the Government. I just feel Parliament would be failing in its duty if it did not ask what is happening to the money which it votes. We have had several instances in other countries where State money has been misused and wasted. Therefore I say Parliament has the right to know what happens to money it votes. We on this side are not prepared to vote large sums of money without some form of report as to what is happening to it. The Government over the years has refused to appoint this confidential committee …

Order! That committee is not under discussion now.

The Minister will not allow this report to go to the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

The Minister has no say in the matter; that is my ruling.

I feel the responsibilities which the Government alone want to accept at the moment are far beyond them. There may be a day of reckoning, and not only the Government but also the Opposition will get the blame if anything should go wrong. It is our responsibility to know what is happening to this money. We as the Opposition represent 45 per cent of the people of this country. Perhaps the hon. the Minister of Planning has forgotten that. We want to emphasize that and we are going to persist in asking what is happening to money which is voted in this House. We are not here to embarrass the Government. In other countries we find that even though the countries concerned are actually at war, they have to advise their congresses what is happening to public money. If things go wrong, those responsible are dealt with. It is a very heavy responsibility for the Government alone to accept. We as the Opposition will continue to ask over the years what is happening to money that is being spent.

Mr. Chairman, the cat has been let out of the bag again. The hon. members of the Opposition are not so much concerned about this clause; they are rather concerned about something else. They are like naughty children who want sweets and cannot get it and now they are crying about it. The hon. member who has just spoken was ruled out of order in regard to a certain aspect, and therefore I shall not discuss the same topic. However, it boils down to this. The Opposition want this clause to be amended in such a way that they will achieve an object which they cannot achieve in another way. Now this clause must he used for that purpose. They are making a great argument of their being responsible as well, but they do not want to credit the hon. the Minister with the same measure of responsibility. In actual fact they are claiming all the sense of responsibility for themselves. They say they will handle any confidential information with the greatest circumspection, but the Minister is not allowed the discretion of deciding whether something like that is in the interests of the country or not.

What is the basic point of difference in respect of this clause? It relates to one single fact. What is at issue is the discretion of the Minister as to whether the disclosure of something contained in that report is in the interests of the country or not. This is the crux of the difference. Therefore, when we look at the amendment, we see that all this kicking up of dust is solely about this simple fact. However, there is something else behind the smokescreen which is being put up here, and that is what the hon. member called “the joint committee”. This is actually what it is about. However, you have ruled that we may not discuss this.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) says I am talking nonsense. I think there is a Speaker’s ruling that a member may not be called a soapbox orator, but the rural equivalent of that is probably permissible, and that is to call someone an antheap politician. I trust I may use that expression. The hon. member for Durban (Point) is playing his old tricks here of putting up an enormous argument about something. What is it about? He wants joint control in respect of the Defence Force. He wants a joint say in the Defence Force. He wants to use this opening in this clause in order eventually to obtain what they want. They want to share responsibility for the Defence Force with the hon. the Minister. They want to take co-responsibility in the sense of also being able to determine what may be done and what not. Therefore the amendment in its present form is totally unacceptable to this side of the House.

Mr. Chairman, I was not going to participate any further in the debate, but I cannot allow the utter nonsense from the hon. member for Middelburg to pass uncontradicted. I want to say to him flatly and without equivocation that none of the intentions which he imputes to us is true. His allegations are totally untrue and I say this to him directly and without equivocation. This attempt to put thoughts and words into the mouths of the Opposition, and to impute to them motives which the hon. member thinks we have, is unworthy of a debate on a matter which is not a political issue but which concerns parliamentary control over R100 million plus much more to follow.

I want to point one thing out before I sit down. The difference between this measure and the Armaments Board is that the board is audited by the Controller and Auditor General. Therefore discrepancies and so forth which are found in the administration of funds will be reported by him. There is therefore some responsibility. But the corporation does not even have that safeguard. That is why we are so anxious that Parliament should have some measure of control over the money which we are being asked to vote.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, we indicated during the second-reading debate that we are opposed to this clause because of the possibility of the extension of prescribed areas throughout the Republic in which case all the relevant legislation, for instance the Urban Areas Act, the Labour Act, the Beer Act, and all the other Acts which can be applied in urban areas, could be applied in the prescribed areas. During his second-reading speech yesterday the hon. member for Brakpan said quite frankly that the prescribed areas would be extended all over the Republic if necessary.

Sure.

That is, of course, what we said when the 1964 Act was passed, I think that the Minister said that this was necessary because of the position which has arisen around Ermelo, where a rural area has now been prescribed which will fall under the administration of the Ermelo Municipality. We have indicated why we are opposed to these provisions. It is because there is a fundamental difference in outlook between our two parties. In reply the Minister said that one of the causes of the trouble at Evaton was that private ownership was allowed there and that it was a slum. The suggestion he made was that the mere fact that you have private ownership brings about slums. That is of course nonsense. If that was so, every private property could become a slum. But steps can be taken to avoid slum conditions by laying down proper regulations. Evaton need not be a slum merely because it is privately owned. Provision can be made by law to control it. The Minister must find a way of doing that. Clause 3 does not apply to Evaton. In his speech yesterday the hon. the Deputy Minister referred to our plea for private ownership and then dealt with the released areas. I do not intend going into the speeches we made in 1964 or the discussion we had yesterday. We are opposed to the extension of this principle and we shall vote against the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I can quite understand the attitude of the hon. member for Transkei. They are against our method of control as set out in the Acts of 1964. They do not agree with it and this principle is now being extended by clause 3. I can understand the hon. member’s attitude when he says that if they were against the original legislation, they can most certainly not support its extension. I quite understand that, but this is not what we are debating at present. We debated it in 1964, and we can debate it again on the Vote. I therefore do not think it is worth the trouble to have a lengthy debate about this. I can only repeat what I said yesterday. Clause 3 serves to give us the powers to control certain concentrations of Bantu which cannot be controlled at present. The one case which is now becoming urgent is the control of the concentration at Camden power station. We have regulations in this connection, but the law advisers are not quite sure whether these regulations are quite legal. All we are doing now, is to grant ourselves the power of asking the Ermelo local authority to exercise control at the Camden power station. In cases where we get such concentrations in future, we can make use of these powers. I do not think there can be any objection to that, except in this respect, as the hon. member said, that they do not agree with our method of control. I agree with him that we need not debate this any further now.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes. Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment appearing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The sole object of this is to make the Better Administration of Designated Areas Act not applicable to released areas. Apart from this the position remains the same, as I said yesterday. The regulations in terms of which Evaton was managed have been declared illegal, and we need the regulations to have Evaton managed by the Sebokeng Council now. This is the object of clause 4.

Mr. Chairman. I am not opposing the amendment of the Deputy Minister; I oppose the clause. I want the Deputy Minister to meet this Committee and advise us as to how he is now going to apply the law. As the Deputy Minister has said, this amendment has become necessary because of the judgment in the Tlelima case, where the court found that the Better Administration of Designated Areas Act did not apply to the released areas. The Minister proposes to amend the existing section 40bis by substituting new subsections (4), (5) and (6).

As far as subsection (4) (a) is concerned, the only difference that is going to be made, compared with the old subsection (4) (a) as far as I can see, is that it now excludes Bantu commissioners under the Better Administration of Designated Areas Act (Act 51 of 1963). It excludes the rights and functions given under paragraph (a), but under paragraph (b) he then gives the powers to the board exercised by a Bantu Affairs Commissioner. The new paragraph (b) reads:

Subsection (5) (A) which the Minister is now deleting and which he had proposed to insert in the Act, empowers him to apply the Better Administration of Designated Areas Act to the released areas. He is deleting that. Now I want to know why this was inserted in the clause, to begin with. If it is not necessary, why was it ever inserted in the clause. If it is not necessary, I would like to know from the Deputy Minister how he is going to apply these laws to the released area of Evaton. I understood that he was now governing by virtue of section 25 of the Administration Act of 1927. He was able to do so, because Evaton was declared a Bantu area by proclamation, I think in 1958, so that it could come under the provisions of section 25, which gave the Minister certain powers with regard to scheduled areas. When I suggested to the Minister during the second-reading debate, that he could govern through the Bantu Affairs Commissioner as he is doing now, he by way of interjection said: “We are not certain if we are acting legally.” If that is so, I would be glad if the Deputy Minister would tell us what enables him now to bring Evaton under the Management Board by passing this clause 4. Where does he get the powers under clause 4 to bring it under the jurisdiction of the Management Board?

Mr. Chairman, subsection (5) (A) was inserted here in error. It is something that was overlooked, and the law adviser has informed me that it is unnecessary. The powers we are now getting are provided for by section 25 of Act No. 38 of 1927. The regulations of the Management Board of Sebokeng are being legalized by this clause. I am not going to be drawn into an involved legal argument by the hon. member, because, as I must honestly confess, I am not qualified to take part in it. But this is the information I have here. Our law adviser says that this grants us the powers we should like to have.

Mr. Chairman, of course, I sympathize with the hon. the Deputy Minister. He is at a disadvantage in not having had any legal training, I grant him that at once. But if he had been listening when I spoke now, he would have heard—I wish he would listen to me now—me saying that I understood that he was governing at the moment under section 25 of the Administration Act of 1927. He has confirmed it now again. I want to remind him that I have asked him how he was going to apply this law, because, when during the second-reading debate I said that he was ruling under section 25, be then said to me by way of interjection: We are not certain if that is legal. What, I asked him, was this: If he is not certain that he is proceeding legally, why does he then continue with this particular clause? Why does he not find some way of bringing in a clause which he is certain will be legal? I do not see any sense in passing a law which the Minister himself during the second-reading debate intimated may not be legal. That is why I want the assurance from him. If he is not certain that he can apply section 25, what is the use of passing this particular section now?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member’s question is covered fully by subsection (2), which legalizes the regulations of the Sebokeng Board, which have been declared illegal by the Appeal Court. That is the full reply.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says that what was declared invalid in Tlelima’s case is now made valid by subsection (2). I would be glad if the Deputy Minister could refer to anything in that subsection which in fact validates what was declared invalid in that case, because Tlelima’s case makes it quite clear that in view of the language of section 2 of the Better Administration of Designated Areas Act it is impossible to name as a designated area a released or scheduled area; and I can see nothing whatsoever in subsection (2) which touches upon that subject, certainly as far as a future period is concerned, after a possible validation of acts up to the present time. I concede it is possible that acts done up to the time of this Bill coming into force as an Act may have been validated, but even there I am doubtful. But even assuming that that is so, I see nothing in the language of subsection (2) which will enable the Minister to regard this section of Sebokeng as a designated area; and if he cannot regard it as a designated area I cannot see how he can possibly use the powers that that Act gives for making any regulations under it. This was the very thing which the Court in Tlelima’s case held he could not do. It is admittedly a difficult point and one has sympathy with anybody wrestling with the construction of it, but I hope the Deputy Minister will do his best to reply. I hope also he will bear in mind the difficulty of people far less well placed than himself, including the Native people of that area, to know what their rights are in this particular case. But I think it is important to clear it up, because he may be putting legislation on the Statute Book which may not help him substantially, particularly in the future, and it may be necessary, if we pass this clause as it stands, for him to come back to regularize the position in some other way. I hope he will do his best.

The decision of the court gave rise to doubt whether Evaton may be included under the Sebokeng Board, and that is why they said that the regulations of the Sebokeng Board are not applicable to Evaton. What we are now saying here is that those regulations are in fact applicable. We are not circumventing the decision of the court. The court said that in its opinion it was illegal, but Parliament is now saying that it is legal.

What about the future?

It says “and which will be taken in future”. Now Evaton is legally included under the Sebokeng Board, under this Act of Parliament which we are now passing, in terms of clause 4 (2). [Interjection.] You are not reading clause 4 (2) correctly. This is the position, and I am no longer going to get myself involved in an intricate, technical legal argument with these two hon. members, because I do not like taking part in a fight I might lose. [Laughter.] It is a very complicated point. The law advisers say that we are right, and we will just have to see what the position in future will be. If it is illegal, they will probably take us to court again, but I have the assurance of very competent law advisers that they will not be able to take us to court again, and I am satisfied with leaving it at that. But I am not going to get involved in this complicated argument any further.

I am very sorry for the Deputy Minister, who is a layman. I would suggest to him that this matter should rather stand over.

No.

He says no, but the result of this is going to be that he will apply the law and he will be taken to court again, and a lot of unnecessary expense will be incurred by the African concerned and we will have to pay the costs again, and it means an unnecessary expense to the taxpayer. The Minister cannot say that we will go ahead now and if it is not legal we will fight it in court again, and if he loses he will come back to change the law again. That is no good. I submit that subsection (2) does not cover the case. Subsection (2) is a retrospective section. All it does is to make the laws already applicable in Sebokeng and Evaton legal, or to attempt, at any rate, to make them legal. It does nothing about the future. In any event, I agree with the hon. member for Pinelands and I am not at all certain that it does legalize the laws already put into effect where the court held that Evaton could not fall under the jurisdiction of this particular board because it could not be defined as a designated area. I must say that this is most unsatisfactory, and we cannot possibly support the clause as it stands now.

I appreciate the helpfulness of the hon. member for Transkei. I just want to read subsection (2)—

This is therefore a lawfully established board, which can now make regulations. But I do not think we will achieve anything by leaving this matter standing over. I am quite satisfied that we are running no risk whatsoever. But if the hon. member for Transkei can suggest anything better, seeing that he is so friendly and helpful, I shall consider it seriously, and if it is good enough, we shall rectify it in the Other Place, but I cannot let it stand over.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has now come clean and told us on what language in subsection (2) he relies to do what he wishes to do, namely to put right what the court found invalid in Tlelima's case. He is relying on the words he read out, i.e. the language of subsection (2), which says that the management board of Sebokeng shall be deemed to be lawfully established with effect from the first day of April, 1965, in accordance with the provisions of section 40bis of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act. I think it is very likely that that management board was perfectly validly established from the very start in terms of that particular ct. Tlelima’s case did not deal with that aspect at all; it simply dealt with the fact that the Better Administration of Designated Areas Act, 1963, could not be applied to various sections of the Sebokeng area, and indeed it held that the whole of the regulations made under it were invalid. Consequently we are left with the impression that the Minister can suggest nothing to us in subsection (2) which does in fact put right what the court held to be invalid in Tlelima's case. This leaves us extremely unhappy as to the position. It is generally agreed that this was difficult enough beforehand, but when a clause starts out with, you might say, its parent so doubtful as to its validity, it certainly is going to be a very unhappy section in practice.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes. Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to. Clause 6:

I think I made it clear during the second-reading debate that I was opposed to this clause and the subsequent clauses because I am not in favour of the basic premise underlying this clause, which assumes that there are people permanently resident in the urban areas who still maintain their tribal affiliations and who require tribal representatives. For that reason I propose to vote against this clause.

Clause put and agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause 7 put and agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Mr.

Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Much has been written about South West Africa and much more has been said, often by so-called experts who have very little knowledge of the Territory and its peoples, and who, if one has to judge by continued attacks based on half-truths and untenable premises —and often on deliberate falsehoods—evince no interest whatsoever in ascertaining the true facts

I do not propose to refer by name to any body or person, nor do I propose replying in this debate to all the allegations, but I do invite those concerned to take cognizance of the Government’s declared intentions in presenting this Bill. I assure the different nations in South West Africa that the Government has their best interests at heart, and will continue to meet its obligations towards them in all spheres, in particular in the sphere of self-realization, which the Government considers to be the inalienable right of each and every nation.

I have tabled a memorandum dealing with various aspects of the Bill now before the House and, while one does not wish to be repetitive, it will be necessary, in the course of this speech, to deal more fully with matters referred to in that memorandum.

The history of South West Africa is well-known. The early years of strife and inter-group wars have not been forgotten and in many respects the aftermaths are still with us.

In the Northern Sector of the Territory, that is the Kaokoveld, Ovamboland, the Okavango and the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel, the different peoples were not involved in inter-group wars to the same extent as in the Southern Sector, and consequently they remained in relative peaceful occupation of the areas traditionally occupied by them, and those areas have ever since been recognized as their traditional homelands.

In the Southern Sector, however, the position was entirely different. Here, there were continual internecine wars, even before the German administration of South West Africa, and it was not until the beginning of the present century that a measure of peace was obtained as between the different groups themselves, and the groups and the German administration. South Africa has governed the Territory as from 1915 after the German forces had capitulated and, in terms of the Mandate allocated to her in 1920, was given the right to administer South West Africa as an integral portion of South Africa.

South Africa found a country having within its borders peoples of different ethnic stock; of different cultures; speaking different languages; on different levels of development and having different forms of government.

On the one hand, there was the highly developed white group, with its modern economy, and modern form of government based on a system developed in the Western countries over hundreds of years. On the other hand, there were the indigenous groups which, in contrast with the white group, applied a subsistence economy, had their own traditional systems of government—systems which differed vastly from the system known to and applied by the white group—and according to Western standards, the indigenous groups were by far not as highly developed as the white group.

Moreover, great as the differences were between the white group and the indigenous groups in general, there were just as great differences between the groups themselves. They derived from different ethnic stock; spoke different languages and observed different laws and customs.

In the Northern Sector there were groups leading a settled existence in communities organized and governed in accordance with traditional systems; in the Southern Sector there were scattered remnants of groups which had no established forms of government and had largely been crushed and impoverished by the continual wars. Some groups lived a primitive, nomadic life, existing from the proceeds of the hunt and the wild produce of the veld; others were agriculturists, while still others were traditional pastoralists, following the herds wherever suitable grazing could be found.

In the circumstances vast problems faced South Africa in the administration of South-West Africa.

Of the peoples of the Southern Sector, only the Nama, Damara and the Basters had obtained rights in respect of certain land, which, however, was not sufficient for their needs. The result was that relatively few of the members of the different groups in the Southern Sector enjoyed security of tenure, and the resulting nomadic existence was not conducive to the establishment of settled and orderly communities, which is a prerequisite to peace, order and good administration.

Steps were accordingly taken to protect and entrench the interests of the various groups in respect of land. Thus it was provided in section 4 (3) of the Treaty of Peace and South-West Africa Mandate Act, 1919, that—

and following upon the report of the Native Reserves Commission, certain areas were reserved and set apart in 1923 for Native occupation. From time to time more land was reserved and to-day the position is that the land so reserved includes the Northern Sector and some 17 different areas in the Southern Sector, as listed in detail in the memorandum which has been tabled.

Because of various problems with which the administrators of the day were faced, the areas in the Southern Sector were not consolidated homelands, but rather separate and widely scattered areas, some large and some small, intended primarily for sections of the various groups which had congregated in particular regions, where they could enjoy security of tenure and recover from the destructive effects which the existence they had led up to that time had had upon their social and economic structure.

The next matter which demanded immediate attention was the question of the system of government to be applied in respect of South-West Africa. The vast differences existing between the different groups militated against any thought of an integrated society, socially or politically, and this was in fact totally unacceptable to the people.

In regard to the administration of the indigenous groups, it was accordingly decided from the outset to make use of the indigenous political institutions and, where such institutions had disintegrated as a result of the events of the past to which I have referred, to endeavour to re-establish so much thereof as was practicable in the circumstances. In its approach to the problem, South Africa was largely influenced by two factors.

First and foremost, it relied on its own experience in the administration of the affairs of indigenous peoples, where it had been proved over and over that no system of government for an indigenous group could succeed if its traditional political institutions were ignored. Secondly, and perhaps more important as it related to something nearer home in so far as South-West Africa was concerned, the relative peaceful conditions in the Northern Sector, where the traditional systems had remained intact, was abundant proof of the effect of traditional political institutions in settled groups.

In the Northern Sector, South Africa, therefore, established a system of indirect control whereby the groups governed themselves in accordance with their own systems, known to and valued by them, under the guidance and with the assistance of officials.

In the Southern Sector, however, there were few traditional leaders and due to the dispersal of the groups over different portions of the Territory, it was necessary to provide for a special form of control for the various reserves which had by then been established. Consequently, the general control over a reserve was vested in the magistrate of the district concerned, whilst the actual day to day supervision was entrusted to a superintendent. Provision was made for headmen to assist the superintendent and, as a means of giving the residents of the reserve an opportunity of participating in the management of their own affairs, Reserve Boards of Native leaders, under the chairmanship of the magistrate or superintendent, were established.

At the time it was considered that the system of reserves and the administration of the reserves that I have just described, would best serve the interests of the indigenous groups, in that it, inter alia, involved the recognition of the identities of the groups and afforded them the opportunity of preserving and fostering their community life and the possibility of progressive development on a foundation of their own culture. The systems so recognized and instituted have served their purposes well.

In the Northern Sector, the system of indirect administration through the peoples’ own systems has proved its worth over the last 50 years. The policy has not been to force upon any of the groups measures which they are not prepared to accept, but rather to make them appreciate the need for modernization and to change such practices and customs as are in conflict with civilized norms or are not conducive to peaceful administration. In the Southern Sector, cohesion and a return to settled community life and the systems known to the people, have been fostered by the method of administration introduced in the reserves.

In recent years it became increasingly evident, however, that conditions in South-West Africa were developing to a stage where accelerated and co-ordinated application of the constructive aspects of a suitably adapted concept of development was becoming possible and highly desirable—in fact, the people themselves were asking for changes and opportunities for development. Consequently a commission, known as the Odendaal Commission, was appointed during September, 1962, to investigate the conditions of the inhabitants of South-West Africa, and particularly the non-white inhabitants, and to make recommendations in regard to their further advancement.

The commission submitted a comprehensive report, which was tabled in Parliament on the 27th January, 1964, and on the 29th April, 1964, the Government tabled a memorandum setting out its attitude towards the Commission’s recommendations.

For various reasons the Government refrained from taking any decisions at that time in respect of the Commission’s recommendations concerning the constitution of self-governing areas for the different Native groups, the demarcation of their boundaries and the changes in their form of government. However, as a result of subsequent developments the Government is now in a position to take positive steps in regard to those matters, and I shall deal with the relative recommendations in the order I have just mentioned, namely (a) the creation of self-governing areas; (b) the boundaries of the areas; and (c) the changes in the forms of government.

I come to the first recommendation, that is the creation of self-governing areas.

We are faced with the position that, by the fact of history and by the fact of birth, there are different peoples or nations within South-West Africa; peoples who differ ethnically and culturally; peoples who speak different languages; peoples who by choice prefer to live in homogeneous communities; peoples who are in fact nations and are entitled to treatment as such.

And it is the firm conviction of this Government that it is the inalienable right of every nation to govern itself in its area in accordance with that system of government best suited to its needs, having due regard to the rights and obligations of the individual and the welfare of the community.

The Native nations of South-West Africa, as distinct homogeneous entities, are, like every nation all over the world, entitled to self-realization and self-determination, and this Government is intent on assisting them to attain as much as they can in this respect.

I may add that it is also the attitude of the various indigenous peoples of South-West Africa, as expressed by their existing traditional authorities, that every people should govern itself (assisted by the Republican Government) and that they do not want domination by any one of the peoples of South-West Africa, which will naturally also be the position should all the peoples of South-West Africa partake in a centralized or joint form of government. In this connection it is justified to note the following significant statement of the chiefs and headmen of the Ovambo nation, which is numerically stronger than all the other indigenous peoples of South-West Africa together, a statement which was sent as a message to the hon. the Prime Minister in March, 1967. I translate the message—

In this regard the Government reiterates the views expressed in paragraph 21 of the memorandum in regard to the recommendations of the Odendaal Commission, and I quote from the memorandum—

This aspect was dealt with fully by the Odendaal Commission in paragraphs 183 to 190 of its Report, and in the Bill before the House provision is now being made for the recognition of the areas of the different Native nations in South West Africa.

The second aspect is the boundaries of the areas.

I have sketched the origin of the present reserves. The recognition in this Bill of the areas is in general based on the recommendations by the Odendaal Commission in Chapter 8 of its Report. I have indicated that in the Northern Sector the groups occupy traditional homelands which are geographical entities. The recommendations of the Odendaal Commission in respect of the boundaries of the Northern Sector, i.e. Ovamboland, Okavango, Kaokoveld and the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel, therefore amount to boundary adjustments involving the present reserves and Government-owned land.

In respect of the Northern Sector, the Government is prepared to accept the Commission’s recommendations in principle but the details, especially in so far as cessions of portions of the Okavango to Ovamboland and of the Kaokoveld to Damaraland are concerned, will be worked out and finalized in due course. As a matter of fact, we are busy on it at the present time.

In the Southern Sector we have an entirely different situation, that is in respect of Damaraland and Hereroland. By the way, allow me to remind hon. members that Namaland and the Namas, as a result of the Odendaal Commission’s Report, do not fall within the scope of this Bill.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Are you able to bring them in under clause 2 (g)?

It is not the intention. The intention is to do what the Report recommends. The Department of Coloured Affairs will in future administer the Namas and Namaland. Of course, for that to be done other legislation will be necessary.

The present reserves are scattered over the country and, as I have indicated, were intended primarily as areas where sections of the various groups which had congregated there, could enjoy security of tenure and reestablish traditional social life and customs.

The Odendaal Commission has recommended consolidated territories, as set out in its report. It is general knowledge that the South West Africa Administration, on the request of the Government, has purchased large tracts of land in various regions adjoining certain reserves which the Odendaal Commission recommended as the nuclei of homelands to be formed by incorporating the aforementioned tracts of land, after they have been bought. This matter is receiving the necessary attention of the Government and the South West Africa Administration, and a full statement in this connection will be made when it is possible. I may add that the general trend of the Commission’s Report in this regard is acceptable to the Government but detailed information will have to stand over for the aforementioned statement.

The recommendations do involve a certain amount of movement by people, but an analysis reveals that any inconvenience to individuals will be more than offset by the benefit to the community as a whole.

I now come to the third division of the relative recommendations, namely changes in the forms of government.

Earlier in this speech, I sketched the existing forms of government, namely the indirect administration through traditional systems in the Northern Sector and Reserve Boards in the South. The Odendaal Commission recommended for each area a legislative council consisting of traditional leaders and elected members, the latter, that is the elected members, to constitute not more than 40 per cent of the council, except in respect of the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel, where there are to be more elected members due to the existing system of government. Further, that the executive powers of the legislative council should vest in an executive committee.

In addition, the commission recommended the constitution of community authorities, to consist of traditional leaders plus elected members in the case of Ovamboland and the Kaokoveld; of traditional leaders only in the case of the Okavango, and to be constituted as determined by the legislative council in the case of Damaraland, Hereroland and the Eastern Caprivi, it being left to the council of the area concerned to define the powers of such authorities.

The Government accepts in principle the recommendations relating to legislative councils, the vesting of executive powers in certain members of the council—in this regard the Commission used the term “Executive Committee”, while in the Bill the body is named an “Executive Council”—and community authorities.

The Government does not wish to commit itself to any particular system of government for any area. The particular system of government, ranging from lower authorities to the highest, the legislative council, will have to be determined in respect of each area in consultation with the people concerned. It may well be that a particular nation will at the outset, or in time to come, adopt the particular system recommended for it by the Odendaal Commission or it may find that practical requirements demand a divergent system.

The Government is, however, of the firm conviction that any system of self-government introduced in any group should be founded on that system known to the group concerned, and that new systems should not be foisted on the people, but that provision should rather be made for the existing systems to be developed, extended and modernized and for the constitution of higher institutions with due regard to prevailing requirements and the wishes of the members of each group. The development of a governmental institution is an evolutionary process in which past experiences and developments in this field, especially in the Africa of to-day, are not to be ignored, and it is the sacred duty of South Africa to give guidance and advice in this regard to the nations under its care.

Accordingly in the Bill under consideration provision is also made for tribal authorities in respect of those tribes who may prefer this form of manifestation or cohesion. Furthermore, in the Bill provision is also made for regional authorities, not as a compulsory institution but permissive in respect of those who may find a need for a form of regional government within the system of territorial government which may eventually be adopted.

After the publication of the Odendaal Commission’s Report, a series of meetings was held in South West Africa, at which the general implications of the recommendations were explained to the people concerned. The recommendations, especially those relating to political reforms, were met with general acclaim, except perhaps in the case of a part of the Herero nation.

After visits to the Bantu areas of the Republic by representatives of the Ovambo, Okavango, and Eastern Caprivi peoples, further requests were made for guidance and assistance in the development of the peoples concerned. I may add here that the representatives included chiefs, headmen, teachers and ministers of religion and that the visits were arranged at their request.

On 21st March, 1967, I held a meeting at Oshakati in Ovamboland. On that occasion an offer was made on behalf of the Government to assist the Ovambo nation to advance towards self-government and it was explained that the Government would render all possible assistance, including the provision of trained and experienced officials in the initial stages. I made it clear, too, that the offer also applied in respect of the other indigenous groups in South West Africa.

On that occasion I was informed that the Ovambo accepted the offer without reservation and others have expressed the same views, not only through officials but also when the hon. the Prime Minister met them during a tour of South West Africa after the last parliamentary session in July, 1967, when I accompanied him. Subsequently, officials of my Department also held meetings with representatives of the Ovambo and others at which details of self-government on the basis provided for in the Bill were explained.

On all these occasions no misgivings were expressed against the principle of creating self-governing areas, although it became clear that no uniform system of government could be introduced for all the nations and that there must be scope for variations and adaptations to suit particular needs and wishes.

The Bill, Mr. Speaker, must therefore be seen against this background.

It is a general measure intended for application in respect of the different nations, after consultation with every nation concerned. It provides for the recognition of the areas of the different nations and, in respect of each nation, for the fundamental principles of self-government through a system of Central Government, consisting of a legislative council and an executive council, and a system of local government through subordinate authorities. These authorities are all components of and stages in the political development of a nation—a development which can eventually lead to independence. It must, however, toe very well understood that this ultimate phase of development will be a different situation which will require further legislation and which is not empowered toy this Bill now under consideration.

The objects and envisaged effects of the Bill have been detailed in the memorandum which I have tabled. I wish to reiterate, however, that the development envisaged in the Bill will be determined on the one hand by the inherent vigour of the different nations and on the other hand by responsible guidance by the Government, in its role as guardian, which means that the Government must meet its obligations on the basis of creative self-withdrawal. It should also be realized that success will depend on intelligent and dynamic leadership by the legislative councils, executive councils and the different authorities, and that the Government is of the firm resolve to achieve in South West Africa the general objects of national development in respect of the different nations which have been summarized in the memorandum which I have tabled, but which I wish to repeat because of their importance:

1. (i) The creation of homogeneous administrative areas by uniting the members of each group in one nation, concentrated in one coherent homeland where possible;
2. (ii) the education of the nations to a sound understanding of the problems of soil conservation and agriculture so that all rights over and responsibilities in respect of their soil may be assigned to them;
3. (iii) systematic promotion of a diverse economy in the homelands, acceptable to the nations and to be developed by them;
4. (iv) the education of the nations to a sound understanding of the problems and aims of education, so that toy decentralization of powers responsibility for the different grades of education may be vested in them;
5. (v) the training of the nations with a view to effectively extending their own judicial systems, and their education to a sound understanding and the unimpeachable application of the common law so that the responsibility for the administration of justice in their areas can be transferred to them;
6. (vi) the education of the nations to a sound understanding of effective territorial administration;
7. (vii) the exercise of legislative powers by the nations in respect of their areas, at first on a limited scale but with every intention of gradually extending this power; and
8. (viii) the gradual and systematic replacement of white administrative and professional officers by qualified and competent members of the nations concerned.

I now come to the different clauses of the Bill, Mr. Speaker, and although they have also been explained in the memorandum, I, for very obvious reasons, have to deal with them here in more detail.

In terms of clause 1, the Act will apply to South West Africa, including the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel.

The areas of the different nations are specified in clause 2 on the basis of the Odendaal Commission’s Report and I have already dealt fully with this aspect.

Clause 3 authorizes the State President to establish a legislative council for the area of a nation, after having consulted the people concerned. That will be done in a separate proclamation.

I now come to clause 4. As I indicated earlier on in this speech, the Government does not wish to commit itself to any particular system of government for a nation before the people concerned have been consulted. Thus, the legislative council of a particular nation may, for example, toe constituted in any one of the following manners depending on the system of government desired by the people, namely: (a) a legislative council consisting of elected members and designated traditional leaders, on the basis of the particular recommendation of the Odendaal Commission; or (b) a legislative council constituted from tribal authorities and community authorities; or (c) a legislative council constituted in accordance with a system whereby tribal authorities and community authorities combine in forming regional authorities, and the regional authorities combine in determining the members of the legislative council, in which there may also be a number of representatives elected by the voters.

It is, consequently, not possible to determine in this Bill the manner in which each legislative council will be constituted, and the State President is accordingly being empowered in clause 4 to determine the manner of constitution by proclamation after the people concerned have been consulted.

South Africa has no rigid ideas about the type of franchise to be enjoyed toy the different groups. It may be universal adult franchise or a qualified one or a mixture of systems. That is a matter on which the group in question may indicate its own preferences, even if the result be a system of election and voting procedures which has no exact counterpart in Western democratic countries. What is important, is to meet the needs and aspirations of the particular group.

I wish to invite particular attention to sub-clause (3) of clause 4, in terms of which any proclamation may be withdrawn or amended, thus enabling any system decided upon at the outset to be modified and adapted from time to time.

Clause 5 authorizes a legislative council to make enactments in respect of matters referred to in the Schedule.

It will be observed that, in sub-clause (1) (b), a legislative council is being specially empowered to provide for the enforcement of enactments in respect of members of the nation concerned who are or reside outside the area for which the council has been established, but within the territory of South West Africa.

In terms of sub-clause (2), enactments will have to be approved by the State President and be published in the Government Gazette before coming into force.

Clause 6 provides for the executive government, consisting of an executive council which will be constituted from members of the legislative council in the manner determined in the proclamation referred to in clause 4. Here again, there will be prior consultation with the people concerned.

Sub-clause (2) provides for the establishment of departments by an executive council; subclause (3) prescribes such a council’s functions; and sub-clause (4) provides for officers and employees of our Public Service to be designated to assist an executive council in the administration of departments so as not to disrupt services by the abrupt withdrawal of qualified staff. The process of withdrawal will be gradual, in that as competent and trained members of the nation become available they will gradually replace officers and employees of the Government.

I now come to clause 7.

I have, in the course of this speech, dealt in detail with traditional political institutions. I have indicated that in some areas, such as in the Northern Sector, such institutions remained fairly intact and have functioned over the years, while in other areas, such institutions had to a large extent been disrupted as a result of events of the past and that in cases such as the last-mentioned, efforts have been made to re-establish the institutions, or others have been introduced to facilitate local government. I have also indicated that the Government is of the firm conviction that existing political institutions cannot be ignored. Consequently, in paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-clause (1) of clause 7 provision is made for such institutions.

Paragraph (a) is straightforward in that it provides for the recognition of an existing government functioning in a tribe or community in accordance with the law and customs observed by the tribe or community, as a tribal authority or a community authority, such recognition to take place after consultation with the people concerned.

Paragraph (b), however, is two-fold. Firstly, it provides for the establishment and constitution, after consultation with the tribe or community concerned, of a tribal authority or community authority in respect of a tribe or community in which tribal or community government does not exist. Secondly, it provides that if there is an existing government in a tribe or community, whether or not such government has been recognized in terms of paragraph (a), but it is considered expedient to replace such government, a tribal authority or community authority may, after consultation with the tribe or community concerned, be established and constituted in respect of that tribe or community. This will enable a tribe or community to modernize and adapt its traditional political institution as circumstances may require.

Paragraph (c) is designed to cover those cases where different communities or tribal authorities or community authorities, acting either on their own or in co-operation with others, may wish to combine for geographical or other reasons in a system of regional government, in which event a regional authority may be established. Here again, consultation with the people concerned is a prerequisite to the establishment of the authority.

It will be observed from sub-clause (2) of clause 7 that the provisions of clause 4 (2) and (3) will apply mutatis mutandis, thus, inter alia, enabling the bodies to which I have referred to be constituted in whichever way the people concerned may desire, including the possibility of elected members in addition to the traditional leaders.

Clause 8: The role which tribal authorities, community authorities and regional authorities will play in the general administration will of necessity have to be determined with due regard to the wishes of the people concerned, and, consequently, no hard and fast rules can be laid down in the Bill.

Provision is accordingly being made in clause 8 for their powers, duties and functions —and in the case of a regional authority this may include the power to make enactments— to be determined by proclamation after consultation with the legislative council concerned where one has been established.

Clause 9: Sub-clause (1) of this clause provides for the establishment of a Revenue Fund by an executive council and a Revenue Account by other authorities.

In terms of section 4 of the South West Africa Native Affairs Administration Act, 1954, certain trust funds established for tribes and communities, vest in the South African Bantu Trust Fund and the moneys have to be used exclusively for the purposes prescribed by the law in pursuance of which the moneys accrue, and in sub-clause (2) of clause 9 provision is now being made for the funds to vest in the appropriate legislative council, tribal authority, community authority or regional authority.

Clause 10: This clause provides for the auditing of books and accounts by the Controller and Auditor-General.

Clauses 11 and 12 provide for the nomination by an executive council of representatives in urban and other areas, the recognition of such representatives, and their duties. These representatives will be the link between the homeland authority and the members of the nation who are away from home.

Clause 13: Once a legislative council has been established, it is automatically vested with all powers relating to matters entrusted to it. It is, however, necessary to provide for such matters as departments, the collection of and control over revenue, the conditions of service of members, the proceedings at sessions of the council and staff, to enable the administration to function until such time as the council meets and makes the necessary provision therefor. The State President is accordingly being empowered in terms of clause 13 to make the necessary provision by proclamation in regard to these matters. The legislative council concerned will in terms of clause 13 (2) be able to amend or repeal any proclamation, subject to the general provisions governing its powers to make enactments.

Clause 14: In terms of this clause the State President will be authorized to make laws by proclamation in respect of areas now or in future reserved or set apart for occupation by Natives. This is no innovation in respect of Native areas, as similar powers vest in the State President in respect of Native areas in the Republic and in fact in terms of section 38 of the South West Africa Constitution Act, 1968 (formerly sections 2 and 3 of Act No. 55 of 1951), in respect of Native Affairs in general in South West Africa and in respect of all matters in the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel.

In clause 18 of the Bill, the existing provisions relating to the Eastern Caprivi are, however, being brought into line with this clause.

Clause 15: All proclamations under the proposed Act will have to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament in terms of this clause, and provision is being made for a proclamation or a particular provision thereof ceasing to be of force and effect if both the Senate and the House of Assembly by resolution disapprove of the particular proclamation or provision.

Clause 16: It is well known that traditional law and customs vary from tribe to tribe and community to community, and that the law and customs are intricate, especially so when they relate to a man’s status in a tribe or community and his right to take part in tribal affairs and the deliberations of elders.

The law and customs are generally well-known and accepted by all, but when they are in issue in a court of law which is not empowered to take judicial notice of Native law and custom, it is necessary to produce conclusive proof of every facet of the law and custom involved and, as experience in the Republic has proved, this can result in protracted and costly trials, out of all proportion to the issues involved.

It is accordingly provided in clause 16 that in judicial proceedings evidence on questions relating to the membership of the different authorities provided for in the Bill, or whether or not an authority acted in a particular matter in accordance with the law and customs observed by the tribe or community concerned, can be given by affidavit by experts on Native law and custom. It should be noted that an affidavit will be prima facie evidence of the facts attested to therein and not conclusive evidence.

Clause 17 provides for the determination of the manner in which a nation, group of persons, a tribe or a community is to be consulted when consultation is a prerequisite to any action contemplated in the Bill. This will of necessity have to be determined in relation to the circumstances of the people concerned.

Clause 18 is consequential upon clause 14, which includes the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel, so that there is no need for the retention in their present form of the relative provisions of the South West Africa Constitution Act, 1968.

Clause 19 is the short title.

The Schedule contains a list of the matters in respect of which a legislative council may make enactments. The matters in question are clearly specified and call for no detailed explanation.

One particular aspect of the Bill which I would like to emphasize is that it is not designed for any particular nation—as a matter of fact, I have already said so—but that it is applicable in respect of each and everyone of the nations concerned after due consultation with the people involved. It is clearly based on the fundamental concept of self-determination and the elimination of all domination of groups by one another. The very purpose is to build up each people into a self-governing organic entity, capable of co-operating with others in the political and economic spheres in such a manner as may voluntarily be agreed upon between them.

We contend that where one is dealing with the problems of pluralistic societies there is no one method which is “best” or “right”. Experience has taught us not to be rigid or single-minded. The best approach to matters of this nature depends upon the flexible application of the principles underlying the development of a nation with due regard to local circumstances and the wishes of the peoples concerned. It is my firm belief that this Bill complies with this concept.

It should also be noted that this Bill is designed specifically for circumstances obtaining in South West Africa, and that it is not merely an extension of legislation in force in the Republic—in fact, this Bill has no counterpart in the Republic.

This Bill deals of course primarily with political development. But that does not mean that development in other fields has been neglected and it would not be out of place to refer briefly to the following matters.

In assessing the physical development which has been undertaken and which still remains to be undertaken, there are two important factors which must be taken into account: firstly, the degree of human development which has so far been attained by the different peoples and, secondly, the conditions in the different areas.

In regard to the former, that is the degree of human development, it would for example be wrong to plan and build at too fast a rate great towns for people who have yet to attain a measure of urbanization. The physical development must not outstrip the human development. We must be careful to set a pace in conformity with that of the people’s ability to absorb the technological skills, so that they gradually achieve self-confidence and stability.

In regard to the development of the different areas, there are difficulties such as limited natural resources, but these difficulties are not insurmountable, and are difficulties which many nations in other parts of the world also have had to face and some nations still have to face. Steady progress has, however, been made in all fields and the achievements have been recorded elsewhere, notably in the publication “South West Africa Survey”, which was issued during 1967.

Mr. Speaker, it suffices to say here that the progress and achievements have in turn created new avenues and new possibilities, and to realize this, one has only to consider the effect on a country and its people of improved educational facilities, proper roads, assured water supplies, extensive health services and improvements in the fields of agriculture and stock breeding, particularly a people who by tradition are pastoralists.

I thank the House for having listened so attentively and quietly to my speech.

In the spirit of courtesy which the hon. the Minister has evinced, may I in turn from this side of the House thank him for the extremely useful White Paper which he issued in connection with this Bill, which has not only simplified our work but, I think, will make intelligent discussion very much easier when it comes to debate. I should also like to congratulate this Minister on having achieved something which we were told by the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs was impossible, namely constituting a second body to tax the same group of people in respect of each of the tribes. He, Sir is doing what the Minister of Coloured Affairs told us was impossible in respect of the Coloured Council; he said it was impossible to give that Coloured Council taxing powers. But the Minister in this Bill is providing for taxing powers to be given to the various councils he is establishing, and I want to congratulate him on being so far influenced by the Opposition.

I worked on this matter for nine months, not for nine days.

Yes, but the inspiration came at the end. May I say to the hon. gentleman that as he started with an historical survey, I wish to do the same, but I want to start at a later point of time. I want to recall that when the report of the Odendaal Commission was debated in this House in May, 1964, just four years ago, the Prime Minister of the day indicated that although he had made a public pronouncement, that the political recommendations contained in that report would receive the support of his Cabinet, and although he had indicated that he was going ahead with them, he nevertheless, after further consideration, had decided to hold them over. It was clear that the then Prime Minister had decided to hold those political recommendations over because of the fact that the case in connection with South West Africa was still pending at the International Court of Justice.

Things have changed since then. The threat of an unfavourable decision by that court has been dissipated, and there are some nations of the world, I like to believe, that are taking a more realistic view of South Africa’s position vis-à-vis South West Africa and its duties in that regard. There is no doubt whatsoever that the outside world is paying attention to our administration of that Territory, and they are paying attention more particularly to any proposed political developments, and therefore it will not be surprising if this Bill and its admitted long-term objectives exercise their attention. For those long-term objectives, Sir, I would refer you particularly to the preamble and the White Paper attached to the Bill. Sir, because of an indication of what was coming I took the liberty of raising this matter with the hon. the Prime Minister earlier in this session and gave a friendly warning that it seemed to me that in introducing legislation of this kind, he was running the risk of losing some of the friends he had gained as a result of the judgment of the International Court. My statement did not bear fruit and this Bill is being introduced without the agreement of the Opposition. Sir, we cannot support this Bill; we cannot support it for a variety of reasons. One of them is that this Bill sets out the foundations for the implementation of the political recommendations contained in the report of the Odendaal Commission, in regard to which our attitude was made abundantly dear both at the time when that report was discussed in this House and in subsequent speeches on public platforms, both here and in South West Africa.

Sir, let us examine the Bill, not in quite the detailed manner that the Minister has done but let us try to determine what it is that is proposed. The preamble to the Bill is worthy of study because there it is stated—

Sir, this is an unequivocal statement. It means that those who support this Bill regard it as desirable that-what are described as the native nations should develop to independence. I want to say that we on this side of the House can imagine few things more disastrous for South West Africa and for South Africa than just this development to independence. When one examines this preamble one is faced with one difficulty and that is, first of all, what is a nation? When does a group, a tribe or a community become a nation? I have been at pains to investigate this matter. Some of the groups with which this Bill deals are so small that they are almost in the nature of village or small town communities. Can they by any stretch of the imagination be described as nations? Sir, the best definition that I have been able to find is in Emerson’s book. “From Empire to Nation” in which he deals with nationalism. He says—

Sir, can we in all honesty describe any of the groups in South West Africa, with the possible exception of the Ovambo group, as being separate nations? If we can, then I would like to ask where this right of self-determination comes from. Is it in any law, Mr. Speaker? Do you know what its origin is? I have sought it, Sir. It is not in the mandate. Is it a principle of natural justice? To what units does it apply? When does one acquire the right to self-determination? How big a group must one be? What characteristics must one have to have the right of self-determination? Sir, when one goes into the history of this talk of self-determination, then one finds that the principle derives from a familiar set of doctrines whose apparent simplicity conceal a multitude of complexities and difficulties. The starting point seems to be the old 18th century doctrine that there must be government by consent; the power of the government must rest on the consent of the governed. Then in the 19th and 20th centuries it was developed a little further and the view was expressed and the addendum made to this concept that man being a national animal, the most likely government to which he would consent is a government of his own nation. Then, Sir, with the passage of time came a third new principle and that is that it was a principle of natural law which entitles nations to their own states.

That is the correct definition.

My hon. friend over there says that that is the correct definition. Then I hope he accepts the other side of the coin and that is that it is illegitimate for states to exist that are not on a national foundation. Then, Sir, when you go into this doctrine you find that by a further sleight of hand the original principle that individuals must consent to the rule of a government, is developed and changed to mean that nations have the natural right to determine their own statehood. Where does it come from, Sir? I have been at pains to go into some of the authorities on the subject, and here is what one finds—

Sir, if you go back even to the time of the French Revolution, you find Carnot, one of the philosophers of the time, speaking of this right of self-determination, as follows—

We are close to that in South West Africa.

Sir, we find ourselves in a whole series of difficulties. The old League of Nations went into this matter, and a commission of rapporteurs reported to the Council of the League of Nations in 1921. It was asked whether it was possible to have a general rule that a minority can separate to join another state or become independent— that is singularly applicable here—and it stated—

Then one last reference and that is to India. India demanded self-determination when she wanted to get rid of British rule. When Pakistan demanded self-determination it cost something like 13,000,000 lives. Sir, later they had a commission, a commission which was to go into the reorganization of states, and that commission held that—

Sir, I take it no further.

Here we are with a Bill which provides for self-determination as an inalienable right, but it has determined in clause 2 to what groups self-determination will be given. Supposing there are others? Is clause 2 (g) going to be made use of if smaller groups decide that they want self-determination? What principles are to be applied? What principle has been applied in setting out the areas for the so-called nations set out in clause 2? I must confess that the Bill, perhaps conscious of its own shortcomings, provides that the State President may by proclamation indicate areas to be set aside for any native nation to be recognized by the State President in the future. What is envisaged there? We find a Bill here talking of “nations” in respect of groups of people that do not equal the population of a small town or a fair-sized village, with the exception of Ovamboland. We find it even talking of the sacred right of self-determination, which has no basis at all in history and seems to be used as an excuse by this Government for the fragmentation of South West Africa. Sir, I accept at once that this Bill does not provide for the independence of any individual nation. But it does provide for the establishment by proclamation, of six native nations and such others as are to be recognized by the State President by proclamation.

The powers to be given them are very unimportant, because they are all permissive. The Bill empowers the State President to give certain powers. It also empowers the State President to withdraw those powers. The powers outlined in the Bill are nothing more than a sort of blueprint for the establishment of legislative councils, tribal and community authorities, regional authorities, but they are always subject to the powers of the State President who may repeal or amend any law in force or coming into force in any area, or make new laws applicable to such area and amend or repeal such law. Therefore, what the Bill sets out is not of great importance. What is important is what the State President decides on the advice of the Cabinet. All this Bill is, is a blueprint to set people on the way to nationhood, self-determination and ultimate independence. I know, of course, that the Bill says that the proclamations have to be Tabled in this House and in the Other Place within 14 days of their promulgation, and, if put into force during the recess, within 14 days of the reopening of the Session. Sir, when one has regard to the fact that the State President acts on the advice of the Cabinet, then one appreciates that this is of very small importance, because what has been done will have the support of the Government of the day, and there will be the overwhelming power of the Government in power to enforce those proclamations without Parliament being properly consulted. One knows that by section 38 of the South West Africa Constitution Act, the State President, as the hon. the Minister has said, has certain very great powers of legislating by proclamation in the Territory over all those matters in respect of which the Legislative Assembly cannot act. He has power to act by proclamation in respect of Native affairs which are not controlled by the Legislative Assembly and what limitations there were are removed by this Bill.

The State President not only has powers generally. He has powers generally to make proclamations in respect of any matter in regard to which the State President or the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development can make regulations. That means that the State President, advised of course by the Cabinet, can develop the powers of these legislative councils operating in various areas defined—and to be defined— to a point very closely approaching independence. He can, of course, take away again all the powers he grants. He has that power. He, advised by the Cabinet, is the virtual dictator to what powers shall be given to these councils, how far they develop and what powers should be taken away from them.

I say at once I concede this Bill does not grant independence but it does permit the building up of a foundation and a development towards independence up to a point where retreat may well prove to be impossible. The executive power, consisting of the State President acting with the advice of the Cabinet, may face Parliament at some time in future with what is virtually an accomplished fact, a state of affairs where there is no road of retreat, in which development has taken place and promises have been made which does not make it possible to resile without enormous difficulties and perhaps the use of force.

One appreciates what the object of the Bill is as set out in the preamble and one appreciates how it is going to be administered, how it is going to operate and one asks oneself at once, “To whom does it apply?” It does not apply to the Whites in South West Africa. It seems to be regarded as unnecessary for them to develop to independence or to have a right to self-determination. That apparently is decided for them by this Parliament. But for the non-White it appears that he must first develop to independence before he has a right of self-determination whereas the White has it decided for him now by the Republican Parliament. If one looks at the South West Africa Survey on pages 49 and 50 this becomes very evident because there it sets out that—

When will they decide I continue—

That is the position then, it does not apply to the Whites; it does not apply to the Rehoboth Bastards; it does not apply to the Coloureds; and it does not seem to apply to the Hottentots or the Namas. I think that perhaps the hon. the Minister would be kind enough in his reply to indicate to us what his plans are with those separate groups in South West Africa. It does not seem to me that they can be intended to be included in paragraph (g) of clause 2 where the State President may by proclamation recognize any native nation.

Let me tell you right now it is not intended that they should come within the scope of this Bill.

I accept that at once and I do not propose to debate it any further, but I think the House would like from the Minister some indication of what the Government’s plans are with those people as fitting into the general scheme of things.

But it is irrelevant.

I would submit at once that it is indeed relevant because they are still part of South West Africa in respect of which this Bill is dealing with the majority of the people.

The Bill does apply to the Damaras. The Minister has spoken of consolidation and he has spoken of drawing boundaries in a vague sort of way. But those Damaras are spread over eight reserves and if one is to go according to the map of the Odendaal Commission’s report only some 5,000 of the 44,000-odd Damaras counted in 1960 were in the area set aside for the future Damaraland. Maybe there have been changes since then, but that is the latest information I have. It means that almost 90 per cent are outside.

It applies to the Hereros. They are spread over 13 areas ranging from the far south to the north of what is known as the Southern Area inside the police zone. There are many thousands of them on the platteland and on European farms. So far as one can judge the present Hereroland at the moment is providing a living for only about 11,000, leaving approximately 24,000 Hereros who will have to be moved. The Minister very frankly said that this plan will involve some movement amongst the people. I think that is a vast under-statement, if I may say so, because already we have 39,000 Damaras to be moved; we have 24,000 Hereros to be moved, and when one starts looking at the other groups I am afraid we are going to find population movements which, relatively speaking, are unrivalled, almost, in the history of the world.

Then we have the Bill applying to Kaokoland which also has only 10,000 people in it. How can one describe that as a nation, how can one grant that “nation” self-determination, to decide whether it will be independent or not?

Then we have Okavangoland which, when one includes the Bushmen and the inhabitants of the Western Caprivi, have a population of roughly 29,000, and we have the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel which has 15,846, according to the figure given.

Then there is Tswanaland which is not mentioned . Tswanaland has only 425 Tswanas in it out of a total population of Tswanas of 2,600. Then there is also the Western Caprivi. Then there are some Bushmen who are also, I believe, very largely left out.

I think one begins to see what sort of units you are faced with when you look at the proposals in this Bill. One begins to feel that the whole concept is unrealistic. One begins to feel that the suggestion of this type of fragmentation is totally impractical. When the good offices commission was out here we were told that South West Africa itself was not a viable country. To-day with the possible exception of Ovamboland with its 250,000 inhabitants in one consolidated area it does not seem to me that there is the slightest prospect within generations, of anyone of these areas or racial groups ever becoming economically viable. In fact I would go so far as to suggest that it is utterly preposterous to talk about them as nations or to suggest that they have a right to self-determination to be led to independence, with the possible exception of the Ovambo group. Independence for such little groups can only be a mockery and a delusion and make us look ridiculous in the eyes of the world.

The other thing that worries me is that under clause 11 (1) these areas are set aside as belonging to those native nations. It seems to me that if the same policy is adopted there as here in the Republic then it means that no private white capital or initiative will be allowed in those areas, and by the very fact of setting them aside and passing this legislation we put an end to any prospect of their rapid industrial development.

I say I believe it is impractical. What are the dangers involved in a scheme of this kind? Quite apart from the economic impracticability of this fragmentation it would seem to me that a number of independent states in South West Africa in the light of the world threat to governments in Angola, in Rhodesia, in South West Africa, and in South Africa itself, is the height of folly and irresponsibility. We are in fact now establishing independent states between the Republic and that portion of South West Africa falling under the white government and the northern territories of Angola and Zambia, and we are placing ourselves in a position where our lines of communications with those territories flow through independent sovereign states. We have the Kaokoveld, Ovamboland, Okavangoland on the border with Angola, and we have the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel on the border with Zambia. We are severing our lines of communications.

I know I will be told that of course times will change; there will be no independence until these people are regarded as fit for it. But if it is inherently dangerous now to give these people independence at this moment because of the danger of cutting our lines of communication, then should we be making promises now in respect of the future when we have no idea what the situation will be? I do not propose to labour this point but I believe in the light of the discovery of large supplies of oil in Angola an action of this type is utterly reckless. Angola now has oil which could be supplied to the Republic; it could be brought overland to the Republic. What is going to happen if that pipeline has to go across a sovereign independent territory hostile to the Republic of South Africa, if it is to be made a jumping off ground for terrorists both in Angola and in South West Africa? In evaluating that situation we cannot forget the fact that there is a vacuum in the Indian ocean at the present time and it would require very little activities by Russian naval forces to make our supplies of oil from the East very uncertain indeed. Yet here we are going blithely on with the one secure source of supply to the north, indicating in the preamble that by means of self-determination we are leading these people to independence. When primitive people are promised independence in the future they tend to think it means tomorrow or the next day.

There is a further point that has to be remembered in connection with the proposed creation of sovereign independent states and that is the World Court opinion of 1950 in respect of South West Africa. That opinion indicated that South West Africa has a peculiar international status which cannot be unilaterally changed by the Republic of South Africa. When you develop states to independence within the Territory of South West Africa it is implicit that you change its international status. Is this not asking for trouble? What is the object? The hon. the Minister could have passed this legislation with no reference to independence or self-determination. He could have given the State President powers within certain limits to develop forms of local government in those territories, and there would not have been a squeak out of anybody anywhere in the world. There would have been no dangers for the future. He would not have been creating hopes and aspirations in these people for the future which may be extremely difficult for us. I warn that this may result in our losing some of the friends we gained as a result of the judgment of the International Court. One cannot accept the judgment when it suits you and refuse to acknowledge the authority and wisdom of a court, even if it is only in an advisory opinion, when it does not happen to suit one. I want to say at once that nor am I impressed by the argument that, as a result of the case, it is accepted that the mandate no longer exists. Whatever the decision of the court, all the dissenting judges endorsed the view that the mandate still survives. Even our own judge, Judge Van Wyk, in his concurring separate opinion was not prepared to deny the mandate’s continued existence as an institution. Why are we heading for trouble at this time, when there are alternatives in respect of South West Africa which could be applied with probably greater advantage to the population and which would not involve any of the difficulties which I have outlined so far? What is the object of embarking upon what the White Paper describes as an “irrevocable first step” when there are other alternatives which could develop these people without any of the dangers involved? I have said, and I say again, that the development of the non-white areas in South West Africa deserves special consideration. In that regard there are two points which should be specially noted.

The first is that the non-Whites must be helped to help themselves by means of a system of what could be called “industrial partnership”, which would ensure them a share in the economic development of their own country. Of course they will need money, guidance and training and they have to rely on the know-how of other groups for some time. But it may be that the Industrial Development Corporation could be instructed to ensure them a share of investment opportunities, and also their share in the various types of concessions that are granted in the territory.

The second point is that we believe that the advancement of these non-white areas must be tackled on a basis of South West Africa remaining a closely integrated economy, one economy for the whole territory, and while enjoying a measure of autonomy, nevertheless having a close association with the Republic of South Africa. I have outlined before in this House what we believe the formula should be, a formula based on the acceptance of a federal concept and federal links. We accept that it is a historical fact that the territory has been divided into two areas, that north of the red line, which has always had a measure of autonomy, and that south of the red line. We have suggested that these regions have their own form of autonomy, and that that traditional constitutional pattern should be maintained. We believe that further subdivision is not practicable, nor useful, nor in the interests of the population. We believe that the division between the north and the south should be recognized. We have suggested that the administration of the northern region, that is to say beyond the police zone, the Kaokoveld, Ovamboland, Okavangoland and the Caprivi Zipfel should be modernized as fast as possible to the point where each group manages matters of intimate concern to itself by way of communal councils, and that these also should be a northern legislative body, which has either a federal link with the southern area or directly with the Republic. We have suggested that in the southern area, rather than limiting the powers of the present legislative assembly, it would be more in the spirit of the mandate to extend those powers and make that legislative assembly responsible for the whole southern portion of South West Africa with the representation of the non-white group in that assembly, and a federal link with the Republic of South Africa.

I think it is quite clear from what I have said that we are in favour of a great measure of autonomy and of local self-government and the maintenance of federal links between the Republic and the peoples of South West Africa. I believe such an arrangement could lead to friendly co-operation between the racial groups, the development of one loyalty to one state and to one central government, that it would enable the various groups to retain control of the matters of more intimate concern to themselves, and that friction on these matters could be avoided, while matters of national importance will be decided by the central Government of the Republic and South West Africa.

To sum this up, I would say that the plan as outlined by the hon. the Minister is unwise and unsound, and that it leads to the political and strategic fragmentation of South West Africa. I would say that it is impracticable, because of the movements of people, the lack of viability in the areas envisaged, and the smallness of the units which will have to be established. I would say that it affects the safety of South Africa and South West Africa because of international threats and because of the dangers to internal law and order of the establishment of a whole series of independent states within that territory.

Therefore I move the following amendment:

1. (a) any measure designed to lead to the political and strategic fragmentation of South West Africa is unsound and unwise;
2. (b) the plan of which the Bill forms a part cannot be carried out in practice; and
3. (c) attempts to implement the provisions of the Bill will endanger the safety of both South West Africa and South Africa.”.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in this debate. I am particularly sorry that he made one statement very explicit, namely that with this legislation we were going to change the status of South West Africa. Apparently the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not understand this legislation at all. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would look at his arguments again, he would see that he contradicted himself in his own arguments in regard to that statement he made. If he maintains that the idea of self-determination, which we are offering these people in South West Africa, the fact in itself that we are affording them the opportunity of achieving self-determination, is going to entail a change in the status of South West Africa, then I do not know from whence the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to derive support for this argument of his. The hon. the Leader quoted long sections from definitions. I want to say at once to the hon. the Leader that if he does not know where the right of self-determination comes from, I can furnish him with a great deal of reading matter on the subject. I want to inform him that it goes back to the beginning of the doctrine of sovereignty in the law of nations, namely the fact that in natural law each nation is granted the opportunity of working out its own salvation. This system is also acknowledged in the Manifesto of the U.N. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not know where it comes from. Article 1 of the Manifesto of the U.N. provides explicitly that it is an objective of the U.N. to develop friendly relations between nations—and remember these are nations and not states—on the basis of respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of ethnic groups—that is to say “peoples”. Here the principle of self-determination of nations is clearly set out. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows that the Manifesto of the U.N. is a treaty to which South Africa has been a signatory for more than 20 years. The hon. the Leader also knows that the United Party under General Smuts was also party to this Manifesto of the United Nations.

General Smuts drew it up himself.

Yes, and now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not know where this idea of self-determination comes from. In his amendment the hon. the Leader called this plan of ours fragmentation. Then he came along afterwards and himself suggested that South West Africa be divided into a northern part outside the police zone, and a southern part. Is that not fragmentation? I should like to say the following to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: He advocated an autonomous legislative assembly for these northern areas where the Ovambos at present, according to the Odendaal report consist of 239,363 individuals out of a total outside this police zone of 304,080. They therefore comprise 80 per cent of the total. In other words, when an autonomous legislative body is established for them, they are going to dominate these peoples completely. But let us see what is happening in the south. In the south there are the Whites, the Damaras, the Hereros, the Tswanas, the Rehoboths, the Bastards and the Namas, who according to the Odendaal report, number 201,403 individuals. But the Whites, of whom there are approximately 73,000 comprise only 35 per cent of the population. In other words, in the southern part into which the Whites must be added, the Whites will only comprise approximately one-third of the total population. This is an example of the fairness of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated at the beginning of his speech that the attention of the outside world would to a large extent be focused on this legislation. To a certain extent I want to agree with him, and that is why in the few remarks I want to make to-day I want to adopt the attitude that the statements I want to make are for the most part addressed to those, the Opposition included to a certain extent as well, who see South West Africa as a country with boundaries in which various nations have to be thrown together into one pot. I want to indicate that this system which is now being advocated by the liberal world in the first place, but also by bodies in South Africa, in the second place, has already in the past led to chaos. Secondly, I want to indicate how all attempts to preserve the peace between these various units failed completely in the past. Thirdly, I want to indicate that autogenous development was discovered by the Bantu themselves in South West Africa and that they called in the help of the white man in order to implement it. Fourthly, I also want to indicate that the League of Nations gave this system its blessing and fifthly, I also want to quote a few experts in regard to this matter.

Of all the misconceptions in regard to the policy of separate development, and believe me there are many, the one which perhaps cries to high heaven the most, is the misconception that separate development is a whim which we only recently discovered and fabricated for opportunistic reasons in order to maintain white domination in South Africa. In fact the process of settlement and development of various Bantu homelands is the logical result of historical facts which are as old as those which led to the present geographical pattern in Western Europe where various nations arose out of a political confusion which prevailed well into the middle ages. In the Republic and the majority of Africa states we know little about the forces which led to the formation of various ethnic groups and tribal groups, because there was no written language by means of which this history could have been recorded for us. But if there is one historical process which confirmed and recorded the process of autogenous development very clearly, it is the history of South West Africa. Only if one analyses the history of South West Africa does one understand that all we are doing to-day is to grant legal force to national boundaries and authorities which have become established in the course of centuries.

Now I want to refer in the first place to the chaotic conditions which prevailed when that system still applied which liberal opinion in the outside world, and in South Africa as well, would like to force upon South West Africa. In the 60 years between 1830 and 1890, when the history of South West Africa was written, there were no fewer than 56 different wars between the various tribes. It is not necessary to go into the details of those wars now. Perhaps it is sufficient if I quote Missionary Van Rhoden when he stated (translation)—

These wars did not acknowledge international legal rules. Often entire nations were wiped out. In fact I want to mention a few examples of that. In the first place the Nama and the Afrikaner tribe under the leadership of Oasib attacked and murdered all the Mbanderu in 1849—including the women and children when they could not endure the long journey back. Secondly, on 23rd August, 1850, Jonker Afrikaner attacked the Herero under Kahitjene at Okahandja and only 20 souls escaped. Thirdly, in 1852, Jonker attacked the powerful tribe of Katjikurure and wiped it out completely. Fourthly, Jonker Afrikaner’s entire tribe was subsequently liquidated in South West Africa. Fifthly, on 23rd August, 1880, all ‘the Namas at Okahandja were murdered at the command of the Herero. These are only a few examples.

They were then separate nations.

They were separate nations who lived together without there being one single boundary between them. In this struggle and chaotic situation it is interesting to note how the nations of South West Africa dwindled in numbers. If one looks up the minutes of the Conference of Rhenish missionaries, which was held at Otjingbingwe in March, 1856, one finds the following (translation.)—

That is the result of this chaotic state of affairs which prevailed in South West Africa. Of course these various nations did on various occasions try to preserve peace amongst them by means of peace treaties. For example they tried to achieve this in 1859 at a place called Hoachanas. They even established a kind of U.N. there. Section 1 of that manifesto was drawn up in High Dutch and makes quite significant reading (Translation)—

In other words, one nation may attack another, but the other nation may not defend itself. In this confusion the Bantu of South West Africa during this time turned to the white man in their efforts to preserve the peace. In 1863, for example, the researcher and hunter C. J. Anderson who had no knowledge of government whatsoever, was appointed by the headmen and councillors of Hereroland as regent and commander-in-chief of the tribe. On 9th September, 1876, 58 head-men of the Hereros submitted a petition to the Cape Government in which they stated that they wished “that our children may grow up more civilized than we ever had the chance of doing. Consequently we have, after many meetings, agreed amongst ourselves to request your Excellency to send someone to govern us and be the head of our country”. In exchange for this they offered the entire Namib, the entire Kaokoveld, the areas adjacent to Waterberg, Otani, Grootfontein, Tsumeb, Out-jo, etc.

I want to point out that the system of autogenous development with fixed boundaries was a system initiated by the Bantu themselves. For example, at the peace conference of the Nama chiefs and the Herero chiefs on 13th June, 1882, this significant clause was included in the peace treaty (translation)—

In other words, they introduced the pass system themselves. When the German régime set foot in South West, it saw only one solution for maintaining the peace between the various tribes, and that was to proclaim separate areas, each one with a fixed boundary. This was subsequently done. The first area was proclaimed on 10th April, 1898. Because they could not determine proper boundaries immediately, they even went so far as to draw furrow lines with a plough in order to indicate the boundaries of the areas which the various tribes could occupy. In 1904 this system of allocating territory to each nation reached its peak, and 33,600,000 hectares had been proclaimed. According to the plan of the Odendaal Commission a surface area of 32,629,364 hectares had been proclaimed.

The Bantu themselves welcomed separate development, particularly after they saw how it worked. Let me quote in this regard from the report of the South West Africa Commission of 1936, and I want to quote only the evidence of two chiefs. The first is Chief Muala of the Okualuthi tribe (translation)—

In addition, Headman Elize Nejulu of the Ukuayama tribe said (translation)—

I will let these two statements by these two witnesses suffice, because my time is limited. But the League of Nations also welcomed this system of separate development, not only between the Bantu nations separately but also between the Bantu and the Whites. In this way, for example, the Permanent Mandate Commission decided on 2nd August, 1922—

In other words, they were opposed to the Bantu of South West acquiring citizenship of the then Union of South Africa. However, they resolved on 7th August, 1922—

In other words, that the tribal system should be preserved at all costs. That is why the then Union Government, in terms of section 26 of the South West Africa Constitution Act, Act No. 42 of 1925, reserved Bantu affairs and did not transfer it to the local Government in South West Africa. It is also significant that in 1926, when the Permanent Mandate Commission resolved to draw up a questionnaire in respect of South West Africa—a questionnaire which differed radically from the first questionnaire they sent—the following significant question was asked—

That was the question. Those persons representing the Union Government who went to the Permanent Mandate Commission in order to reply to this question and explain it, stated the situation quite correctly. The Commission was satisfied with that. I am referring for example to the minutes of the 9th session, 1926, page 35. During the 1935 session Lord Lugard expressed his satisfaction that the Bantu were also being consulted by the South West Africa Commission in regard to a suitable form of government. He added at once that he was not very hopeful … “as constitutional questions were beyond the understanding of the masses”. It is also significant that General Smuts, in his Draft Constitution, “the Representation of South West Africa Act, 1946”, a constitution which was drawn up but which was never laid upon the Table in this Parliament, provided that South West Africa would be represented by four members of the House of Assembly and two Senators, but that the Members of Parliament would all be Whites, and that only Whites would be able to participate in elections. This process of autogenous development, which this legislation is completing to-day, is not the result of something which we discovered a decade or two ago. It is a long process which was welcomed by the Bantu. I want in fact to point out how the Bantu in South West Africa have increased in number under the peaceful circumstances which have prevailed since then. In 1925 the national census recorded 186,175 Bantu. In 1935 there were 248,000. In 1939 there were as many as 283,000 and in 1960 there were 526,004. In other words, over the last 20 years the population increase amongst the Bantu in South West Africa has been 187 per cent. There is no other country in the world that can beat that. During the last 35 years, from 1925 to 1960, the increase in population amongst the Bantu in South West Africa was 282 per cent. I reiterate that there is no country in the world which can beat that.

I should also like to quote a few experts. Perhaps I should, however, first quote a layman. This is a layman who analysed this situation very carefully, and who acquired first-hand knowledge in South West Africa for many years. I am referring now to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I am calling the hon. member a layman because he stated his standpoint in a rather banal fashion. He stated it in a pamphlet which he published during an election in South West Africa in 1947 when he was still organizer of the United Party, and not the National Party. He compared the situation in South West Africa to that of the Republic. I want to mention this because it is being said to-day that the Republic of South Africa is forcing its apartheid policy upon South West Africa. I now want to quote to you precisely what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said in this pamphlet. He said (translation)—

The U.N.S.W.P. was the South West United Party. It is interesting that these “mixed transport facilities” and “mixed residential areas”, are his “petty apartheid” which he gets so upset about every day. I want, apart from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout whom I regard as layman in this field, to quote from the doctoral thesis of a person whom, in my opinion, is a real authority. In the first instance this person is a South West African. He lived amongst the Ovambos for many years, and got to know them very well. He is not a Nationalist. This man, Dr. Louis L. van Tonder, grew up on my neighbouring farm as the son of a well-known United Party supporter. They still do so to this day. I want to quote him for this reason, because I believe that he did not make these assertions on the basis of his political convictions, but purely from a scientific point of view. In the first place of course he rejects integration. On page 17 of his thesis he writes—

He goes further and makes the statement that the multi-racialism of Ovamboland has been solved there by territorial separation. Hon. members who accompanied the tour there, would have seen that in Ovamboland the Okavangos, the Ondanguas, the Ogandjeras as well as the other tribes are living separately. He has the following to say about Ovamboland—

He went further and praised this system of the development of the tribal system and of autogenous development. He stated—

He went further and spoke with appreciation of the development of the tribal system and the value it had for the Bantu. In respect of these values he stated the following—

He is convinced that this system is the only positive system which can be followed in South West Africa. He states—

He also compares separate development with integration and he states that autogenous development is the only and the best guarantee for true peace. He states—

There are reasons why this lecturer described this system in the way he did. He analysed it with reference to the writings of many world experts on this matter. It is very clear that when there are various races, which differ from one another, such as the Damaras and the Ovambos, or the Ovambos and the Hereros, and those groups are equally strong, one finds a virtually equal division. There is then the tendency to break down or to separate, as is happening to-day between Nigeria and Biafra, and also in the Congo. Where there is a minority, it is the tendency to build the political system of that country on that tribal division. In other words, the tribe which is in the minority, is thrown into the opposition benches for all time and it will never get out of those benches to take over the government. Of course no success can be achieved with this system of government. When one has the situation where a tribe is associated with its political party, it does not hate the government because it is the government, but because the government comprises members of another tribe. That is the reason why there is so much hatred and envy in African states to-day. This is the fundamental cause of the problems in South Africa, as they exist to-day. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has just spoken about self-determination. Self-determination is the basic right to which every nation in the world to-day can lay claim. Why should only America, Russia and other great nations of the world be able to do so? Why not the Hereros, the Damaras, and the other groups that are in the minority? Why cannot they lay claim to self-determination? Self-determination does not normally mean that they are now going to become independent nations and that fragmentation will take place in South West Africa, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition suggested. Self-determination does not mean that it is going to be left to those nations to decide what they are going to do in the last instance. As far as the Hereros, for example, are concerned, they can, if they have self-determination, make attempts to integrate with the Ovambos for example. They can do that. That is their self-determination. It will of course not be self-determination for the Ovambos if the Hereros integrate with them unilaterally. It must come from both sides. It furnishes them with a system which is acknowledged by the modern world and by every political system which exists to-day.

I would like to deal with the speech of the hon. member for Middelland, who has just sat down, before dealing with the Bill. Firstly, may I say that the question of integration does not arise in this Bill, nor, as far as I am concerned, should it find any place in the debate. [Interjection.] If the hon. member has that in mind, he should come clean and tell us so, but as far as we on this side of the House are concerned there is no question of integration in this Bill; it does not arise and we should not waste time debating it.

It is part of your policy.

I am going to say clearly and categorically that this Bill is a Bill which will lead to the Nationalist Party policy of integration south of the red line, because with this principle once established here the Minister will never resist the temptation to carry out south of the red line the policy he applies to the north of the red line. He cannot help it, and the Nationalist Party policy of integration south of the red line will follow just as night follows day.

The hon. member who has just sat down gave us a dissertation in regard to the early wars in South West Africa, which one can read in the hon. Heinrich Vedder’s book on South West. It is all set out there in detail. The hon. member went on to say that that is what happened when they had all these separate Bantu tribes, Native tribes and Coloured tribes.

Without boundaries.

Sir, the hon. member has not read the Rev. Vedder’s book if he says it was because there were no boundaries. They had their boundaries, and what happened? What happened was exactly what happened to the pastoral tribes in the olden days, in the days of the Israelites; they encroached on each other’s grazing. Let me bring to the hon. member’s mind a very well-known and apt principle where you are dealing with people. The point of contact is the point of friction. I hope the hon. member will bear that in mind, and the more points of contact the Government proposes to create, the more points of friction will they have. But the hon. member made the point again that when the white man came in there he brought peace, and the white man did that here in South Africa as well. He agrees. But what is he proposing in this Bill? To take away the white man and to take away the peace. Sir, he cannot have it both ways.

What about Biafra?

I want to warn the hon. member that one of the things he is banking on, and the hon. the Minister, because of their lack of understanding and knowledge of human nature, and because they have not studied the history of human nature … [Interjection.] Human nature and our history in Africa have shown this …

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. member for Brakpan entitled to make interjections from the Treasury benches?

Order! The hon. member may not make remarks from the Ministerial benches.

What we cannot rely upon is that when white suzerainty is removed from savage people, from people who have not yet risen in the scale of civilization to our level, the aboriginal Natives of Africa, etc., they will still remain your friends when that guardianship is removed, when the discipline and control are removed, and that is why I say to the hon. member: Take away the white man and you will have trouble again. Why are we maintaining peace in the Transkei? It is a normal, law-abiding part of our own country, but the white man maintains the peace. We all know that. Proclamation No. 400 is still there. The Minister does not come to Parliament to have it re-enacted year by year so that we can discuss it. He keeps that proclamation there. For how many years has it been there now? It must be four years now that they have had self-determination or self-government or independence, or whatever you call it. They cannot rely upon the friendship of those nations when the time comes and the white man is not there. What happened to the metropolitan powers? What happened to the people over whom Britain was the sovereign power? What happened to the people over whom the French and the Belgians were the sovereign powers? They turned round and fought their previous masters. There is some of the bitterest hatred to-day on the part of those black peoples towards the metropolitan powers who were their masters. That is the position to-day still. We have to bear this in mind continuously.

The circumstances are different.

The circumstances are not different; the hon. member is different, and that is why he thinks the circumstances are different. But the situation is not different.

Let us deal with this Bill for a moment. We all want to see peace and security in South West Africa. We all want to see a settlement there where the aboriginal inhabitants, or at least those who have been there for the past 50 or 60 years, are happy and living in contentment. As opposed to what the hon. member for Middelland said, the Minister was quite right when he said that north of the red line there had not been so much civil war between the various tribes there; the wars had taken place south of the red line. It did not take place to the same extent north of the red line. Those people have been there for a longer period, living in peace and amity together. When I say that we want them all to live in peace together and we want a settlement there, we want it in terms of the security of South Africa as much as for the sake of the security of the people of South West Africa and the people north of the red line. The peace and well-being and security of South Africa must at any rate be of equal importance to us as the peace and security of the people who are there. I want to describe this Bill as the Bill which should never have been. This Bill should never have been. Why in heaven’s name does the Government come at a time like this with a Bill of this nature? Have we not got enough pointers and indications already that we have the attention of the hostile part of the world concentrated on us in South Africa? Have we not sufficient indication of it from almost every publication that comes from overseas, in every walk of life, from our sportsmen, whether they are white or black, to give us a clear indication of how far that hostility will go and this concentrated hatred of South Africa? But the Government chooses this moment to come with a measure such as this which, no matter how mild it may be, will trigger off a fresh outbreak of virulent hatred towards South Africa. Why do it? There was no need for it. This Bill is a thing with two faces. If you take one face, looking at it from one angle, it looks as if we are offering self-government to the people in Ovamboland, and this can be a basis upon which the other tribes referred to in the Bill can in due course get what is called self-government. May I define the term here at once, because I do not want to see it misused; I refer to the term “self-determination”. Let us get it clear that self-determination is an absolute. You can talk about independence and find that it is not sovereign independence. You can talk about self-government. You can even talk about sovereign government and you still do not mean what it says, but when you talk about self-determination, then you are talking about an absolute, something that brooks no qualification whatever. With regard to the Bill before us, I say that on the one side, looking at one face of the coin, you see something which looks as though the Government is proposing to give self-government to these people in Ovamboland, up to the point where they do not get self-determination. In terms of this Bill, they cannot get self-determination. On the other side, this thing is an empty husk. By proclamation the Government will control every single step taken by the people of Ovamboland. They have that power to-day through the Administrator. I repeat, why do they come at this time with a measure of this kind, of such far-reaching importance and so open to criticism, which will give our enemies a two-edged sword with which to hack at us? On the one hand the criticism will be that this is an empty husk because there is nothing in it; the white racialists of South Africa are using it for the purpose of proclamations and they will continue their control over the Ovambo people, and there is nothing whatever in this Bill which will give them any kind of self-determination whatsoever; and on the other hand there will be the criticism against us that we are going much too slow. We profess to be giving them self-government; we profess to be allowing them to develop as they go forward to self-determination and the criticism will be that we are going too slowly and, Sir, on top of all that, as my hon. Leader has pointed out, will lie that main criticism which will be based upon the mandate. Again I say, why should we? Let us take a wider view. I want to come back for a moment to a couple of points made by my hon. Leader and elaborate on them. Sir, here we are in South Africa at the present time with a defence ring to the north of us, a defence ring which is of incalculable value to us in terms of human lives and happiness in South Africa, our well-being economically, the lives of our women, children and men as well as of our institutions, because we are defended by the Portuguese, by the people in Rhodesia and the Portuguese on this side. In everyone of those spheres there is fighting taking place. I am sick and tired, Sir, of hearing talk about people who are called terrorists and saboteurs and that sort of thing.

What do you call them—Freedom Fighters?

Or Freedom Fighters. Sir, these are enemy soldiers, armed to the teeth, here to commit war upon the civil population, eventually, of South Africa. They are aiming at us, Sir, but they still have to get through those other countries which are defending us. I hope that the hon. member for Middelland, who sits there with a smile on his face, is going to accept this as far as South West Africa is concerned. The Portuguese who are fighting in Angola are fighting to defend the people in South West Africa. And what does the Government do at a time like this? They come with the profession, as set out in the preamble to this Bill, of giving the people of Ovamboland the right of self-determination, the absolute.

They open the back door.

They say in the White Paper that it is an irrevocable step.

This is not absolute.

Sir, I take the White Paper as being part and parcel of the hon. the Minister’s speech. It has that value to me. It is not part of the law but it has a value; it means something, and when the White Paper says that this is an irrevocable step which the Government is taking towards such-and-such an end, which, as set out in the preamble, is towards self-determination, then I say that that is as good as though the Minister said it. He quoted at length from the White Paper himself. Once we create the position that south of Angola we have an area in which people will be entitled to say, “self-government has been conferred upon this territory” they can leapfrog the whole of the Portuguese troops in Angola and the terrorists or Freedom Fighters—call them what you will —have a ready-made launching pad right there on our borders. Sir, could anything be more utterly stupid and more unwise in the context of current affairs? As my hon. Leader has said, to-day we are getting oil from Kabinda. Do we know what further oil is going to be found further down in Angola? The exploration is coming from the north of Africa, right in Algeria. It has come down step by step from Nigeria where one of the biggest oil wells in the world has been found near Port Harcourt. It is coming down now to Kabinda, still further south.

They have found it in Ruanda.

All that oil can be brought to us overland by pipeline if South Africa’s need comes to the worst. But what do we do? We are going to establish independent Bantustans between us and our friends and our armed allies fighting for us. We are turning their flank. What will the Government of Portugal think about this little co-operation as far as the Government of South Africa is concerned? Sir, we are turning their military flank and we are turning our own. This Bill should never have been brought before Parliament and it was not necessary. There was an opportunity in a matter of this importance for the hon. the Prime Minister, by making some opening, by offering some kind of opportunity for discussion, for a dialogue with the Leader of the Opposition, to have prevented any kind of a debate of this nature taking place here. This does no one any good, South Africa least of all, and the Government is entirely responsible because they are the people who have the initiative. Is this the time and place for it? They have chosen an opportunity like this to come with a measure of this kind. Sir, can anything be not only more unwise but catastrophic in its possible consequences for South Africa?

Irresponsible.

Sir, have hon. members opposite not given any thought whatsoever to the consequences which can flow from a Bill of this kind? Throughout history the metropolitan powers have said: “We will determine when the subject people get their freedom”, people of the standing of the French Empire, of Britain, of Belgium and of Holland, but, Sir, when the time came not a single one of those nations was able to determine the date on which freedom came. In every case, when the time came, the nation that was hankering for its freedom, fixed the time. And here, in spite of the lessons of history, we still get hon. members on the Government side saying, “We will determine when the time comes and when we are going to give them their freedom”. Sir, it is against history. [Interjections.] Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister must not speak; he has said that they are ready for freedom now. He said that the other day in South West Africa.

You are talking nonsense.

I will leave that to another hon. member who will deal with it. Sir, let me end by saying this: This Bill will please nobody; it will suit nobody. It will be examined by all our enemies, the anti-South Africans. All the legal people of the United Nations will be tearing it to ribbons, going through it with a fine tooth comb.

Are you trying to instigate them?

Sir, I was certain that some hon. member would make that remark sooner or later. I fought for my country, and then the hon. member comes along and talks like that. [Interjections.]

Order. I will be glad if these interjections will cease.

As I say, the Government had the initiative and has chosen in cold blood and after proper consideration to bring this measure here at this time, at a time like this in the history of South Africa, never mind the history of the world. It is incredible, Sir, and it will stand condemned in the eyes of every South African who gives thought to this matter and realizes the implications of what the Government is doing. Mark my words, Sir, this measure is going to lead to an upsurge of criticism of South Africa. Instead of making the friends that we so badly need in the world, we are going to do nothing but add to the ranks of our enemies, and this Bill, which is a Government measure for which they are responsible, will be responsible for that upsurge of hostility against us.

In the first place the hon. the Leader of the Opposition congratulated the hon. Minister on the fact that he was now introducing a form of direct taxation into these areas, whereas the Minister of Coloured Affairs had refused to do so. There is a world of difference between this Act and the other one, since it is precisely the purpose of this Act to establish separate areas, and since it is of course quite possible to introduce a form of direct taxation.

Then, too, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition gave us a very fine philosophical lecture on the word “self-determination”. But unfortunately international world opinion, specifically the U.N., is insisting to-day that the right of self-determination be granted to nations. Whether we understand the definition or not, international world opinion is insisting upon it and consequently we must, as a member of the U.N., develop in that direction in our various areas. I just want to make it clear that this Bill itself, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also stated, does not of course grant independence in any sense of the word. It merely makes provision for this right of self-determination.

There is also the point that in terms of this measure the State President is being granted wide powers. It is true that these powers he is being granted here are very wide, but this has to be the case. Of course the position in South West Africa is very much in its initial stages; it is a very fluid position. There are many different tribes in different areas, and it is obvious that the hon. the Minister cannot return at frequent intervals to this Parliament to obtain approval of the various authorities, etc. I assume—and this is of course the case— that as soon as governments in the different areas begin to take permanent shape the hon. the Minister will in fact come to this House in order to have the powers of the different legislative assemblies defined, as subsequently happened in the case of the Transkei. I just want to point out that, in regard to these wide powers of the State President, they form an inherent part of the Constitution in South West Africa. These were created when the Mandate was introduced in 1919, i.e. these powers of the State President to make laws applicable in the territory by way of proclamation. Under the Constitution Act of 1925, which followed, the State President, at that time the Governor-General, retained the same powers. It is interesting to note that in 1949 here was a departure from this provision in the Act, but it was very soon found, in 1951, that the Constitution was inadequate without those powers, and for this reason that the laws of South Africa can from time to time be made applicable to South West Africa. The laws of South Africa are not all made applicable to South West Africa. From time to time, while Parliament is not in session, certain circumstances arise which make it necessary for a piece of South African legislation to be made applicable there. I have in mind the case which cropped up in 1950-’51. In 1949 sudden devaluation took place. It was then found that the Financial Institutions Act did not apply to South West Africa. Consequently the assistance of the State President had to be called in so that his powers could be used. In this way there were various cases which necessitated the use of those powers. According to section 14 (2) of the Act it is true that a month’s notice has to be given before a State President can proclaim any such Act there, and that he must also do so after consultation with the Legislative Assembly, unless compelled to do so immediately as a result of emergencies. Apart from the fact that it is desirable to have these powers because, as I have said, the laws of South Africa are not all applicable to South West Africa, there is another essential reason for these powers having to be included in the Act—it is an existing power which the State President already has, and it is inherent in the South West Africa Constitution: It was provided in terms of the Mandate Treaty of 1919 that the Union could apply its laws in South West Africa, with amendments owing to circumstances in South West Africa. That is why the State President must also have the power to amend acts which have to be made applicable in South West Africa.

At this juncture, when the U.N. is questioning our jurisdiction over South West Africa, it is in fact essential that we retain this inherent right of the State President in order to confirm our sovereign power over South West Africa. Now I just want to point out that the South West Africa Constitution Act introduced this year also provides that the State President continue to retain his powers, except over those matters which fall within the jurisdiction of the Legislative Assembly. Since these separate areas are now going to be established, it is obvious that the Legislative Assembly is going to lose certain powers over these areas. That is why it is necessary that provision should once again be made by this legislation for those powers through the State President.

The hon. the Leader also emphasized that the non-Whites will be consulted in regard to their right to self-determination—their future —and not the Whites. But he forgot of course that the Whites of South West Africa have full representation in the Legislative Assembly, as well as in the Parliament of the Republic. The white representatives in the Republic of South Africa have full say, together with all other members here, in regard to the fate of South West Africa. In other words, the white inhabitants of South West Africa have as much self-determination to-day as the white voters in South Africa.

In regard to Damaraland and Hereroland it is true that by far the greatest portion of the population of these areas is to-day living outside the areas. However, we must bear in mind that the thousands living outside the areas do not own any property. They are receiving major benefits in that tremendous areas are being granted to them. I think that R30 million has already been spent in purchasing farms from Whites for the Damaras and Hereros who are to-day living outside their homelands. This land is being consolidated for them.

The hon. Leader and the hon. member for South Coast expressed the fear that we are now going to create a danger in Ovamboland in that this country lies between us and Angola to the north. Later on I shall analyze in broad outlines the position as it will be in terms of this policy contained in the legislation before us, and what it would be under the policy which the United Party advocates. Now the truth of the matter is that we simply have no alternative. The hon. member for South Coast made the statement that where the Whites are governing, there peace prevails. Of course he is quite right, because wherever the Whites went, peace followed. Wherever the Whites are governing, there peace prevails, but unfortunately the world does not want to allow this. We would all have been pleased if the world had allowed the Whites to remain on elsewhere in Africa. Then we would of course have had peace in all those States. For years England maintained a peaceful situation in her territories. We are also maintaining peace here in South Africa. But now the world does not want to allow this. The hon. member for South Coast knows what resolutions have been adopted in regard to South West Africa.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Are you suggesting that because of world pressure on us it is now intended to grant independence to these peoples? [Interjections.]

No, it is not a question of pressure. After all, the whole world is changing. It is merely a question of evolution. We must accept that developments are taking place in the various tribes. As underdeveloped countries and tribes develop they demand more and more rights, and because we have to grant them these rights, that is why we are doing so. As people develop, they are granted more rights. We are not granting them more rights because we are compelled to do so; we are granting them more rights for humane reasons. As people develop historically, one has to grant them more rights.

You must do it here.

Of course we are granting more rights in South Africa as well. Look at the rights we are granting the Transkei.

Order! I do not want interjections in this debate. A member makes one interjection and receives 20 replies to it.

We must choose a form of development. I shall discuss this at greater length later on, but at the moment I want to ask the hon. member: What do we prefer? Do we prefer a dangerously independent South West Africa with its boundaries at the Orange River, 300 to 400 miles from Cape Town, or would we prefer such a state to be above the Etosha Pan? In terms of the policy of the United Party the non-Whites, owing to their numerical superiority, will have to take over in South West Africa. That is obvious. If that must happen, then we have an independent non-white state, not above the Etosha Pan, but with the Orange River as boundary, near to us, and that is the difference between their policy and ours.

South Africa has given the world the assurance time and again that we will govern South West Africa in the spirit of the mandate, namely to promote, to the greatest possible extent, the material and moral welfare and the social development of the inhabitants. This legislation envisages the continuation of that kind of government. The question now is whether with the legislation now before us, we are in fact on the right road. I think that it is generally accepted that an ideal situation prevails in a country when that country has a homogeneous population which governs itself. The Opposition are probably in agreement with that. They have stated repeatedly that they would welcome such a system in South Africa as well, but they maintain that they regard it as unpractical. The question now arises as to whether the policy is practicable in South West Africa. If we here in South Africa had had a homogeneous population it would have been a true Utopia. The United Party would have welcomed it.

If we look into the history of South West Africa we find it to be an account such as the one sketched by the hon. member for Middelland. We find an account of disunity, murder and destruction, of one war after another between the various races, and all this with only one end in view, i.e. to dominate through conquest. We who know South West Africa also know that it will be an impossible task to bring about co-operation between the various race groups and the acceptance of a joint mixed essential authority. I can state that with the utmost conviction here. I can say beyond doubt that if the Whites, to please the United Nations, were to withdraw from South West Africa to-morrow, the country would go up in flames within a few hours. The reason for that is the enmity between the various non-white groups, and enmity which assumes alarming proportions. I am simply stating a fact. They have absolutely no time for each other. There is a deep-rooted historical hatred between them. We will never obtain their co-operation in appointing a composite government consisting of the various racial elements over them. The situation that if races were to be grouped together it would lead to an internal struggle for domination, is a situation which of course is not unique to South West Africa. We find similar situations in most of our developed countries. We find this fierce struggle in the U.S.A. and even in Great Britain. We have proof that even if races do enjoy a large measure of development, the integration of various races—and I am speaking more specifically now of white and black races—is an impossible task. In this regard I want to refer to a very interesting leading article which appeared in The Cape Argus of 30th April, barely a week ago, under the title “The Nigerian Crisis”, I quote—

That is what the Opposition advocates. There is a “significant departure from earlier insistence on the sanctity …” I read further—

I am reading this last sentence particularly because the United Party states that they will maintain the races, even if it has to be with force. But this writer states that steps such as these “brought bloodshed, counter-revolution …”, etc. This is what happens if countries are forced to remain within a framework, and they do not want to remain within that framework.

In view of what I have quoted here, it is clear that it is essential to allocate to each race its own homeland and then develop it. That is what we are doing. In this way they can in due course obtain self-determination. The point was raised here in regard to how long it was going to take before those areas became independent. It was suggested here that we were going to grant independence immediately and that we would be creating a danger by doing so. I want to point to a few parallels. This state of South Africa was established in 1910, and it took us 50 years to decide of our own free will to become a Republic. We are a highly developed nation, nevertheless we waited 50 years before we decided that we were powerful enough, defensible and economically strong enough to take the step we did in fact take.

How long is it going to take the undeveloped tribes in South West Africa to become viable, capable of defending themselves, and economically strong enough to be able to maintain their independence? That ought to serve as a reply to the question.

It has also been asked here: What about our foreign relations with these countries? According to the United Party we are going to create hostile states on our borders. Let us take another look at the historical situation, and we can take South Africa as an example again. Since 1910 England has not prescribed to us what our political development should be. She has not tried to dominate us through a federal or central parliament, particularly not through a federal parliament, which is what the United Party is now suggesting, where proportionately we would have had practically no say. England supported us in the economic field by granting us preferential tariffs for example. In the military field she supported us by training men, and supplying us with weapons. She maintained our overseas services. Since 1910 she virtually granted us self-determination. What was the result of her attitude towards us? Our relations throughout were on a friendly basis, and when we decided to become a Republic, we were still desirous of remaining in the Commonwealth. However, that was refused us. But up to this day the relations between ourselves and Britain have been very friendly, and this is so because England has, over the years, adopted a certain attitude towards us. To-day certain defence agreements still exist between us. That is why I cannot see how these areas which we want to guide towards self-determination in the same way with this economic and other assistance, will develop into hostile states. Another factor is that in the 50 years between 1910 and 1960 there has in South Africa never been any important question of revolution, but rather of evolution.

Let us consider what will happen under the United Party if they were to apply their policy. Let us take the case of Ovamboland. They want to give Ovamboland representation in a federal parliament. They say that at first they will be represented by Whites. Now the question is: What Whites? We will once again have the position which arose when we had white Coloured Representatives in the House. Such improper interference took place that a Commission had to be appointed. We will have precisely the same thing happening in respect of Ovamboland with its white representatives. Whom would they elect as their representatives? The Liberal Party? The Progressive Party? Who can incite them the most, who can promise them the most? The same thing will happen that happened here in regard to the Coloured Representatives. How many representatives will they have? We must remember that their ratio to Whites in South West Africa is four to one.

The question then arises: Why should they be Whites? Can you see what a conflict would be unleashed if the United Party’s policy were to be applied? The United Party will ultimately have to give way to pressure. Let us argue like adults now, and admit that their representatives will not continue to be Whites for all time. Non-Whites will subsequently have to be allowed. Then, Mr. Speaker, a fierce struggle will arise because they will want proportionately as many non-White representatives as the Whites have in the federal body. Then the non-Whites will dominate the federal parliament owing to their numerical superiority, or otherwise the Federation will fall apart in the same way as the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland fell apart because the Whites will not be satisfied with that. And that, in my opinion, is what will happen. Then you can ask yourself the question: Why set a process in motion which after years of discord and struggle will lead to a fierce racial conflict? A chaotic explosion will then take place in the race federation, in the same way as this happened in the Federation. To-day we have the position of Rhodesia and Zambia. Then we will also have a hostile state, and that is precisely what the United Party is now warning us against. The result of our policy will be that we will develop in the opposite direction. We will have a friendly state on our national borders, a country which we will, over the years, help as much as we can. But the policy of that party will lead to a conflict. When the Federation fell apart, the hostility was there. The Federation was forcibly broken up, and now we have eternal enmity prevailing there. We shall have the same situation here, and then that is what the United Party predicts will happen under our policy.

The hon. member for South Coast said that this measure was creating even further dangers for us abroad. I predict that as soon as the implication of this legislation are realized, and as soon as the tangible results begin to appear, the world attitude will change. We know what the position in Ovamboland is. There we have already seen the tangible results. We are inviting representatives from other countries, as well as from the U.N.. to visit Ovamboland. We need not fear a referendum there. This is an extremely important point. If we can prove by way of a referendum what the Ovambos in Ovamboland, and the Whites in the white part want, then nobody in the world can object to that. In the meantime we can show the world that we are offering each race full rights in its own area. What is the policy of the United Party? They maintain they will introduce a federal system where the non-Whites will be represented by Whites. Will the U.N. and the rest of the world, be satisfied with that? Will they be satisfied if the number of representatives is quite out of proportion? I do not think it is necessary to make any further comparisons: To any unprejudiced person it is probably clear which policy is the best one.

I return to the point as to whether it is practicable to create areas with homogeneous populations in South West Africa. We are fortunate in that we have sufficient land for all the races in South West Africa. We have already purchased all the necessary land, so that there is more than enough land for all the races. This land allocation which will now take place means that it will be possible to allocate better cultivated and larger areas of land to every indigenous race group than they have ever, in the course of history, effectively controlled or occupied. Any unprejudiced person will have to admit this.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.