Sir, after the hon. the Minister, so far only the hon. members for Middelland and Omaruru have spoken on behalf of the Government. And they have attempted to justify this measure, with its framework and plan for breaking up South West Africa into a number of mini-states. Sir, they made reasoned speeches, and I think in their speeches they gave a clear picture of the Government’s reasoning and indeed of Nationalist interpretation of local and world events of recent times, and I believe they also gave a clear picture of the lessons which hon. members opposite believe one should draw from the events of recent times. I disagree with many of those interpretations and those lessons, and I shall first of all attempt to show that that interpretation and those lessons are unsound and incorrect; and, secondly, I should like to criticize the timing and the terms of this Bill.

I think it is notable that as far as the second aspect is concerned, neither the hon. member for Middelland nor the hon. member for Omaruru had anything to say about it. I am speaking of the timing of this measure and its particular terms. That is so, notwithstanding that this aspect was raised by my hon. Leader in his speech at the very outset.

I think it is agreed between both sides that there were murderous inter-tribal wars in South West Africa before the advent of the white man. That was painted in graphic terms by the hon. member for Middelland, and that refrain was taken up by the hon. member for Omaruru. They both said that with the coming of the white man that picture changed, and indeed it did. Whereas before there were these inter-tribal wars, thereafter we had peace, order and good government. Now I would have thought that that was something to latch on to and to remember most firmly. So, notwithstanding what one might expect, we see that the framework of this Bill provides for a withdrawal of the white man’s influence, and we feel that we must most strongly warn against this. I cannot see what reason there is for expecting that there should be piping peace when that influence is withdrawn. The hon. member for Middelland gave one reason. He said that the difference between former times and now is that now they would each have their own definite area. [Interjection.] He confirms that that is what he said. I do not concede that initially they did not have their own areas substantially, but assuming that they did not have their own areas substantially, surely we cannot take any comfort from the fact that they will now have their own areas. Does he forget the history of Europe? Does he forget that the nation states of Europe have thrown us into two of the bloodiest wars in history? All those states, Germany, France and others which participated, had their own territory, but this did not prevent them from becoming involved in the most convulsive wars.

There will always be wars, even in the Western world.

The hon. member says there will always be wars, even in the Western world. He based his hope for a different future for those territories on this aspect that they would apparently have their own areas. I do not concede that that is entirely so by any means, in terms of the Nationalist plan, but even if it were so, there is no justification for his statement whatsoever. Indeed, it is as the narrow Nationalism of Europe has yielded to a broader co-operation, with the European Common Market and the political developments flowing from that, that we are perhaps entering upon a more hopeful time there.

I would have thought also that the hon. member, with the recent war in Israel so fresh in his mind, would not have had the confidence to say that having separate territorial areas for states makes so much difference. After all, we have now had three wars between Israel and the Arab states, and a former Israeli Prime Minister said recently that we must assume that there will be continual war between these various states. I would have thought the other examples in the world, like India, could be cited to show that there will be no reason for confidence based on the fact that there will be a certain area allotted to these countries.

Take our own experience here in South Africa. We know before the coming of the white man there were many internecine tribal wars and they ended after the white man arrived. We remember that where there was the sharpest territorial division between the White and non-Whites was the very place where we had wars between them. The various Kaffir wars were fought on the very border between the Whites and the non-Whites. Therefore I cannot see how hon. members opposite can say that the designation of areas will result in peace.

The hon. member for Middelland also said that different ethnic groups cannot inhabit the same territory without hostility between them, and the hon. member for Omaruru rather took the same line and said you cannot have a central government of different groups. I want to suggest again that those statements fly in the face of historical facts. In South West Africa under the leadership and guidance of the white man these different ethnic groups, which we are told cannot possibly live together, have in fact lived together in amity since the white man came there. We have many ethnic groups living in the Republic itself and they have lived here for a very long time in perfect amity. Hon. members opposite want to suggest that this cannot be done. Indeed, many members of the party opposite hold the view that the Afrikaner and the English-speaking peoples of this country are two separate “volke”. But these people, who could be referred to as of potential separate Nationalisms, have lived in this country in amity, notwithstanding the most unfortunate war which took place in South Africa at the beginning of this century. They have lived in amity ever since and that too disproves the theory of the hon. gentlemen opposite.

We have a similar situation in Switzerland. There the Germans, the French, the Swiss and the Italians are living in amity in one country with one central government. We also have this harmony among the Belgians, where we have the French-speaking and the Flemish-speaking Belgians living in one country. Hon. members opposite may say, “Ah, but they have been having their little troubles there.” That may be. They have had their few little riots, no larger than what has been taking place in Paris itself over the past few days. They may have had a riot or two in those countries, but the trouble cannot be compared to the situation where nations go to war and move over each other’s boundaries. We find the same position in Canada, where there are two entirely different ethnic groups living in amity. They have also had little troubles, but they are minor ones compared to what takes place when nations wage war. Then there is Yugoslavia with its Croats and its Serbs and other minority groups. We have Czechoslovakia with its Czechs and Slovenes. These are all different ethnic groups living in complete amity, certainly greater amity than most nations have been able to maintain. I think the same is true of many South American states. In India, too, we find countless different ethnic groups, and, as my hon. Leader indicated, it would be ridiculous to attempt to give independence to each one of these small groups.

I think the hon. members for Middelland and Omaruru both pointed to Nigeria and said, “Ah, there you are, there is an example of our proposition that different groups cannot live together.” But I would in the first place remind hon. members opposite that Nigeria with all its different ethnic groups had perfect harmony within its borders whilst the British were in control and maintained their leadership there. The trouble only started when that was removed.

Why was it removed?

Because of their own views about matters, because of their own intentions and their own plans. [Interjections.]

Order!

I wish to stress that trouble arose there and in other places when the hand of the white man was withdrawn, and this is exactly what hon. members opposite are proposing to do in South West Africa. The very same thing happened in the Congo. All the different groups were living in amity there until the white man’s hand was withdrawn and then all the trouble started. The hon. member for Middelland cites the Central African Federation. I know it is the habit of hon. members opposite to take comfort from the events in Rhodesia to bolster their approach and theory.

But the various groups were co-operating quite well in the Federation whilst there was the leadership of the Whites, but Britain, who had the power to do so, removed that leadership. As a result of that we have had the break-up of the Federation. We on this side certainly do not follow the policies of the Rhodesian Government in regard to race relations, but the fact is that to-day we have various ethnic groups living in one country under one central government. Therefore I want to indicate that there are countless examples in our contemporary history where you have different groups co-operating in one territory and in one government. In addition you have a second class where they are doing so under the hand and leadership of the Whites.

I am not now arguing the rights and wrongs of the British withdrawal from Nigeria or the Belgian withdrawal from the Congo. Those were entirely black countries. But South West Africa is an entirely different proposition. We have a solemn duty to promote to the utmost the material and moral wellbeing and the social progress of the inhabitants there. This is a duty we have. I suggest that one can see clearly that that cannot be adequately promoted if the white hand is withdrawn. The hon. member for Omaruru and other hon. members opposite indicated that there was such great enmity among the tribes there. Surely it could not possibly be to their advantage if we were to revert to that situation. This alone would justify the pursuance of the spirit of the mandate in that respect. One can see also that it would not promote to the maximum their material benefit if the economy of the whole country were broken down by the creation of different states. It is therefore necessary to maintain this leadership there.

The hon. member for Omaruru says that the United Nations say that we must give self-determination to these people or nations. My answer is that we have a duty to promote their wellbeing in every respect. This is also a country of many groups, including the white group. The white group there must not be forgotten. Therefore I say that it must not be what the United Nations tells us to do there but what our own conscience dictates that we should do.

Finally, it was either the hon. member for Omaruru or the hon. member for Middelland who said that these new independent states that we wish to create there are bound to be friendly towards us as we will have given them their independence.

Sure!

That might have been so in a perfect world but this is not a perfect world. There are all kinds of sharks and wolves in red and other clothing that are moving about this world attempting to poison the minds of people in order to achieve their own ends. We have had so many examples of that in Africa that one hardly needs to multiply them. I would say indeed that such mini-states in such a rough and unfriendly world, would very easily come under their influence, if they had the full independence which is to be promised them.

I should now like to move to the second part of the Bill and touch upon the timing of this measure as well as the language of this Bill, which I must say, with regret, seems to me to have provocative elements in it. It is still not too late for us not to pursue this particular measure. I do sincerely hope that hon. members opposite will consider closely the timing of this measure before us.

Do you not think that it is perfect?

No, I do not think that it is perfect. I am indeed astonished that the Government should introduce a Bill in these terms at this time in our history. I am very surprised to learn that the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs apparently agrees with this. I suggest that this puts in jeopardy the improvement in our position which was won in the South West Africa case at the International Court. What have we had since that time? In their frustration and anger, we have had political attacks upon us, because of South West Africa. Neither we ourselves, nor the major powers who can influence affairs, have been concerned about countering such moves. It seems to me that we are opening a door to a new legal attack upon us. I do believe that we are definitely opening the door to a possible new legal assault upon our position. It is clear that South West Africa, the mandated territory, is being broken up. The states are to move to sovereign independence. This is clear from the Bill. Each of the groups mentioned is to have exclusive use and occupation of a contrary to what must originally have been contemplated there.

My hon. Leader mentioned, but I feel that it must be said again, that at the time of the South West Africa case the hon. late Prime Minister had set in motion through actions in the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa, steps in the direction of this Bill. But he suddenly stopped these moves. I believe he did so because it was made clear to him that there were appreciable legal risks involved. Unfortunately this matter is now being pursued. So, Mr. Speaker, I believe that our enemies could seize upon the Bill as perhaps changing the position in South West Africa, and they could approach the court again. The composition of this court is continually changing. We have to face the fact that our victory last time was by the narrowest of majorities. Then we will have the position, if we were to get a judgment unfavourable to us, that there are certain states whose policy it is to uphold the United Nations and all its organs. They are then placed in a very difficult position. Are they going to remain with us in the sense of taking it no further, and thereby see one of the organs of the United Nations, its International Court, treated perhaps with contempt, or are they going, however reluctantly, perhaps to feel they must maintain the authority of the United Nations?

Who treats that court with contempt now?

That court is not treated with contempt by the powers that can influence affairs for better or worse as far as we are concerned.

Order! I do not think the hon. member should carry this discussion too far from the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, with great respect, I will not, of course, follow the interjection, but I am sure that you would want me to make it plain that the timing of this measure could have very serious implications. We of the Opposition have a duty to warn the Government here. If there are good reasons why this timing is right, let us hear them. Certainly we were given no opportunity at any prior stage to know what they were. Indeed, I believe that the average member of the United Nations, and this perhaps includes most of the young ones, will possibly view this measure with a certain degree of apoplexy. One realizes that the Government most probably have considered this aspect, and one is driven to thinking they may be taking a calculated risk. What is the need for taking a risk? The actual degree of self-government given here is not stated, but one can assume that it will not go a very long way. Why, therefore, was it necessary to have in this Bill a framework indicating how far the position could go? These various aspects could quite easily be omitted from the Bill, and should have been omitted. In addition this measure will undoubtedly speed the move to independence in these territories. A few of us were privileged to go to South West Africa and to see the peoples in certain of the northern territories. This was a very valuable opportunity to inform oneself. But, with great respect to all concerned, one came back with the impression that these were people living a very simply nomadic life, and that they would not have the faintest idea of the implications of modern government. One can, therefore, not help feeling that this measure is unrealistic and that it would be unwise to press and foist extra powers—powers far beyond their requirements or wishes—upon them. For all these reasons, and many others, we still hope that the Government may take a different view in regard to the precise terms of this measure. We therefore oppose this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, all three speeches made so far from that side of the House about this measure referred to the so-called “breaking up of South West Africa into mini-states”. But what we had from them were mini speeches, and of all these the speech to which we have just listened was the miniest. We felt very sorry for the hon. member for Pinelands this afternoon, because he struggled to get through his speech. We know why he struggled with it—it was because they do not have a case. If there is one member opposite who knows that they do not have a case, it is the hon. member for Pinelands. I want to congratulate that hon. member on the fact that, in contrast with the other two speeches we have had—the speech by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and that by the hon. member for South Coast—he at least, although the Opposition does not have a case, delivered a responsible speech. We are grateful to him for that. However, we cannot say the same for the other two mini speeches; in fact, they were not even mini, but “topless”.

I want to deal with only one aspect of the speech made by the hon. member for Pinelands, and that is the question of timing to which he referred. The other two gentlemen also referred to it. The hon. member says that our timing is wrong. What is the implication when they come along with the statement that our timing is wrong? This is typical of the United Party. They want us to yield to pressure from outside and if we do so, then our timing will not be wrong. That is the point. We refuse to yield to pressure from outside, as opposed to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does. We say that there is only one criterion which we can apply in respect of South West Africa, and that criterion is what is right and what is in the interests of the order, quiet, peace and prosperity of each population group in South West Africa. That is our criterion, and therefore our timing is correct, in that it is in the interests of these people to initiate this development at this juncture, as we are in fact doing there. We refuse to yield to pressure from outside. The hon. Opposition asked why the timing was not right at an earlier stage, but they should bear in mind that there was a court case and that the matter was sub judice at the time.

What amazes me about the United Party is that they are really as useless as we say they are. This is proved by the speeches of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for South Coast. Before I came to this House, I often wondered why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and in particular the hon. member for South Coast, were always in trouble. However, now that I am here I am beginning to understand. This is demonstrated very clearly by particularly these two speeches made by these hon. gentlemen, as I shall indicate. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, inter alia, “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?” I just want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a straightforward question now. Does he regard the Herero as a nation or not? If he does not regard the Herero as a nation, because in terms of his definition he says that the Herero are not a nation, I want to ask him to go to South West Africa and say to the Herero that the United Party do not regard them as a nation. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition betrays basic ignorance, which one does not expect of someone in his position. I want to read to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition from a book by Professor Bruwer, an authority on South West Africa. He says, “Some two centuries after the advent of the Ovambo and the Okavango peoples, another group of Bantu people migrated to this part of Africa. They were the Herero, a pastoral people, who did not practise agriculture, and were ethnically of totally different stock.” There is an abundance of scientific evidence that the Herero are a completely different nation and people to the Ovambo. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, however, is so irresponsible as not to try to understand the basic concepts of these ethnological matters and then to stand up here and say that he regards the Ovambo people as a nation, but not the others. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he, in terms of his definition and policy of above and below the red line, would say that the Xhosa people were a nation, but not the Zulu and the Sotho? This is an analogous case. One could advise the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to take a first-year course in ethnology at the University of Stellenbosch. I can very strongly recommend the University of Stellenbosch to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Then there are also the Dama people in South West Africa. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition know that the Dama people do not even speak a Bantu language? They speak a Khoi language, a Hottentot language. Does he want to lump these people together with the Herero? If he does not regard them as a nation, will he go and tell them that he does not regard them as a nation? I am of the opinion that ethnologists who have taken note of the speech by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will have a good laugh at the hon. Opposition. I think that every student in South Africa will laugh at the hon. Opposition when it asks in a theatrical way here whether we regard those people as nations or not. The Herero, for example, pursued the Dama for years and “dispersed” them, which is the term used in most books. Throughout the years they waged war against the Dama. The hon. member for Pinelands also says with the same eloquence how peaceful matters were in South West Africa. Surely this does not accord with the facts at all. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, for example, denies that this is the situation. This is what we inherited, as the hon. member for Middelland indicated very clearly here. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition really want to lump these people together like a Canute of old and then think that he will be able to maintain peace in this area? This is too childishly naïve for words. It seems to me as if the Opposition has an obsession for integration, because they are forever wanting to lump everything together and thinking that they can maintain peace and order in that way. One feels sorry for the hon. member for South Coast, because he is trying terribly hard to get rid of this integration bug which is clinging to the United Party. However, it is the warp and woof of the United Party’s policy and they cannot get away from it. Their speeches in this connection once again display this same disease in the United Party. Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked, “When does one acquire the right to self-determination?”, as if he were making a very important point. As if he were making a terribly important point, he asked, “How big a group must one be to become a nation?” And then he asked, in the same way, “What characteristics must one have to have the right of self-determination?” Here again the hon. the Leader of the Opposition betrayed a basic ignorance, as I shall now indicate to you, Sir, which one would not expect of a man in his position. He does not know the history of his own country. [Interjections.] Sir, the Opposition knows that the blast is going to come now, and they will get it.

If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to know how large a group must be and what characteristics it must have before it can obtain the right to self-determination, will he tell us how many Afrikaners were self-determined and demanded the right to self-determination for themselves in this country at the time of the Great Trek in 1834? I shall tell him how many they were. Walker, in his book “History of the Great Trek”, indicates that in that entire decade of the eighteen-thirties they did not even number 14,000. The “Kernensiklopedie” states that there were 10,000, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to know, “How big a group must it be?” before one can regard it as a nation. What stupidity! And then he wants to know what characteristics a nation must possess before it can obtain the right to self-determination. The United Party is really displaying its lack of character by asking these questions here in all seriousness and then thinking that they are making a tremendously important point in asking these questions. When the Voortrekkers trekked away from here in 1836, they were far fewer in number than the smallest group now being discussed under this Bill, but he wants to know, “How big a group must it be?”

Sir, I want to go much further on this point. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to know how big a group must be before it can obtain the right to self-determination, then, because one finds small nations and large nations, and if he wants to create the impression in this House that a group must consist of a certain number before it can be regarded as a nation and before it can obtain the right to self-determination, then surely he is denying and negating the concept of small nations. Then surely he will argue just now that our nation, which only consists of 3¼ million people, is not a nation, but that the Chinese, who number 700 million, are a nation. That is the position in terms of his definition of a nation. I honestly think that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should not only take a first-year course in ethnology at Stellenbosch, but should also take a course in history there, because then he will learn that a nation can be small but can at the same time be powerful and strong and big-hearted. Numbers have nothing to do with the matter. There are nations with seats at the UNO which consist of 80,000 people. Gambia consists of a population of a little more than 80,000. But the Leader of the Opposition in this House wants to know how large a group must be before you can regard that group as a nation. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to know, “When does one acquire the right to self-determination?” then I shall just refer him once more to the history of his own nation. All that you need is a will; all that you need is a common language; all that you need is a common culture; all that you need is a territory, and all that you need in addition is a group consciousness. These theoretical matters which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised here, therefore, do not hold water at all. Surely the history of Africa in recent years has provided abundant proof of the fact that nations simply move in the direction of independence and the right of self-determination does the whole world take cognisance of that, but the whole world is deeply aware of the tion and that no one can stop it. Not only necessity and importance of it and of planning in that direction, but somewhere in the world you find an insignificant Opposition which is either too dense or too clever to grasp this basic concept. That is why the hon. member for Pinelands could not make a speech here this afternoon, because he is at least a responsible member and he knows that he does not have a case.

What does the new leader from Hillbrow say?

I want to go further and refer to one of the authorities which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself quoted, apparently without knowing what he was quoting. One of the authorities which he quoted states explicitly what I have just tried to tell him here. That authority which he quoted, states: “Who can say the nations nay and yet who can say what nations are and when and how they may assert themselves?”

Only the Nationalist Government.

His own authority which he quoted confirms what I have just said here, but he quotes that authority as if he wanted to use him to prove his point. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to use this statement as the corner-stone of his charge against us, then, surely, he is telling us that we are right in our actions and that we are following the right road in preparing these people for the day when the nations of South West Africa may be ready for the right to self-determination. Then, surely, we are providing the right guidance in preparing them for that and by being prepared for it ourselves when it comes, because if we are not prepared for it, if it should come, then we will surely have chaos in South West Africa. Therefore one thanks heaven that the Opposition are not governing and that the Opposition are not in a position to handle these matters, because one would be amazed at what they would have committed. We know, precisely because they have again come along with the aspect of “timing”, that in connection with this matter the Opposition have once again betrayed their old characteristic; in other words, they would have done nothing about the matter; there is a better word for it, but I think Mr. Speaker would call me to order if I used it. They would have done nothing about the matter, because it has always been typical of them to let things slide. That is what they wanted in this case as well and that is why they come along with these accusations.

Who took over South West Africa in the first place and what was your attitude then?

After the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had given this theoretical exposition which does not hold water at all, he made this incredible statement in his speech; he made a complete backward somersault and came up with the statement— and the hon. member for South Coast did the same thing here—“What the Bill sets out is not of great importance”. Then the hon. member for South Coast came along and said, “This Bill is an empty husk because there is nothing in it”. But in the meantime they had raised the devil about the wretchedness of this Bill. Why? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went as far as to say. ‘The State President can, of course, take away again all the powers he grants. He has that power. He, advised by the Cabinet, is the virtual dictator as to what powers shall be given to these councils, how far they develop and what powers should be taken away from them. I concede at once that this Bill does not grant independence”. But while conceding all this, he comes along and sets up skittles which he then knocks down one after another. If one makes a careful analysis of the speeches made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for South Coast, then it is very clear what they were busy doing here; they were indulging in the cheapest, most reprehensible politicking imaginable. They do not care one jot whether that politicking is in the interests of the people of South West Africa or in the interests of the people of South Africa; they do not care a jot whether they harm South Africa by it and how it would harm South Africa. Sir, it is when this sort of thing happens that one really becomes angry at the United Party, because that is when they become irresponsible.

Who is talking now?

I am sorry to say this, but if one looks at the speeches by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for South Coast, then you cannot escape from the impression which we have had for a long time, i.e. that at the back of their minds the United Party have the idea that interference from outside will afford them the chance of getting into power here in South Africa. There is no other logical explanation for their actions. I am saying this with the fullest responsibility. Let hon. members go and read the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition; then they will see for themselves. Why do they make such irresponsible speeches as those two gentlemen made here. That is why I say they are an irresponsible Opposition and that is why the people of South Africa will not forgive them for these things which they are doing to our country.

But then we come to the most poisonous piece of politicking in the speech by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He said—

I now want to look the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in the eye and ask him this straightforward question. Does he believe this nonsense which he uttered here? Does he want to make the people of South West Africa and the people of South Africa believe that this Government is granting the Bantu the opportunity of developing along the road to self-determination, but that the Government is denying it to the Whites? Because that is what he said.

Read the Bill.

I have read it carefully, but I want to say this to the hon. the Leader. I am very young and I regret to say this, but I have never heard such nonsense from a man in his position. Surely it goes without saying that the Whites in South West have self-determination. Why should it then be laid down somewhere? It does not befit the hon. the Leader to make such statements to the people of South Africa and to the outside world.

But then the Leader of the Opposition came along and towards the end of his speech spoke of the dangers to South Africa inherent in this Bill. He said—

The hon. member for South Coast also fretted about the dangers connected with these so-called independent states next to Angola, Mozambique, Zambia and Rhodesia. I now want to ask those two hon. members this. On the one hand they say, and they tell the world, that this Bill means nothing, because the State President has all the powers; he can delegate powers and he can take them away, and he has the Cabinet behind him. But in the same breath they talk about these dangers. Surely this is senseless. That is why we ask: Why do they do it? Are they doing it for South Africa’s edification? Surely they can only be doing it for the edification of UNO, and that is what we blame them for, and that is why we knew that the hon. member for Pinelands would make a responsible speech here, I expect that the hon. member for Transkei and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout will do the same, but these two gentlemen, the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for South Coast, with all due respect, did not know what they were talking about. They only wanted to indulge in politicking, to besmirch South Africa’s name, the devil take the consequences, and their speeches prove it. Read the speech, then you will see for yourselves. I therefore say that they are really flagrantly irresponsible in their actions. Listen to this ridiculousness, and both those hon. members referred to it: The Leader of the Opposition spoke theatrically about the oil in Angola and about the vacuum which is developing in the Indian Ocean, and do you know with what foolish statement he then came to light? He said that our Government was giving the Ovambo independence, but in the same breath he said that we were not doing so, because the State President still had all the power in his hands. He said that a vacuum was developing in the Indian Ocean and that the only place from which we would be able to obtain oil, would be from Angola, because under those circumstances the Russians would cut off our oil from the Middle East, but that we ourselves were now severing the only line of communication that would then remain by giving the Ovambo independence. What utter nonsense! I think the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for South Coast put a nail into the United Party coffin with these speeches. [Interjection.]

I want to go still further. Do you know what motivation the Leader of the Opposition used for these stories about a vacuum and oil? It is childishly naïve, but he said—

But he himself said that the State President had all the powers. He could take and he could give.

Read the preamble to the Bill.

This is not what one expects from the Leader of the Opposition. I just want to say that since he runs with the hare and hunts with the hounds in this way in connection with an important matter, with his stories of “timing”, and so on, if I were sitting on those benches, I really would not have been proud of the hon. the Leader. I want to say this and I say it calculatedly. I wish the day would rather come when we could really accuse the hon. the Leader of the Opposition of being a wolf in sheep’s clothing, because that would be much better. You know, Churchill on occasion said to Attlee that he, was a sheep in sheep’s clothing. But then comes the real sting in the speech by the Leader of the Opposition. Referring to the World Court’s decision of 1950, he said that the Court had found that—

Now I want to ask him again, is he saying this for our edification in South Africa? Surely that is not true. Surely we have nothing to do with that. He is saying it for the edification of UNO, is he not? It is irresponsible. Then they have the temerity to speak of “timing”.

I must hurry. I want to come to the hon. member for South Coast. Oh, if I had the time, I would really have taken him to task! The hon. member for South Coast is the man who described this Bill as “the Bill that should never have been”. That is typical of him. After all, he is the man who said that blood would flow about the establishment of the Republic of South Africa. He is the man “who felt like saying yes to the rebellion”; when they asked him “whether he intended to lead the rebellion against the Republic” he said, “I felt like saying: Yes, I am.”

I quote from Die Burger: “Banana Rebellion in Natal: Mitchell talks strangely.” He is the man who said: “This is the Bill which should never have been.” But I shall quote from the Rand Daily Mail, which states—

That is what the hon. member did. The report goes on to say—

This was written on 2nd February, 1961—

Order! The hon. member must return to the Bill.

I shall do so at once. This is the hon. member who said, “Go and be damned … we will march … we reject the Republic”, and now he speaks of “this Bill which should never have been”. He must pardon us, but we do not take the wild assertions which he made during this debate about this Bill, seriously, because we cannot do so. What we are doing with this measure is this. We are only building on the existing systems in South West Africa, systems which we are expanding, which we are developing, systems which are very well known to those people—everyone and every group of them. Therefore we believe that new systems should not be forced upon those people, because they will never work in practice. Consequently we are now, in good time and at the right time, when it is in the interests of these people, providing for existing systems to be developed and modernized and for allowing higher governing bodies to be established properly, due regard being had to prevailing circumstances and the wishes of each member of each group. This is an evolutionary process and it can happen that a specific group accepts a system of government recommended for it by the Odendaal Commission from the beginning or in the course of time, or the group concerned may find that for practical reasons it would rather accept another system. This is a matter about which each group must decide for itself. Surely this is a basically sound philosophy, basically sound politics, scientifically based politics, practicable, and the only acceptable position for all the various population groups of South West Africa. It will bring them order, quiet, peace and prosperity. The proof of this is that we have that order, that quiet, that peace, and it is an example to the entire world and to UNO as well. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for South Coast tried to use the floor of this House to oblige those people to the detriment of their own country, their own nation, and South West Africa. We think that the nation will never forgive them for this.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure we are all sick and tired of hearing from hon. members on that side that we use the floor of this House to further the interests of the enemies of South Africa. [Interjections.] It is strange that this accusation should come especially from hon. members on that side. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member is the perfect example of the wisdom of what the hon. member for South Coast said when he said this Bill should never have been, and he is absolutely right. We heard from the hon. the Prime Minister that he is pleased when we have a bipartisan, a common approach to our problems in the field of foreign affairs. My hon. Leader said, when he started off this debate, and in this he was followed by the hon. member for South Coast, that this Bill was introduced without there having been any consultation with this side of the House. [Interjections.] When we complain hon. members opposite criticize us became we say across the floor of the House what objections we have to the Bill. What must we do? What do they expect us to do? To sit still and saying nothing whatever? [Interjections.] Is that what they expect? The offer has been made by my hon. Leader time and time again that when it comes to matters which affect South Africa, especially those matters relating to foreign policy, we should like a bipartisan approach, we should like to be consulted. We have some thoughts on the matter. But this is not the place for those matters to be debated. They should have been debated elsewhere. But having brought them here, what are we supposed to do? Are we supposed to keep quiet? The hon. member for Primrose has not in fact dealt with the Bill at all, he has not dealt with one bit of the Bill. All the hon. member did was to state some woolly conclusions. If he wonders how the debate in this House is going to look to the outside world, I must say the hon. member’s contribution is going to bring some disgrace to the dignity of this House. What does the hon. member say? He says we on this side are just making speeches to try and help people who are against us at the U.N.O. What a disgraceful thing to say! [Interjections.] This is precisely what we are trying to avoid. If this Bill is passed in its present form we are going to place sticks in the hands of our enemies, and we wish to avoid that.

The hon. member went further and said the United Party wants interference from outside because that is the only way it is going to upset this Government. What a disgraceful thing for anyone to say. And it comes from that side of the House!

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Deputy Minister will remember when he was on the other side that there were members of the party which he now belongs to, who during the last war prayed and hoped for some German interference in South Africa. [Interjections.] Is that true or is it not true? So let hon. members not come along with things like this. This party has never been in the position that it could ever be accused of wanting to do South Africa harm. [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon. member please come back to the Bill. [Interjections.] Order! I wish to point out that as soon as hon. members digress from the contents of the Bill, it causes unrest and all these interjections follow. The hon. member must try to keep within the limits of the Bill.

On a point of order, Sir, I ask the hon. member to be given an opportunity to defend me, because since I have already spoken I cannot answer the remarks made by the hon. member who just sat down. [Interjection.]

Order! The hon. member will have an opportunity during the third reading of the Bill to reply to the remarks he refers to. I must ask hon. members please to confine themselves to the contents of this Bill.

The hon. member for Primrose, if I may answer some of his arguments, said our attitude was we wanted to give in to pressures from outside South Africa, and then we would not have any more trouble. But that is precisely what we want to avoid. There is something which is called wisdom that one must employ when dealing with the outside world. What is the hurry? As the hon. member for South Coast asked, why now? Surely we do not need any more troubles and difficulties, we do not want to invite more troubles and difficulties now? I do not think the hon. member has read the Bill, but I want to ask him whether he thinks that what is required in the immediate future in these troubled times could not be done in terms of section 38 of the South West African Constitution Act? The section says that “The State President may by proclamation in the Gazette and in the official Gazette make laws for the Territory in relation to any matter in regard to which the Assembly may not in terms of section 22 make ordinances”. Those matters are Bantu Affairs or any matters specially affecting Bantu, including the imposition of taxation upon the persons, land, habitation, and earnings of Bantu, and so on. Surely at this initial stage whatever the hon. the Minister has in mind could have been done under that section. Surely, and even if the hon. member for Primrose seems to concede this, this independence is not to take place immediately. Surely there is an awful lot to be done? Why come now with a Bill of this sort stating the ultimate aim at this stage without any consultation whatsoever? The fact of the matter is that there is not one single matter that this Government, that this Nationalist Party can deal with which it does not treat as a party political matter. It has no sense whatsoever as to what is good for South Africa as a nation. If it did it would surely take the preliminary step of trying to speak from strength with the Opposition behind it regarding whatever plans it has for South West Africa.

The hon. member went further and talked about these “klein nasies”. Then he made a strange analogy and said that that meant that we with a population of 3½ million are not as big a nation as China with her 700,000,000. [Interjection.] No, he did not say that. One has to determine when one has the right to become a nation. When does one have the right to become a nation? How can anyone pretend to be a nation? I shall come back to this point and deal with the relevant figures. If one of these groups, such as the Kaokovelders with 10,000 people, can become a nation and have independence, then I should like to know why the Indians in South Africa with 500,000 people cannot become a nation and why not the Coloureds with 1½ million people. This is the kind of nonsense the hon. member speaks. I shall return to that very point. As the debate progresses we see that this is indeed a Bill which, as the hon. member for South Coast said, should never have been. Emerson whom the hon. member for Primrose quoted, asks whether the good of the world is promoted by the multiplication of weak and perhaps irresponsible states.

I quoted Emerson in my argument.

Yes, I am also now quoting from Emerson. That is the question he poses. It is a very good question. Is the good of the world promoted by a multiplication of weak and perhaps irresponsible states? Surely the same applies to us here. When one remembers all the things that were said on that side of the House about the creation of black states to the north of us, and then considers what is in this Bill, then one finds difficulty in appreciating just what the philosophy is in regard to South West Africa. Surely this is even more true of us in South Africa. By this Bill it is planned to do exactly the same, but with smaller nations than the world has ever seen, if they are to be nations. The hon. member must not shake his head. Where is there a nation of 10,000 people in the world? Where is there a nation of 20,000 or 40,000 people in the world? There are all sorts of things that worry one about this measure. In 1958 the Good Offices Committee was appointed and came to South Africa. It consisted of Great Britain, the United States of America and Brazil under the chairmanship of Sir Charles Arderne Clark. They put forward a solution in the form of some kind of partition as a basis upon which some agreement could be reached with the Government of the Union at that time. They put it forward on that basis and it was rejected by the Assembly. It was rejected and a counter suggestion was made. The basis of this recommendation was that some northern part would fall under a trusteeship agreement and that the southern part should be incorporated with South Africa. That was also rejected. They tried again. The mandate then was that there should be no partition and obviously no incorporation of any part of the territory. If partition might have been a basis for agreement then—and one wonders what is exactly behind all this—then the circumstances have changed completely at the present time. I think the hon. member for South Coast dealt with that very adequately.

It has changed in favour of greater partition.

What is happening on our borders now was not happening in 1958. Does the hon. member seriously think that to give independence to a country such as Ovamboland and to drive a wedge in there between the Portuguese and ourselves is going to do anything to strengthen our position as far as our borders are concerned? Does the hon. member really think that? That is the kind of object this Bill seems to aim at. Does it not aim at giving independence to all those northern territories specified in this Bill? Of course it does.

We are not giving it now.

Of course they are not getting it now. Anyone who has read the Bill will appreciate that they are not getting it now. When he introduced the Bill the hon. the Minister said that this Bill does not make provision for independence. There will have to be separate legislation. My hon. Leader confirmed that that was the case. The intention of the Bill is stated in the preamble:

What does that mean? It means what it says and that is the intention of this Government. The White Paper also bears it out. In the White Paper there is talk of this being an irrevocable step in this direction. Another thing that worries me about this Bill is that it is, by the same token as far as that area is concerned, the end of any negotiated incorporation of those territories in South Africa. Is that the intention? Is that what they want? I would have hoped that we would never have abandoned the thought that we might have a negotiated incorporation of the territory of South West Africa. Why is this now abandoned by this Government in respect of those territories? The fact is that it is abandoned. It is abandoned if this means anything at all?

What about the Protectorates? According to the Schedule to the Act of Union Protectorates belong to us.

The Protectorate never belonged to us. There was provision in the South Africa Act that the Protectorates could be added to the Union. But who had the control of the Protectorates—the South African Government or the British Government? Who now has the control over whether these people become independent unilaterally—us or anyone else? It is the South African Government that has the say. [Interjections.] That is no analogy. The real lesson to be learnt from the Arderne Clark Commission is—and anyone who has been to hear the United Nations Committee will bear this out—that whenever South West Africa is talked about, it is not South West Africa or its status or its legality that is discussed; the policies of this Government are talked about. They never talk about South West Africa as such.

What about Rhodesia?

I am not talking about Rhodesia now. That is what those people talk about. Indeed the chairman, Sir Charles Arderne Clark is reported to have said that when his recommendation was rejected, he did not think it was because of the inherent goodness or badness of his solution to the South West Africa problem, but simply because this was the whipping boy that was used to attack South Africa’s race policy.

That is the fact of the matter and my hon. friend opposite nods in agreement. That is the tragedy of this Bill. That is true of the international forum in New York at any rate. Whether they are right or wrong is not the point. The fact of the matter is that that is what they do. Here we have the tragedy that we have a Bill before us now which has all sorts of national and international implications and all are now being given the wings of South African party politics. We do not deserve this. We do not deserve to have this kind of attitude against us. Do you realize, Sir, that what this Bill does in effect is to apply to South West Africa the very policy of this country which people overseas want to talk about. Does that help? Let me say that I do not think that it is necessary in relation to South West Africa that you have to, if you are the Government, apply your own policy every inch of the way. You do not have to. The situation is quite different. It is quite a different country and the circumstances are quite different there.

It is governed as an integral part.

Yes, it can be governed as an integral part but is it wise to do a thing like this? Is it wise to try and apply a policy which the Government has in mind for South Africa to a country like South West Africa? One of the nations is going to consist of only approximately 10,000 people. Obviously circumstances are different. We must not forget that South West Africa still has its international character. No one will dispute that. That is why one has all these things. Because it is still a country with an international character. Then we ask why at this time must this Bill be brought forward. It will give to the people in the United Nations, as had been said already, an opportunity for saying whether we are right or wrong.

They say it in any case.

I do not want to go into the merits of whether it is right or wrong, but I want to say this. This Bill will give them the platform for saying that this is either the contemplation of a unilateral act, which is against the mandate, or that it is against the spirit of the mandate. But at any rate, it gives them something new to cling onto at a time which I would have thought, so far as international interference in South West Africa over our mandate is concerned, was at its best for us or at any rate, the best that it has been since I have been in this House.

What time will you choose for incorporation?

I shall come to that. I do not have time to read all that I wanted to read, but I want to refer once again to Emerson. Emerson deals with self-determination in plural societies. He deals with the difficulties that there are—

Then he goes on to deal with the situation of the Jews and Arabs in Palestine, and the Moslems and Hindus in India, and the difficulties they had, one with the other, each laying claim to a piece of land or to certain rights, ending up with the only solution, which is trial by battle. Then he says—

Now I am going to come to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s point. He goes on, having dealt with this difficulty, to say—

Now, Sir, the Government recognizes this. I presume the answer is going to be that they recognize that this is one of their difficulties and that, in fact, what they are therefore going to do, is to avoid there being any competition for control by one group over another in that state. And so what will they do? They will say: We will create separate states.

Is that not just what Emerson said?

That is what Emerson says, but he does not say that it is to be applied to South West Africa. I think it is quite clear, if one reads Emerson, that his concept of what a nation is, is not a group of people in the Kaokoveld, called the Kaokovelders, with 10,500 people. Nor is it the Eastern Caprivians, with 17,900 people. Nor is it the Okavangos with 31,500 people, nor the Hereros with 40,000 people, nor the Damaras with 50,000 people.

What about Maldive, one of the members of the United Nations, with 98,000 people?

Emerson asks the question: When is one entitled to ask for nationhood? What is a nation in that sense, Sir? It is certainly not one of these groups that are to be given independence. If there is a plural society, there is one inescapable fact, and particularly is this so in South West Africa. If there is a plural society, and one wants to overcome one group dominating another group, then we have to have a federal link between all those various groups. There is no other basis upon which it can be done. If there is no federal link and federal elements in that society made up of the members of that society, the distinct different ethnic groups in that society, then there is no other way of avoiding the one group dominating the other group. Then one must have a further federal link with the Republic of South Africa, so far as this is concerned, because only in that way can one ensure that there will be no fighting, that they will not be at each other’s throats and that all the history that we have heard from that side of the House will not repeat itself. That is my answer to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. That is our answer; it can work, and he knows it.

The wisdom of the younger Pitt.

We are utterly opposed to the preamble, as has been indicated. But as my hon. friend from South Coast, has indicated, the rest of the Bill denies the very preamble. Because, although this is the stated intention, in fact everything that has been built up can be knocked down again by proclamation. I think we are entitled to say: If you are leading people to independence, you lead them there in stages, and the stages that you have reached, you may not go back on. Surely, that is true. But here the whole structure can be knocked to the ground at any stage by the Government.

What is really worrying you: the fact that we can do it, or that we cannot do it?

That brings me to my last point, namely that there is a most objectionable feature of this Bill, which is that Parliament is not only excluded altogether, because this is to be done entirely by proclamation, but it is deliberately affronted. If you look at clause 18, which amends section 38 of the South West Africa Constitution you will see what I mean. The law at the moment is that a proclamation issued by the State President, in effect by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, shall apply in the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel only inasmuch as it is not repugnant to an Act of Parliament. That has been taken right out. Now, although an Act of Parliament is passed and in the Act of Parliament it is stated that it shall apply in the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel, this clause gives to the Executive the power, despite what Parliament’s wishes and commands are, to ignore Parliament altogether and do something else by proclamation. I think we have reached a very sorry pass. When we deal with South West Africa, the country with sovereignty there is South Africa. Surely that sovereignty must remain with the sovereign Parliament, and must not go to the Executive. We hope that, even at this very late stage, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development will consult his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and perhaps together they will be persuaded by what they have heard, that they should withdraw this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat began his speech by asking us what else we could have expected from the Opposition but that they should have opposed this Bill, since they had not been consulted in advance. Does that mean that, if we had wanted to consult them, they would have agreed with this legislation.

That is not what he said.

It has been asked whether South Africa deserves this legislation? Does South West Africa deserve this attitude on the part of the Opposition? That is the question I want to put. I think it is with the greatest irresponsibility that the opposition is opposing this Bill to-day, because we who live in South West Africa realize what the position there is, and know what is happening there, I want to maintain that the bitterness with which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. the member for South Coast, who is walking out now, approached this Bill, is not to the credit of the Opposition. Nor can it do South Africa and South West Africa any good, because their entire argument is aimed at seeing whether they cannot make any political capital out of this matter. They leveled the reproach at us that with this legislation we are going to estrange the friends we made in the past.

In the same breath they say to the Whites in South West Africa that the Government, with this legislation, is not looking after their interests. Sir, the Opposition is displaying the greatest irresponsibility here. The Opposition maintains that we should not divide up the population of South West Africa into small groups. What is the factual situation in South West Africa? We all admit that there are different nations with different languages, traditions, etc. What would the ideal situation be? The ideal situation would be to give each one of these nations their own territory in which they would in future have the right to acquire self-determination. I think it is essential that we should also state the positive aspects of the policy of the Government here to-day. What are the facts? What has South Africa done for the nations of South West Africa in this process of development? The Opposition did not even refer to this, but under the circumstances in which we are living to-day, it is, after all, extremely necessary to recognize what South Africa has done in the interests of the development of South West Africa and its population groups.

Sir, do we deserve an Opposition such as this which accuses the Government of not having taken any constructive steps in this measure? One finds this negative approach of the Opposition really disappointing. The question was put here by the Opposition as to whether the timing was correct. Sir, if your case is a good one, then one need not ask whether your timing is correct; if your case is a good one, then the best time to act is immediately. As a result of the extremely responsible way in which South Africa has acted and met its obligations towards South West Africa, the inhabitants of South West Africa have undergone developments, for which all the inhabitants of that area have great appreciation to-day.

In the past 15 to 20 years considerable changes have taken place in South West Africa. The area has developed at an accelerated tempo in all spheres of life. This development is the fruit of many years of hard work. This increased rate of development has also resulted in the fact that provision had to be made for affording these under-developed groups an opportunity of realizing their aspirations. It makes no difference whether these various groups number 2,000 or 270,000; they all have the same political aspirations. For this Government the crucial question was how to do justice in a responsible way to all the ethnic groups, on a basis on which it would be possible to continue to build. Before one can find a solution, one must surely institute a proper investigation; one must have all the facts at one’s disposal. The hon. member for Middelland has already sketched the historical background for the House. A few years ago this Government, because this development fell to the lot of South West Africa and because the various nations began to display political aspirations, appointed the Odendaal Commission to institute an investigation and make recommendations, and subsequently the Commission made recommendations in respect of the economic development of the area, and secondly in respect of the political development of the various ethnic groups there. I should like to quote briefly from the explanatory memorandum (translation)—

If it were not for the provision which is being made in this Bill, then it is logical that certain groups would be dominated by other groups. Further—

Seen against this background, and the increasing degree of development in the area, the Government has seen fit to submit this Bill to the House. In reality this Bill is merely a confirmation of what has already been acknowledged and accepted in South West Africa by all the groups in that territory. However, it is essential to motivate this statement and to indicate that this policy of the Government can withstand any test which may be imposed from abroad or from the interior or specifically by the inhabitants of South West Africa. When one says this, then one thinks involuntarily of the South West Africa court case and Dr. Verwoerd, who on 18th July, 1966, after the verdict of the World Court, commented on this matter in his last public speech. This speech was broadcast over the radio, and I should like to quote these few striking words to indicate once again the honesty of this Government’s policy and to indicate that this policy is not a new one, but that it has been the policy of this Government for many years (translation)—

Dr. Verwoerd emphasized that one could only obtain peaceful co-existence and harmony if each nation acknowledge the territory of other nations. That was the only way of preventing chaos. The Opposition asked the question here, and wanted to know why the Bill should be introduced at precisely this juncture. The same question was put when the World Court was in session, and when the Government submitted its White Paper to the House in 1964. In the same way as they did at that time the Opposition has again in this debate asked whether the Government’s timing was correct. Sir, the reason why the Government is now coming forward with this Bill is because this Bill is a just measure, because it has merit, and that is why we cannot let any opportunity of putting our case slip. We felt in the World Court case that our case had merit; we stated our case with conviction, and we proved the honesty of our policy and our intentions in regard to all the nations in South West Africa. After all, the only question is: What is in the interests of all ethnic groups in South West Africa? The accusation was made against us, and is being made against us again now, that the inhabitants of South West Africa are being suppressed and that the freedom of the individual is being prejudiced. We put our case and, with an overwhelming amount of evidence, proved the reverse. With this Bill we are once again coming forward now with a positive approach which proves again that the inhabitants of South West Africa are not being suppressed. The policy of the Opposition amounts to enforced integration, in which one would be forcing together groups which do not want to be together. If that policy were to be applied, then one would encounter greater opposition. We accept that the approach which is fundamental to this Bill does have disadvantages, but it will constitute fewer disadvantages for few people, whereas enforced integration will entail more disadvantages for more people. The verdict in the World Court case is regarded by some people as a technical one, but do hon. members really think that those judges, with the entire world opinion against us, would have acknowledged that we were right if they really believed that this monstrous charge of suppression was a well-founded one? They would never have given the verdict they did in fact give, unless they were sure that this policy was not one of suppression but that we were sincere in our intentions in regard to the nations of South West Africa. The assertion is being made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that we are losing friends again. He alleged that with this Bill we were destroying what we had achieved with the verdict of the World Court, but surely the reverse is true. Each time we state our case positively we are winning friends —because it is based on Christianity and morality—in the right-minded world, and amongst honest people. The point of departure of the Government in regard to this Bill is the following: How can we achieve the best results for all inhabitants of South West Africa? In other words, the interests of all ethnic groups must be taken into consideration, and in that lies the guarantee of peaceful survival for the various nations in South West Africa, and when I speak of the various nations in South West Africa I am not only taking about the Natives. The Opposition said here: “Provision is being made here for the Natives; what about the Whites?” Provision is by implication also being made here for the Whites who, in the same way as the Natives of South West Africa, surely also have a right to exist and a right to acquire self-determination. Peaceful co-existence with the various nations can only be effected by what is being envisaged in the Bill, namely the creation of homelands for the various nations and the recognition of territorial boundaries.

The historical background has already been dealt with here. The historical fact is that over the years various ethnic groups in South West Africa have been formed, groups which owing to their different languages, their different cultures, different ways of life, etc., have clearly distinguishable identities. These groups are not prepared to sacrifice their identity. You can approach any one of those groups, and you will find that not one of them will be prepared to sacrifice that which they have achieved; they are not prepared to sacrifice their land, their way of life, their language, or their form of government. What is being done here, must be seen as a step forward in the development of South West Africa and its people. Nations who want to integrate still have the freedom to do so, and this Bill is making provision for that. But it is not trying, in a tyrannic way, to force people who do not want to integrate, to do so. In those home territories each population group will have the right to develop. Each copulation group will have proprietary rights. There is no fear that one population group will be dominated by another. Each individual is being granted the opportunity of living free of tension and of developing without any group conflict to the highest level. Inherent in this policy and in this measure which is based on that is the possibility of satisfying all demands which the international world are making on us to-day, and it also contains the guarantee of domestic peace and co-operation, as is always the case when neighbours acknowledge one another and do not threaten or force one another to integrate. What is important, what is perhaps most important at this stage, is that there is the inherent guarantee of domestic peace and co-operation, as is always the case when neighbours acknowledge one another and do not, threaten one another, and are not compelled to live on a mixed basis. Reference was again made to the economic viability of these smaller groups, but has it ever been essential in recent history that these newly independent nations should be economically independent while they are obtaining political independence? All are to a greater or lesser degree economically dependent upon one another, and this applies even to the most developed countries in the world. That is why I do not think that this argument holds good any more, namely that these people are not economically viable. South West Africa forms part of the economic complex of Southern Africa, and its ethnic groups will obviously prefer to form part of it; they will prefer to remain part of it and they are not being prevented from doing so. But each group, if it can accept the necessary responsibility can ultimately develop itself in the political field to such an extent that it will be able to achieve self-government. Protection is being afforded a group in order to allow it to develop within its own group and not be dominated by other groups. It has been stated repeatedly that this fact that we are allowing them to achieve self-government will go hand in hand with the greatest degree of responsibility, and that is why I do not want to go into the matter any further. Our approach is that the resources of these countries are going to be developed, that a process of upliftment is going to be applied to the inhabitants of these homelands are in order to ensure that they will gain an understanding of stability and law and order, and realize that they will have to maintain it in this way; and with this approach we will be able to obtain what we are all striving for, and in fact, a great deal of this has already been achieved in South West Africa. It is a pity that there are so few members of the Opposition who accompanied us on our visit to the Bantu areas in South West Africa. What did we find there? That we have already achieved the following, because this Government has an honest policy, and because the Natives believe in this Government, because they realize that we are honest. We have achieved a tolerant attitude between the various nations. But now the Opposition is coming forward with these scare stories and they are trying to make the inhabitants of South West and South Africa believe that when Ovamboland achieves its independence it will become a communistic state. I want to give hon. members the assurance that this will not happen, owing to the good relations between the Bantu and the Whites there. On the borders of Angola, where there is terrorism, one can sleep easily, more easily than one can in Johannesburg. One need not lock one’s doors, and one need not have burglar-proofing on one’s windows. One can leave one’s doors open; all one has to be careful of there are the mosquitoes. This the Government has already achieved. But we are being accused, and the people are being intimidated, in spite of the fact that we have already achieved something which other nations are envious of. What have we achieved further? That in South West Africa each one of these various ethnic groups acknowledge the borders and the territory of the others, and do not violate these. That is why we have peace and quiet there. We have security in that area.

They handed over many of the terrorists.

A further result of this policy is that there is economic progress for all, and as a result of the responsibility of South Africa towards South West Africa, circumstances are so favourable that no other country in Africa can compete with us there. Now, in all honesty, I want to ask the Opposition the following question. Do they think that they can throw these various groups together and enforce integration without causing conflict, tension and chaos?

What are they doing at present?

The hon. member obviously does not know what he is talking about. Each one of us who has knowledge of this matter, will realize that we are living in peace to-day, not only the Whites but all ethnic groups. But now the Opposition come forward with their approach and their solution, but they leave the back door open by saying that those people should be consulted first and that in that case they would perhaps have decided differently. Surely this is not an argument which holds water. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has stated that they are prepared that the northern areas develop into autonomous states. Who lives in the northern areas? The Bantu live there. There are no Whites there. The Whites living there are only there for administrative purposes; they may not own land there. They maintain that the southern portions must not obtain this; here we must live together. Who live in the southern areas? The Damaras, the Hereros the Namas as well as the Whites.

Now they maintain that in this legislation provision is not being made for the Whites as well. But they are prepared to say that the Whites should share sovereignty in the southern sector. Where is the logic of this? If one wants to give all nations the same rights and opportunities it must not be in favour of a few only, and one must at least be consistent. Surely this idea clashes with the idea of the promotion of all racial groups. The idea of a federation in the north and a federation in the south has been raised. Then these two areas most probably form a federation again, and when it comes to closer ties with South Africa, it will probably have to be a confederated federation. Where is the logic of this? And what does it imply? In this federation one of two things must happen. Either the majority is going to dominate the minority or a privileged position will have to be created for certain minority groups. This policy of theirs will not hold water in countries abroad, nor at home. Why place the Whites in this unenviable position and say that they must, at some time or other, make regulations by means of which they will have to dominate these minority groups? Why not give each population group the right to its own development? And then the Opposition in South West Africa —I do not know whether this Opposition agrees with them—do not talk of a federation, but of one white representative for the four largest non-white racial groups. Why the four largest? And if these four are still the same four to-day, will they still be the four largest in ten to 20 years’ time? Will the overseas countries be satisfied with this? Can it be expected that the non-Whites of South Africa will accept this? Why should the Whites be placed in this position if they know that it will not hold good? Why cannot we allow this development to take place from the outset on a sound and practical basis? Why must the Opposition always put forward these complicated and unrealistic suggestions? Let us be practical and realistic and let us look after the welfare of the people, and let us leave aside this political argumentation when it comes to important matters. Why not allow justice to be done to all groups? Does the Opposition really think that it can pull the wool over the eyes of overseas countries and the voters at home with this offer of limited powers to certain groups? Because that is what their policy implies. Can this policy of theirs succeed anywhere else in the world? No, the standpoint of this Government is clear. It is a responsible standpoint, and it is being accepted by all because it is an honest one, and those who do not accept it to-day will accept it in future. But what is most important is that this standpoint of the Government is acceptable to the people of South West Africa, because they see in it their salvation and their future. The Opposition do not have the contacts there as we do who come from South West Africa. They have had one person there, and what happened then? When the hon. member for Bezuidenhout changed his opinions, he could not defend his seat there, and he remained here. I want to warn the Opposition that they must not make accusations against us which can be used against us when we defend South Africa abroad. One of the only politicians, a member of the House of Assembly, whose evidence was used in the United Nations by Ethiopia and by Liberia in the South West case, was that of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

How many quotes of yours were used? A thousand.

They were not used against us. The policy of this Government is clear and honest. There will be ultimate autonomy for every group, provided that this is requested and proof is given to the effect that it will be maintained with all the necessary responsibility and that the change will take place in accordance with the desires of every ethnic group, and with the purpose of promoting the welfare of all ethnic groups. It means that with this legislation the Government is also looking to the future of all people in South West Africa and in South Africa as well. It foresees a future for every group—and I emphasize every group—which will have their own rights, the white group as well. The Whites must also retain their own authority and territory, and may not share it with anyone else. Why should they share it with others? In this way they should be able to work out their own weal and woe, and ensure their continued existence. South Africa is not there to deprive people of their rights. The reverse is true. Our duty is clear. The rights of each group will be protected by us.

May I put a question?

No, I am sorry; I do not have the time now.

How do you divide the riches in the sea and the minerals below the ground? [Interjection.]

On a point of order, Sir, may that hon. member call another member a “bangbroek”?

I think you have already ruled on that point, Sir.

The word is not unparliamentary, but I think it is a little below the standard which ought to be maintained.

I think that hon. member would be better off without pants, because I think pants are dangerous things for anyone who is as afraid as he is, because they are the people who are pointing to all these dangers. I think he should rather take his pants off. [Interjections.] With this policy of the Government we will be able to achieve everything that every group in South West Africa would like to have, and which every inhabitant of South Africa would like to have, and that is peace, welfare and acceptance of one another, and the recognition of the territory of each one in this country.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Karas has, I think, advanced the best reason for not changing the status quo, because he has done nothing else but tell this House how peaceful things are in South West Africa, how happy and contented the population groups there are. Consequently I cannot see why the Government should be rushing into a complete change in the constitutional status of the various race groups there. To the best of my knowledge, the last real trouble which took place in South West Africa was in 1959, at the time of the Windhoek riots. But hon. members here—like the hon. member for Middelland and the hon. member for Primrose—talk about chaos unless things in South West Africa are changed and unless the different racial groups there are put on this road to self-government. I fail to see how they have come to that conclusion, particularly as the hon. member for Karas has been telling us how peaceful and satisfactory everything in South West Africa is at the moment. I wonder whether it does not occur to the hon. member for Primrose that one of the main causes of the Windhoek riots in 1959 was the attempt by the Government to move the Hereros to the Katatura township—at least it was the main reason; there were other reasons as well. Does it not occur to hon. members that the plan they are putting before the House now involves a major population movement? Because practically all the tribes, with the exception of those living north of the red line, are going to have to be moved around. According to the South West Africa Survey, something like 50,000 South West Africa Africans live in urban areas, nearly 65,000 in white rural areas, while something like 134,000 of the indigenous groups live outside the proposed homelands. Now, if they had all that trouble in 1959 with the proposed removal of the Hereros from Windhoek, does it not occur to hon. members that they are looking for trouble when they start these vast population movements while, according to the hon. member for Karas, people there are living in peace and harmony at the moment? I am going by what the hon. member for Karas has told us. In addition, I have read the report of the Odendaal Commission as well as the South West Africa Survey. Furthermore, I have read in some detail this Bill which the Government has now placed before this House.

I am one of those who believe that the Government did the right thing in 1964 when Dr. Verwoerd decided to embark on a five-year plan for the economic development and social improvement of South West Africa and of the indigenous peoples of South West Africa particularly. I think that was the right course, because there was much room for improvement in these respects. I also believe that a great deal has been done since 1964— that is obvious to everybody. Similarly I believe the Government did the right thing when in 1964 it decided not to go ahead with the implementation of the political proposals of the Odendaal Commission. It did so for an obvious reason, although this is heavily disguised by the White Paper which has been tabled in conjunction with this Bill, because in this White Paper it simply says “for various reasons”. Well, I do not know whom the Government thinks it is fooling, whether it thinks anybody is under any illusion what these “various reasons” were which persuaded the Government to refrain from taking any decision in respect of the comprehensive recommendations concerning the constitution of self-governing areas for the different Native groups, the demarcation of their boundaries, and the changes in the form of Government. But there they go on to say, “however, as a result of subsequent developments …”— again a curtain of secrecy! Why is the Government not honest and why does it not come out with the obvious statement that in 1964 …

You were born suspicious.

But it is so obvious, and I do not know whom the hon. the Minister thinks he is fooling. In 1964 the World Court had not yet handed down its decision on the Ethiopia-Liberia complaint but now that the World Court has decided, the “various reasons”, such as they were, have fallen away. I do not know why the Government does not come right out and say so. But apart from the fact that these “various reasons” have now disappeared, I believe the Government is doing the wrong thing now—that is to carry out the political recommendations of the Odendaal Commission. I think it is a stupid thing to do, to fly in the face of world opinion on this issue, while there is no obvious justification therefor. Hon. members asked, “Why now?”, but I say “Why at all?” No cogent reason has been advanced, neither by the hon. the Minister when he introduced the Bill nor by any hon. member coming from South West Africa, nor by any other Government member who has spoken so far, why it is necessary at all to implement any of these political recommendations of the Odendaal Commission.

We know of course that it is the Government’s intention to set up these various population groups. To this end this Bill envisages the establishment of at least six homelands for six different population groups, with a possibility of more homelands coming as and when it becomes necessary in the eyes of the Government. Of course, all this represents, is a transplantation of the Bantustan plan which they have started to implement in South Africa, to South West Africa. I say which they have “started” to implement, because that is all they have done. Despite all the big plans we have had for the promotion of Bantu self-government, and so on, in South Africa so far there is only one self-governing, but by no means independent, Bantustan—the Transkei. It was there more or less before, although it had certain powers under certain laws and perhaps some of them were not as far-reaching as the powers given them by the Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act. But why go ahead at all? I say it is particularly unwise in view of the climate of world opinion against South Africa. All this step can do is to promote more hostility from our enemies, as other hon. members on this side have said, and what is more it is going to promote dismay amongst those nations which are well-disposed towards us at U.N. and elsewhere.

We surely do not deny the international status of South West Africa. At no time as far as I know have we denied that there is a peculiar, a unique status attached to South West Africa which of course is inherent in the Territory’s history. We all know that. It is true we did not accept the World Court’s advisory opinion which was handed down in 1950 which said that the mandate was still in force. We did not accept that. But nevertheless we have never denied that South West Africa does have international status.

Of course we denied it; we said it has an international character, but not a status. That is something different.

It may be different, but it nevertheless is international, something we do not say of our own country. We say South Africa is one hundred per cent autonomous, South Africa governs herself without any restrictions from anybody, without the world being able to determine anything that goes on inside South Africa. We have never maintained this, and correctly, if I may say so from the legal point of view, as far as South West Africa is concerned. I want to point out that the 1966 World Court decision on the case brought by Ethiopia and Liberia has in no way altered the advisory opinion handed down by the World Court in 1950, which in fact is the only clear law there exists so far on South West Africa’s status.

Surely the advisory opinion is of no force.

It may not be of any force as such.

It is not binding either.

What the hon. member must realize is that it is regarded as the only law in existence on the actual status of South West Africa, and until another case is actually brought before the World Court determining its status, that is the only thing which obtains at the present stage. In the meantime however there have been many decisions taken at the U.N. with which of course South Africa does not concur. I refer to the decision for instance which was taken quite recently to the effect that the mandate is at an end and the appointment of the 11-man commission to go into the whole question of South West Africa. Nobody even knows whether that is valid or not. We have said it is not valid but in fact the matter has never been tested in the courts of law. As I say, the international character, if the hon. member prefers it I will use that word, has not been denied by South Africa, and I think it is quite crazy for us at this stage to fly in the face of world opinion when there is absolutely no need for us to promote additional hostility towards South Africa. There is no need for the Government to be provocative at all.

I come back to what I believe we should be doing and partly we are already doing that, and this is the course I want us to continue to follow. I am talking about the economic development of the Territory. We should leave aside the political issues. The hon. member for Durban (North) has mentioned that partition was actually suggested in 1958. He said this idea of partition was suggested as a solution for the South West African problem in 1958 by the Good Offices Committee. That, of course, is absolutely true. Fifty-six nations spoke at the U.N. on that plan for partition and 56 nations objected to the plan, and it fell away.

Why did they?

It is completely irrelevant why that happened. It did in fact happen. What I am now putting to the hon. member for Middelland and the hon. the Minister is this. What makes them think that any similar scheme, such as has been suggested by this Bill, will be acceptable? It is not complete independence by any means but it is on the road towards a partitioning of South West Africa into six different areas to which the tribes concerned will have exclusive rights. That is quite obvious: Nobody else other than the particular tribe concerned—or nation, if that terminology is preferred—will have any rights to those areas. Surely this is going against the whole idea of the mandate, this whole idea of excising portions for the specific benefit of one or other race, or even excising the areas south …

That has been the position for more than three decades.

No, it has not been the position.

It has; you do not know what the law is in South West Africa.

The point is in law it has not been the position that these areas have been handed over as territorial areas for the exclusive use of one or other race or tribe.

You are completely ignorant. You have not read the mandate terms.

Order!

Yes, I wonder if I could do without these noises off just for a while, Mr. Speaker. South Africa has imposed laws on South West Africa in terms of which the right of movement and right of residence and so on have been restricted for the indigenous people. No one is denying that. Indeed it is one of the big complaints at the U.N., namely that anybody who enters the Police Zone must have a permit. Moreover, the indigenous people who come from the reserves within the Police Zone cannot move freely around. They have to have passes, and residential permits, curfew regulations apply to them, and so on. We know that. But nevertheless the actual territorial ownership has not been designated in law the way we are now proposing to do. If that had been so, there would be no need for the legislation which is before us now. I say we are lending ourselves to further attacks by hostile nations at U.N. on the whole question of how we have been administering the trust which was handed over to South Africa many years ago.

I want to say I believe we should continue, from where we started in 1964, to put money into the economic development of South West Africa, to develop its agricultural potentialities, to undertake irrigation schemes, to build schools, to build clinics, and to provide all the necessary infra-structure, and so forth, for the development of the Territory. Then I think we are on the right lines; then I think we really have an excellent case when we do have to discuss the South West African position in the world forum, which we have to do whether we like it or not because of the international “character” of the Territory. I would have preferred to have listened to the hon. members who come from South West Africa, the six members in this House who are representatives of the white inhabitants, occasionally making a speech on behalf of the non-white inhabitants of South West Africa. I have sat here for a number of years and I do not remember ever hearing a single hon. member from the Territory making a plea for the improvement of the conditions of the indigenous tribes in South West Africa. I have never heard one of them complain about the restrictions on the free movement of those people. I never heard any of them complain about the low rates of wages, and they were very low indeed until very recently. Indeed, it was one of the features of the Odendaal Commission report that it made no mention whatever of the wage rates obtaining in South West Africa. It was a notable omission and I say it was a notable omission for a purpose, because the wage rate was so low at that time that it would have been a damning piece of evidence against South Africa and its behaviour towards the indigenous inhabitants. The more recent survey does mention wage rates because they have improved greatly since then. It required the World Court, it required the searchlight on South West Africa in order to improve those things. It is only in the last few years that those wage rates have improved and they are still pretty low. If one looks at the survey one sees that some of the minimum wage rates are very low indeed. The categories are divided as we can see in the survey.

It is much higher in South West Africa than in other African territories.

So they should be, because South West Africa has got very considerable resources. The gap between white earnings and non-white earnings is enormous. I say all the people live in the territory of South West Africa. They do not live in their little isolated reserves as this Government would have the world believe. They all live in the mandated territory of South West Africa which was handed over to South Africa as a whole and not as an area divided into areas for the indigenous peoples and areas for the white people. I say the survey shows there has been a considerable rise in the wage rates in South West Africa. I am glad to see the philosopher of Primrose agrees with me, because he is nodding his head. But they are still very low. They start at R3.75 in some cases for the untrained, inexperienced worker.

No, that is not true.

This is what the survey says. I am quoting from the survey. Is it incorrect?

It is not correct that they only receive a wage—what about housing and food?

The C category, which relates to juveniles. Admittedly it is for an inexperienced juvenile. It is the minimum wage for domestic servants and herdsmen. It is higher, of course, in mining. I will give the hon. member the figures if he wants them. The minimum is R3.75 in the C category, unskilled, going up to R5.25 per month in cash, with wages in kind, going up to R10 per month. That is food and quarters. The minimum wage for the A category is from R7.50 per month to R10.50 per month. In mining the average—this is the survey figure, not mine— unskilled wage is R17.50 in cash, plus about R15.25 in kind, which is still very low for a hazardous job. In fishing, the average is R18 per month for a semi-skilled worker, going up to the operator status of about R55.60. For domestics it is something like R7.50 to R12 per month plus food, etc.

Plus housing and rations.

Plus food and quarters. I am not in any way giving the wrong figures. Yes. I say that it is wages in cash plus wages in kind, which is food and quarters. But by no stretch of the imagination are these very high wages. The hon. member must realize that. What we should be doing, is to push ahead with improvements in the material and economic well-being of the indigenous inhabitants of South West Africa.

That is actually happening.

We all agree that that should happen. Let us do that, and let us forget about all these grandiose political schemes which are costing a great deal of money. I do not think they are going to yield anything like the results which hon. members opposite hope they will yield. We must go ahead with providing employment opportunities, improving education, and so on. Then I believe that we really have a good case to put before the world councils, but not otherwise. It is on those matters that I should like to hear the South West Africa members speak up more vocally in this House, and, incidentally, the Senator who, I believe, is still sitting in the Other Place, who was appointed for his special knowledge of the indigenous inhabitants of South West Africa. To the best of my knowledge—I have certainly never seen any publicity about it—there has not been much said by him, either, on the question of the improvement of conditions for the indigenous inhabitants. The Government has made great play of all the support that it gets from the chiefs. I think the hon. member for Karas mentioned too that there is great support from the chiefs for all these plans. Of course this does not really surprise me, and I do not think it surprises any member in this House that the Government gets support from the chiefs. The chiefs are, I believe, appointed by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. The whole of the non-white area, the indigenous tribal areas, Ovamboland and the reserves inside the Police Zones, are all administered from Pretoria, if I am not far wrong. It is in the hands of the Government to appoint or to depose chiefs.

No, they are traditional heads.

The hon. member tells me that they are traditional heads. I understand that traditional heads have been known to fall. Traditional heads that do not agree with the Government do not stay put very long, just as traditional heads in other areas in South Africa have also been known to be removed if they get ideas contrary to the Government’s basic policy. The same, of course, applies to the headmen. Of course these people are anxious to retain their privileged status, particularly, I might say, as the Government has enhanced the powers of the chiefs that they appoint and the traditional checks on unpopular chiefs that the tribes were able to exercise, have more or less gone by the board. Because the chief is no longer answerable to the tribe as he used to be; he is now answerable to the white authority over him, to the white official only.

That is absolute nonsense.

It is not nonsense; it is absolutely true, and the hon. the Minister knows it is true. It is the hon. the Minister and his officials from Pretoria who have most of the say.

I noticed the other day that the hon. the Prime Minister quoted Allen Drury’s book. I might say the quote was completely irrelevant. But I would like to refer hon. members to another portion of the book, which reports on his visit to the Transkei, when he remarked somewhat ironically about the fact, that, whenever he was cross-examining one of the Ministers in the Transkeian Government, he noticed that this man was constantly looking for approval or disapproval from the white official who sat there, right throughout the interview. I am quite sure exactly the same applies when people go and visit the chiefs and the headmen in South West Africa. They would be very brave indeed or very reckless if they did not purport to agree with everything that the Government is in fact doing.

I wonder how many of the younger men, those who are away, the educated young men, the ones who have left the tribal culture as such, would agree with what has been done in South West Africa. I wonder if the Government has thought of consulting any of those people, the urbanized people, the people who are already engaged in some sort of semiskilled occupation. I wonder if the hon. the Minister would find that those people want limited rights of self-government in their own little tribe or nationhood, or whether he would find they would opt for wider civil rights in the whole of South West Africa, with opportunities devoid of restrictions, the removal of pass laws, and the improvement in their employment opportunities. I am sure they would rather have such changes than this great nationhood which we hear propounded with such enthusiasm by the hon. members opposite.

I think, as I said originally, that it is foolish for us to go ahead with this Bill. This is not a Bill which is going to do South Africa any good. And I do not believe it is going to improve materially the conditions of the indigenous people in South West Africa.

I want to just draw the attention of the House to one final argument which I want to advance. I do not advance it purporting to have any legal knowledge as such. This point was drawn to my attention by a senior lecturer in law at the Witwatersrand University. It is whether or not this whole Bill in fact is not anticipating a ruling of our own Appeal Court. I believe that Bills do not fall under the sub judice rule of this House. But nevertheless, is it wise for Parliament to anticipate a decision which may be given against the Government, in fact, in a case presently before our Appeal Court. Since I am no legal expert, I would like to read out this opinion which was given to me. I might say, the Government, of course, has always maintained its respect for the sub judice law. We castigated our opponents when they attempted to prejudge matters when the World Court decision was still pending on the South West Africa case. At the same time hon. members will remember, not so long ago, when the Terrorist Trial was on and there was considerable criticism of the sort of sentence which might be handed down, etc., at United Nations and in other international forums, again the Government came out with severe strictures, correctly, against people who were breaking the sub judice rule, and were in fact anticipating a decision before the court. Now, may I just say that it seems to me that the logic in this argument is quite good. It reads as follows:

There is therefore actually a case being heard now.

I am not a legal expert. I do not know whether there is any validity in this argument or not but it is important for the House to know that there is such a court case pending in our own Appeal Court. I cannot understand why the Government at least could not hold its horses until that decision has been made. I do not agree with members who ask “Why now”; I say “Why at all?” And I certainly do ask: Why bring this Bill before the Parliament of South Africa when our own South African Appeal Court is sitting on a case which may vitally affect this issue? It is anticipating the decision of the court. We have always in this House and in South Africa placed particular value on the sub judice rule. I am no legal expert hut this was submitted to me as an argument and I think it is important that the House be made aware of the fact that these thoughts are in the minds of certain legal experts.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to devote much of my time to what the hon. member for Houghton said. What she was actually saying was for overseas consumption, particularly when she quoted figures in regard to wages in South West Africa. According to her the non-Whites are at present being underpaid. I can assure her that the workers, on our mines in particular—and I am thinking specifically now of the non-White workers on the Consolidated Diamond Mines, as well as those at the Tsumeb Corporation and other mines in South West Africa—are being paid some of the highest wages in Southern Africa. I believe that they compare very well even with wages which Whites are earning in other parts of the world. I am thinking specifically now of the wages of white mineworkers in Europe. If she were to institute an investigation into this regard, she would find that they are earning considerably lower wages than the non-Whites in South West Africa who are employed in the mining industry are being paid. The same applies for the non-Whites in the other industries. I believe that the wages which we are paying on the Railways for example also compare favourably. If she has any complaint about that, then she must also have a complaint about the wages which are being paid in South Africa, and not only those in respect of South West Africa. She made certain statements here, and said for example that the Republic of South Africa did not really have the right to deal with Bantu affairs in South West Africa. She must be a stranger in South Africa because it has been stipulated since the Peace of Versailles that the Republic of South Africa should control Bantu affairs there. At a later date it was delegated to the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa. Between the years 1949 to 1954 these rights were subsequently reduced by means of legislation so that Bantu affairs are now being fully dealt with by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development of the Republic. The hon. member also spoke about the people who are being transferred from the old native township area to the new Katatura township area, and then referred to the chaos which allegedly arose during the minor disturbances of 1959. She is labouring under a misconception in regard to the causes leading to this entire matter. I must refer her to the report of the Commission of Inquiry into that matter. It is very clear that it happened as a result of local instigation. The removal to the new Bantu township had nothing to do with this minor disturbance. It happened purely as a result of instigation by foreign influences there. I even wonder whether her view in regard to political race matters in South Africa did not contribute to that minor disturbance.

I come now to the Bill itself. I just want to point out what to me seems to be a contradiction to the recommendation of the Odendaal Commission. It affects clauses 5 and 8, and the schedule relating to them. The Odendaal Commission recommended that the mining industry and Water affairs should fall outside the ambit of the legislative powers which were being granted to these non-White homelands. It seems to me that there has been a departure from the recommendation of the Odendaal Commission, particularly when one takes the schedule into consideration. I think the Odendaal Commission had very sound and specific reasons for recommending that mining and water affairs should provisionally not form part of the legislative powers of these homeland areas. I do not want to elaborate on that any further because there are specific reasons for that. I only want to point out that in regard to water affairs in South West Africa, hydrology is in point of fact a large unit. It cannot be broken up into different units. We have always found in the past that if it is dealt with as a unit then the administration thereof is particularly efficient. Water is conserved in natural phenomenon which are called geological structures and these geological structures of course know no geographic boundaries.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for South Coast mentioned the importance of the question of the discovery of oil in Kabinda, in Angola. It was held out to be of vital importance to South Africa. It was alleged that if oil could be brought overland by means of a pipeline to South Africa the northern homelands would, for strategic reasons, endanger it. In the first place I want to allege that the geographic knowledge of those hon. members is limited. If they were, for example, to find out where Kabinda really is, they would see that it is further to the north of Angola. I think it is situated almost a 1,000 miles from the northern boundary of South West Africa. If one knows Angola and the regions through which such a pipeline will have to go, then you would agree with me when I say that security measures in such a territory are an impossible task, particularly if one understands the situation further to the north of the South West African border well. The Opposition are now suggesting to us that their independent Bantustan, in that same region, will present no danger of sabotage in respect of such a pipeline, but that homelands which will be established by the National Party Government ostensibly constitute tremendous dangers. I find the logic of the Opposition ridiculous. Now my question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and to the hon. member for South Coast is the following. If, according to your policy, you grant independence to Ovamboland, north of the red line, by what route are you going to conduct the supposed pipeline without bringing it through your Bantustan? Or are you going to bring it to Pretoria via Zambia and Rhodesia? Mr. Speaker, a more “verkrampte” idea of military strategy probably does not exist. If we in South West Africa had to be dependent upon such strategy then our future would definitely be a gloomy one. Since I am discussing this now, what about the communistic danger in their independent Bantustan north of the red line, or will the danger only proliferate in the homeland established by the Government?

Since we are now dealing with this question of strategy, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the geographic distribution of the homelands, in proportion to the white homeland. Apparently we do not all view this matter in the same light, but there is a special reason why the homelands have been distributed in this way. In the old days there were concentrations of people around waterholes, from which the various ethnic groups developed. Large tracts were unoccupied owing to the scarcity of water-points. They settled around and along the fountains and developed their traditions and own identity there. If you were now to glance at the map at the back of the Odendaal Report you would see that the Whites are settled along the central ridge of South West Africa, with the Nama and Rehoboth homelands surrounded by Whites. East of Otjiwarongo and north of Gobabis one finds the Herero country lying adjacent to the common boundary with Botswana, surrounded to the south and the west by Whites, and separated from the Okavangos by the Bushman Reserve. To the west of the Whites, north of Usakos, are the Damara homelands. Their northern boundary with the Kaokoveld is mountainous and forms an ideal physical boundary line. Along there a road is being planned and constructed at the moment which will correspond approximately with the boundary. You find that all these various homelands are in point of fact geographically separated from one another. They are not in direct contact with one another, as they were before when the Whites settled in the unoccupied territory. In this northern homeland of both the United Party and the Government, one finds that the shortest common boundaries actually lie to the north, with the result that there is in fact the minimum chance of contact between the Kaokoveld, Ovamboland and the Okavangos. Mr. Speaker, I want to state that with this pattern of a boundary arrangement and this practical planning one immediately eliminates or restricts to a minimum all the former racial contact and the bloody struggles which arose in the past, before the Whites occupied South West Africa. One cannot remove the Whites from South West Africa. If one removes them from thence, there would be a repetition of the former bloody conflicts. The hon. member for South Coast stated here: “The point of contact is the point of friction, and the more points of contact the Government proposes to create, the more points of friction will they have”. But the very thing the Odendaal plan and this legislation seeks to diminish and eliminate are points of contact and friction; in addition the white man in South West Africa has no intention of leaving. I want to emphasize that. They are a permanent community in South West Africa, and they have as much right to be there as any non-Whites have the right to be in South Africa or South West Africa. I therefore reject the suggestion, that bloody wars would supposedly arise in the absence of the Whites, a suggestion made here by the hon. member for South Coast, with the contempt which it deserves. This legislation in fact consolidates the territorial rights of the non-Whites, and it definitely affects, though indirectly, those of the Whites as well. But I do not want to elaborate on that now; there are other speakers who have already given attention to that matter. It is where the Whites have established themselves, and it is their intention to preserve the peace there to the benefit of both White and non-White. Strangely enough, the hon. member is not concerned about the dangerous points of contact along the Botswana border, which for more than three-quarters of its length forms the common border between the Republic of South Africa and South West Africa. These points of contact have never constituted a danger for us before, but now all these points of contact with the proposed non-White states which will develop from the homelands quite suddenly constitute a great danger to us. The hon. member also made all kinds of wild statements, such as “they have not studied human nature”. He spoke about “human nature” and “our history in Africa”. Well, all I can say is that he definitely did not read the report of the Odendaal Commission. Such an excellent report as that of the Odendaal Commission has no equal in the world, because it is based on a fundamental study of human nature in the history of Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I should now like to refer to a few economic aspects, and I shall confine myself to points which have not yet been touched upon here. Repeated reference was made here to the question of the viability of the homelands. The solution to the problem of economic and political independence is to be found in the fact that the various groups must be politically independent, particularly those who are endeavouring to keep their identities separate. If they do not care about their identity, then it is their business, and they are at liberty to amalgamate with other identities in order to form a larger whole. It is obvious that, with their restricted and undeveloped natural resources, they will at first not be able to stand on their own legs, and that the one ethnic group will, of necessity, have to lean upon the arm of another group, or even upon white South Africa as their neighbouring state, as is in reality the case today with states such as Lesotho and Botswana. But what state in the world is 100 per cent viable? Even the mighty U.S.A. cannot boast that it is self-supporting, because it would be very grateful if it could have had the chrome deposits of Rhodesia and the manganese and gold deposits of South Africa for itself.

When it comes to minerals and modern industries, and if economic principles are taken into consideration, there is no nation in the world, no matter how large or how small, which is independent of other nations. Common dependence—the one upon the other—is a bastion for security and peaceful co-existence. There are many examples of this in the world. The present Government cannot be held responsible for the present conditions, or the degree of viability in the homelands because those who were in power before it came into power did not concern themselves much about this and because it is a long-term facet of economy. I think that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, on one occasion, said the same thing in the House. The solution is to be found in having economic co-operation and mutual dependence, and in this way enjoying prosperity with their ties with an economically stronger South Africa as basis. The development of the one group would give impetus to that of the other groups.

Great play is being made of the absence of natural resources in the homelands. This statement reveals tremendous ignorance on the part of an ignorant Opposition because natural resources depend upon circumstances and unknown factors which are unpredictable and which can only be brought to light through research. An example of this is the large subterranean salt lake which lies beneath the Ovamboland flats. If one visits Ovamboland, one does not see it, and one does not know what is going on there. This salt lake is a major potential source of various salts, but the economic factors of supply and demand are inhibitory of the maximum development thereof. Investigations have disclosed heavy low grade coal deposits at uneconomic depths. Important discoveries have been made since 1948, and research by the Government and other bodies is continuing unabated precisely with the view to making that territory economically viable. Therefore nobody can write off the homelands as being non-viable owing to the absence of natural resources, because the development of those resources is often dependent upon other factors, such as the level of civilization and culture of the people in the homelands. And the hon. the Minister has so often pointed out that the question of education is so important here for our non-Whites, because if it is possible for one to bring them to a higher level of civilization by means of education, then one is at once stimulating the development of viability in those areas, and needs arise which stimulate an interest in local raw materials.

In Ovamboland we bore this in mind with the development of hospital, educational and administrative centres. Hon. members who visited Ovamboland recently would have seen that a great deal of construction work is now being undertaken. When a start was made with this the problem was that of obtaining raw material for bricks. They had to import cement from Pretoria or Cape Town, at high cost, and manufacture cement bricks. Then a search was made for clay with which to make bricks. Quite a good deal of research was undertaken and small deposits were discovered, but up to now the development which is taking place there in the building industry could not afford to wait, and the manufacture of cement bricks with imported cement has been continued because of course there is a great deal of sand. The fact of the matter is that a need has arisen here for local industry.

As to viability, the question is often asked whether a country such as Ireland is viable. It does not have many natural resources or raw materials, but to a certain extent that country has been made viable. Think of Israel. What natural resources do they have? But their viability has been achieved through the initiative of the people themselves. That, after all, is what the Government is envisaging in the homelands namely to stimulate initiative amongst the Bantu so that they can utilize their energies in making the area viable for themselves. If Lesotho, Swaziland and Botswana can have political and economic independence without viability, in order to retain their identity in this way, why should the homelands in South West Africa not have the same? The Opposition is not denying the Natives outside our borders any of the privileges of political independence, but they are denying this to those in South West Africa. This is a point which will certainly be settled later on the political platform.

A question incurred to me in regard to this Bantustan which they want to establish in the north of South West Africa: In what light do they regard that Bantustan? Do they regard it as being viable? Are they going to make it viable, and how are they going to do so? In its northern Bantustan the United Party wants to force the people to come together. Just consider the three tribes of the Kaokoveld. I can mention the names, but I do not believe it will have any significance here. There are the six of Ovamboland and there are the six of the Okavango. There are actually 15 different tribes. They differ as to culture and religion. In some cases the level of civilization is low.

I am thinking of the Tsjimbas of the Kaokoveld, where the level of civilization borders on that of the Stone Age, when people made their artifacts from stone. The level of civilization of the other Ovambo tribes, which has been in contact with the Whites from the south since 1850 is much higher, as a result of the invaluable work of the Finnish missionaries. Their level of civilization is somewhat higher than those of the people who are still living in the Stone Age. If one travels further eastward to the Okavango, one finds a level of civilization which is completely different. But the Opposition wants to force together all the various people with their differing religions, cultures and levels of civilization. The question has occurred to me: Where is the right to self-determination? In this regard I should like to quote the words of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition which he used in a different debate years ago. I am sorry. Sir, but I cannot find it at the moment, possibly I shall have an opportunity later on to refer to it.

I want to return now to the way in which this debate has been conducted by the Opposition, and express my disappointment at their attitude in this regard, particularly since it involves a matter which is of tremendous importance to us, this matter of political rights and political independence which has grown up on an evolutionary basis and which is now being developed on that basis and which will now grant the non-Whites of South West Africa this right so that they can see where the National Party Government wants to take them. [Time expired.]

At the outset I want to say that I am very disappointed at the remarks made by the hon. member for Primrose comparing the Voortrekkers with those tribes or Native nations in South West Africa. I have always honoured and respected the Voortrekkers because I have looked upon them as being civilized, religious, industrious and progressive people. How one can compare their political rights and their outlook with those of the raw Natives of South West Africa is completely beyond my comprehension. [Interjections.] We have never on this side suggested putting these tribes or nations together. Somebody mentioned that we wanted to put the Hereros with the others. If the hon. member looks at the map he will discover that the Herero reserve on the far eastern side of South West, in the southern sector, is several hundred miles away from the nearest other Bantu tribe. Then I have to agree with the hon. member for Etosha regarding the remarks of the hon. member for Houghton about the 1959 riots in Windhoek. I must compliment the Windhoek Municipality on building this beautiful new township in the same complex, adjoining the old one, for the Hereros. But through agitation they refused to occupy these houses and so the municipality was unable to remove them from the slums where they were living.

As far as the pipeline and the oil are concerned, what worries me is not the pipeline, but oil has been discovered on the west coast of Angola and there is every likelihood, it appears to me, that that oil-field could carry on southwards into South West Africa. May I ask what the Minister has in mind if an oilfield should be discovered in the Kaokoveld area of South West? Also, they keep on arguing about removing the Whites from South West Africa. That, too, has never been suggested from this side. It would be a foolish thing and a sad day for South West Africa if the white man, with his know-how and his economic ability, is removed from South West, to turn those tribes back to what they were at the turn of the century.

We have had a lot of legal argument on the Bill, but what about the practical side? I want to congratulate my Leader for his practical suggestions for all the people in the Territory. He was not thinking of one group; he was thinking of everybody. One must realize that it is a very large country; it is two-thirds the size of the Republic. It has one of the lowest population densities in the world. There are fewer than two people per square mile. The lower half of the Territory, from Windhoek southwards, with the Namib Desert on the one side and the Kalahari on the other, and the central plateau with its limited surface water and its irregular rainfall, is probably fully taxed as far as its carrying capacity is concerned. Northwards of Windhoek the position improves progressively and beyond the red line we find the highest carrying capacity. There live two-thirds of the population of the Territory, and no doubt, with proper development, this area could carry many more people. History tells us that with the southward migration of the Herero, with their large herds of cattle, they were warned by the Ovambo and other peoples occupying the northern section, to keep going because the Herero believed that where his cattle grazed, that land belonged to him. But on reaching the Swakop River at Okahandja they first contacted the Hottentots, or as we now call them, the Nama. As the hon. member for South Coast says, this was the first point of contact and the first point of friction, and that friction lasted for more than 50 years, with both tribes being considerably depleted, the Hereros losing no less than 25,000 members of their tribe. But as the war went on power passed from the Hereros to the Namas and back again to the Hereros, until the chief of the Hereros asked the Germans to take over the colony and to bring law and order there.

The Germans raised their flag and Maharero said, “The flag fluttered this way and the flag fluttered that way, but under the flag we live in peace.” But they were not satisfied with that peace and in 1903 they rebelled against European authority and that war lasted another four years. The Hereros lost something like another 25,000 and the Germans had to bury over 5,000 of their own troops. This war finally ended in the Waterberg and the Epikero area and that is what is now called Hereroland. I must admit numbers of the Herero are scattered over the country on European farms and there is the large colony which caused the trouble in 1959 actually living in the Windhoek location. At this point I want to state that if there is a Bantu tribe which is politically educated, then it is the Herero.

After the First World War mandatory powers were granted to South Africa over South West Africa and article 2, which was read out here this afternoon by an hon. member, made it quite clear that it was the material and moral well-being and the social progress of the inhabitants of the Territory that the mandatory power had to see to. Let us be honest and admit that every successive government in South Africa has carried out that mandatory responsibility towards all the inhabitants of the Territory. As far as I know the Native peoples have been left in peace with perhaps the exception in the south of a small group of Namas who were resettled for economic reasons. That resettlement was agreed to between them and the authorities. I think it was in 1943, during the war years, that a small group of Damaras were removed from the foothills of the Khomas Hochland to the main Damara reserve adjoining the Okambahe reserve. This too was done with the mutual consent of the Administration and the Damaras concerned.

That was in 1950.

In any case, that is when it commenced, that it was agreed where they should be removed to.

During my period of duty in South West Africa I always looked upon the red line separating the northern and southern areas as something of great importance—although not properly defined and imaginary at places, it has always been respected by both the peoples of the north and the south and also by the authorities. Police authority of the south ceased at the red line and the only time that they entered the north was on the very rare occasions to investigate capital offences, otherwise tribal authority reigned supreme, not only this but to the satisfaction of both the people of the various tribes and the authorities. Now, after all these years, this sanctity of the north is being disturbed. The proposed Damaraland is now going to straddle the red line in proclaiming Damaraland from above Zessfontein in the Kaokoveld to join up with the Damaraland reserves in the south. Zessfontein Oasis has always been inhabited and owned in my opinion by the Hottentots; I believe they have lived there since the turn of the century. What is more alarming is the fact that the Damas have always been looked upon as the servants of the Namas, so much so that the Dama only knows the Nama language and has accepted it as their own. Now the Bill contemplates changing the tables about making the servant the owner and master. Is this not going to lead to friction, or is it the intention of the Government to relocate the Hottentots in some other area?

As this Bill only deals with Native nations, why was a Bill to deal with the Coloureds not introduced at the same time, and by doing so avoiding any misunderstanding?

Zessfontein has always been looked upon by all Kaokovelders in that part of the Kaokoveld as a place of refuge for themselves and their stock in time of drought. Are they now to be deprived of these waters and what is the Government suggesting as an alternative watering place for these peoples? I refer to the Ovahimbas, the Ovatjimbas and the wild Hereros.

The development to take place in these Native areas, according to the Bill, seems to be more of a political-social development, but surely what they want is economic development. If the large amount of money which the Minister contemplates spending on this political rampage in the Native areas is spent on schooling all over the territories and creating employment development which will give the people an opportunity of earning a living and providing them with trading stores spread throughout the areas, then I think the hon. the Minister is doing something worthwhile and cannot be criticized. As an example, the Zessfontein peoples in the Kaokoveld had to travel over 120 miles to Kamanjab, below the red line, to do their shopping. For all I know they may now have a shop in Zessfontein— even a supermarket.

The South West Africa Survey published fantastic photographs of schools, hospitals, churches, and so forth. But this is only window dressing. At how many places in the various Native areas do these centres exist? How many thousands of children are not in school and not anywhere near a school? The photographs in the Survey certainly do not compare with photographs I have which were taken at the water hole at Zessfontein of raw Bantu people.

With this Bill has come the news that the Kaokoveld is going to be opened up, I take it by white capital. What benefit may I ask will the Kaokovelders derive from this exploitation of their country? Are they going to share the profits on a percentage basis? Is this a new departure of the Government as far as the Bantustans are concerned—allowing white capital and white know-how to develop these areas? I wish to refer in this connection to The Cape Argus of the 29th April, 1968, in which a very interesting and long article appeared. I wish to read portion of the article which appeared under the heading “Opening up the Kaokoveld”—

So the article goes on, and I also wish to quote the following few lines which I find rather interesting—

Is this what we are going to do in the development of those native areas? The Ovambos and the Okavangos have practiced tribal segregation for their whole existence to avoid detribalization. Why not leave them alone and only help them economically?

It is said that Winston Churchill made a ten-minute speech and when he was asked how long it had taken him to prepare that speech he said, “Ten years”. The hon. the Minister said he worked nine months on this Bill and nine months to prepare a speech over 60 minutes in duration to introduce the Bill. I say to him: For South Africa’s sake, for South West Africa’s sake, listen to the Leader of the Opposition—postpone this measure and prepare it over the next nine years.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) cracked a joke at the end of his speech which all of us did not enjoy, but perhaps we shall appreciate it more later. He started his speech by congratulating the municipality of Windhoek on the fact that it had seen to the establishment of the new Bantu residential area, Katachura, and he said that area was adjacent to the old location. That is not quite correct. If I am not mistaken, the new location is not adjacent to, but completely removed from the old location. I want to join him in congratulating the municipality on the establishment of the new Bantu residential area at Windhoek. If ever there were critical conditions in a slum area, those conditions definitely existed in the indescribably unhygienic old location at Windhoek. We also trust that there will be no obstruction when all the facilities have been provided in that new residential area. I trust that at such time too we will have the cooperation of the Opposition in this House as regards the moving of the residents of the old location, with all its problems, to the new residential area established by the municipality.

The hon. member paid tribute to his Leader for the attitude his Leader had adopted here. I suppose one could have expected nothing else from him as a loyal supporter of the United Party. At a later stage, however, I shall have more to say about the attitude adopted here by his Leader.

If I understood the hon. member correctly, he referred to the potential carrying capacity of the northern areas of South West Africa. He called attention to the large carrying capacity of those areas. We agree with him that those areas can possibly carry much more than they do at present, but we also want to say that the potential of that territory has to be reserved for the population of that territory and for future generations. That territory should not be exploited now. No, it must be preserved, and consequently I think this measure is very timeous indeed. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to discuss his remarks on Namaland. I do not think this Bill makes any provision whatsoever for Namaland, because the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development very clearly stated in his second-reading speech that special legislation would have to be passed and that the Namas would be administered by the Department of Coloured Affairs. Therefore I do not want to reply to that.

In view of the fact that the hon. member referred to the carrying capacity and the potential of the northern areas, I want to tell him that we are deeply impressed by the possibilities of those areas, but especially of Okavangoland. We are of the opinion that there are very great possibilities, virtually unlimited possibilities, if that territory is utilized and employed correctly. That is why it is such a good thing that an opportunity will not be given to people who are only interested in the development of the Bantu areas and the Bantu themselves, in the case of the Okavangos for example, to exploit that territory, but that it will be reserved for that nation, and that they will be able to develop that territory to its fullest potential with the guidance of the white man.

The hon. member tried to create a debating point here by making an incorrect quotation from what the hon. member for Primrose had said. But that is a matter which I leave to them, and they can settle that between them.

When the National Party took over the government of this country in 1948 it was deeply conscious, inter alia, of one of the greatest tasks with which it had been entrusted, namely the regulation of relationships amongst the various population groups in South Africa. That was one of the main principles on which the National Party stood, on which its manifesto was based, and on which it asked the South African nation for a mandate. That was to regulate the relationships amongst the various and involved population groups in South Africa. The legislation we have before us to-day is very clearly aimed at making it possible to proceed with the task entrusted to us. South West Africa and the Bantu population of South West Africa now have the benefit of the experience we have gained over a period of 20 years from other legislation in South Africa. Now we are very grateful that we have always had energetic and dynamic Ministers of Bantu Administration and Development, as well as a very efficient Department, during this period of 20 years to apply the Acts which have been placed on the Statute Book. That is something for which South Africa can always be grateful. In this process of regulating relations amongst the various population groups, the primary object of this side of the House probably is to ensure a permanent home for the white man in South Africa. Even if that is not done purely for the sake of the white man, but because a special task has been entrusted to this nation and to white South Africa since this nation has a calling to fulfill, if I may use the words of the hon. the Prime Minister, then it is necessary for us to ensure, by means of this kind of legislation, that the white man will retain a safe stronghold in Southern Africa. That stronghold is, and I say this without the least fear of contradiction, the Republic of South Africa. Under the Government of the National Party that stronghold for the white man will be protected and retained in South Africa and in so doing we shall fulfill our calling and carry our message to Africa. We shall try to share the knowledge which we acquire in this process with other nations and other countries that possibly have as many racial problems but are not constantly in the spotlight of the world. We shall try to share that knowledge with them to make it possible for them to achieve better race relations in their own countries. Therefore we do not apologize to anyone when we come forward with legislation such as this for regulating relationships amongst various nations in South Africa. In this process we are retaining a safe position for the white man and we are not denying any other nation the right to develop to the maximum of its ability. South Africa is more interested in the welfare and the development of the Bantu nations of South West Africa than any other country or nation or than all members of the U.N. put together; hence this legislation. We are taking the trouble to place this legislation on the Statute Book and we are spending millions of rand on the development of those areas because, as I have said, South Africa and the white man in South Africa are taking a much greater interest in the development of the Bantu nations in South West Africa than any other country in the world. The U.N., the official Opposition and the Progressive Party, can fake cognizance of this fact: South Africa takes an interest in the development of those areas.

We had hoped that we would receive the co-operation of the Opposition in the regulation of these relationships, but we obviously did not. That became very obvious from the attitude adopted by the Opposition in this debate and from what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as well as the hon. member for South Coast had said. Their attitude in respect of this matter is that they are much more concerned about what the outside world would think of this legislation and the development of South West Africa than about what is of vital interest to South Africa, to the white man as well as to the Bantu nations of South West Africa. They cannot deny that. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition leveled the accusation at us that legislation such as this could only destroy the friendship which South Africa had acquired in the outside world as a result of the judgment of the World Court. Sir, I think the time has arrived for us to ask the Leader of the Opposition what price the Opposition is prepared to pay for the goodwill of the world and the goodwill of the U.N.?

Cheap.

No, the hon. member will not get away with that passing remark of “cheap”.

The Bantustans are what you are paying.

If the hon. member says that the Bantustans are the price we have to pay, then I want to tell him that the National Party is prepared to ensure that the white man will have his country and his legislative assembly just as we are prepared to take every Bantu nation in this country, and in this case in South West Africa, by the hand and lead him to the development of which he is capable, rather than allowing integration within this Parliament, rather than giving the non-white nations more and more say in the Parliament of the white man. Because the Bantu cannot hold his own against the white man, the Opposition knows that it is possible to exploit the Bantu. Therefore we are honest when we say that we want each one of these population groups to develop separately, as provided in this legislation and as recommended by the Odendaal Commission in its report. Let me just quote to you—

“And become increasingly independent.” That was the recommendation and the essence of the recommendations of the Odendaal Commission, as embodied in this Bill at present before this House. It is our conviction that that is right, and the National Party, this Government, is prepared to do what it believes is right and in the interests of all the population groups in South Africa, even if that were not to the liking of the rest of the world and of the U.N. We are not, in the first place, looking for popularity at the U.N. By saying that I do not want to suggest that we are looking for a dispute with them, but we are not going to do something which is wrong merely for the sake of gaining the friendship of the U.N. and the world. This is the attitude which the United Party has adopted in respect of all legislation placed on the Statute Book over the past 20 years for regulating good relationships amongst the various population groups in South Africa.

Even before this Bill was introduced we had expected that the United Party would adopt this attitude. But, Sir, in this respect you should allow us to show South Africa what the result would be if the United Party were to have its way. If all these population groups in South West Africa were to be given representation in a Federal Parliament, as suggested by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, where would it end? If at the outset 16 representatives for non-Whites were to sit in this Parliament, where would it end? Especially in view of the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has already indicated to us that he is prepared to yield to pressure brought to bear on him, I have no alternative but to agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education that if the United Party were to have its way in South Africa, it would perhaps not even take 10 years before there could be a non-white Prime Minister in South Africa.

Where do you get that from?

I want to be very fair and I want to concede this to the hon. members of the Opposition. I think that there is not a single member on the opposite side who would get up and say that he should like to see a non-White in this House of Assembly or that he should like to have a non-white Prime Minister. I do not believe anyone would say that. But I want to tell them as emphatically that the Opposition will not escape from the consequences of their policy. The logical consequences of their policy, with which I am dealing now, can only be that the non-Whites will have a majority in this House in the foreseeable future.

The people do not believe you.

Yes, the people do believe it. The people know this because they have seen it with their own eyes in the rest of Africa. We have seen what has happened in the rest of Africa where the British Colonial Office has been in operation. We must have no illusions about this. We shall once again prove this to the people at the next election. We shall show them what could happen if one had partnership between White and non-White in the same parliament, which is the attitude which the United Party is adopting in respect of this legislation as well. If that were to be a democratic parliament and if they were not to discriminate against the non-Whites— and how often have we not been accused by the Opposition of discriminating against the non-Whites—then it would only be a matter of time before the majority in this Parliament would consist of non-Whites. If the pressure is strong enough, that majority will elect their prime minister in this Parliament and it is doubtful whether a majority of non-Whites would elect a white prime minister Those are the logical consequences of the policy of the United Party. [Interjections.]

You can do better than that.

I can do considerably better than this, but I am now dealing with such a bad Opposition that it is unnecessary for me to do any better. The Opposition can hardly understand what I am telling them now. They do not realize the logical consequences of their own policy.

Order! The hon. member should come back to the Bill now.

Mr. Speaker, I gladly follow your advice. In view of the fact that this Bill is making provision for the development of the various Native nations in South West Africa towards self-government, you should allow us, Sir, to indicate the alternative as well, because if this development were not to take place, we ought to ascertain what the consequences would be, namely what would happen if this legislation were not passed. In terms of this legislation those areas will be reserved and retained for the indigenous inhabitants of those areas. Recently we were fortunate enough to pay a visit to that territory and we are very grateful to be able to say that what is being done here to-day represents not only the wishes and the policy of a party, but also the expressed desire of the inhabitants of that territory. The hon. members who visited that territory with us, like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and others, will agree with us that when these questions were put to all sections of the population of Ovamboland or Okavangoland they unanimously voted in favour of these steps and were impatient for this Bill to be passed so as to afford them the opportunity of developing under the guidance of the white man.

I shall be very fair and admit that I cannot speak in respect of the Hereros. I did not put those questions to them. I do not know whether the hon. member for Bezuidenhout can speak on their behalf. I did not put the questions to them, but in the areas we visited, the people are very anxious to have this legislation and to be led to self-government under the supervision and guidance of the Whites whom they still call, politically speaking, their father and their mother. That is their desire and I do not think one of the other hon. members would deny that. What we are doing here, is to give expression to the wishes and desires of the inhabitants of those areas. I want to say that we are deeply impressed by the preparatory work which is being done there. What I am thinking of is the health services which are being provided there and the work which the Commissioner-General is doing. We are grateful to be able to say today that a very fine relationship exists at present between especially the Okavangos and the Ovambos and the Whites who are providing guidance there. I am pleased to be able to say that we all gained the following impression: If those fine relations are maintained, as we are doing here now, irrespective of what the world may then think of us, the terrorists who are trying to infiltrate into our country from the north, will have very little chance of success because the Okavangos and the Ovambos will not allow them to come into our country.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to reply to the political stories told by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad. They are anything but original. I can also tell him that the latest elections have shown that the people are no longer interested in them. They have heard them too often. He put one serious question, i.e. what price are we on this side prepared to pay for foreign approval. I hope he accepts my reply, because he is the one who put the question. Our reply is: Not a cent. We on this side believe that a clever government should outmanoeuvre its enemies. That can be done, but the charge we are leveling at this Government is that day in and day out it is thrusting weapons into the hands of our enemies, which makes it impossible for us to outmanoeuvre our enemies. The Government is continuously weakening our position. This is my reply to that question of the hon. member’s. We believe that one should have enough sense to outmanoeuvre one’s enemies and not to provide them with weapons.

Of all the problems we have to contend with in South Africa to-day, the problem of South West Africa is the one which will become our greatest challenge. In the case of the race problems of the Republic, we are in fact faced with strong disapproval abroad. We are even faced with an overdose of interference. But in the final analysis the relations problem of the Republic remain the problems which the two major race groups of our country can and will have to settle amongst themselves. In the case of South West Africa we find that a third element has unfortunately been added for us. It is a third element which we recognize officially. It is the international community. Admittedly the mandate is clear enough, and we do have every right to administer the territory as an integral part of South Africa in as far as we consider it necessary. But along with that the Government has recognized the definite international responsibility in respect of the destiny of the territory and its people. It is this third element which unfortunately gives a special dimension to all matters affecting the future of South West Africa. And it is for this reason that we, as the Opposition, have consistently adopted a specific attitude in regard to the South West question. In the first place, it is our view that, whichever party is in power, we should not necessarily mark out for South West Africa, down to the last comma, those party-political recipes and solutions we have for the Republic.

Historically, politically, geographically economically, ethnically—in virtually every sphere circumstances in South West Africa are different. There is a certain otherness about that territory and it requires a distinctive approach in numerous respects. Secondly, we adopted the attitude that it was the duty of the Government of the day, and this holds good for any government, to make at least an attempt to approach the South West problem on a broader basis than that of ordinary party-politics. I am absolutely convinced that if the South West Africa case is handled correctly, South West Africa will cease to be a problem for us. On the contrary, it can indeed become a bridge of understanding between us and the outside world. South West Africa can, if it is handled correctly, become a link, an instrument, by means of which we may effect on the part of the outside world a complete change towards South Africa.

But the Government has chosen to follow another approach. In the first place, it has chosen to handle the problems of South West on a unilateral, party-political basis; in the second place, it believes in applying its local political recipes, chapter and verse, to the different circumstances found in South West. Of course, I do not dispute the Government’s right to follow this course; it is in power and this is its choice. What we do dispute, is the wisdom of such a step. However, I mention this so that we may realize whose choice it is that we are involved here in an ordinary party-political debate on a delicate and vital question such as that of South West Africa.

We have before us a Bill which was fathered by the Odendaal Commission. That in itself does not make this legislation inacceptable. When the Odendaal Report was discussed here in 1964, we had a great deal of praise for the economic recommendations contained therein—in fact, we associated ourselves with most of the recommendations which evinced that Commission’s zeal for development. The criticism we expressed, was concentrated on the unpractical aspects of the Government’s political plan. At that time our point of departure was, and it still is to-day, that historically as well as administratively one was in fact dealing with two South West Africas. Ever since the days of the German occupation South West Africa has been recognized and governed as two territories. White settlement and Western political institutions have strictly remained confined to the southern sector; the northern sector, predominantly Ovambo, has retained its indigenous character, its freedom and its traditional forms of self-government. In the case of the northern sector, therefore, we are dealing with an historically natural homeland or homelands. Nobody denies that. Those homelands have remained as intact as no other in Southern Africa. Consequently there can be no objection to the acknowledgment of this position, be it by legislation or by other means. Nor can there be any objection to any plans for developing this northern territory for the people there on an exclusive basis, both economically and politically. In fact, that is exactly what we proposed and advocated here in the course of the discussion of the Odendaal Report. We regard it as being particularly unfortunate that with this Bill the Government is now interfering with the dual political nature of South West Africa. But on one occasion we came to such a pass that even a U.N. Commission suggested a separate solution for the two parts. That was not accepted, because at that stage the “climate” was too unfavourable. However, this concept found favour with many people and even to-day it is still finding favour amongst the Native groups of South West Africa. We feel that, to start with, the Government should have come forward here to-day with a Bill seeking to modernize and co-ordinate the existing forms of self-government in the north. As far as the north is concerned, self-government is not something new. As far back as 1947, and subsequently in all the documents South Africa has sent abroad in regard to South West Africa, we ourselves described Ovamboland as a model of self-government, to quote the words of Lord Hayley, the well-known Africanist. For instance, I have here a book, “History of a Mandate”, which the South African Government submitted to U.N. in 1947. It contains an entire chapter on “Native Self-government”. The position of the Ovambos is described as follows—

Even in the latest booklet published by the Department of Foreign Affairs this is emphasized, too. The booklet is called “South Africa and the Rule of Law”, and it emphasizes the fact that we are dealing with a form of self-government there. I repeat that we should have had before us a separate Bill seeking to modernize and co-ordinate the existing forms of self-government in the northern areas, which has a background completely different from that of the southern areas. In due course an advanced body would then come into being automatically, so that when we think it advisable for them to express their views as far as their own future is concerned, that body would then be in existence, and nobody would then be able to deny that this is a body with standing which can give an opinion as to what the wishes of the Ovambo peoples of the north are. That would then have been the position, without the impression being created at this stage, as this Bill is doing, that a unilateral fragmentation of the territory is being contemplated and that this is something which places the whole Bill on the level of international politics.

May I ask the hon. member whether, according to the view he has just stated here in regard to the northern areas where some kind of body is to come into being, in the view of his party it would be possible for that body to have adopted an independent course and not to be integrated with a federal form of government?

Surely, that stands to reason. Our policy is that we shall recommend to those people—and I shall deal with that in a moment—that it is in their interests to retain on a federal basis their ties with the Republic and the rest of South West Africa. After all, it stands to reason that once such a body is established nobody would prevent them from expressing their own wishes. You need not cast it in this mould in this Bill. Establish this body, and of their own accord these people will at any time which we or they choose, be able to express their wishes in regard to the future. In terms of our South West Plan we are in favour of acknowledging the distinctiveness of the northern sector. Fundamentally we are not opposed to the development of the existing forms of self-government in the north, which would then automatically become at the right time mouth-pieces through which they can at the right time express their views in regard to their future. What we should like to see, is that a legislative assembly, with the same standing and authority as that of the south, should eventually come into being in the north. I concede that problems may arise in connection with the Kaokoveld, but it is a good objective and adjustments can always be made. In his monumental work, “Inboor-lingbeleid en Administrasie in die Mandaatgebied van Suidwes-Afrika”, written by Dr. M. J. Olivier in 1961 as his doctor’s thesis —the person who is at present Commissioner-General of South West Africa—he, too, envisaged that the Kaokoveld and the Okavango “would eventually have to be included in Ovamboland.” That is to be found on page 431 of the book. This statement corresponds completely with our own view, and we would have had no objection to any Bill seeking to promote such a development. However, here we have a Bill which includes the southern sector. The hon. the Minister himself admitted that in the south one was dealing with a quite different situation. Just as the north remained in the possession of the Ovambo peoples—and they never laid any claim to any additional territory, nor do they do so-to-day, because the southerners and the Whites have been kept out of the northern sector—so we have exactly the opposite position in the south. The south has become the possession of many. In the south there is no question of historical homelands. I shall quote what Dr. Olivier has to say in this regard (translation)—

From ancient times the ethnic groups have been scattered over most of the reserves and residential regions of South West. In fact, the southern reserves were originally planned with a view to having a labour force in almost all of the 18 magisterial districts of South West Africa. Here I do not want to go into the small percentage of each group living in the rural areas, and into the number of people who have been settled in each of the reserves. The Odendaal Report furnishes us with the facts in this regard. Earlier on I put a question to the hon. the Minister, namely how many Damaras were living in this proposed Damaraland of the Bill. His reply was 2,848. Out of a total of 44,000 Damaras in South West Africa, 2,848 are living in Damaraland. That is just enough to fill the Cape Town city hall. There are 35.000 Hereros in South West Africa, and only 9,936 of them are living in the proposed Hereroland. The density of the population in the south of South West Africa, the poor economic potential of these reserved areas, are of such a nature that the development of homelands in the real sense of the word is out of the question in the south. If these homelands in the south were cut off politically from South West Africa’s sources of revenue—which are but a few and very vulnerable, i.e. the mineral resources, the fishing industries and the marine resources—those areas would, as it was put by a certain author, remain economic and political vacuums. Nobody can deny that. To include the proposed Damaraland and the proposed Hereroland, each with its handful of people, under the heading of independence, is an illusion and is to my mind inconsistent with our accepted task as South Africans, namely to pursue the best interests of these people. I should like to make this matter clear. The hon. member for Omaruru said in his speech that it was right that everybody should be given his own territory. If that were possible, not one of us would have complained. If, let us say, the 35,000 Hereros were happy to leave the central part of South West Africa and to settle in a remote corner of South West, why should we be angry? It struck me that not one speaker opposite touched upon this aspect. I want to ask the Government to adduce proof to the effect that the 44,000 Damaras of South West Africa are prepared to exchange their citizenship of South West Africa for citizenship in Damaraland, large tracts of which are desert areas. The matter will then be settled and if those people want things that way, nobody will have objections. That is what the Government has to prove.

Do you know what has been decided in regard to the Damaras?

I am convinced that the Ovambos in the north are not asking for anything more. There the Government has a case. However, my charge is that it is making the entire policy of homelands ridiculous by its actions in the south. There cannot be any objection to larger rural areas being created in the south so that there may be a better division of land. In other words, there is no objection to heart-lands which are predominantly Damara or predominantly Herero. There is no objection to a well-balanced division of land in the south, i.e. among the various groups. Nor is there any objection to prosperous farming communities being created. The concept homelands—and I am asking this with no other intention except that we must have light on this matter, and the hon. the Minister can tell us if we are wrong—as it is being used here in the Republic, has a specific meaning. It presupposes that all land rights, all permanent residential rights, all potential political rights, and all claims to the joint riches of a country lapse as far as a homeland is concerned. In other words, the citizenship of those persons diminishes. The hon. the Minister should not forget that at present it is still possible for a Native of South West to purchase land anywhere outside his reserve and outside the urban areas. However, when he accepts the homeland concept, he relinquishes something and exchanges a certain right for something else. His citizenship diminishes and all sorts of pressure—and let the hon. the Minister deny this if I am wrong, because I should be glad to know that I am wrong—is then brought to bear upon him in order to send him back, so it is alleged, to a place where most of them have never lived and with which they have no ties. It is easy to say, as the hon. member for Omaruru did, “This is our policy and we stand by this”. It used to be the Government’s policy that the Indians should be sent out of the country. It was very easy to have such a policy. Later on one comes up against the facts of the situation. We, too, can rise here and say that it is our policy to cut up South West Africa and to say, “Look, man, I am sharing out the cake; here is your piece and be satisfied with it”. This is not a policy which is practical, for it will never be accepted. We on this side cannot be a party to something of that nature, because it is an illusion. It is a downright illusion to think that the Hereros, who moved into South West Africa in the sixteenth century, long before one single white person had set foot in South West Africa, would leave the Southern central parts of South West Africa merely to please the Whites, and then settle in a remote corner of South West Africa. Then they must sacrifice all their rights and dissociate themselves from every claim … [Interjections.] When we were on tour in South West Africa recently, we were taken to the Augustineum, in Windhoek, that gigantic and impressive training centre for the non-white population groups of the south. And what was the lesson we learnt there? The lesson was very clear, namely that if there is to be talk of human development in the south, it has to be on a basis of centralization. It will not be possible for this to be done on the basis of decentralization, because the southern part is too poor and because the southern people have to fall back upon Windhoek and the few large towns, the southern sources of revenue, both as far as the present and the future are concerned. Other than that, there is no practical alternative. It would be very pleasant to be able to live in such a heaven that one could think that if one divided the territory and kept the best part to oneself, the others would be satisfied, but this is, after all, not practical policy. That is why we had the view during the discussion of the Odendaal Report that the Legislative Assembly in Windhoek should gradually be reinforced in such a way that it could serve as the centre of government for the southern group. Gradually, as the people develop, it must become more representative of all the southern areas, on the basis of recognizing everybody’s identity. I repeat that it is not an easy policy, but there is no practical alternative. The statement that what is suggested in the Bill is practicable, will only be true if the Government can adduce proof to the effect that 44,000 Damaras and 35,000 Hereros are happy to exchange their present rights for rights in a remote corner of South West.

What groups do you want to see represented in the Legislative Assembly?

Let us be practical. The Whites in the south constitute the most numerous group. The majority of the people live in the north, and under such a system there cannot be any question of one race dominating another. The hon. the Minister rightly said in his speech: “We want to prevent domination.” That is fine, of course, but the trouble with the Minister’s policy is that he does not only want to eliminate domination; he also wants to eliminate all forms of co-operation. Owing to conditions in South West there will have to be political association, whether or not we want it; there is no alternative choice. The Government must prove to us that those people want it; if not, it cannot claim that it is putting forward a practical policy here. On the contrary, without the active guidance and assistance of the Whites in the south, politically as well, South Africa cannot hope to fulfill the task it assumed under the Mandate, with honour and success. I find it very interesting that an outstanding expert on South West, a person such as Dr. Olivier, endorses this point of view entirely. In his thesis, on page 432, Dr. Olivier wrote as follows (translation)—

This was said by the Government’s own appointed expert—

For everybody. I want to be fair towards Dr. Olivier. He differs from us on one point, i.e. in regard to the Hereros. Dr. Olivier would like to see an attempt being made to persuade the Hereros to accept a homeland, but although he says that, he himself has doubts as to whether the Hereros will accept it. He went as far as to say that it was naïve and futile to think of a Bushmanland, and he wants the Bushmanland area to be given to the Hereros as well, but he obviously has doubts as to whether the Hereros would be amenable to that. However, as for the rest he is in complete agreement with us about its being inevitable that step by step a legislative assembly would have to be established for everybody in the south.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill before us embodies an attempt at establishing an artificial group of homelands for which there is no historical basis. I am now referring to the south. With the best will in the world they can never accommodate more than a fraction of the population for which they are intended, and that is why one can never, from the nature of the circumstances there, speak of distinctive, independent states as far as the southern areas are concerned. Here, in the “South West African Survey” published by the Government, they say that if South West were to free itself from the economy of the Republic, it would be ruined. Once a group has broken away politically, it no longer has any claim to the central riches. It can resort to begging and it may perhaps get something, but it cannot lay any claim to it. Do hon. members think that the people are going to be so stupid … [Interjections.] That is why I say that one has an historical situation in Ovamboland, but in the south one has a position where there are six people and one apple and that apple belongs to all six of them. After all, it is inconceivable that one person alone can peel the apple, give a piece of peel to each of the others and keep to himself the rest of that apple. Would the others be satisfied with that?

What exactly do you mean by that?

Hon. members opposite must explain this point to us: If they stand for partition, how will the riches —the sea, the mineral riches and the water of South West—be distributed? If they come forward with those practical arguments, the whole matter will become practical politics, but as it is now that is certainly not the case.

To my mind there is a specific danger implied in objects of the Bill as far as the southern parts are concerned, for if the vast majority of the Damaras or the vast majority of the Hereros were to gain the slightest impression that pressure is going to be brought to bear upon them so that they may move, a very dangerous situation can develop, which is exactly the sort of situation that cropped up in Windhoek in connection with the location. If they were to gain the impression that where they are living at present they will from now on be temporary sojourners only, then we would be doing something which could endanger our future. (Time expired.]

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout toyed with a few words and a few propositions in this House this afternoon. He said that South West Africa could become a link between the Republic and the world. That is a fine proposition. But the hon. member did not tell us how that link should be brought about. He made the proposition and simply left it there without elaborating on it any further. In speaking of South West as a link between the Republic and the outside world, does he want us to allow U.N. to enter South West Africa? Is that the link which he would like to see, or does he have another link in mind? The hon. member also said that we should outwit our enemies. Who are really the enemies of the Republic of South Africa or of South West Africa? The hon. member did not tell us how we should outwit them. He did not tell us how to do it. In addition, he said that we should tackle this whole matter on a much broader basis. I ask the hon. member: How can we tackle it on a broader basis than we are doing at the present moment, except by obtaining assistance from outside? Has this legislation not been tackled on the broadest basis? Then the hon. member said that we should modernize and co-ordinate this legislation. Is that not what is being done here? Is that not exactly what this legislation envisages, to co-ordinate the present system which obtains in South West Africa, to modernize it and to adapt it to the conditions of the day? No, the hon. member came along here with fine words; he played with words, but he really contributed nothing towards finding a solution for us to this great problem with which we are faced to-day. If we look back to the circumstances after the Second World War, we find that just after that war black nationalism swept like a gigantic wave across the Continent of Africa. We found that with the cry of “Uhuru”, and “Down with the white man”, one African state after another obtained its independence and the white man had to flee from those African states which he had built up and where he had established something fine. Thus we found that the Dutchman could return to the Netherlands, the Englishman to England, the Frenchman to France and the Belgian to Belgium, but we here in the Republic of South Africa, the hon. members of the Opposition and I, knew no other fatherland. The Republic of South Africa is my fatherland, just as it is the fatherland of the hon. members opposite. Fortunately for those people they could return to their fatherland, and they were welcome in that fatherland, but we have no other fatherland, and it would have been foolish of any intelligent government simply to sweep aside this cry of “Uhuru” and this black nationalism without paying any attention to it. It would have been unwise not to try to find a solution for black nationalism which was gaining a foothold here in the Republic of South Africa. We could not simply push it aside. We could not ignore it. It would have been very irresponsible of any government to do so. Therefore it was very necessary for us to find a peaceful solution in the Republic and in South West Africa, so that the black man could realize his own nationalism without prejudicing the rights of the white man. We believe, and it is the policy of the Government, that it would be fatal to suppress or obstruct the urge to freedom and independence of any nation, but that one should rather assist that nation along the road to self-government and eventually along the road to independence. We believe that we should extend a helping hand to it, that we should offer it the hand of friendship, and that we should not be hostile towards it. We believe that if we lead the black man on the road to independence, he will be our friend instead of our enemy. We believe that we should help him so that he may eventually obtain those things which he is striving for, in a peaceful manner.

Which of them asked for uhuru?

They will come along and ask us and when they do we must already have placed them on that road, because the day will come when they will ask it, and then no one in this country will be able to stop it, just as the whole of the Western world could not stop it in Africa. Therefore we are one step ahead of the Western world.

Another milestone has been reached in the past 20 years of National Party rule with the introduction of this legislation. To-day is a memorable day in the history of this small nation on the southern tip of Africa. To-day the National Party is demonstrating to the whole world that we are prepared to extend a helping hand to those other national groups in our country and to lead them to independence. We do not ask how big is your country, how large are your numbers, or are you economically sound enough to stand on your own feet, as the Opposition does. We say that our policy lays down that we should help the Bantu nations of South West Africa along the road to self-government and eventually on the road to independence. We are making provision in this Bill for the recognition of the areas of the various Bantu nations of South West Africa. We do not want to force together what does not belong together. History has taught us that one cannot press nations together as in a mould. Especially the traditions of the Bantu nations in the Republic and in South West … [Interjections.] I could not hear clearly what the hon. member said. On another occasion I shall be prepared to tackle him. If he will just give me a chance now, I shall proceed. We believe that the traditions and the customs of the nations differ so greatly that one would only create disorder and chaos if any Party, even the United Party, were to try to force together what does not belong together. I ask the hon. member for Durban (Point) and any hon. member who knows the history of the Witwatersrand, or any member who comes from Durban or from the large cities, just to consider what happened in past years and the faction fights which we used to have on the Rand every Sunday before ethnic grouping was introduced in our Bantu townships. The hon. member for Houghton will also remember it. [Interjection.] If she does not remember it, she is a stranger in Jerusalem. Since we have applied this ethnic grouping, even in the mining compounds, we no longer hear of those bloody fights which we had every week-end. [Interjection.] I do not know what area the hon. member for Durban (Point) is talking about, but I may tell him that since it has been applied in these areas, there is peace and quiet. I want to say to the hon. member that the members of each tribe, no matter how primitive it is, understand the form of government applied in their tribe, and however cruel and unjust it might seem in the eyes of the Western world, they want it. We heard in the Okavango of the punishment meted out to one Native. To us it seemed cruel and inhuman, but that is the language which that Native understands at the moment. But we as Whites do not want to leave him there to apply his cruelty and inhumanity. We do not want that form of government which he applies there so strictly to-day. It is our Christian duty to help him to modernize and adapt the system of government which he has. But for us simply to come overnight and say to that primitive Native that this system of his is altogether wrong, will be the biggest mistake we could make. But we must first place him on the road to self-government. We must indicate to him that, although the things which he is now doing are not proper and correct in the eyes of the Western world, he should gradually and slowly accept this form of government. Nor is it the policy of the National Party simply to give all those areas to them overnight. We do not believe in this platter-policy which was applied in the African countries, where the African states merely cupped their hands to receive. What was the result of that? Hon. members saw what happened. Ministers bought golden beds and built palaces for themselves, and even put the Opposition in gaol. We believe in helping these under-developed areas along, that we should extend a helping hand to them and help those who want to be helped. We must teach them the maxim of “industriousness”, so that they will be prepared to put the shoulder to the wheel and help themselves to forge ahead. We want to cultivate leaders for them in that area who can teach the people how to work and how to undertake tasks. We do not want to take their tasks over from them.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) at the back there accompanied us on this tour, and he knows how eager the leaders of Ovamboland were to receive self-government He knows what their wishes were. But at the same time those leaders told us how grateful they were to the Government for what was being done for them. “But,” they asked, “in Heaven’s name do not withdraw your hand from us altogether, because we still need the white man to lead us on the road to independence”. It is on that basis, in that way, that we should like to help these Bantu nations of South West Africa. We do not want to westernize them overnight. We do not want to grant them riches in gold and silver overnight. But we are prepared to impart our knowledge to them. We are prepared to help them where we can. We are only prepared to help them financially if they are prepared to put their shoulder to the wheel and to work, as is expected of any self-respecting nation.

Mr. Speaker, to the unenlightened it might perhaps sound absolutely foolish that we want to group a small number of people together in one ethnic group in a small area. The outside world may perhaps say to us: Why can those northern areas not be consolidated into one area? Why can there not be one self-governing body to control the entire area? But history has taught us that, as soon as we do that, we will again experience chaos, disorder and wars in those areas. Those Bantu are proud of what is their own; they are proud of their borders; they are proud of their system of government. We want to say to hon. members to-day: It would be foolish of any government to try to bring these various Bantu groups together under one system of government, which the Opposition wants to force upon them, or to eliminate the boundaries among the Bantu nations and to string them together. It will only lead to mutual dissension and war once again, things that we should not like to experience again in those areas. The National Party is accused, and the accusation was repeated by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in the course of this debate, of cutting up our fatherland. I ask hon. members opposite: Since when were these Bantu homelands a part of our fatherland? Has history not always determined that those homelands belong to the Bantu of the Republic of South Africa and of South West Africa? In my childhood days, when I grew up beside the Tyumie River, I was told, “That area there is Native territory.” Hon. members can ask the hon. member for South Coast. That is what we were told. History taught us that the Transkei was Native territory. We grew up with that idea. It was not laid down by some Prime Minister or another. These boundaries were not drawn by Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd or Adv. John Vorster or whoever. The history of our nation drew those boundaries for us. Therefore it is so senseless to suggest that this side is cutting up our fatherland. I want to say to hon. members opposite that this was laid down in the legislation of 1936. We on this side are prepared to accept a smaller South Africa, but it will be a white South Africa, over which we shall be the masters. [Interjections.]

It is simply a policy of surrender.

It is not a policy of surrender. To the Bezuidenhout family there is no such thing as surrendering. My forebears died on the gallows; my forebears guarded the eastern borders to the very last. It was not my ancestors who smuggled guns to the Bantu in the Transkei and the Ciskei. Such things were not done by the forebears of hon. members on this side. But if we consult history, we shall see whose forebears smuggled guns to the Bantu. I say to-day that the United Party must look out. They want to keep South Africa as it is to-day. They are ignoring the Bantu’s black nationalism, their urge to eventual independence. That side, which wants to keep South Africa whole, must watch out that the cracks in the homelands do not change to craters later on, and that those craters between the white man’s land and the Bantu homelands do not become so great that they no longer can be bridged. Because if that happened, the United Party would be creating chaos. Then there would be no time to close the breach, then they would realize that it was too late. Then they would wish that they had accepted the policy of the National Party, namely rather to have a smaller Republic of South Africa but a Republic which is White, where the white man and the white man alone can be the master.

I want to say that I was very surprised to hear what the hon. member for South Coast said here on Friday. I have a great deal of respect for the hon. member and for his knowledge of Bantu affairs. But on Friday he got up here and said that we were leaving Portugal and Rhodesia in the lurch. What Government has kept Rhodesia on its feet in the past few years? What Government hastened to Rhodesia’s aid in its hour of need? What Government helped Rhodesia economically to its present position? [Interjections.] I think that after he had read his speech, the hon. member for South Coast regretted what he had said. This is surely not how we know him. We have not left Portugal in the lurch. On the contrary, it is this Government which is once more showing the world that it is not here to suppress, but to uplift. We want to give the non-White his rightful share in the northern area of South West Africa, we want to give him what is his due, but we also want to give the white man of South West Africa his rightful share, so that the two groups can live there alongside each other in a peaceful manner, as it should be. In South West Africa, as in the Republic, they also have a two-stream policy. They also have Whites and non-Whites. All that this legislation is bringing about, is this. It is placing the non-White of South West Africa on the road to self-government. It is helping the non-Whites there to help themselves and to modernize and adapt their legal system to accord with the Western legal system. We are hereby extending a helping hand, and we are once again demonstrating to the world that the National Party of South Africa remains true to its word in saying, “We are here to ensure that justice is done to all population groups in the Republic and South West Africa.”

Mr. Speaker, I must agree with the last few words of the hon. member for Brakpan. This Bill gives to the Bantu people of northern South West Africa, particularly, nothing more than what they have to-day; it gives them no more than that. They are already exercising local government as regards their own local matters, they already control all their local affairs, but with the guiding hand of the white Republican Government supplying the funds. The sting in this Bill is not in the body but in the preamble. I wish to address you a little later on this matter, Sir, and I think the hon. member for Brakpan must be patient until I get to that point.

The hon. member for Brakpan also seems to be very proud of the fact that some of his ancestors guarded some eastern frontier at some stage or other, I am not sure exactly which eastern frontier he is referring to. He also seems to be very proud of the fact that some of his ancestors even went to the gallows. I do not know for what reason they went to the gallows, whether there was a noble reason or an ignoble reason.

You know the history of Slagtersnek.

Let me say to the hon. member he is not the only one who can make claims of this sort. My forefather came out with the 1820 Settlers with ten sons and they had farms strung along the Fish River and acted as the buffer between the so-called white South Africa, as some people like to call it to-day, and the Xhosas in the Transkei. Only the old man and two sons came out of that Kaffir war. So the hon. member is not claiming anything which nobody else knows about. [Interjections.]

Order! The Kaffir War is not being fought now.

Whilst listening to the hon. member for Brakpan the thought crossed my mind as to who wrote that speech for him. Because really and truly there were times when I was satisfied the hon. member was not expressing his own views and his own thoughts. I did not believe he was quite as stupid as he was trying to make out. After listening to him I began to wonder whether this is not part of the new history which is going to be taught, and I wonder if he has not been taught by the hon. member for Randfontein this new history which we have heard so much about.

The hon. member spoke about uhuru and said that the non-white peoples of Southern Africa, including South West Africa, will demand uhuru.

It is not a type of beer.

There is no need for the Bantu people to demand uhuru, not under the Nationalist Government, because this Government has offered, no, has promised them uhuru. They have promised them this independence. This Bill, particularly the preamble, now recognizes this, and this legislation is the first legal document of this country which lays down that the Bantu people have the right not only to self-determination but the right to independence.

The hon. member for Brakpan also spoke of the 1936 Act. Let me say he completely and utterly misconstrued the intentions behind that Act. He claimed something, and as this is the first time I have heard this claim made, I say I do not accept that the speech he made was indeed written by the hon. member. He claimed that the intention behind that Act was to create areas which would become free and independent countries for the Bantu people only. I am sure the hon. member will be disabused of that opinion in time, but let me say to him now that that Act merely set aside certain areas, and made provision for the extension of those areas, for occupation by the Bantu people and not to become free and independent countries. The legislature in those days never had the intention of creating independent countries by means of the 1936 Act.

Who wrote your speech?

I am sure the hon. the Minister did not write it because I am sure it is above his plane. I want to get back to the Bill. The preamble reads as follows, and I hope the hon. the Minister of Forestry can understand this—

This is once again typical of this Nationalist Party Government. This has been proved before, and I will again show during this debate that they are doing the same thing here. They establish a false premise, as they are doing here in the preamble and when they have established that, they build up their case. Of course, the whole case is wrong because it is build on this false foundation. This preamble talks of “their right of self-determination”. My hon. Leader and other hon. members on this side have raised this point, and now I want to ask the hon. the Minister the following question: Since when have the Bantu people had this “right of self-determination”? The hon. member for South Coast made the point very clearly that this is an absolute and not a qualified right. Although the Bill does not go so far as to grant independence to these people it does at least establish the right of those people at any time, in terms of this phrase of “their right of self-determination”, to demand independence.

As I asked before, when did they get this right? I submit they never had it before March of last year. It was March of last year when the hon. the Minister came back from Ovamboland where he had given them a degree of local self-government and granted the establishment of tribal authorities. I think the first regional authority was established then.

It was not established last year.

Whatever the case may be, it was mentioned when the Minister returned in March last year. But that is incidental. The hon. the Prime Minister seems to be under the impression that they have had this right for a long time and that this has been an issue in elections of the past. In this connection I wish to refer to what he said on 23rd April of this year, as reported in Hansard, Col. 3947—

He said this question of self-determination had been an issue in elections. I deny that categorically. The last general election in 1966 was held under Dr. Verwoerd and his policy was not one of self-determination. [Interjections.] His policy—and this has been proved conclusively by arguments inside this House and outside—was one of “I shall give them independence when I think they are ripe for it, not when they want it”. Let us go further. If we accept this right of self-determination we then reach the stage where these people can ask for their independence and what is this Government then going to do about it.

We will say yes or no.

The hon. member says the Government will either say yes or no. I want to say to him the hon. the Prime Minister does not agree with him; they cannot just say yes or no. On 23rd April the Prime Minister admitted in this House that he had got to the stage where he had lost control over the time-table. I quote once again from Col. 3947. While the Prime Minister was speaking I interjected and asked—

By saying that the Prime Minister admits he will no longer have control over the timetable, that he will only be able to negotiate. He can no longer say, as the hon. member for Randfontein said he could, yes or no. This is the thing that I am so afraid of in this Bill. As I said before, this Bill is giving the peoples of Ovamboland and Okavamboland and other peoples up there no more than what they already have to-day. The important part of this measure, however, is the preamble. As I said, the Government is now taking the opportunity of establishing this premise on which the whole of the future is going to be built.

The preamble also deals with the question of independence, but before I get to that point I wish to refer to the fact that it also mentions the point of self-government. If I could have the attention of the Minister, I should like to ask him a question which he could perhaps answer right away. What does the Government mean by this term “self-government”? Do the Minister and the Government mean the self-government which is enjoyed by an independent country or do they differentiate between the terms “independence” and “self-government”?

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