Mr. Speaker, last night I was saying that this Bill is the first step in this Government’s policy of leading the Bantu peoples of South West Africa to independence. I want to ask when will the next step be taken. I want to pose this question directly to the hon. the Prime Minister and to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development: how many tribes in South West Africa do they consider ready for independence now? They do not want to answer, so can I pose the question to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education? Does he consider there are any tribes in South West Africa which are ready for independence to-day?

You are talking nonsense.

I cannot hear the reply—the hon. the Deputy Minister appeared to just make a rude noise. I believe he consulted with these tribes on a recent visit to South West Africa. Does he consider that they are ready for independence to-day?

You are talking nonsense.

This is the same reply he gave to the hon. member for South Coast when he also mentioned this point. I want to quote from Die Suidwes Afrikaner of 19th April, 1968, under the headline “Ovambos reg vir Onafhanklikheid”.

You are talking tripe.

I should like to remind the Deputy Minister I happened to be with him on this trip and I happened to have heard many comments that he made. I also happened to have a word with this reporter after the Deputy Minister had left South West Africa. This is what appears in this newspaper—

He knows just as much as you do.

I continue—

What has the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education got to say now?

I deny every word of it.

But this report has not been denied up to now. I want to say further that this report is entirely in line with the comments made by the hon. the Deputy Minister in my presence.

He never went to Ovamboland.

Yes. The point is: Was this statement made for outside consumption only? Has he now been pulled to order and into line to follow the official party policy? The point now arises of what he said to those chiefs in Ovamboland. Did he promise them independence and if so, when? When has he promised them that they will get their independence? I want to say that after what I saw in South West Africa this is the most irresponsible statement that I have ever heard come from a Member of Parliament, let alone from a Deputy Minister. It is completely in line with the statement made by the hon. member for Brakpan when he said to me yesterday in this House: You have seen the fruits of 20 years of Nationalist Government. I have seen them, but they are nothing to be proud of. In fact, they are something of which to be ashamed when one thinks of the lack of development in that area. We saw there the utter failure of the Nationalist Party policy over the past 20 years. They have talked of the millions of rands that have been spent on development. On what development have those millions of rands been spent? They have been spent on schools, roads, hospitals, administrative buildings, a palace for the Commissioner-General and other such undertakings. That hon. member also saw them. I cannot agree with the hon. member for Houghton who said yesterday that there had been a degree of economic development there. In fact, I also cannot agree with the hon. member for Primrose. I want to say that the economic development in that area is virtually non-existent. It is borne out by the South West Africa survey of 1967. What economic development has there been? There is one furniture factory in the whole of the northern areas, at Oshikati. There is this one furniture factory in the while of the northern territories and not only in Ovamboland. We also saw where they are now attempting to establish, and I hope it is operating to-day, a plant where they are going to train Bantu mechanics.

What do we find in regard to economic development apart from industrial development. Once again according to the South West African survey we find that in the whole of the northern territories—and I want to remind this House that there are over 500,000 Bantu in that area—there are 254 general dealers, 26 restaurant/tobacco licences, 21 hawkers and 12 bakers. This is the sum total of economic development in that area and this hon. Deputy Minister with the Government behind him wants to give them independence now— to-day! This Bill is the first step. It does not allow for independence but the preamble states that this Bill is to lead to eventual independence. The hon. the Deputy Minister has said that they are ready now for independence. As I have indicated there is no economic development there at all.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, my time is limited. I am sorry that the hon. the Prime Minister has left, because I want to remind him and the House of the warning which was given to him by my hon. Leader in this House on the 23rd April, when he told him to be careful of allowing political development to outstrip economic development. That is exactly what this Government is doing in South West Africa to-day. Let me say that this has been the problem of Central Africa. It is also the problem which is facing the United States of America to-day. Where you have people who are developing faster, politically, than they have developed economically, you have trouble. Where you have a balance of economic and political development, there you have peace and tranquility. But if either outstrips the other, you have trouble immediately. That is exactly what this Government is going to do now with their promise of independence to the northern territories, in the words of the hon. the Deputy Minister, “to give the Ovambos independence now”. He has said that they are ready now for independence. If they are ready now, as I said yesterday, the timetable is out of the hands of the Government. When are they going to get their independence? They will get it when they want it, because this Bill gives them the right to determine themselves when they want their independence, and to take it.

There is another point. As I said millions of rands have been spent on schools and hospitals. It is a magnificent development. And make no mistake, I am not belittling that development. But without an economy, how will any independent state ever run those undertakings. How will they ever keep the hospitals, schools and roads running, let alone develop any new ones. Let me say that those that are there now are very nice, but they are hopelessly inadequate. There must be further development. But with no economy in a country, how do they develop and run these things?

As soon as the new Prime Minister sells his tobacconists’ shop, he will get on with the job.

As far as I can see, we are going to put ourselves in the position that Britain has found herself in in Central Africa, where it is being held to ransom by black states. We are going to be in the same boat when these independent Bantu areas up there are going to say to us: We want more money. The position can arise where they will sell their allegiance to the highest bidder. I want to know how far will the Republic of South Africa come in competition against Russia and Red China if they do decide to sell to the highest bidder?

There is another aspect. Who is going to run these institutions? Who is going to run the hospitals and the schools? The hospitals at the moment are run wholly by Whites. As far as higher education is concerned, there are only Whites that are teachers. According to the South West Africa Survey once again, what facilities do we find for education of these people in the northern territories? Now I want to remind you once again that is for over 500,000 people. There are 179 Government and community schools and 49 mission schools. How many matriculants are there in those areas? I wonder if the hon. the Minister knows. How many university graduates are there? I would be surprised to find one university graduate. And yet they want to give them independence. The Deputy Minister says they are ready for independence now.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member keeps on saying that I stated that the Ovambo were ripe for independence. For the sake of the record, I wish to state that I did not tell him …

Order!

I say that he is uttering an untruth. He has the mind of a flea. [Interjections.]

With regard to education, I once again refer to the South West Africa Survey report. We find that in the whole of South West Africa for a Bantu population of over 600,000 there are only three teachers training institutions with 255 students. There are only six secondary schools with 800 students and one vocational technical school with 53 boys. The teachers that we met have attained Std. VI plus a diploma, for which they worked two or three years. It goes further. Those teachers told us that it takes the average Ovanbo 14 years to attain Std. VI. It is not that he attains Std. VI at the age of 14 years, but it takes him 14 years to attain that standard.

Let me say that independent Bantustans is the most harebrained, impractical scheme ever dreamed up by this Government for the solution of our problems in South Africa. But when that scheme is applied to South West Africa, it becomes utterly ridiculous. Sir, we have at present in South West Africa and in the northern territories a cordon sanitaire on our northern borders. But I want to warn this hon. Minister: If this harebrained scheme is carried out, it will not be very long before this goes to its logical conclusion, and we will find that we will have a cordon most unsanitaire.

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear to me that the hon. member who has just resumed his seat has not only just seen South West Africa for the first time, but also just heard of it for the first time. Because we who know what is going on in those areas to which he has now paid a brief visit of two or three days, will most certainly not pay any attention to such utter nonsense as he concerned himself with here. If that hon. member knew what we had built up for those people through the years, he would most certainly not have taken up the time of the House with this. We in South West Africa are grateful for the Odendaal Report and awaited it with great expectation to see what recommendations it would make for the areas which we have inhabited for the past number of decades. We are very grateful for the comprehensive and interesting report which was issued with the long-term planning which it submitted to the Government for South Africa and its inhabitants. Inter alia, it also dealt with the non-Whites in South West Africa. I want to say at the outset that we are grateful that the Government of South Africa accepted it and that the policy which we have been pursuing for years will now be applied by the Government in that territory as well. We believe that it is the only policy which can be carried out successfully in South Africa. The hon. member quoted from a very dangerous newspaper —we are acquainted with it. If I were in his shoes, I would not quote that newspaper so freely before making sure of my facts. In 1966 the hon. the Leader of the Opposition opened the congress of the Opposition Party in South West Africa, namely the United National South West Party. On that occasion he said, inter alia, that the solution for South West Africa was the federal policy of the United Party in South Africa. This is also the policy of the United National South West Party. In an election manifesto of 1966 they said (translation)—

They mentioned the five points of their non-white policy and I should like to quote the last point—

In other words, the policies of the two parties are more or less in agreement. One can therefore link the two. The policies of these two parties have been put to the test since the 1948 election. The National Party has always come out on top. The verdict of the electorate was such that the National Party has all the representatives here, and it was put to the electorate in no uncertain manner that we would continue to develop the apartheid policy of the National Party in South West Africa as well. We shall also help to lead the Bantu home lands to independent development when the time is ripe for it, as the Odendaal Report recommended. Accordingly we are grateful for the legislation which is now before the House. There are various reasons why one is grateful for it. We are grateful that the non-white issue will be removed from our white politics by this legislation. Just as Coloured politics in South Africa is dragged into white politics all the time, so non-white politics is also dragged in and promises are made to them which only create confusion. Not only do they create confusion in South West Africa, but they also create confusion and erroneous ideas in South Africa and outside South Africa. For this reason we are glad to be able to tell those people what their future will be. From the experience which we have built up over a period of 300 years, we know what will be best for them in the long run. We believe that the policy which we are applying is the only one which will succeed in a multi-racial country such as South Africa. The position is that those people—and the Whites—have been consulted in this connection and know what our policy is. They realize that the policy of the National Party is the only one which can succeed. The non-Whites in South Africa must also obtain their rights. The only way in which they can obtain their rights is in their own areas. They must not be given rights in the Assembly in South West Africa or in the Central Government here, as is incorporated in the federal policy of the Opposition. They realize that the course which has been followed in the rest of Africa, will also be followed in their case. Whether the United Party now says that it will not happen, or that they will not allow it, we Shall not be able to accept it under any circumstances, because we believe that they will never be able to withstand the pressure. We believe that the world will not be satisfied with a few representatives for those people in the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa. South West Africa has a population of approximately 600,000. If one subtracts the Whites, who number approximately 90,000, from this total, one finds that there are approximately 510,000 non-Whites. To give these people only four representatives in the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa, will be to throw the fat in the fire as far as the world is concerned, instead of achieving something with it. Neither will it assist those people in any way. The same will happen as happened here throughout the years in the case of the Coloureds. They will be used as voting cattle and this will cause race relationships to deteriorate instead of improving them. The Nationalists in South West Africa, who form the largest part of the white population there, therefore believe that this is the only way to lead these people, as this legislation prescribes, to eventual independence when they are ready for it.

As far as the Opposition is concerned, I have already mentioned what the attitude of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was at the time of that United Party congress. We also heard what he said here the other day. We also saw what the official policy of these people was there, namely to give representatives to the non-Whites there. We believe this is something which can never work. We also believe that the Whites in South West Africa will never allow it. We have tested them time and again and they will never allow it.

We now come to another point and this concerns the attitude of the non-Whites in South West Africa. They have seen that this Government is well-intentioned as far as they are concerned and that the Government has not adopted the attitude of trading with their interests. They realize that this Government is prepared to help them in the future. This method is proving itself to an increasing extent and gaining an increasing foothold in the world, which is proof that it is the only method which is right. Even in America, the model state, where the Negroes have all the rights that the Whites have, they are also asking for separate development now. The non-White peoples in South Africa are beginning to realize more clearly every day that their future, welfare and prosperity depend on the actions of the National Party. They realize that these things do not depend on these stories which the United Party hawks about day after day, i.e. to keep them where they are and to have them remain mixed, which will eventually lead to racial friction such as exists in the rest of Africa. We believe that they will never be able to withstand the pressure if this should happen one day. They say that they will not allow it; they will give them a certain number of representatives. The United Party leader in South West Africa has already admitted that they would not be able to withstand the pressure. Advocate Niehaus said on 22nd October, 1963 (translation)—

That is the United National South West Party—

He said this as far back as 1963, according to his own newspaper, of which he is the chairman, namely the Suidwes-Afrikaner. A few days later, on 12th November, 1963, he said—

Look at them now.

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the Government is adopting this attitude, because the Whites in South West Africa and in South Africa are not prepared to entrust the future of the non-Whites to the people who have already made these admissions, so that they may make tests of this kind, because they will simply not be able to withstand the pressure. Last Saturday the former organizing secretary of the United National South West Party tried to suggest at a meeting at Stamprietfontein that nothing was being done for the Whites, but that everything was being done for the non-Whites. On 17th May, 1962, when the Carpio Commission was in South West Africa, the Leader of the United National South West Party, Advocate Niehaus, and the same person who came to ask us questions at the meeting at Stamprietfontein the other night, namely Mr. Van der Berg, and another person, went to give evidence before the Carpio Commission on behalf of the United National South West Party. I quote from the official report of the Carpio Commission—

That is what he went and did; he went and sought help from our enemies and said to them: “Help us; exert pressure from outside and we will exert pressure from inside to achieve our aim”. This is what they are doing in order to come into power again; they are making common cause with the enemies of South Africa, because the Carpio Commission was nothing but hostile towards South Africa; you know the whole history, Sir. Mr. Niehaus went as far as making a charge that the police did not understand the people. I quote from paragraph 205—

He went to our enemies and indicted our police force. They supposedly do not understand the people there and that supposedly caused trouble. Those are the people who are suggesting an alternative policy and then they do this sort of thing. He also said to the Carpio Commission that they represent about 50 to 60 per cent of the electorate, because the rest were officials and Railway officials who were transferred there by the Government to vote for the National Party. That is what he said according to the report.

Those are old United Party stories.

We know that there is co-operation between the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the United National South West Party. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition goes to open a congress in South West they are like birds of a feather, and we are therefore entitled to regard them as such.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout made a very interesting remark here yesterday at the beginning of his speech.

Have you lost your place?

No, I have not lost my place, but hon. members opposite are all going to lose their places here. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said yesterday that the Government ought to outwit its enemies. That was the statement which he made here yesterday—a very fine statement. I sat and listened to the hon. member. I know him very well, and I thought that he would go further and eventually come round to the enemy itself, but he left that statement in the air. He only said that the Government ought to outwit its enemies. One asks oneself: Who are in fact the enemies of the country, not the enemies of the Government, but the enemies of the country? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said in the debate here yesterday that the Natives had refused to move from the old location in Windhoek to the new one and that many houses in the new location were standing empty. Why has this happened? There are people in South-West Africa who make common cause with the non-Whites, and especially with the Herero nation; who encourage and urge them not to move to the new location. Mr. Sieberhagen, who was my opponent in 1966, said from the platform that if he had lived in the old location, he would also have refused to move. He made a public statement in this connection. There are lawyers in Windhoek who advise those people free of charge. If you go along to the offices of certain advocates, there are strings of Herero sitting outside their offices to obtain free advice as to how they can thwart the authorities. I should like to know whether the hon. member for Bezuidenhout also regards these people as enemies of South Africa—not enemies of the Government, but enemies of the country. What was the attitude which the white Opposition in South West Africa adopted all along when South Africa fought for South West Africa before the World Court? South Africa was actually fighting with its back to the wall, and what was the attitude adopted by the United National South West Party? What was their reaction when strangers, foreigners, Americans, went to submit evidence on South Africa’s behalf before the World Court? I shall not tire you with a long series of quotations, but J want to point out that when Professor Logan went to give evidence for South Africa, that same Suidwes-Afrikaner, from which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) quoted, wrote in a leading article on 9th July, 1965 (translation)—

Sir, that is the sympathy which we received from the white Opposition Press in South West Africa when a lot of false charges were made against us, charges which were eventually all withdrawn. Not once did they stand by our advocates before the World Court. When our advocates had Advocate Gross cornered, these people were completely silent, but they continually went out of their way to aid our enemies inside and outside South Africa in this way. One can make a string of quotations in this regard. I wonder how one should fight these people, these enemies of South Africa who are with one every day. They are sitting around us; they are with us, and these are the deadly, dangerous methods which they employ. If one presents a plan to the Government to outwit its enemies, one would like to know what plan one could devise to deal with them, because there are many people of this kind in South Africa. If problems were to arise here and you look at the actions of the Opposition in South Africa and in South West Africa over the past years, they actually put you in mind of an elephant with tooth-ache. It becomes so frustrated that it will do anything, but the tooth-ache remains. It knocks down trees and houses and fences, and that is what they will try to do. They will try to do anything to the country and the people if they can only gain some small political advantage from it. Therefore I say that in South Africa and in South West Africa we will never make the mistake of placing non-white affairs or matters affecting the interests of Whites in their hands, for them to make a political football of them as they have done in the past.

The hon. member for Mariental, who has just sat down, made a whole series of attacks on the Opposition as well as on the Opposition in South West Africa, attacks which naturally are unfounded. He made every possible attempt to suggest that this Opposition and our associated party group in South West Africa were lacking in love for our country and patriotism; that we can only treat with the contempt it deserves. While I was listening to the hon. member for Mariental, I thought I was back on the Press gallery in the days of 1938 and that I was again listening to the then National Party attacking General Smuts for having sent 300 South African Police to South West Africa to combat the undermining activities of the enemies of South Africa. In my mind I was carried back to those days, but I do not want to remain there. I do not want to conduct this debate on that level, because I think we all realize that we are dealing here with an extremely serious matter which can affect the whole of Southern Africa if it is not handled correctly. I want to say at once that I accept, as all of us on this side of the House do, that to a large extent this Bill constitutes an attempt on the part of the Government to create an image of its administration in South West Africa which would be to the benefit of Southern Africa as a whole and which would present us in the right perspective to the eyes of the world. Because this is so, because we do not doubt that this is the Government’s sincere endeavour, we have been trying all along to conduct this debate on a higher level than the unfortunate level to which it was lowered by the hon. member who has just sat down as well as by the hon. member for Primrose. [Interjections.]

We cannot support this Bill, even though we accept that is the Government’s bona fide attempt to create a better image of South Africa. We cannot accept it, because we honestly see it as an act of despair, as something which has not been fully considered, as an attempt to create an image by means of shadows, an image which cannot deceive anyone if he really goes into matters. The fact that we are dealing here with shadows became very apparent from several speeches. I do not want to refer again to what was said by the hon. member for Mariental. We forgive him for that because he is still young, but I want to refer to a speech by someone of whom one expected more, my hon. good friend the member for Middelland, who made certain surprising statements, and the hon. member for Primrose. I am sorry that he is not present, because I want to refer to him once again.

Here I am.

The hon. member is so ashamed about the speech he made yesterday that he does not even want to sit in the seat from which he delivered that speech. But those were very enlightening speeches. I assume that their attitude was also borne from concern about the international pressure brought to bear on South Africa, pressure which arises from the fact that all of us have to accept—and the Government also accepts this—that South West Africa at present does enjoy an international status. [Interjection.] Now the hon. the Minister says exactly the same thing as was said by the hon. member for Middelland yesterday, namely that the Government does not accept that South West Africa has an international status.

Not an international status in the sense you mean.

They do not concede that it has an international status, but only that it has an international character. And how does the hon. member for Middelland know what sense I mean? In this case I have to be led by the most authoritative Minister in the Cabinet on this matter. I have to be led in this matter by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who presents South Africa’s case at the U.N.

No one can lead you.

No one can mislead me, but that hon. member has been trying for years. The present Minister of Foreign Affairs, in presenting South Africa’s case at the U.N., states explicitly each time that the South African Government accepts the fact that South West Africa has an international status, and he has gone as far as to give the U.N. an assurance that measures such as the one we are discussing at the moment would be introduced into our Parliament without detracting from the international status of South West Africa. I cannot understand how informed members such as the hon. member for Middelland and now even the hon. the Minister can deny that. Here I have an official report of the speech delivered by the Minister of Foreign Affairs on 12th October, 1966, only the other day, to the 21st General Assembly of the United Nations. For the sake of clarity I just want to quote from pages 14, 15 and 16, because we cannot come to terms or conduct a fruitful debate if we differ about facts in regard to which there ought to be no disagreement. About ascertainable facts there ought to be no disagreement, and here we now have a statement of those facts. At the U.N. the hon. the Minister gave an historical review and said—

The Minister of Foreign Affairs calls it “the separate international status”. Nothing can be clearer. On page 15 of the speech he said—

Now it is even stronger than a status. Now it is a separate international identity, an international existence which is assigned to South West Africa. On the next page they refer to the possibility of the legislation we are discussing at the moment. There we see what the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs very clearly told the outside world at the U.N., although hon. members opposite want to tell this country a different story. He referred to this measure now before us and said—

Nothing can be clearer.

This is something which differs completely from the point made by the hon. member for Houghton.

I am not at all concerned with the hon. member for Houghton. I am concerned with the international status of South West Africa, and that is a completely different matter than the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member for Middelland reacted to a speech of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, not to a speech of the hon. member for Houghton, who stated that particular case. The hon. the Minister reacted to something said by me, not by the hon. member for Houghton. But I am pleased that we can now agree that we concede and that the Government accepts that South West Africa does in fact have an international status and that that complicates matters as regards our actions as South Africans in our endeavours to find a solution to the international problem of South West Africa as well as to the internal race problems of South West Africa. This is the point I want to make. I think the hon. member for Middelland would concede that. This makes the problem extremely difficult, and we on this side have real sympathy with the problems of the Government. The Government must find it especially difficult to solve these problems, because they have never been in favour of South West Africa becoming part of South Africa in any sense of the word. In 1914 they even went as far as to make an armed protest against the occupation of South West Africa by the troops of General Botha.

Order! Does that bear any relation to this measure?

The Bill deals with the future development of South West Africa, Mr. Speaker.

Yes. the “future” development of South West Africa.

Very well, Sir, I shall leave it at that. I just want to say that we have real sympathy with the Government’s problems. The difficulty we have is this. When this Government and the governing party consider South Africa’s international problems which arise from the country’s race problems, they see only one possible solution to those problems. The solution they see is the implementation, under all possible circumstances, in spite of all improbabilities and impossibilities, of the policy of separate development, as stated and developed by Dr. Verwoerd. This is not the policy of apartheid on which the Government was elected in 1948. This is not the policy of apartheid on which the Government won the elections in 1953 and 1958. This is the Bantustan concept announced by Dr. Verwoerd after he had become Prime Minister of South Africa. They see the implementation of this policy of the development of separate states, independent, sovereign, political entities for the various ethnic groups in South Africa, as the answer to world pressure brought to bear on South Africa. They say the only answer to that is that South Africa, and now South West Africa as well, has to be fragmented in order to create homelands for the ethnic groups. They also say the homelands should be allowed, even assisted, to develop to sovereign independence. As we on this side of the House have often said, if one regards this policy of the National Party as a theory only, it is morally unassailable, but if one tries to implement it in practice, one sees its impossibilities and its ridiculous points and it becomes improbable. But our main objection to this policy, and consequently also our objection to this Bill, is what Government members themselves admit in their moments of clear insight, namely that this policy is one which is foreign to the thinking of South Africans. Sir, this is a policy which they themselves do not want; this is a policy which they accept simply in an attempt to satisfy the outside world. This is not homemade bread for South Africa. [Interjections.] What I am saying now, was very clearly put by the greatest authority on this policy who ever lived. Indeed, he was the creator of this policy, the father of this policy, namely Dr. Verwoerd. I think it is necessary for us to remember these things if we want to think clearly about these matters. On 10th April, 1961, in this House of Assembly Dr. Verwoerd defended this policy of separate development in the sense of Bantustans which would develop to eventual independence. He defended it and at the same time also stated it very clearly. After he had attacked and sharply criticized the federal concept of the United Party, he said the following, as recorded in Hansard, volume 107, column 4191—

Now comes the point I want to make my friends realize—

It is stated very clearly that that was not what they wanted, that was not what they desired.

What is your authority for that statement?

My authority is Dr. Verwoerd. As a result of “the pressure being exercised on South Africa” this has to be done. It is an attempt to satisfy the outside world, it is not homemade bread, it is not an Afrikaner or a South African policy, it is something which is being enforced on South Africa for fear of the outside world.

Do you agree with that?

No, I definitely do not agree, and I shall tell you why. [Interjections.]

You now want to use that argument in your favour. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to sit down if someone wants to put a question to me, but I think hon. members should concede in all fairness that it is impossible for me to reply to seven, eight questions at the same time, particularly by the hon. member for Primrose. If he has a question which he wants to put, I shall sit down and then he can do so, but I really think he ought to behave himself a little better now. Now problems are arising in South West Africa and still our friends opposite cannot get away from this rash and extremely dangerous concept of separate independent states as a solution. Come hell or high water, this concept must be enforced on South West Africa now, irrespective of the circumstances. In the publication South West African Survey it is also mentioned that circumstances differ in South West Africa and they try to say that the policy of separate development will be completely different in that territory; only the name is the same. But that is not substantiated by this measure now before the House. What is now being enforced on South West Africa still is the concept of separate states which will become sovereign. The hon. member for Primrose strongly emphasized his statement, and by doing so he tried to bring discredit on this side, that no provision was made in this Bill for the eventual independence of these groups in these homelands. That is so. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition emphasized this phenomenon as he wanted there to be no misunderstanding in this regard. In this measure no provision is made for the eventual sovereign independence of these areas. It is very clear that before the Government will be able to grant sovereign independence to any of these areas, they will have to come back to Parliament. Has the hon. member for Primrose given proper attention to the aims and objects of this Bill?

Of course.

Has he given attention to what this Bill must be a means to achieve?

Of course.

Will he admit that it will have to be a means to the eventual independence of those areas?

But we have never denied that.

Now he is admitting it. Yet he attacked my hon. Leader and tried to throw suspicion on him when my Leader said that this measure did not provide in so many words that the countries could become sovereign independent countries in terms of the powers given to the State President in this legislation. But he admits that the ultimate aim is in fact independence and that this Bill is a means to that end. He has no alternative because if he denies that, he denies all the nice, grand words printed for overseas consumption in South West African Survey. Then he also denies the report of the Odendaal Commission and he repudiates the White Papers we have received in this Parliament as well as the preamble of this Bill. I think it is necessary for us to read the preamble of the Bill again. A preamble in a Bill is what the Government employs to give an explanation of what it is seeking to do as well as to mention the policy of which the Bill is to form part and towards the implementation of which the Bill is a means. This is the preamble—

Then the Bill itself follows. I simply cannot understand why members opposite suggest that the object of this Bill is not to take these states to independence.

Not immediately independence.

Of course not. I assume that it will not happen immediately, but it still remains the object and the aim of this Bill. As hon. members opposite always tell us in their philosophical moments, and in this respect they agree with authoritative British colonial administrators of the period after the Second World War: When the time comes when these nations, after they have developed in this way, say that they want to become independent, it will be too late for the Government or the Republic of South Africa to say that the time is not yet ripe. They will fix the time-table.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. member. If he agrees with all the things he has just said, why was it necessary for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and certain other members to have drawn attention to all these points, for example the dangers, etc., of this measure? That is the very point we have been making throughout this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member on his brilliant question. The hon. member has just agreed with me that this Bill is a means to an end. It is a means to an aspiration and the aspiration is independence. But when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition points out the consequences of that independence he is attacked, as the hon. member has just tried to do once again. How can one conduct a debate with such an hon. member? How can one conduct a constructive debate with such an hon. member who one moment admits that this Bill is intended to lead those people to independence and the next moment criticizes the Leader of the Opposition for pointing out the dangers of that independence? Surely we cannot conduct matters in that way in the Parliament of South Africa. The hon. members must decide where they stand. See how the hon. the Deputy Minister runs away from the question of the independence of the Bantustans. He becomes so angry that he even tries to say unparliamentary things. Why does one have to be afraid of one’s own policy? Why does one have to run away from one’s own policy if one has confidence in that policy? This is precisely what is happening in respect of the argument of the hon. member for Primrose which he has just repeated. Anyone who heeds the preamble of the Bill cannot deny that the Bill is in fact a means to independence. That point has now been established and we can have no further arguments about it, because even the hon. member for Primrose, who based his entire speech on an evasion of that fact, now concedes that point.

No, I am not doing so at all. I still say the Leader of the Opposition made an irresponsible speech.

One of the consequences of this unfortunate phenomenon, namely that we are dealing with a policy which is not homemade bread but a policy which has been created for the sake of the outside world, is that when anyone makes a critical analysis of this policy with a view to ascertaining its consequences and its meaning for South Africa and South Africans—seeing that the policy is intended for overseas consumption—he is accused of being unpatriotic and of attacking South Africa. This is virtually unavoidable when a government in its despair and clumsiness and helplessness creates a policy, not with a view to serving the interests of South Africa, but with a view to pacifying the outside world; then it lands itself in the position that any criticism of that policy must be regarded as an attack on South Africa in the face of the outside world. The consequences of such an attitude are serious. Then one finds a phenomenon such as the hon. the Minister of Planning and his kindred spirit, the hon. member for Primrose, beginning to think that Oppositions should not exist.

I stated a fact and that is that we do not have an Opposition.

Order! Both hon. members are out of order.

What does one do with an Opposition who does not want to exist?

The hon. the Deputy Minister is also out of order.

I think it is necessary that we should realize very clearly in these circumstances that the attitude of this Opposition is totally different to that of the Government. We shall not be as shortsighted as to say that, in formulating a policy, one should not have regard to the position of one’s country in the world. There is not the slightest doubt that circumstances in the outside world are a factor which one must take into account in formulating a policy.

Especially if one stands for white domination.

That may be so.

But you are not sure.

I am trying to work out what the hon. member was trying to achieve by making that interjection.

Order! I think the hon. member for Yeoville should get on with his speech now.

Circumstances in the outside world are one of the factors one has to take into account, but it cannot be the only or the decisive factor. The consideration cannot be what was stated by the late Dr. Verwoerd when he announced this policy of separate states, namely that the matter which made one decide, although one realized that it was not desirable, was circumstances in the outside world. One cannot adopt that attitude. There are other factors too which one has to take into account. There are other factors which this Opposition does take into account. The most important of these is: What will be in the real interests of South Africa, what will be in the real interests of South West Africa as well? We have a duty to South Africa and to South West Africa always to do those things—even if we have to run risks as far as the outside world is concerned—which are right and most beneficial to the inhabitants of South West Africa and of South Africa. This is our answer to those fine-sounding words such as the right of self-determination, etc., which we have heard in this debate. It is a very fine concept and one for which we have to thank President Wilson of the U.S.A. for formulating in the work he did in connection with the peace settlement in Versailles. It is a very important concept and for me it is very interesting that Government members now are enthusiastic disciples of the late President Wilson. But while we concede that it is a very important right and perhaps a natural right of groups of people to work out their own destinies, there are other factors which have to be considered as well. The most important of these is that the right of the smaller unit can be seen and exercised only in the light of and with due regard being had to the rights of the larger unit. History abounds with precedents of minority groups claiming the right of self-determination which they were refused, even by force of arms, as that assumption of a right of self-determination by a minority group was contrary to the interests of the majority group of which that minority group formed an element.

The first example of this which springs to mind—because this right of self-determination was the creation of an American President, President Wilson—is the fate of the southern states of America 108 years ago. The southern states of America endeavoured, under certain circumstances which were very important to them irrespective of the merits of the matter, to exercise their right of self-determination. They wanted to break away from the U.S.A. and form their own confederation of American states. The result was what probably was the most bloody civil war in the history of mankind. It was a civil war which lasted for four years, and in the end the southern states of America were denied their right of self-determination. To-day they still form part of the U.S.A. because the exercising of that right of self-determination would have been contrary to the interest of the whole of the U.S.A. and it could not be granted. Mr. Speaker, there are other examples. Here in our country the Eastern Cape wanted to secede a century ago because of dissatisfaction in regard to race problems. That they were refused by the then authorities. I do not want to evade the question of the hon. member for Graaff Reinet. I think he was the one who asked me whether they were of the same race. Apparently his argument now is that if they are of different races, they should have the right of self-determination even if their secession would be contrary to the interests of the larger whole. Is that his argument?

No.

Then I do not know what his argument is, but apparently the hon. member for Graaff Reinet is of the opinion that other considerations apply when one is dealing with different races than when one is dealing with a homogeneous nation.

But let me remind him of the history of that part of the country which he represents. Does he know that just over 100 years ago an attempt was made by the British liberals, particularly by Lord Glenelg, to make the Transkei, known as Kaffraria at that time, a separate state and to grant it the right of self-determination, in order to implement in the Cape Province what to-day is the apartheid policy of the present Nationalist Party Government. It was only after seven Kaffir wars, as they were called at that time, and after the appointment of an enlightened governor, Sir George Grey, who put an end to this Bantustan policy of the British liberalists, and who incorporated Kaffraria into the Cape Province, contrary to the right of self-determination, that we obtained peace in the Cape Province. I am very grateful to the hon. member for Graaff Reinet for his intelligent and helpful interjection. Now I have to put this pertinent question to the Government: Suppose there are further developments in the Free State such as that we are witnessing in the Municipality of Bloemfontein and that with the Administrator of the Free State, and the Free State wants to claim its right of self-determination to-morrow …

Order! That is not relevant.

Mr. Speaker, the right of self-determination is the subject of this Bill.

But not that of the Free State.

I am sorry. If Natal decides that it wants to secede from the Republic, will the Government allow that? Will the Government then have such sacred feelings about the right of self-determination of a community as it does have now? Of course not.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member’s time for interjections has expired.

This secession, this fragmentation of South Africa, is not in the interests of the whole. One wonders then what other reasons, apart from international considerations, there can be for the Government to be so attached to this concept. Can it be that they really feel that population groups have an inherent right to work out their own destinies …

Of course!

… to exercise and experience independence when they want to do so? Someone said “of course”. That hon. member did not think before using that word. Does such a natural inherent right exist for the Cape Coloureds and for the Indians? Will that hon. member take the lead to agitate for the creation of homelands for the Indians and the Coloureds so that they too may exercise the right of self-determination? Why does the hon member not say “of course” now?

We are speaking of South West Africa now.

No, Sir, we are speaking of the principle of the right of self-determination now. [Interjection.] The definition is becoming more and more interesting. Now it is being limited to the Bantu and to South West Africa. But when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked whether it was also intended for the Whites, the reply was that it was not only for the Bantu; it was for everyone. Mr. Speaker, have you ever before in your career seen greater confusion in the ranks of the Governing party than now?

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member? Does he believe in a right of self-determination within a homogeneous group or a right of self-determination amongst heterogeneous groups?

At a later stage I shall reply in more detail. [Interjections.] I shall reply immediately in general terms. The test is not whether it is homogeneous or heterogeneous; the test is what serves the interests of the whole to the greatest extent. That is my reply. South Africa as a whole is a unitary state. The test is: will any secession by minorities be in the interests of South Africa? That is the test. I think we have clearly indicated in this debate that these attempts are being made to create artificial states when no wish for apartheid exists. The hon. member for Primrose knows that one of the tests of nationhood is the will to be a separate nation. Where is there any will to be a separate nation amongst the peoples of South West Africa, except perhaps amongst the Hereros? What nation in South West Africa has expressed a desire to this Government that it should create a separate state and grant them independence? I shall tell you. There was only one fair test, and that was in 1946, when General Smuts held the nearest thing to a referendum amongst the peoples of South West Africa and all of them expressed the desire to remain with South West Africa and the Republic of South Africa. Since these hon. members have come into power, they have deliberately undermined the loyalty of those nations to South Africa by means of propaganda and they have put the idea of apartheid into their heads. Their intelligent desire was to seek their good along with South Africa and South West Africa By means of propaganda they artificially induced them to adopt another attitude contrary to the interests of South Africa. And this Minister is to blame more than anyone else.

There cannot be an inherent right in the Government’s point of view irrespective of the rash interjection of the hon. member for Heilbron. If there were an inherent right, the Government would be at pains to grant also the Indians and the Coloureds the right of self-determination. Can this therefore mean that this is escapism? This is a suspicion one must have. Is it an attempt to evade responsibilities by telling small nations who cannot possibly exist separately or cannot have any hope of doing so, “Whether or not you can, you must, because we want to be rid of you”. Is that the motive? Personally I do not think so, but this is the only possible motive of which one can think. Or is the motive that suggested by the hon. member for Middelland, namely that they allegedly want to determine the boundaries between nation and nation? And when boundaries have been established between population groups and ethnic groups, then there will be peace. That was his attitude, not so? Is that the motive? But boundaries between nation and nation can only preserve the peace if those boundaries are accepted and observed by the nations. To what extent have these particular nations in South West Africa been consulted, especially the large majorities who do not live in homelands, as to whether they want to accept the boundaries which the Government is determining by means of this Bill? As soon as one nation does not want to observe and respect the boundaries which another nation regards as existing between the two of them, there is trouble. The hon. member for Middelland knows about this; he mentioned it in his speech. In 1829-’30 the Hereros came from the north and trespassed on the territorial area of the Namas. They trespassed over the boundaries which existed. The hon. member knows as well as I do that all primitive tribes in the world create their own boundaries for themselves. If another tribe does not want to observe and respect those boundaries, there are clashes. What happened was that the Hereros came from the north and trespassed on the territory which the Namas regarded as their own. The result was a bitter war. The result was the decimation of both the Namas and the Hereros. Do we want that state of affairs again? I think the Government should be warned. If they believe that the fragmentation of South Africa or South West Africa is going to bring peace, they are living under the greatest delusion under which a government can labour. They are living under a delusion which has been proved to be a delusion by the experience of the whole of Africa. I can make one quotation after another.

What about Nigeria?

Let us take Nigeria. If ever there were a country which at the time of its independence brought hope to all interested parties throughout the world that it would succeed as a separate independent state, that country was Nigeria.

And look at her now.

Yes, look at her now, because the Government’s policy has been applied to Nigeria. Nigeria was given her freedom before she was ripe for freedom. Margery Perham, an authority in this field, said in a document that what had happened in Africa was that white authority rested like a steel grid on the various tribes and preserved the peace. She writes—

This is the state of affairs which the Government wants to create. The hon. member asks me what has happened in Nigeria. We know what has happened there, and that is the state of affairs which now has to be created also in South West Africa and South Africa. What we are concerned with in South West Africa are not nations, but tribes. How do tribes react to freedom? Let us once again take Nigeria. The leader of the Ibos, one of the most advanced tribes in Africa, Azikiwe, made the following statement when he founded his party—

The immediate result was that the leader of the rival tribe, the Yorubas, who dominated the Ibos, also made a statement. The leader of the Yorubas, Obafemi Awolowo, stated—

This is the kind of situation which will be created in South West Africa and for South Africa by this Government. Where will it end? The danger of these small independent nations, as they are called, being arrogant and not preserving the peace, is heightened by the most important fact we must know in considering race relations in South Africa or in the world, and that is that the struggle in South Africa or in the world between one race and another is not primarily a struggle between race and race. It is primarily a struggle between those who have and those who do not have; between those who possess and those who do not possess; between the rich and the poor; between those who are satisfied and those who desire. To-day one-fifth of the world’s population possesses six-sevenths of the world’s riches, and that one-fifth of the world’s population is the white nations, and to-day they are surrounded by envy, and this clouds relations throughout the world. Here in South Africa we have the same micocosmic situation. Here in South Africa approximately one-fifth of the population possesses the vast majority of our riches, six-sevenths of our wealth. This one-fifth is the Whites and the non-Whites desire to become our equals as soon as possible. Unless we face up to this fact, namely that our race relations are clouded by the distribution of wealth in our country, we shall have ill-considered Bills like this one. The disaster facing South Africa as a result of the policy of the Government, is that we want the political development of these nations, as they are called, to be far in advance of their economic development. We want to give them political rights, political powers; we want to give them the ability to enter into alliances with people who want to exploit their economic situation, against South Africa, because they are, from the nature of the case, dissatisfied with their poverty, and because they are envious of the wealth of the Whites; and this Government is shortsighted and rash enough to place this powerful political weapon of independence in the hands of people who do not have, who do not possess, who desire, who are envious. If the Government wanted to act wisely, and wanted to act like a responsible Government, it would pay more attention to the economic upliftment of these people and at first keep their political development in abeyance. I should like to remind the Government and particularly the hon. the Minister of the famous words of Lord Hailey in his Africa Survey, probably one of the most efficient administrators of colonial Africa who ever lived, when he wrote in his book—

Sir, there are other more urgent and greater problems facing the Native nations of South West Africa and of South Africa; and the Government is trying to push them away with political institutions which are mere shadows. What can we expect if this policy is proceeded with? We would have to expect struggles and confusion to arise the more independent these unripe nations become—unripe particularly in the economic sphere. We would have to expect that these dissatisfied sovereign independent small states would seek interference from outside. We would have to expect that we would be isolated and separated from our allies to the north, and in all the arguments advanced by the other side of this House, there has been no reply to the argument of my Leader and of the hon. member for South Coast that this policy, especially as regards Ovamboland, is going to isolate us from the Portuguese in Angola and will cut us off from potential oil supplies for South Africa and will separate us from our allies against possible terrorism which is also aimed against the heart of South Africa.

There has been no reply to these arguments. If ever before the Government had failed to make out a case in defence of an ill-considered, rash measure, then that is the case with this Bill, which according to the Government is intended to lead the Native nations of South West Africa to independence. I must repeat what was said by so many members on this side of the House: We can only hope that the Government will reconsider this matter before finally committing us to an irrevocable line of action in these matters, and will withdraw this Bill or else, if it has to pass this Bill, will never implement it.

I shall now furnish a specific reply to a few of the points raised by the last speaker on the opposite side; I shall reply to the others when I reply one by one to speakers on the other side, because even the last speaker on the Opposition side could not succeed in raising any brand new arguments. More than half his arguments were raised by previous speakers on that side, who did so better than he could, and I shall in fact reply with reference to them; but I should now like to reply to a few points raised by the hon. member.

In the first place I just want to say that hon. members took note of the fact that, according to the rules, the hon. member for Yeoville, had the right to speak for an unlimited period of time. As I said by way of interjection, he was at a loss for a point on several occasions.

I did not have an unlimited period of time.

The hon. member had an hour, which he did not use. The hon. member, contrary to what we have come to expect of him, was at a loss for points to-day, so that he in fact asked this side for interjections so that he could at least get hold of a few points. In his speech the hon. member for Yeoville ranged inordinately far afield. He came forward with the shattering truth that the policy of the United Party and our policy differed radically from each other. Sir, every school boy knows that, but the hon. member presented it to us here as one of the super points in his speech. He dragged in President Wilson; he dragged in Sir George Grey and the Kaffir wars. I found it extremely strange that he did not drag in Harold Wilson. The hon. member got up to try and bake all the heaps of crumbs which fell from the Opposition’s table into a small loaf, and that is why he even used the word “bread” as an image in his speech. He was unable to achieve anything by doing so. The few points he made I can mention now—there were three or four —and the other points he made were also mentioned by previous speakers on that side.

Firstly, I just want to say a few words about the expression “the international status of South West Africa” which he used, and the way in which similar words were, according to him, used by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I repeat that I would prefer to use the term “international character” in respect of South West Africa, because the word “status” can so easily be misinterpreted, as the hon. member for Yeoville actually tried to do to no avail this afternoon. I repeat— and this is also the standpoint of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, it is the standpoint of the Government, and f would be grateful if I could be given the assurance that it is also the standpoint of the Opposition—that in the constitutional sense of the term South West Africa has no international status. It has none. The so-called status of South West Africa, which I would prefer to call “character”, is not the same as that of a country such as South Africa itself. South Africa has an international status, yes, because it enjoys international recognition as a separate international personality in the world tribune, but it is a separate international country. This South West Africa does not have, and the hon. member knows it. South West Africa has no international status in the sense that France has, in the sense that Belgium has, in the sense that Holland has, or in the sense that even countries which are independent and which are not represented at U.N. have. South West Africa does not have it in that sense, and that is why I say that we cannot speak of the international status of South West Africa, without running the risk of being misunderstood or being misrepresented, which is precisely what happened here this afternoon. South West Africa does not even have an international status in this sense that we have to account for South West Africa to others, because we deny that responsibility.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs used the term “international status” time and again.

No, that is not so; I deny it. I deny that the Minister of Foreign Affairs used the expression “international status” in that sense of the word, as that hon. member is suggesting. I also deny that South West Africa has international status in the sense that it can be controlled on an international level by some body or other, which status South West Africa did in fact previously have, when, in terms of the League of Nations Mandate we were able to control it on behalf of a body, upon the instructions of that body. That is why I maintain that it is far better to speak of an international character, in this sense that it is in fact being discussed on an international level, both justly and unjustly. I shall leave that expression at that.

The hon. member also referred to the preamble. In point of fact the hon. member is the only member who referred at any length to the preamble, although the other members on the opposite side also referred to it in passing. The hon. member should now take a proper look at the preamble, for the umpteenth time. Mr. Speaker, you must recall how the hon. member, in a farcical way, literally wanted to kick up dust here by referring to the Free State as a parallel in regard to the right of self-determination. Let us realize that this is a foolish example. What does the preamble state in regard to the right of self-determination? It refers explicitly to “nations”, not to communities, or districts, or provinces in the sense of these being communities of people. It is stated here explicitly—

[Inaudible.]

Does the hon. member now want to intimate that the Free State, simply because no more opposition members are being returned to Parliament from thence, has now become a separate nation? The preamble refers explicitly to “nations”. Sir, must we now be treated to such nonsense here, and that, I ask you, by a man who uses more than half an hour for it? The hon. member must realize fully that this preamble—and that is why it is in the Bill—is there to indicate the direction which the course of developments can take in respect of that self-government of the Bantu territories in South West Africa. There are only two directions in which these things can go—only two; there are no others.

Who says so?

Anybody who uses his sound common-sense can reason it out for you. There are only two directions. I know the Opposition wants to pretend that there is a third intermediary direction, a conglomeration of ideas, but there are only two directions, i.e. the direction of political integration, and opposed to that the direction of political separation or separate development. [Interjections.] The hon. member is now playing with words. In respect of the political development of countries which can become states, there are only two directions when one has such a mixed composition, consisting of different nations. The whole lot must either merge into one entity, with an integrationary context, or they must develop in separate context. We included this preamble very explicitly in order to make it clear to all who were interested, and last but not least the nations in South West Africa who are directly involved, that the direction of this Bill is the direction of separate development, the direction which leads to self-governing nations, and to independence.

And to confusion and chaos.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the hon. member should have been allowed more time to speak. He has not said all he wants to say. Give me a chance now.

I gave the hon. member ample opportunity. Let us have a little courtesy.

Since the Minister is talking about two directions, is he aware of the evidence given by South Africa, by our own experts, in the world court in The Hague in regard to three directions?

There may be more than three directions, but there are only two directions which are the natural and the only practicable directions, and they are the direction of the integration of the population, or the separation of that population along the road of separate development.

Now let me continue. The preamble, as I said, indicates the direction. It is the direction which leads to self-governing nations and independence, as is stated there. In my speech I stated very emphatically, as has been confirmed by several other speakers and inter alia by the hon. member for Yeoville, that this Bill does not make provision for the last phase of full independence. Whether we will arrive at that last phase, I cannot guarantee to-day, nor can anybody else. The same applies to the Bantu nations in South West and in South Africa. I have stated repeatedly that there is no certainty as to whether or not they can enter the last phase, because it depends upon their human and national abilities as nations; we are not arguing in terms of the reasoning of other countries which granted independence to people in Africa without their being mature enough to accept it. That is why I say it is a direction. We will all have to see first whether they are going to achieve success in that direction. We must wait and see.

Who will be the Judge?

This Parliament will be the Judge. That is why we said it reverts to this Parliament, and the hon. member for Yeoville himself said so to-day. If that backbencher does not know this, he is only displaying his ignorance.

What did the Prime Minister say?

The hon. member for Yeoville became quite vehement here about the unacceptability of the establishment of small states. He said small states are dangerous things; they can be swallowed up and overshadowed, or overwhelmed by others. I found something interesting in this regard. It is the latest list of recognized countries which are members of the United Nations. If the hon. members would care to glance at it, he would see how many small countries have been established during the past few years, countries which are smaller, numerically speaking, than Ovamboland, and smaller than many of our other Bantu areas in South Africa.

But not 10,000.

Wait a minute. The hon. member is wrong. The most recent country to gain its independence, although it is not yet a member of the United Nations, came into existence in January this year, with a population of 5,600. It is just enough to fill a large City Hall, as one of the hon. members opposite said. But let the hon. member not try to distract me from my course now. I want to follow my own course; he has no course. I can mention to him a country such as Barbados with 246,000 people, which has been recognized by the United Nations as a member since 1966. Let me mention Lesotho and Botswana; and I will soon be able to mention Swaziland as well, which numerically speaking are smaller than most of our Bantu areas in South Africa. I want to mention the Maledive Islands, with 96,000 inhabitants, which are smaller than most of our own Bantu areas, and smaller than some of those in South West Africa, but which are independent and a member of the United Nations. Mauritius, which has a sizable population of 680,000, recently became independent.

But it is an island.

Oh, if an island is small, it can become a member. If an island is a small country it can become independent and it can become a member of the United Nations! What a pearl of wisdom that is! That is an example of the wisdom of the hon. member for Pinelands. I wonder whether the hon. member would admit that Africa is also, after all, a large island, and that all these other countries are parts of that island? I am asking him to think along these lines. It is not necessary to furnish further examples. Hon. members can look them up themselves.

The hon. member said he denied that the native races of South West Africa had stated that they wanted a system of independent government.

I said independence.

But what is involved now is not independence. It is not included in this legislation.

It is in fact included in the preamble.

No, the preamble indicates a direction, and I have already dealt with that. The Bantu nations of South West Africa have been consulted, but not all of them have as yet expressed their agreement to it. The Ovambos have said this on numberless occasions and asked for it. In my speech I quoted a letter from them and I can repeat it if the hon. member wants to hear it. The Damara did precisely the same thing. In June of last year I had a private interview with the paramount chief of the Damaras in his own office. He told me this on that occasion, and also confirmed it by letter, and there were newspaper reports about it. The people of the Okavango did the same, and a portion of the Herero tribe, although they are the minority are also prepared to accept it.

I asked whether they had asked for independence. You are not answering my question.

Many nations stated emphatically that they did not want independence now; they only wanted self-government but not self-government in the direction of integration. They wanted self-government in the direction of independence, but they said that they did not want independence now, and we are not introducing any legislation for that purpose now. Why is the hon. member discussing something which is not relevant now, and something which they do not even desire now?

But that is the direction.

Yes, that is the direction, and hon. members will perhaps have an opportunity of speaking here when the goal of that direction has been reached. But this is not the time for that now. [Interjections.] Since the Leader of the Opposition is becoming so excited now, I want to get round to dealing with him now.

I am disappointed in the Minister.

And I am grateful for that. I am extremely grateful because the Leader of the Opposition is disappointed in me. It would cause me, and not only my children, but also my friends and my Party the greatest embarrassment if he were pleased with me. But I, on the other hand, am extremely pleased with him as Leader of the Opposition, because a better Leader of the Opposition, and consequently a worse leader of his Party, we cannot have. But I do want to say this much to his credit, i.e. that he, unlike his stable companion on his left, did try to discuss the Bill in restrained terms. I want to deal with quite a few of his points, and if hon. members will give me a chance to do so now, I shall get through what I want to say quickly, but if they do not give me a chance to do so it will take a long time, because I have quite a good deal to say.

The hon. member pointed out that, to his present way of thinking, this Bill is “disastrous” for South West Africa and for South Africa, because it may lead to independence. On this point the hon. member told us nothing new. All we have here is the fundamental difference which the hon. member for Yeoville also emphasized unnecessarily to-day; it is the fundamental difference between the Opposition and the Government. This is what the Opposition believes in. Lump all the nations together into one governmental context. We on the other hand believe that they should be separate and that they should have their own separate distinctive context. All the hon. Leader of the Opposition did was to present us with the old story again. In addition he asked what the right to self-determination meant, what its derivation was, and what proportions a nation or a group should assume in order to lay claim to self-determination. The hon. member also had a book from which he quoted at length. I want to mention the name of an authority to him which he can study. It is the evidence submitted in the World Court case by Professor van der Haag on this very point, and the gist of that evidence from a person who is an international authority and unconnected with South Africa was that if one has a group which has centripetal force, and feels an affinity with one another, then it has the potential for becoming a nation.

Even if there are only 10 or 12 of them?

The Leader of the Opposition is now suggesting that the numbers of nations remains static. The hon. member for Primrose pointed out the very fact that the numerical strength of nations did not remain static. Years ago the numerical strength of the Hereros was far greater than it is today—years ago, before all the massacres and wars. There are other nations, including those I mentioned just now, which became independent nations and which did not at the outset have the same numerical strength they have today, although that numerical strength amounted to only a few hundred thousand. They were much smaller. They began with limited numbers, and they increased. The number is not the decisive factor; it is the distinctiveness of that group which is unassimilable, incapable of integration and union with other groups. It is the only criterion for determining whether that group has the potential for becoming a nation, yes or no. If it has that possibility it has the right to develop in terms of self-determination, and that is what is being laid down in this legislation. The right to self-determination is an inborn instinct in the ethnic group, in the community.

They also had something to say about big and small countries. I have already mentioned a few of them in passing. There are many of them. I mentioned the Maledive Islands, which recently gained its independence and became a member of the United Nations and which at present only has 96,000 inhabitants. But did they always have 96,000 inhabitants? Did they begin with 96,000 inhabitants? And will they always remain at 96,000? I am certain that 20 years ago their numbers were much less. I am not even going to take the trouble to look it up. Any rational person can reason it out.

The Hereros were originally greater in number.

Yes, they were, and their numbers can increase again. [Interjection.] There are many countries—and I have a long list of them here—which I can mention, and the relative size of the country is not the decisive factor in determining whether it should develop on its own along its own lines and independently as an entity. The decisive factor is the will to stand alone, the natural impulse to develop on its own along its own lines, yes or not, or the desire to be assimilated by others. That is the criterion, and the decisive factor. Time and again the Bantu nations of South West Africa have stated explicitly that they did not want to be assimilated into other nations, they did not want to be governed by others and that they did not want to govern others. Surely that is very clear. They said this to us over and over again, and I read what they had said out to you here. Therefore I do not know why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is still bothering about the criterion of what the right of a nation is to realize its own self-determination. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said that we were going to lose our friends as a result of this Bill. The question which arises is what one must consequently do to keep one’s friends or to win more friends. It is very clear from what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition intimated, and what the other speakers on the opposite side intimated more explicitly because they did not guard their tongues as carefully as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did, i.e. that in order to keep one’s friends, or to win friends, one must dance to the tune of one’s friend. That is what is implied in the question of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and in his warning that we will lose our friends. It is not for outsiders to determine what we should do. We have a duty which we must fulfill in respect of these Bantu areas, and in respect of South West African affairs in general. We cannot ask a lot of outsiders what we must do. That is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would do. I want to remind you of what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in 1961 when South Africa became a Republic outside the Commonwealth. He said that if he were to come into power he would make it his aim—and I quote—“to change the image of South Africa”. In other words, he wanted to change South Africa as Malaya wanted it changed at the Commonwealth Conference, i.e. that if 10 Whites were allowed into Parliament, South Africa would be allowed into the Commonwealth again. That is the criterion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I want to tell him that it is not our criterion. He will have to be content with the fact that we will not dance to the tune of others as far as doing our duty is concerned. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also asked what was signified by the fact that the State President was being granted the right to set aside other areas for recognized nations, as is stated in clause 2 of the Bill.

What is being envisaged by that?

It is very clear what is being envisaged by that. My reply to that is a twofold one. In the first place it is an existing procedure which we are, for the sake of completeness, repeating and laying down in this legislation. The hon. Leader of the Opposition ought to know that additional land still remains to be proclaimed for the Damara nation, which falls within the purview of this Bill, in order to give final shape to and complete their homeland properly. It is land which had in the meantime been purchased from Whites, but which has not yet been legally proclaimed as part of the territory of the Damara nation. This provision is, inter alia, making provision for that. I have already dealt with it in my speech, and I do not know why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is returning to it now. This provision is being included in the Bill to make such adjustments which may still be necessary in the future and the proclamation of land legally possible.

What about the Tswanas?

The Tswanas …

What about the Bushmen?

The Bushmen are not a native nation. If the hon. member for Yeoville does not know that, then I give up in despair. The Bushmen are not a native nation and do not fall within the purview of this Bill. The hon. member for Yeoville must discuss what is contained in this Bill.

They are also an indigenous nation.

Reference is not made in the Bill to indigenous nations, but to native nations.

In English mention is made of “native people”.

The hon. member knows very well what it means. He must not try to get out of this by professing ignorance; he need not trust to ignorance to get him out of the difficulty his erroneous arguments have landed him in. The hon. the Leader is asking me about the Tswanas, and I want to reply to him frankly, I am not evading the question at all. The reply is, yes; if it is found necessary to set aside land for the Tswanas, then it can be done under those provisions. The position of the Tswanas is still being considered, and we must see how matters are going to develop in regard to the Tswanas of South West Africa. At present I do not want to say any more than this about them.

Are there any other groups which are also being envisaged?

None that I can foresee at the moment. When we were discussing self-determination I overlooked this minor point. The hon. Leader asked what a “people” or what a “nation” is. Actually, I think a sufficiently adequate reply to this question has been furnished by hon. members on this side.

But I do not have the reply yet.

If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not know that, then I just want to ask him, and he must give me a frank reply now, whether he sees his way clear to having equal rights with the Hereros in one nation—yes or no?

That has nothing to do with the matter.

He does not want to reply to me.

No reply furnished me with a definition of a nation.

I shall furnish the hon. the Leader with a definition, but I am asking him to give me a little assistance as well. I am asking again: Is the Leader of the Opposition prepared to be a member of one nation on an equal basis with the Hereros?

But that has nothing to do with the matter. What about the Italians, the Swiss, the French, they are distinctive nations.

I shall take a more placatory example. I shall give the hon. the Leader another chance. Is the hon. Leader prepared to be recognized as a member of one nation together with the Ovambos, and he spent a few hours in Ovamboland last year, he saw them, he knows them very well, is he prepared to do so?

You know very well what my policy is; why are you asking such stupid questions?

It seems to me stupid and embarrassing is one and the same concept to the hon. the Leader. That is all I can say to him. I want to say to the hon. the Leader that I find it very significant that he does not want to reply. He does not say “yes” and he does not say “no”; I do not know why; probably he wants to discuss the matter with the hon. member for Yeoville when they hold a council of war later on. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville puts me in mind now of the occasion when he stated here that he made notes in Vereeniging on the banks of the river of the speech made by the hon. member for …

You are talking absolute nonsense now.

No, it is true. Now the hon. member is saying that I did not listen when the hon. the Leader was interjecting. Good, I shall remain as quiet as a mouse now and I am asking the Leader kindly to tell me what he said just now when I asked him whether he wanted to be an equal member of one nation together with the Ovambos?

You know very well what my policy is. I summarized it in my speech I made and you know very well that I do not accept equality with them. In any case it has nothing to do with separate peoples or nations. Now you define a separate nation for me?

Have you finished speaking? Very well. I specifically omitted to speak about equality on all kinds of levels and spheres which the hon. member is mentioning now; I asked him whether he was prepared to be an equal member together with the Ovambos, together in one nation, that is what I asked the hon. Leader.

I have already furnished my reply.

But he did not want to say “yes” to that, nor did he want to say “no” to that, he tried all kinds of clever evasions. [Interjections.] No, we cannot play ping-pong all afternoon in regard to this one question. I shall now proceed, and I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I and the Government will see to it that we save him as well as far as this matter is concerned. As long as we are in power, we will see to it that there is no possibility of Whites, Ovambos, Hereros, Bushmen and Zulu, nor anybody else for that matter, all becoming equal members of one and the same nation. We will see to that.

That is our policy as well.

All I can say to that, is, “Help me to struggle along”. That is all I can say.

You are struggling, yes.

I am struggling with the Leader; I am struggling to get something out of him. Let it be very clear now. A moment ago I asked the hon. member what a people or what a nation was. We often use the two words synonymously and this is the way I used them as well, people and nation. We use it, as they say in English, colloquially, we use them as every day expressions, to mean the same thing.

That is very loose language for one who upholds a language!

Oh dear! The people who have that centrifugal force, as I said a moment ago, who feel that they want to be together and do not want to be assimilated by others, those people are one people, they are one nation, to use the alternative word. That is my reply to him and that is why I say that we as Whites feel quite categorically, and without huming and haing, and without evading questions in that regard, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did, we feel unequivocally that we as Whites cannot form one nation with the Ovambos, we cannot form one nation with the Hereros, we cannot form one nation with the Zulus, the Bushmen, the Indians, or with the Coloureds. That is very clear. We as Whites are one nation. Let me admit, admit candidly as many have done already: We in South Africa as Whites are in fact still struggling to become one nation in the true sense of the word, because we have so many recalcitrants which we have to knead into the dough. We as Whites are still going through the difficult process of becoming a nation. But it is quite out of the question to think that we can incorporate Ovambos and those people as well, and that is why I maintain that those groups are separate entities, I mean the Ovambos, the Kaokovelders, the Okavombolanders, the Damaras, etc. They are separate entities, separate nations and they are also separate from the Whites in South West Africa because those Whites are identical to our Whites here in the four Provinces of the Republic.

So the definition of a nation has nothing to do with numbers?

No, fundamentally nothing. Some nations are large, some are strong, some are small, some are numerically stronger than others and some are able to increase in size. Fundamentally that has nothing to do with it. That centripetal force, that solidarity, that feeling of belonging together, that is the criterion.

Adam was only one man.

There the hon. member for Brakpan has now furnished the hon. the Leader with a very apposite reply; he said that Adam began as one man.

He did not begin as one man; he had a wife.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised other points here. He took it amiss of us because, as he put it, this Bill was paving the way to independence, to things which will take us past the point of no return. To that I have at least two immediate replies ready for him. The first is this. As I have stated repeatedly, our policy of separate development is not one of trial and error; it is not an experimental policy; it is not a policy of doing one thing for a while, and if that does not succeed, then doing something else.

But you keep on saying it is an empirical policy; that is the word you use.

Do you know what that means? It is a policy which grows out of experience. The hon. member should have spent some time in a normal college, then he would have known what empirical sciences mean. As I said, we do not have a policy of trial and error, of doing one thing for a while, and then doing something else if the first does not succeed. We are applying this policy with conviction and with faith, knowing that it is the natural development which has taken shape throughout the entire world, because what country and what nation in the world has originated on any other principle except this one, namely that a separate entity wants to develop separately? This is how North American and Western European nations took shape and this is the same principle we are applying here.

The second reply I want to furnish to him is that the hon. Leader of the Opposition must, after all, not expect us to make laws in the illusion that they will subsequently take over the Government. We must not make laws now in the illusion that they will subsequently have to come and apply their policy. We must make laws now according to our policy. If they do not want us to make laws according to our policy, then they must ask the voters to return them to Parliament as the governing party. If we are the governing party then we make the laws to fit in with the whole scheme of our policy and for application by us for all time to come. This the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will simply have to swallow now. After 20 years he should have realized it by now.

The hon. member also wanted to know from me what was going to happen in South Africa in regard to the Bastards, the Coloureds and the Namas. Now, Sir, strictly speaking you should not allow me to reply to that question, because in my introductory speech I stated that the Nama, the Coloureds and the Bastards did not fall within the preview of this Bill. But if you would allow me a little leeway, I shall reply very briefly to those questions, and state very emphatically to hon. members that although this is not relevant now, that the Bastards and the Coloureds do not fall within the ambit of the administrative responsibilities of my Department. At present the Bastards and the Coloureds still fall within the ambit of the administrative responsibility of the legislative council of South West Africa, but will, as the hon. member knows, fall under the Department of Coloured Affairs in future in terms of the resolutions of the Odendaal Commission and in terms of resolutions which still have to be taken in future, and not because the Bastards are being regarded as Coloureds, but because the Bastards and the Coloureds of South West Africa will be administered by the Department of Coloured Affairs. The position in regard to the Nama is a similar one. To-day the Namas in South West Africa still falls under our Department, and are our responsibility. We are undertaking their administration. But according to the recommendations of the Odendaal Commission, which are going to be implemented— and I said this in my introductory speech—the Nama will at some time or other which still has to be determined, and I hope it will be soon, be transferred to the Department of Coloured Affairs for administrative purposes. The following must be fully understood by all: They will be governed as Namas, and no attempt will be made to make Coloureds of them. That is the reply, and more than that I need not say. I think I have already said too much outside the rules.

May I ask a question? Is it being envisaged that separate areas will be allocated to them or not?

Yes. Actually I shall return to that question a little later with specific details, but they will have their separate areas, which in fact they already have, plus the necessary adjustments. That applies particularly in the case of the Bastards and the Namas. Actually we cannot discuss the matter. I can understand the hon. the Leader wanting to know this. I can understand that he is bursting with curiosity to get to know this, but he should not ask me now under the discussion which is at present being conducted. As far as the Namas are concerned, who still remain my responsibility, and the Damaras, who are in fact my responsibility as well, we shall return to them in a moment, in pursuance of questions put by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

One or two hon. members made mention of an oil pipeline. This is that imaginary oil pipeline from somewhere in Angola running through the northern Native territories of South West Africa to the Republic. They asked, “What is going to happen now? Suppose an oil pipeline is laid from somewhere in Angola to the Republic, running through an independent area. What is going to happen to the new oil pipeline?” I know nothing about an oil pipeline from Angola, but let us suppose that this oil pipeline will one day be constructed. I now want to ask the hon. member: Does he not think that, of all places in South Africa, that oil pipeline will not be of value to those so-called independent countries which he is envisaging at this early stage? Does he not think that the value which the pipeline will have for us will also apply to them? Has it not occurred to him that we are at present negotiating with the Portuguese—and the hon. member knows about that-—on matters in regard to oil and electricity as independent countries which have to render assistance to each other in that regard, as well as to other countries? Did the hon. member not for one moment think of the possibility that we could negotiate with an independent Ovamboland in regard to that oil pipeline and that country would itself benefit thereby and that, far from blowing up that pipeline, it would also utilize oil from that pipeline for its own needs? That did not occur to the hon. member. It did not dawn on him at all. He cannot comprehend it. But the reverse of this very matter …

What happened to the oil pipeline in Syria?

By that time we will have our own oil.

The hon. member for North Rand must not sit there gossiping now; he should rather keep quiet. His questions are very unintelligent.

What happened to that pipeline?

What happened to you in Roodepoort? I cannot discuss Syria and such matters now. Hon. members must give me an opportunity of dealing with the points raised by the Opposition. What does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members who asked questions in regard to the oil pipeline think the position in regard to that oil pipeline will be if the situation is the reverse of the one I have just discussed? The reverse of the situation will be the following. If that great Ovambo nation becomes a subservient entity of his race federation concept, if they form a suppressed minority group in his system of white leadership, what is going to happen then to that oil pipeline? Is it not a possibility that those people will say: “We have not been granted our own independence; we are not being granted recognition to develop independently. Let us blow up the oil pipeline.” Does he want me to argue in this way with him? I think this argument of mine is much more relevant than his is. I think that to speak of such oil pipelines is to raise fictitious arguments. We cannot expect a Leader of the Opposition, who aspires to a seat in this Bench in front of me, to raise such arguments. He has to leave it to the back-benchers, such as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can sit back. I have finished with him for the time being.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for South Coast and I know each other rather well. Strangely enough, we sometimes see eye to eye. We understand each other rather well. The hon. member for South Coast will probably accept it—I know he will, since we understand each other—if I say sincerely that I do, in fact, have a little respect for him. I hope he also has a little respect for me, even if it is only as a person. But really, the conduct of the hon. member for South Coast in this House the other day was very unworthy of him. He made a speech which was unworthy of him. He made a speech which was unworthy of this House. He made a speech which was unworthy of South Africa. He made a speech which was a blot on his career as a parliamentarian. I am saying this after careful consideration. For a long time I considered whether I should say these words. He and I are always open and frank in our dealings with each other. I would regard myself as a hypocrite if I did not say this. The hon. member did not speak here in a way which we would expect from a front-bencher, from a man who is obviously second in control, and an influence in his party. We did not expect that a person of his status in his party would make a speech with such a slant, tone and content as he did from his bench the other day. I had good reason—and the hon. member will know why I am saying this—to expect a moderate, sensible though highly critical speech from that hon. member. I expected him, when he rose to his feet, to attack and criticize us on every point, but at the same time I expected, and he knows what I mean, that he would make a moderate, well-thought out, dispassionate though highly critical speech. Far from it. His speech had all the discords of a terrorist attack. It is a pity I have to say this.

Order! I think the hon. the Minister is going a little too far now. I think he must withdraw the word “terrorist”.

Very well then, I shall withdraw it. The hon. member probably did not intend it to be one, but the hon. member went altogether too far in what he said. He spoke of the safety of South Africa which was at stake and of this period of hatred and enmity in which we would be introducing by this Bill, a Bill which should never have been. In the entire speech of the hon. member I searched in vain for a single sensible, moderate word. He did not utter a single word to try and win the friendship of one single Native nation or Native individual in South Africa for us as a country, and I am not speaking now of us as a Government. I found nothing of the sort. On the contrary, every word the hon. member uttered tended to drive the Native nations, of South West Africa in particular, further away from us instead of trying to win their friendship, drawing them closer to us and conditioning them to adopt a moderate and well-disposed attitude towards us. It is a pity that the hon. member for South (Coast) adopted this tone in his speech.

I was criticizing you, your policy and your Government, and not the Bantu peoples of South West Africa.

No, the method displayed by the hon. member for South Coast was disgraceful and dangerous. By doing so he did not draw a single Bantu nation closer to us. In fact, he instilled ideas in them which would drive them further away from us. That is what he did. The hon. member spoke of the nations in South West Africa on our northern boundary between us and Angola. He made wild statements in regard to them. Is the hon. member not aware that those nations have already given us positive assistance in that they have exposed terrorists who had infiltrated there, handed them over and helped us to capture them? Is he not aware that the Bantu nations in the north of South West Africa have, on more than one occasion recently, offered to assist us in exposing terrorrists, and in future will continue to do so? Why did he discuss them in such an unfriendly and objectionable spirit? I am sorry the hon. member did not go along on the tour through South West Africa which certain hon. members undertook during the short recess. He would then have heard from those people what their standpoint is in this regard. I am certain that they probably told Members of Parliament how they would stand by South Africa if a crisis should arise. He should have gone along. With this reprimand I leave the hon. member to his own conscience as far as his speech is concerned.

The hon. member for Pinelands also discussed the small countries and the wars which had arisen over small countries. I think that I have dealt adequately with this point in what I said earlier on. The hon. member for Pinelands spoke in a very pleasant and moderate vain, as is his custom and as we have come to expect from him. But he tried very hard but without any success to penetrate to the fundamental aspect of this Bill. The fundamental aspect which the hon. member should have investigated, was the following. I put this matter to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a moment ago by way of a question, to no avail. The question is this: Does that group of peoples or nations, or whatever you want to call them, consisting of Natives in South West Africa, form part of one entity along with the Whites of South Africa, or along with the Whites and the non-Whites of the Republic as a whole? Do they form an integral, inherent organic part of the whole, which consists of these people? That is the fundamental problem.

May I reply to that?

The hon. member should rather ponder that question at greater length instead of wanting to reply to it in this short time. I also want to tell him that if he wants to reply to it, then he must ask himself the following question: Are those groups satisfied to be assimilated into one whole, firstly with the non-Whites of South West Africa, secondly with the non-Whites and the Whites, and thirdly with the non-Whites and the Whites of the entire Republic?

Then the hon. member will realize that they are not prepared to do so, in the same way as we are not prepared to do so. I think that hon. member will be more prepared that his Leader to say that he does not want to be an equal member together with an Ovambo in one nation. A moment ago the hon. Leader of the Opposition did not want to reply to that question. I think the hon. member for Pinelands will candidly admit that he is not prepared to do so. If he and the Whites are not prepared to do so, why do they not want to accept that an Ovambo nation, for argument’s sake, does not want to be assimilated into other nations as well, as they have explicitly told us in their communications? That is the fundamental aspect of this matter. If one recognizes, accepts and identifies the separate entities, then one must make provision for separate development and not offer them integrated development. That is the basis of this Bill.

The hon. member also stated that independence for each little group was ridiculous. I have stated repeatedly that what is involved here is not independence. These are things the future will teach us. Consequently the hon. member must realize, and I want to predict here for his benefit, that in Southern Africa, of which we form the nucleus, there is already an embryonic system developing, which will take shape to an increasing extent and which will lead to the inter-dependence of nations on one another becoming the pattern for the independent nations of the future. There in South West Africa you are going to see that pattern established, in the same way as I predict it will happen here in the Republic. The inter-dependence of one nation on the other is perhaps more striking here in our country and in Southern Africa than in any other part of the world. Here we—and this is our duty and it falls within the ambit of our policy of separate development to make provision for this very thing—will, as these small countries obtain an increasing measure of autonomy and become independent, see to it that it will be an independence which will rely very strongly on the inter-dependence of countries and nations upon one another.

The hon. member also spoke about the timing of this Bill, which was suppose to have been incorrect. But according to the Opposition none of our timing is correct. Our timing was not correct in the case of the Transkei. We have been watching the Transkei developing successfully for five years. It has been five years of successful development without sound or fury. They are more than well on the way to self-government. But there is no more striking example of how the Opposition was quite wrong when they told us that our timing was wrong as when we established the Republic of South Africa. Then our timing was once again suppose to be fatal. But now all those no-voters of 1960 are all supporters of the Republic, for which I am eternally grateful and for which I am not reproaching anyone. I am simply using this example to prove that our timing was absolutely correct. The hon. member for Pinelands also had quite a lot to say about how wrong this Bill was. He is also one of the hon. members who intimated in his speech that the Bill should have pandered more to the taste of other countries and even more to the taste of the U.N.

But firstly, I want to say this to the hon. member for Pinelands: Not even their policy of race federation or political integration, or whatever it is called, would satisfy the U.N., because inherent in his policy is the fact that in the large multiracial entity which they foresee, consisting of 17 million or more people, the minority of 3 million people will have to retain supremacy over all the rest. With that policy he will not satisfy anybody at the U.N. or in international world circles. I cannot understand why there is at present such a lack of support for our policy. As we all predict, and as I am also predicting now, hon. members will see that in future there will be an increasing degree of understanding of this policy of ours. This will be the case because our policy recognizes something which is being insisted upon internationally to a very great extent, i.e. independence for those who are able to gain independence. That is why I say that each one of the separate nations can win their independence. The hon. member must not think that a Bill which is based on his policy would meet with any great approval in the outside world.

The hon. member also stated that too much was being forced upon the nations in South West Africa. What is being forced upon the nations in South West? In this Bill absolutely nothing is being forced upon them. This Bill is a permissive, fundamental Bill which lays down a series of principles and procedures, and which states: “On this basis Native nations in South West Africa can develop further towards autonomy and self-governing communities; and this is followed by the proclamations which will be promulgated specifically for those nations, after consultation with them.” And certain consultations have already been held with them, as I told the hon. member in private.

This Bill is forcing nothing upon them. After consultation with these people, it is determined precisely what they can manage and what they will manage at this stage, and then, in that proclamation, powers are conferred to them for direct implementation by themselves with their legislative boards, executive boards and public services which will be made available to them as their ability determines what they can at present accomplish. Nothing is being forced upon them which they cannot cope with. That is precisely what we are not doing, and it is precisely what other countries in Africa did do, namely to force independence upon people, as was done in the Congo where a government of 80 years standing was suddenly withdrawn overnight and where people who did not know how to proceed, were left to their own devices. This is not what we are doing, and I do not know where the hon. member gets it from to come and tell us here.

The hon. member for Durban (North), who excused himself for being unable to be present here, mentioned a few points to which I can give more detailed replies. He said that they had not been consulted in regard to the Bill and that we were taking the criticism which they were expressing amiss of them. No, we are not taking it amiss of them. I have stated very emphatically now in my reaction to what the hon. member for South Coast said that I expected a critical speech from him and from every member on the opposite side who spoke. But what we also expected from hon. members on that side was that they should be reasonable and that they should at least try to be patriotic in their criticism. That is what we expected from them, but they were welcome to criticize. I want to say to the hon. member for Durban (North) that I cannot see what use he and also other members on the opposite side as well who raised the matter, could see in so-called reference to or consultation with the Opposition in regard to this Bill. I should like to know whether hon. members on the opposite side think that in regard to this matter on which we differ so fundamentally, as the hon. member for Yeoville himself confessed here this afternoon, we could in any way come to any kind of agreement without one side or other having to relinquish some of its fundamental standpoints? I maintain it is quite impossible. The basic differences are too great for a compromise to be reached in regard to this matter.

I then come to a further point raised by the hon. member for Durban (North). He said that the Bill brought into prominence points in regard to which the U.N. would be up in arms to a far greater extent than before. This will have to be the case then. We are not trying to satisfy the U.N.; we will never succeed in doing so, nor will they. We are trying to help to serve and to satisfy the nations in South West Africa to the best of our ability according to our standpoints in regard to their development.

The speech made by the hon. member for Houghton, even if she did not intend it to be—as usual this was precisely the effect it had—was merely grist to the U.N. mill. She made use of all the terminology which she knows will elicit condemnation there. For example, one of her arguments was in regard to Bantustans which are being removed from South Africa to South West Africa. Removal of large numbers of people which would supposedly cause great dissatisfaction and inconvenience; that also formed part of her argument. And then she stated, quite dramatically: “The wrong thing at the wrong time.”

No, I did not say that.

I wrote it down in English; the hon. member said: “The wrong thing now with regard to the political recommendations of the Odendaal Commission.” Sir, if proposals had been made here which were in accordance with her concept of political integration and equalization, then she would not have said that this is the wrong time for the measure; she would have rejoiced. Suddenly it is the wrong thing now, because there is a difference between us. According to her it is not the time which is wrong; it is the process which is wrong; it is the basic principle which is wrong. We know this, and we cannot get anywhere with her because she is standing on the opposite side of the chasm, and that is why I am now passing her by. For her information I want to say that the information which she brought forward here in regard to the pending appeal court case is not relevant here. It is not relevant here, for two different reasons. Firstly that Bill does not deal with anything similar to what is happening here; it deals with something quite different. Consequently the sub judice rule does not apply here. But in the second case the hon. member must remember that the entire argument deals with the question as to whether we should recognize the U.N. resolution adopted in regard to us. We stated emphatically at U.N. and everywhere—here as well—that we did not recognize the resolution adopted by the General Assembly of U.N. in which it was stated that our responsibility in regard to South West had been withdrawn. We do not recognize it, because the matter is entirely outside their jurisdiction. Thus the entire matter which she raised here is irrelevant.

Then I would just like to reply to a question raised here by the hon. member for Etosha. The hon. member asked me a question in regard to the control of water affairs in South West Africa. The standpoint of the Government is that control of water affairs in South West Africa should be seen and administered as one overall complete water service, with this adjustment that within the Bantu areas the necessary water distribution and water provision shall be undertaken by my Department.

I come now to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City). The minor point he raised here has already been dealt with by me in my reply to other hon. members.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who also excused himself for having to leave, raised quite a number of points to which I must at least make some reply. He also spoke about South West Africa which would supposedly be such an important link between us and the outside world, and he stated that we should not merely apply the recipes used in the Republic to South West Africa, but on the other hand the hon. member failed to go into the matter fundamentally in order to give as examples of what he condemned in this respect and what he regarded as the correct state of affairs. In addition the hon. member asked very dramatically: “Prove to us that the Damaras”—he mentioned the Damaras specifically—“want the proposed Damara Homelands”? Sir, in regard to this I can mention a few very interesting things, and I think I ought to do so. It is extremely apposite and I envisaged this a moment ago in reply to a question put by one of the other members. The Damaras, as you know, are one of the nations which are perhaps most widely distributed throughout South West, and who will perhaps have to undergo the greatest territorial adjustment in respect of their area. I want to inform you that the Damaras do in fact accept this concept of a consolidated Damara Homeland, with everything which that implies. I want to quote to you something which appeared in the Press last year, not in order to publicize it, but because I think it is so important that, generally speaking, it should be placed on record. This is a letter signed by Dawid Goraseb, who signed himself and whom we recognize as the paramount chief of the Damaras. In a letter dated 12th July, 1967, he communicated the following to me, and now you must take note that the paramount chief wrote to me in order to implement resolutions which they adopted at a meeting at which only his counsellors and he himself were present after they had held discussions with the Commissioner-General. He writes as follows (translation)—

I cannot furnish the hon. member for Bezuidenhout with a better documentary reply than this one, coming as it does from the paramount chief of the Damaras, to the question of the hon. member whether the Damaras accept the proposed Damara homeland. There you have the answer. Sir, hon. members of the Opposition, particularly the front benchers who ought to set an example, are now deliberately holding a discussion amongst themselves out loud in order not to hear what I am saying. It stands on record.

Who wrote that letter?

The letter was written by Dawid Goraseb. Here is his signature on the letter. Those resolutions were adopted at a meeting where they were present, without the Commissioner-General. I know what that hon. member is thinking, after all, we know him.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to quote from another letter, a very recent one dated 2nd April, 1968, a letter coming from the Chief Bantu Affairs Commissioner in Windhoek, in which he reported to us what was happening in respect of the Damaras. It is a long letter and I am not going to read all of it; I am merely going to give you the gist of it. What it amounts to is that the Damaras are voluntarily and in large numbers, already leaving their old places of abode for the new area of their Bantu homeland which is still to be proclaimed for them. He speaks here of 254 families, consisting of more than 1,500 individuals, which have recently left quite willingly for those parts where the Damara homeland will be created for them. Hon. members on the opposite side, amongst them the hon. member for Houghton, spoke of the tremendous deprivations which these ethnic removals entail. I can inform you that these people are doing so before we have given them the signal, because, in point of fact, we were not even prepared for them and we now have to make all kinds of provision for them there in great haste. They took with them—just to give you another indication of the size of their migration—1,360 cattle, 22 sheep, 15,800 goats, 96 horses, 38 mules and 280 donkeys, i.e. genuine donkeys. I said a moment ago that I would refer to the Namas in this respect, simply to show you that precisely the same thing is happening there. In the area over which we still have control, precisely the same thing is happening. This is taking place further down, in the southern part of South West Africa. During the same period 244 Nama families, comprising 2,200 individuals, have already migrated voluntarily with more than 20,000 head of cattle. They have migrated voluntarily to the future Nama homeland. It was a voluntary movement of those people, which was not inspired or organized by us.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said a very interesting thing here when, according to their policy, he made a contrast between the system of government for the built-up northern territories, outside the Police zone, and the system for the Whites as well as all the non-Whites south of the red line. He went further than the Leader of the Opposition. Of course he is always two or three steps ahead of his Leader. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said they accepted that the three northern territories could become a quite independent country or countries, something which his Leader did not want to say. But then he also stated that they, as United Party, advocated—and this the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said, but not as outspokenly as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout did—that in the Southern territories the Hereros, the Damaras, the Namas, the Bastards, the Coloureds, and I take it the Bushmen and the Tswana, should all be represented and governed in one integrated context by the Legislative Assembly of Windhoek. We must realize that what he is predicting here is precisely what the United Nations is predicting. What they are proposing here for the police zone, that is the area outside Ovamboland, Okavangoland and the Kaokoveld, is precisely what the United Nations is advocating for the entire South West Africa, i.e. that all should be included in one legislative authority.

It is a form of white leadership.

There we have the illusion again, the new word of this Session. This is the illusion of the United Party, i.e. white leadership. The hon. member is reconfirming what I said earlier on to-day, i.e. that he imagines that the United Nations, or any other overseas nation for that matter, will be satisfied if all those people have representation in one political conglomeration and in one legislative assembly, with the Whites in charge. That is what they imagine. That hon. member must think this matter out very carefully and he will then realize that what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout predicted here is precisely what is being asked for in United Nations circles, namely one conglomeration for South West Africa as an independent country with one legislative authority. The people outside, and particularly the Whites of South West Africa, should hear this and understand that it is the policy which the United Party is advocating through the mouth of their spokesman, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who is more outspoken in regard to this matter than his Leader.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District)—I must at least say something about the poor hon. member—stated that last year in March I opened the proceedings of the territorial authority at Oshakati in Ovamboland. That is not so.

What did you go and do there?

Even if I were to tell him, he would not understand. I went there last year for the express purpose of offering them the principle of self-government, which is the reason I am now introducing this legislation. No territorial authority was opened; they do not have a territorial authority. When that hon. member was still a mere clerk in my Department, he heard of territorial authorities and now he is trying to discuss matters like that, but he does not know what he is talking about. The hon. member also spoke about the independence, now, for Ovamboland, and he tried to put words into the mouth of the Deputy Minister, Mr. Coetzee, words which I know he did not utter and which he himself denied here to-day. Nor is this being done in the Bill. The hon. member is as wrong in regard to the Bill as he was in regard to the Deputy Minister, because this Bill is not making provision, now, for independence for Ovamboland. I do not know what he was trying to say if that was not what he was trying to say.

May I ask a question?

No. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) and the hon. member for Yeoville had quite a lot to say about the economic development which was needed, and other members on the other side immediately fell into this trap and wanted to pretend that a country should be totally independent economically if it wanted to obtain political independence, or political self-government; according to them it must then at least have a large measure of economic autonomy.

Correct.

Let me now make a categorical statement for the benefit of this hon. member which he can go and test. There is no politically independent country in the world which is economically independent. It is a relative matter and the hon. member ought to know that we are living in a time of political awakening of nations throughout the world, particularly on this continent, and also in the southern part of Africa where we are established. That is why we are steadily leading our Bantu nations along the road to self-government, in the direction of political independence. And parallel to that we are doing our very best to see that they develop economically as well. But I remind him now of what I said a moment ago, i.e. that the political independence of countries, particularly of these Bantu areas here, if they are going to achieve this one day, will be dependent to an increasing extent upon the economic and other forms of inter-dependence upon one another. The same applies here. What country in the world waited until it became absolutely independent economically before it became politically independent? Did Lesotho wait for that, or Botswana? Did Britain wait for that? Did America wait for that?

Did South Africa wait for that?

That one may well ask. That hon. member must occupy himself with things he can understand. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is nothing more I need say about the Bill.

Order! Before asking the House to divide, I just want to announce that in order to save the time of the House I have decided, notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 164 and after consultation with both sides, to appoint four tellers on the Government side in future.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—109: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Roux, P. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Steyn, A. N.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Heever, D. J. G.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.