I move—

1. (1) Standing Orders Nos. 54, 85 and 90 to 105 be suspended.
2. (2) The proceedings on the stages of the various Appropriation and Taxation Bills (including Additional and Part) shall be limited as follows:
   1. (a) 167½ hours for the Consolidated Revenue Fund Appropriation Bills and Taxation Bills;
   2. (b) 18½ hours for the Railways and Harbours Appropriation Bills; and
   3. (c) (7½ hours for the Post Office Appropriation Bills:
      Provided that—
      1. (i) the period allotted under paragraph (a) shall exclude—
         1. (a) the time taken by the Minister in charge of the main Appropriation Bill in replying to the second and third reading debates on the Bill; and
         2. (b) the time taken by Ministers in charge of the respective Votes in the Committee stage of the main Appropriation Bill; and
      2. (ii) the periods allotted under paragraphs (b) and (c) shall exclude the time taken by the Minister in charge of the main Railways and Harbours Appropriation Bill and the Minister in charge of the main Post Office Appropriation Bill in replying to the second and third reading debates on the Bills.
   4. (3) The Committee of the whole House on the main Consolidated Revenue Fund Appropriation Bill may at any time, on the motion of a Minister, to be decided without amendment or debate, revert to any Vote in the Schedules to the Bill previously disposed of by the Committee.
   5. (4) All Estimates of Expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the Railway and Harbour Fund and the Post Office Fund shall, when laid upon the Table, stand referred to the appropriate Committees of the whole House.
   6. (5)
      1. (a) Subject to paragraphs (b) and (c) no member shall speak for longer than ten minutes at a time in Committee of the whole House on an Appropriation Bill, but members shall not be limited in regard to the number of times they may speak;
      2. (b) The Minister in charge of a Vote or Head shall not be restricted in regard to the length of time he may speak;
      3. (c) When the various Votes or Heads in the Schedule to a main Appropriation Bill are under consideration, the Chairman may permit two speeches not exceeding 30 minutes each in respect of each ministerial portfolio: Provided that this privilege shall not be granted unless the member desiring to avail himself of the extended period states his intention to do so on rising to address the Chair, or unless the member subsequently obtains the unanimous consent of the Committee.
   7. (6) In Committee of the whole House on an Appropriation Bill—
      1. (a) the Schedules of the Bill shall, notwithstanding the provision of Standing Order No. 57 (2), be taken into consideration before the clauses;
      2. (b) the presiding officer shall, subject to paragraph (c), put the votes or Heads of a Schedule in the order in which they are shown;
      3. (c) on the motion of a Minister, to be decided without amendment or debate, precedence may be given to any Vote or Head in a Schedule;
      4. (d) no condition or expression of opinion shall be attached to a Vote or Head, or item of a Vote or Head, nor may its destination be altered;
      5. (e) the question shall first be proposed from the Chair on the largest reduction if more than one reduction is moved in any Vote or Head, or item of a Vote or Head;
      6. (f) the rule of anticipation shall not apply; and
      7. (g) a member may not move “That the Chairman leave the Chair”, and no member other than a Minister may move “That the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again” or that the further consideration of a Vote or Head be postponed, the question on such a motion by a Minister being put forthwith without debate.
   8. (7) All taxation proposals shall, when laid upon the Table, stand referred to the Committees of the whole House on the respective taxation bills.
   9. (8) In Committee of the whole House on a taxation bill—
      1. (a) no member other than a Minister may move an amendment which alters the incidence of a tax or which will have the effect of increasing taxation; and
      2. (b) a member may not move “That the Chairman leave the Chair”, and no member other than a Minister may move “That the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again” or that the further consideration of a clause, schedule or item in a schedule be postponed, the question on such a motion by a Minister being put forthwith without debate.
   10. (9) When an appropriation or taxation bill has been reported with amendments, the amendments may be considered forthwith.
   11. (10)
       1. (a) The provisions of Standing Orders Nos. 51, 66 (2) and 68 (1) shall not apply to an Appropriation Bill;
       2. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Standing order No. 68 (2), the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister in charge of the Bill shall not be limited in regard to the length of time they may speak on the third reading of the main Consolidated Revenue Fund Appropriation Bill.

The purpose of this motion is to streamline the procedure when dealing with financial business. One of the stages will be eliminated. In other words, the House will not debate a motion to go into Committee, but the relevant Minister will immediately move the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill or the Additional Appropriation Bill or a taxation Bill. The total time, however, provided for has not been reduced. In other words, hon. members will still have the same opportunity and the same length of time to discuss the different measures. But the allocation of time for individual measures will be arrived at by way of negotiation between the Government and the Opposition Whips. This is in the nature of an experiment, and if it works successfully this Session it will be incorporated in the Standing Rules and Orders. I hope that the House will support this innovation.

The hon. the Leader of the House has explained adequately the purpose of this motion. I may say that the motion is put before the House by agreement between both sides. There were negotiations towards the end of last session which were continued in the recess and an agreement was arrived at between the Government side and the Opposition that this would be tried for a session as an experiment. I am certain that there is the spirit on both sides to make this work. It will be in the interests of Parliament if it does work. It depends largely on the measure of agreement we can obtain in arriving at the different times for the different financial measures that come under the ambit of the overall time provided in this motion.

There is just one question I should like to ask the Leader of the House, namely whether he will give an assurance on one point. We did agree on this one item, and that was that if the overall time were exhausted, and it looks as if there is little or no time left for the Appropriation Bill at the end of this Session, a minimum time will be allowed. I am given to understand that there is some difficulty in writing this matter into a motion of this nature, and therefore it would be left, I presume, to the Standing Orders Committee to take such a decision. As it is a matter of agreement between us, I feel confident that the Leader of the House will agree.

I misunderstood the hon. member when we discussed this matter. I am quite prepared to give an assurance that a minimum time will be allowed for the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill, i.e. a minimum of 12 hours, but that must be included in the overall time of 175 hours. There will not be additional time allocated.

That is not what I was asking.

I understood the hon. member to be asking for extra time when the time allocated had already been exhausted.

No, I just ask that a minimum be provided for.

On that point there is agreement and I give that assurance. The minimum time is 12 hours. It will require amendment of the relevant Standing Order which provides for a 3-hour debate on the Third Reading of a Bill. That can be done. As long as the whips, when they negotiate, put aside 12 hours as the minimum time for the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill, I am quite prepared to give the assurance that we will abide by the agreement.

Motion put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order at this stage, and it is whether, in view of the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of section 23 of the South-West Africa Constitution Act of 1968, and in the absence of an appropriate resolution of the Legislative Assembly of South-West Africa communicated to Parliament since the passing of that Act by message from the State President as required by subsection (3) of section 23 of the Act, it is competent for this House to consider the South-West Africa Affairs Bill, or, alternatively, whether the Bill is not irregularly before the House, and whether the Bill may be proceeded with further in this House.

The point of order arises from the provisions of the South-West Africa Constitution Act of 1968, section 23 (2) of which provides—

Subsection (3) reads as follows—

In the Bill which forms the order of the day under consideration it is provided in clause 15 that those subsections which I have read should be deleted. Ex facie the Bill before us there is no such resolution, and one would normally have expected to have found it in the preamble if there had been one. Clearly, in my submission, those subsections of section 23 provide that, before this House may entertain the provisions of clause 15, such a resolution should have been presented.

As we are all aware, there was a message from the State President which was presented to this House, in 1964, and the minutes of the 29th April, 1964, record that you, Mr. Speaker, received a message from the State President to this House and to the Other Place, and I will read the summary at the end of this entry—

I concede they were similar, if not identical, to those provisions with which we are dealing here—

That was in 1964. This entrenchment of those rights was contained in the 1925 Act and in 1968, last year, by Act 39 of 1968, it was re-enacted, as I have indicated, that the provisions of this subsection should not be repealed without such a resolution communicated to Parliament. The question is: what was the intention of this Parliament last year? Was it the intention of this parliament that there should be no repeal unless there was, at some time in the future, a resolution from the Legislative Assembly of South-West Africa? In my submission, that is what was intended, because if it did not mean that, it meant nothing. My submission is further that one cannot assume that Parliament meant nothing when it put something of such import into an Act of Parliament. The situation, in my submission, is that you have to decide, in the same way as you would have to make any decision in respect of our rules, whether this House, as a mere constituent part of Parliament, is enjoined by this Act of Parliament to obey what is stated there. The position is that this Act of Parliament binds the proceedings of this House. It may be changed by this House, together with the other constituent elements. But so long as the Act remains, it is binding and does place a fetter on the proceedings of this House, although not on the sovereignty thereof.

Now, it must have a meaning. In my submission, the resolution of 1964 related in any event to the 1925 Act, which was repealed last year. Furthermore, this provision was then re-enacted. Where it appears in subsection (2) of section 23 the expression “No Act of Parliament which imposes a tax …”, was a reference to an Act of Parliament in the future. It could not be a reference to any other Act. Here is a Bill which is destined to become an Act of Parliament, and which is affected by subsection (2). When this was enacted last year Parliament may be presumed to have been aware of the resolution that existed in 1964. But nevertheless, despite that, this House and Parliament enacted the provisions which I have read out. I submit that that must indicate an intention that there should be a future resolution. But furthermore, since 1964, when that resolution was communicated to you and to the President in the Other Place, there has been a change in the Legislative Assembly in South-West Africa. There is a different Legislative Assembly now than there was in 1964. Indeed, when the Act was passed last year, there was a different Legislative Assembly in South-West Africa from the Legislative Assembly which passed the resolution in 1964. This also, I submit, is a matter of which this House was aware, of which Parliament may be presumed to have been aware at the time.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to canvass all the decisions of which you are aware and which have been canvassed before in this House, all the cases that deal with the question as to whether Parliament may fetter itself, or may fetter one of the Houses constituting it, but I do wish to emphasize that the question of the sovereignty of Parliament does not arise. It is a question as to how this Parliament exercises its rights. As a House, we are bound by that Act. We are bound to obey what that Act stipulates until and unless it is changed. In my submission, it was clearly intended last year that there should be a resolution from the Legislative Assembly if there were to be legislation affecting the rights which I have referred to in the future. There has been no such resolution since the passing of Act 39 of 1968. I have searched the journals of this House. I have not found any. I have made inquiries from those that I feel might know. As far as I am aware, there is no such resolution. In the absence of such a resolution, my submission is that it is not in order to proceed with this Bill, for the reasons I have mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, I regret, of course, that no notice was given to us of this objection by the other side of the House. I think it would have been the correct thing to do, so that we might have been prepared for this argument. But in any event, it was not done. I shall however deal with it immediately.

The effect of a law of Parliament is never deemed to be retrospective. When this Act of 1968 was passed last year this resolution agreeing to this legislation we are passing now had already been presented to this House. This special Act, therefore, does not affect this particular legislation which we have before the House. This is the one point I wish to make. My second point is that this Parliament, which is a sovereign Parliament, is entitled to pass any legislation in regard to any matter, but it cannot bind a future Parliament. For example, our Parliament cannot pass a law which states that our constitution cannot be changed. No future parliament can be bound by such legislation and I feel that this is perfectly clear to everyone in this House. I therefore feel that even if my first argument should not hold water this is still valid legislation. I can only agree to this extent that there will be a moral duty on a future Parliament to consider the legislation and the conditions which were imposed by a previous Act. We find in this case that the resolution is before the House and has already been passed by the Legislative Assembly in South-West Africa, so that morally too there can be no objection to this legislation.

Mr.Speaker, the hon. member for Durban (North) referred to section 18 of Act No. 23 of 1949, which is probably an anomaly. I think it is a settled matter that this Parliament is sovereign. If the hon. member would refer to the discussion that took place on that subject in this Parliament in previous years, when this very matter of South-West Africa was discussed, he would see that he is totally wrong. This matter was settled when it was raised by the then hon. member for Germiston (District), and I want to refer the hon. member for Durban (North) to Hansard, Vol. 2, of 21st February, 1962. I also want to quote an opinion to the hon. member which was given by one of the greatest experts on constitutional law in this country, namely Professor J. P. Verloren van Themaat. In his book Staatsreg he writes on page 400 (translation)—

He bases his opinion on the fact that this Parliament is absolutely sovereign. A man such as Professor Beinart is of the same opinion, namely that it makes no difference because, as the hon. member for Omaruru put it, this Parliament cannot limit its sovereignty or the sovereignty of a future parliament in respect of its benefit of sovereignty or its right to pass legislation. Therefore I submit there is an anomaly in section 18 of Act No. 23 of 1949.

Mr. Speaker, I think I ought to point out that the hon. member for Durban (North) appreciated this point only at a very late stage, otherwise he would have given longer notice of his point of order than he, under the circumstances, could. This is the first point I should like to make. Secondly, clause 15 of the Bill which is on the Order Paper for our consideration, states clearly that: “Section 23 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the deletion of sub-sections (2) and (3)”. Well, section 23 (3) states clearly that neither subsection (2) nor subsection (3) of section 23 “shall be amended … except with the consent of the Assembly embodied in a resolution communicated to Parliament by message from the State President.” The question now simply is whether such communication has passed. I submit that in view of the fact that the South-West Africa Constitution Act was passed only last year, and as it seems there has been no communication since then, this legislation is not in order in terms of that Act.

Mr. Speaker, the arguments advanced by hon. members opposite interest me. Firstly, the hon. member for Omaruru submitted that the 1964 resolution still applied. Well, I submit that it does not. It referred to a particular matter, but the Constitution was amended in 1968. He said that there might be a moral duty on us to abide by that restriction but that he was satisfied because, so he said, there was that resolution before us. But I submit that that resolution is of no effect any longer. Secondly, the hon. member for Middelland reminded us that Parliament was sovereign. Well, we all grant that to be the case. That was known in 1968 when this Act was passed. What was the object of including that section in that Act if we did not intend abiding by it? I submit that although Parliament is sovereign and can do what it likes, the mere fact that we included that provision in the 1968 Act meant that Parliament was going to abide by it. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to look at the matter from that angle.

The hon. member for Durban (North) was good enough to inform me that he intended raising this point of order and I have accordingly had an opportunity to consider the matter.

As he has pointed out clause 15 of the Bill seeks to repeal subsections (2) and (3) of section 23 of the South-West Africa Constitution Act, No. 39 of 1968, which Act was a purely consolidating measure which re-enacted the law as it stood on the Statute Book.

The hon. member further pointed out that subsection (3) of section 23 of the Act provides that, notwithstanding the provisions of section 37, the provisions of that subsection and the preceding subsection (2) may not be amended, modified or repealed, except with the consent of the Legislative Assembly of South-West Africa embodied in a resolution communicated to Parliament by message from the State President.

On 29th April, 1964, such a message was received by the House of Assembly which stated, inter alia, that on 20th March, 1964, the Legislative Assembly of South-West Africa had attached its approval by way of resolution to the amendment or repeal by Parliament in its discretion of subsections (2) and (3) of section 28 of the South-West Africa Constitution Act, 1925 (which was subsequently re-enacted by the abovementioned Consolidating Act), and had requested the State President to convey this resolution to Parliament.

In view of the terms of this message I am unable to rule that clause 15 of the Bill under consideration may not be considered by this House.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Hon. members will remember that on 3rd June, 1968, during the previous session of Parliament, a White Paper was tabled in this House in regard to the Government’s decisions on the recommendations of the Committee of Experts which, under the chairmanship of the then Deputy Minister for South-West Africa Affairs inquired into the practical problems to be taken into account before decisions were taken on any new financial and administrative arrangements between the Republic and South-West Africa. Hon. members will also remember that the appointment of this Committee of experts had its origin in the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into South-West Africa Affairs, known as the Odendaal Commission, which were accepted by the Government in broad principle. In this connection I should like to remind you, Sir, of the Development of Self-government for Native Nations in South-West Africa Act, which was passed last year to give effect to the Commission’s recommendations in connection with the establishment of the self-governing areas for the various Native groups in the area, the determination of their boundaries and the amendments to their forms of government.

Paragraph 2 of the White Paper explains how the Committee of Experts, which consisted of representatives of the Republic as well as of South-West Africa, set to work to carry out its terms of reference, while paragraph 3 emphasizes that the sole aim of the financial and administrative rearrangements contemplated is to promote, in accordance with the principles upon which the provisions of the former Mandate are based—

It goes without saying that if the Government Departments of the Republic must take over certain functions which are at present exercised by branches of the Administration of South-West Africa, provision will be necessary for a lawful distribution of the revenue which is obtained from the Territory. The Committee gave careful attention to the basis on which the financial rearrangement should take place and in this connection, as indicated in paragraph 5 of the White Paper, it took certain broad principles into account, the most important of which are that all taxes derived from South-West Africa should be kept separate and utilized solely for the benefit of the Territory, that any rearrangement should disturb the population of South-West Africa as little as possible and should impose no additional burdens on the taxpayers, and that the Administration should have sufficient sources of revenue at its disposal to finance the functions which it will retain. After the Committee had considered various possible systems, it submitted a recommendation about the most satisfactory basis on which the financial rearrangement could take place. The Government accepted this recommendation and relative details are furnished in paragraph 8 of the White Paper.

The aim of the Bill under consideration is therefore mainly to facilitate the proposed rearrangement as much as possible by means of suitable general provisions. The Government Departments concerned are being given the authority to carry out the proclaimed decisions of the Government in connection with the taking over of functions, and provision is being made for the resultant financial arrangements in so far as legislation is necessary, as well as for consequential and other necessary amendments to certain existing Acts, inter alia, the Consolidated South-West Africa Constitution Act (Act No. 39 of 1968), which was passed last year and which will hereafter be referred to as the “principal Act”.

The schedule to the Bill contains the list of matters in regard to which the administration of the affairs of the Territory shall be carried on by the relevant Minister of the Republic and which are, of course, being added to the list of matters in the principal Act (section 22) which already fall outside the scope of the ordinary legislative powers of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory. The most important financial provisions provide for (a) the creation of a special South-West Africa Account into which revenue relating to the scheduled matters, a specific percentage of the Republic’s customs and excise revenue, and certain other revenue will be paid for utilization in the Territory by Government Departments, and (b) the revenue which must be paid into the Revenue Fund of the Territory and will be controlled by the Administration. The last-mentioned revenue consists of (a) the revenue relating to matters in regard to which the Legislative Assembly of the Territory may pass ordinances, (b) an annual amount from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Republic, charged to the new South-West Africa Account, in accordance with a fixed formula (see paragraph 8 (c) of the White Paper) and (c) annually as much of the income tax on companies derived from sources in the Territory (except mining) as is prescribed by law.

In view of the establishment of a separate Post Office Fund, provision must, of course, be made for revenue from the Territory in respect of postal, telegraph, telephone and radio matters to be paid into that fund for utilization in accordance with the provisions of the legislation concerned. This arises from the separation of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and the decision that posts and telegraphs in the Territory will be administered as an integral part of the Department.

Mr. Speaker, it is customary at the second reading of a Bill to furnish particulars in connection with the contents of the various clauses. In this instance I find it less essential because, as I have said, a White Paper was made available last year which furnished all the particulars in connection with the proposed legislation, and if hon. members study that White Paper they will find in it a proper motivation of the various clauses. Under the circumstances this is actually a measure, except as far as the principles are concerned, which can to a large extent be discussed in the Committee Stage.

I nevertheless find it desirable just to refer to a few of the more important clauses in the Bill. The large majority of the 25 clauses contained in the Bill are not of particular importance, but there are indeed a few that are important, and I want to begin with clause 14, read in conjunction with the Schedule. Clause 14 is actually an extension of the existing section 22 of the principal Act. Section 22 of the principal Act provided that ordinances in respect of certain matters could not be made by the Legislative Assembly of South-West Africa except with the consent of the State President. This list of matters is now being augmented in clause 14, and then one also finds the same list of matters in the Schedule ….

The two do not correspond.

They very nearly correspond, but not quite, i.e. the Schedule and the particulars as set out in clause 14. In the first place clause 14 amends section 22 in certain respects and then supplements it. In other words, it is only certain of the matters that are now indicated in clause 14 as being the scheduled matters to which reference is made in the Schedule.

The second important clause is clause 19, which makes provision for the administration of these matters which previously fell under the jurisdiction of the Administration of South-West Africa, now to be transferred to the respective Ministers in the Republic.

Then there is clause 20, to which I want to refer briefly. This clause empowers the State President, by way of proclamation, to make certain laws, with amendments or additions or whatever, applicable to the Territory. I just want to mention in passing that this clause is essential. Perhaps it will never be used, but for the purposes of the practical rearrangement which is going to take place it may be necessary that certain amendments, in respect of the legislation applicable to South-West Africa will have to be made at short notice. Therefore it is necessary that such powers be granted so that if it should become necessary certain laws of the Republic, with additions or changes, can be made applicable there by proclamation by the State President. I think it goes without saying that it is not envisaged that the laws of the Republic will be made applicable in toto, or as they are contained in the Statute Book, to South-West Africa, but that in all probability there will be amendments, additions or omissions in respect of these laws in so far as they are to be made applicable in South-West Africa according to the circumstances there.

Then there are the financial arrangements in clause 22, where provision is made for a formula in terms of which South-West Africa will receive a portion of the moneys of the South-West Africa Account, in so far as South-West Africa will probably not have sufficient revenue for the administration of its own affairs. On the face of it this formula seems terribly complicated, but it is not quite so complicated, and an analysis it appears to be a highly scientific one. It boils down to the fact that “a” represents the average annual expenditure of South-West Africa for the past five years, and “b” the average revenue. In other words, the difference between expenditure, which will be greater, and the expected revenue, comes above the line in the formation of this formula. Below the line one finds in the first place the expenditure for which the Republic will be responsible in respect of the administration and handling of the scheduled matters. That is “c”, and to “c” is then added, below the line, South-West Africa’s shortfall, in other words the difference between the expenditure and the revenue. On an analysis the formula is actually not so complicated and has been devised altogether scientifically to give to South-West Africa, for its administration, a percentage of that portion of the revenue, on the basis of the past five years.

I believe, and in that belief I move the Second Reading of the Bill, that what is now being proposed here not only accords with our obligations and relationships towards South-West Africa, but will also contribute greatly to the better administration of South-West Africa and the greater development of that Territory. In that spirit I move the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, whatever the differences may be between the two sides of the House on this Bill—and I think there may well be considerable differences—I want to make it clear right at the very outset that it is common cause between the Government and the Opposition that the Republic has every right in international law, whether the mandate still exists or whether it has ceased to exist, to do what it is proposing to do under this Bill. I want no mistake about that, Sir, and that is why I emphasize it at the beginning.

I want to say that I have looked at the provisions of this Bill very carefully indeed, as I am sure many others have done, and I am satisfied that the provisions of this Bill in no way alter the international status or character of the territory. I say this with more conviction because it was my privilege to be in this House some 20 years ago and to hear the late Field-Marshal Smuts deal in this House with the negotiations which had led to the Treaty of Versailles in so far as they affected South-West Africa. He told us on that occasion of the attempts made by General Botha and himself to get South-West Africa incorporated into the Union. He told this House it was only the programme of President Wilson of the U.S.A. that had prevented them from succeeding, but he said, and here I want to quote—

There is thus no quarrel between us as to our right to do what is proposed in this Bill. There is no suggestion of incorporation or veiled annexation. It is merely a means of administering this territory as an integral part of South Africa. What I want to debate this afternoon, what is in issue between us, is the wisdom of the steps suggested and the wisdom of taking them at the present time.

The Bill cannot be looked at in isolation, it must be looked at as part of a pattern, and that pattern is the Government’s whole pattern for the development in the future of South-West Africa. That pattern is very different indeed from the pattern of development which we on this side of the House should like to see for South-West Africa. That is the main reason why we cannot support this Bill. There are other reasons too, but that is the main reason. These proposals cut right across what is our vision for the future of South-West Africa. I have outlined those proposals before in this House, and perhaps I should do so again very briefly.

We believe the formula should be a formula based on the acceptance of a federal concept and federal links between the Republic and South-West Africa. We accept that it is a historical fact that the territory has been divided into two areas, that north of the red line, which has always had a measure of autonomy, and that south of the red line. We have suggested that these two regions should each have their own form of autonomy and that the traditional constitutional pattern should be maintained. We believe that a further subdivision, namely cutting out the so-called “White portion” in the southern area, is not practical nor useful nor in the interests of the population. We believe the division between north and south should be recognized, and we have suggested that the administration of the northern region, that is to say, beyond the police zone, the Kaokoveld, Ovamboland, Okavangoland, and the Caprivi Zipvel, should be modernized as fast as possible to the point where each group manages matters of intimate concern to itself by means of communal councils, and that there should be a northern legislative body which has either a federal link with the southern area and through that with the Republic, or directly with the Republic.

How many federations will you have when you have finished?

The hon. the Prime Minister does not seem to be able to count above two or three, except when it comes to counting sovereign, independent states which he is going to cut out of South-West Africa and the Republic of South Africa. We have suggested that in the southern area, rather than limiting the powers of the present legislative assembly, it would be more in the spirit of the mandate to extend those powers and make that legislative assembly responsible for the whole southern portion of South-West Africa, with representation for the non-white group in that assembly and a federal link with the Republic of South Africa.

I think it is quite clear from what I have said that we on this side are in favour of a great measure of autonomy and of local self-government and the maintenance of federal links between the Republic and the peoples of South-West Africa.

What do you mean by a “great measure of autonomy”?

An even greater measure than they have at the present time. If the hon. the Minister of Transport wants to discuss with me ultimate visions, I am quite prepared to deal with that subject one day; there seems no point in it now.

Of course there is a point in it.

I believe that such an arrangement could only lead to friendly co-operation between the racial groups, the development of one loyalty to one state and one central government. It would enable the various groups to retain control of matters of more intimate concern to themselves. Friction on those matters could be avoided, while matters of national importance would be decided by the Central Government of the Republic and South-West Africa.

It is quite clear from the provisions of this Bill that they are completely contrary to the direction which we would like to take. Where we would like to see more powers and greater autonomy for the legislative assembly in the south, this Bill curtails that power severely and reduces the southern area, inhabited by the Whites, to a sort of pseudo-provincial council. Here it is interesting to note two very important aspects. The first is that these proposals by the Government are contrary to what was the trend for many years before 1949. I remember that, while the 1949 legislation was being discussed, when we replaced the 1925 Constitution, General Smuts and Dr. Malan told us about their negotiations with both political parties in South-West Africa. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will remember it very well. I remember General Smuts saying how South-West Africa wanted to run its own affairs, how they wanted a constitution that would give them a greater measure of freedom and how the then Prime Minister, Dr. Malan, introduced that constitution in this House, with the express purpose of giving South-West Africa a greater measure of freedom and greater control over its own affairs. What they wanted, was more power for their Legislative Assembly. They received that. They have had increasing powers from 1919, 1925 and 1949, and even in the early 1950’s the trend was all that way when we were up there fighting the general election.

The second matter that is important, is that this is not only contrary to the trend which has existed over a long period in South-West Africa, until only a few years ago, but these proposals are in sharp contrast to the proposals laid down in other legislation in respect of the non-white areas of South-West Africa, the embryo non-white nation states, which the Government hopes to create in South-West Africa. In fact, while provision is being made to give the non-Whites greater and wider powers, the Whites of the Territory, in so far as their Legislative Assembly is concerned, are under this legislation going to have their wings clipped and to lose powers they have exercised up there for a very long time. The effect of this legislation is to put the clock back very many years in so far as the constitutional development of the whites in South-West Africa is concerned. It amounts to the scrapping of the existing constitution, namely the one consolidated here last year, and the substitution for it of a pseudo-provincial system, which seems to me to hold no benefits for the white population of South-West Africa, as it will deprive them of effective control over the major share of the country’s revenue. But it leaves the international status of the territory unaltered. Likewise. I wonder Whether it holds so much benefit for the Republic. It is an advance, of course, in the direction of an ideological goal, but it is of very little benefit to our Government. While giving it effective control of the major part of South-West Africa’s revenue, we feel that money still has to be spent in South-West Africa. Here we find that the Legislative Assembly has been stripped of its powers and that it is being deprived of its power to control a major part of the revenue of the territory.

At their request.

The hon. gentleman says “at their request”. I will deal with this question later. We, in return, will get the power to deal with the rest, but we have to spend it in South-West Africa. It must be noted that this step is not being taken because the South-West Africa Legislative Assembly or the Administration has abused its powers or has been guilty of inefficient administration. That is not the reason. The Odendaal Commission’s report abounds with compliments with regard to the South-West African Administration and its efficiency. What are the reasons? The White Paper gives some of the reasons and the hon. the Minister has not sought to embellish upon them. Let us look at some of the reasons given for the changeover. It is suggested that this change will promote the welfare and security of the Territory and all its population groups. But will it? This deprives the Whites of the control of the bulk of the Territory’s revenue and how it should be spent in the interests of all the groups. I know it is going to be redistributed in a way that will give the non-Whites a large share of that revenue. At the same time, however, you are tampering with the economy of that country. Are you not weakening the position of the white man, Who is the mainstay and the backbone of the country’s economy? For this you are not substituting a corresponding strength in the economy of the non-white areas from which the whole country will benefit in a measure corresponding to the increased expenditure on non-Whites. You are building infra-structures in those territories. The history of Africa has shown that the non-Whites prosperity is dependent on the white man and that if the white man’s position deteriorates the non-white is often the greatest sufferer. What is happening under this legislation? You are dividing up the economy of South-West Africa into several little economies. Are they going to be able to co-operate? Are they going to work together? Are they going to be able to produce the self-same standard of living for everybody as what you are able to do at the present time? Moreover, you are taking the financial control out of the hands of the well-informed Legislative Assembly, in close touch with the needs of the territory, and you are putting it in the hands of this Parliament, where the influence of the hon. members representing South-West Africa can easily be swamped and where their effectiveness can be greatly affected by the provisions of clause 20, with which I will deal later.

It is also suggested in the White Paper that the change will promote more efficient administration. But will it? South-West Africa is a vast territory. It is an awful long way from Pretoria and the White Paper itself seems to recognize this by proposing the appointment of numerous supervisors in South-West Africa to provide for expeditious administration. In numerous cases officials left in South-West Africa would have to act as agents for the various departments of the Government. I foresee lots of difficulties in regard to this. I do not know that the Central Administration can be so proud of its record. I seem to remember the purchase of 340 farms in two years for R19 million for the settlement of the so-called non-white races in South-West Africa. How many of them have been settled and how many have been leased back to farmers, sometimes to the former owners? What is the state of those farms at the present time? I do not know whether this is an episode of which to be so proud. We have always recognized that South-West Africa and its Legislative Assembly could be treated differently from the other provinces. There are quotations going far back in time. General Smuts himself can be quoted as saying that he was quite happy that the South-West African legislature had greater powers than the Provincial Councils, because, he said: “Look at the geographical position. Look at the distances involved. Look at the problems with which they are faced.” We have, of course, recognized that. We have recognized that in this House by the fact that we have given them far more members than their population of voters would entitle them to. It is a recognition of the same thing.

[Inaudible.]

I am sorry, Sir, but I did not catch that interjection. It was also suggested in the White Paper that this change would promote greater security. How can it promote greater security unless there is greater clarity in respect of the international status of the territory? That status is, of course, not affected by this Bill. There is still a question mark. This Bill does not affect it. We are agreed on that. I am sure that, in making this statement, the composers of the White Paper were not thinking of security from the point of view of terrorist activity, because, as you know. Sir, the Police have always been under the control of the Central Government, and this makes no change in that regard. They suggested that the change would enable the South African Government to fulfil its responsibilities towards the territory more effectively. That I doubt, Sir, but what I do know is that it will place the Government in a strong position to spend South-West African money to create a fine display window for its Bantustan policy. In fact, one is inclined to wonder whether the real motive underlying the Government’s plan was not disclosed in the report of the Odendaal Commission, where the commissioners say in paragraph 208 that one reason for the take-over of administrative responsibilities is that it would be more in the spirit of the mandate if the expenditure on development in South-West Africa were made in the name of the Republican Government rather than in the name of the South-West African Administration. That seems to me to be one of the real reasons for this administrative change.

Then there is talk of a greater use to be made—and the Minister read this out—of the facilities at the disposal of the well-equipped departments of the Republic in spheres of expert guidance, technical knowledge and efficient planning. I must say, Sir, that that does not impress me either. That expert knowledge and planning has always been available, as the hon. the Minister knows. What has been missing is the manpower to carry it out. Is this Bill going to make any difference to the manpower available? I am informed that there has been a shortage of manpower to do the work, not a lack of planning and departments with expert knowledge. One comes to the conclusion that this is not a Bill designed to bring South-West Africa as a whole nearer to the Republic. It is a Bill designed to reduce the white area of the territory to a sort of provincial status and to facilitate the development of the non-White areas into nation states heading for independence. That is the idea behind the Bill. It is all part of the dangerous pattern which may easily have disastrous results for South-West Africa. If the security and the safe future of the country are to be the yardstick, then I believe that the proposals which we have put forward, and which are entirely contrary to this Bill, would be of infinitely more benefit and advantage to South-West Africa and all its people.

Now. Sir, there is a suggestion that this is being done at the request of the Legislative Assembly. I know that the all-powerful Nationalist Party in South-West Africa got a resolution through that Assembly, but I wonder whether the people really understand what is being done. I wonder whether they realize to what extent the powers of their Legislative Assembly are going to be clipped, and to what extent they are going to be stripped of those powers. I wonder whether it was not a consent given because of a desire to be faithful to the non-European policies of the Nationalist party rather than in the interests of the Territory as a whole.

In the proposals which I outlined as being supported by this side of the House, there was a place for the Coloured people. But what place have they here? They are now going to be controlled by the Department of Coloured Affairs. It is suggested in the White Paper—there is no provision for this in the Bill—that they are going to be given certain representation on the Coloured Representative Council. We have not yet heard whether that is going to be implemented or not. But. Sir, they are not going to have any representation in South-West Africa. They are not going to have any representation in this Parliament. Because of the Government’s lack of policy in respect of the Cape Coloured people, their future too is going to be left to be decided by our children.

Then, Sir, there is the position of the Rehoboth Bastards.

I think we should retain the Afrikaans word.

I accept that. The hon. the Prime Minister said that I should perhaps not translate the term, but they did once submit a petition to Parliament from “We, the Bastards, the descendants of the Voortrekkers”. I do not know therefore whether that delicacy is really necessary. We know that they are Coloured people. We know that they have their special council. We know the difficulties which led to a magistrate being appointed in charge of them. We know that certain negotiations have been undertaken. But where are we going now? We see that they have been making statements to the papers, demanding minutes of the meeting with the hon. the Prime Minister. They have been making suggestions that they were going to employ an international lawyer.

They now have those minutes.

I am very glad to hear that. The Prime Minister tells me that they now have the minutes. That is most satisfactory. But the question still remains: Where are we going with these people? What is their future in this area? One cannot talk of independence for such a small group, just as one cannot talk of independence for the Namas. What is their future going to be in this little enclave which is going to be administered as a province from Pretoria?

I think I have said enough to make it clear that our thinking on this side of the House is so far removed from the principle of this Bill that it is not possible for us to support it, and also that there does not seem much point in discussing the details of the different clauses. We disagree with the whole fundamental concept and I do not think that details matter very much. But the hon. the Minister will agree that there are perhaps two clauses to which I should direct attention. The first is clause 9, which changes the method of election of members of the Executive Committee. It was proportional representation in the old days. It is now to be changed to the “winner take all” principle. We debated that matter in this House six or seven years ago in respect of the provincial councils in South Africa. This change is now being brought about in South-West Africa. I wonder whether hon. members opposite feel that it has been such a success in our own country that we should extend it further. I have considerable doubts, Mr. Speaker. When one sees the sort of mess that has been made in some provinces, then one wonders whether we have adopted the right principle in this regard. I think we should hesitate to extend it further.

Are you talking about Natal?

Sir. I must confess that I was thinking of the Transvaal particularly, and particularly of some of the scandals we have had there lately. There was a little trouble in the Free State too.

The second clause to which I want to draw attention is clause 20 which is headed: “Application and amendment of laws by State President”. I think this clause is worthy of some attention. The hon. the Minister says that it is an essential clause. He says perhaps it will not be used, but it is nevertheless necessary to have power to act at short notice. Sir, the provisions of this clause are to the effect that—

1. (a) declare any provision of any law of the Republic, which in his opinion relates to a scheduled matter, to apply in the territory or in the territory excluding such portions thereof as may be specified in the proclamation, subject to such amendments, additions, modifications, exceptions or conditions as he may deem fit;
2. (b) repeal, amend or modify any provisions of any law in force in the territory in as far as in his opinion it relates to a scheduled matter;
3. (c) amend or modify any provision of any law of the territory relating to the expropriation of land or other property for public purposes.

Then, Sir, leaving out one subsection—

Sir, these are tremendous powers; these are extremely wide powers. One knows that under the old Act. No. 39 of 1968, the State President had certain powers. He had the power by proclamation to make laws for the territory in relation to any matter in regard to which the Assembly may not in terms of section 22 make ordinances, but that power in the consolidated Act which we passed last year was subject to two safeguards; the first was: so long and as far only as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with an Act of Parliament which applies in the territory and, secondly, that those proclamations had to be laid on the Tables of the Senate and the House of Assembly within 14 days if Parliament was sitting or, if not, then within 14 days of Parliament assembling, and the House of Assembly and the Senate by joint resolution had the power to declare those proclamations to be of no force and effect. But here we have a position where the State President is given enormous powers. Of course, one realizes that it is not the State President; it is the State President acting on the advice of the Cabinet. The Cabinet is being given enormous powers here. It can decide that parts of an Act must be applied to South-West Africa. It can amend an Act passed by this Parliament and, having amended it, apply it to South-West Africa. It can leave bits out of the Act; it can put an Act in force and, having put it in force, it can withdraw it, alter it and make it of retrospective effect. Sir, these are enormous powers. There is no state of emergency in South-West Africa. Why are these powers being asked for? Why are there no safeguards? It seems to me that this is a complete admission that there may be an absolute administrative break-down. What is the reason? Do you see, Sir, what we are doing? This sovereign Parliament of the Republic of South Africa is being asked to divest itself of certain powers in favour of the Cabinet, allowing the Cabinet to put these schemes into operation in respect of South-West Africa.

Sir, what is the position now of the members of South-West Africa? They come to this Parliament and they give their advice. It may be accepted or it may be ignored and then the Cabinet can go and act without consulting them and do what it likes in South-West Africa virtually and they will have no say. They may not even be consulted. They seem to become almost rubber stamps and it seems to me that they are being placed in a most invidious position. Sir, if you look at clause 14 of this Bill, you find that they are placed in a most invidious position in respect of some very important matters. There is the administration of justice and a large range of subjects to do with it. Then you have water affairs, a matter of vital importance; then there are matters relating to the adoption of children, the welfare of children, juveniles and aged persons; there are matters relating to mining and matters relating to agriculture. In respect of all these matters vast powers are being given to the State President. You could understand it if they were given in respect of matters affecting the security of the State, or emergencies, but these are vitally important everyday matters which should be considered carefully and weighed up and in which the opinion of members of this House should have proper consideration.

Do you think that is a practical suggestion?

Sir, if people are accustomed to working inefficiently then they want all sorts of emergency measures to get themselves out of difficulties. But if you are accustomed to planning a thing properly and working it out efficiently, you do not need those emergency measures; then you plan properly and you lay a sound foundation for what you do. Sir, where before in the legislation of the Republic of South Africa have such powers ever been given to the State President?

You will find the spirit in sub-clause (2).

The hon. the Minister says that I will find the spirit in sub-clause (2) …

I know you will not be satisfied with it.

I accept that the hon. gentleman has good intentions but, as you know, Sir, there is a place … the road to which is paved with good intentions. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That has been said so many times. What is the function of this House if these powers are to be given to the Cabinet and there is to be no control, as there should be in any democracy?

I think we should ask ourselves whether this Bill is necessary, whether we are embarking on a wise course or whether we are moving in the wrong direction. We on this side of the House think that we are moving in a wrong direction with this legislation. We were not entirely satisfied with the 1949 legislation. We had difficulties with it; we knew what the troubles were. We had difficulties with South-West Africa retaining control over taxation on mines; we were worried about certain taxation matters, but the general road seemed to be the right one, allowing them to manage their own affairs and giving them greater freedom. That road, Sir, is being reversed as far as the Whites are concerned, but as far as the non-Whites are concerned, they are to be helped along the road to independence. Small groups, tiny communities, people who could not even fill a village or small town in many countries of the world, are being told that they are being placed on the road to independence. Why this difference?

Then comes the last question: Is it wise to take these steps at this time? I have participated in this debate very largely to make it absolutely clear that the Opposition is satisfied that we have the power to do what is being done. It means no change in international status. Sir, my last question is this: Is it wise to do it at this time? There are going to be trouble-makers throughout the world who are going to try to seize on this, who are going to try to give it a different interpretation. Just at a time when it seems that the fires are burning low in respect of South-West Africa we come with legislation of this kind. Is it worth it, Sir? What real advantages do we get; what real advantages do the people of South-West Africa get? I believe that it is most unwise. I do not believe that the advantages that you will get out of it are worth the disadvantages to which we may be subjected. I believe that it is a movement in the wrong direction. For that reason we shall vote against this Bill.

I am very grateful to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for having stated explicitly at the beginning of his speech that what the Government was doing to-day was quite constitutional and that even the Opposition had no objection to it as such. But after he had spoken for some time, I was very sorry, sorry for the population of South-West Africa, for the Nationalists and the supporters of the United Party in South-West Africa, because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to-day once again placed us in the midst, one could say in the mouth, of the U.N. I can give you the assurance, Sir, that the U.N. will scrutinize every word spoken here to-day on this Bill in order to see whether it cannot draw any venom from what was said.

I come to the hon. member for South Coast. I remember that another debate on South-West Africa was conducted in this House approximately 20 years ago, and that at that time he gave his Party the sound advice that South-West Africa was a matter about which there was to be no party squabbling; it was a matter to be kept out of politics. I wonder whether the hon. member for South Coast has lost his influence in the caucus of the United Party this year, seeing that they have raised this delicate issue of South-West Africa in this House in this way.

Sir, in a few days time it will be exactly 20 years ago, February, 1949, that another debate on the same subject was in progress in this House, and I should like the Opposition to have a look in the mirror to-day so that it may see itself in the image it presented in 1949. I want to make a few quotations from the Hansard report of that time. At that time the Opposition objected to South-West Africa obtaining control over its own finances. To-day it wants to grant additional powers to South-West Africa. At that time they opposed this with might and main and called for divisions on the issue. I want to quote what the Leader of the Opposition, the late General Smuts, said about the issue. He was referring to the right which was being granted to South-West Africa to control its own finances, and on that occasion he said the following. I am quoting from Hansard of 17th February, 1949, col. 1295. He said—

Then he went on to say—

On the next page he said—

The hon. members for Yeoville and Transkei and all the other hon. members opposite spoke in the same vein.

About mining.

About mining, and about the fact that South-West Africa was retaining authority over its own taxes.

And now you have taken back mining.

Precisely. Now the Opposition comes along, 20 years later, and they say that South-West Africa should receive more of these powers; they want to introduce a federal system in South-West Africa. Is this not a complete somersault? In 1949 they objected to South-West Africa retaining only its finances, authority over its own income tax, but this year they say that South-West Africa should obtain increased powers; its solution was not to be found in its having to have its political future in close association with the Republic. One asks oneself, “What has happened in the interim to have made the United Party undergo such a drastic change of attitude?” I did not know what that was until it suddenly occurred to me that an election will be held in Windhoek before long. That is why the United Party is now making an attempt to pave the way for the United Party in South-West Africa, for its compeer there. But this too will not be of any avail. I can give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the assurance that the United Party will suffer one of its most crushing defeats ever on the 5th March. There is no doubt about this. But I want to show and hold up to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a mirror of the U.N.S.W.P. and its leader in South-West Africa, so that he may see with what people he is associating himself to-day; because the attitude he adopted to-day was that of the U.N.S.W.P. of South-West Africa, which has had its day and which at present does not have a single seat either in the House of Assembly or in the Legislative Assembly. He has no chance of making any impression on the voters of South-West Africa. I have here a speech by the Leader of the Opposition there, Advocate J. P. Niehaus, which was published in their own mouthpiece, Die Suidwes-Afrikaner, of 19th July, 1968. He said here, and these are the people the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is echoing (translation)—

He said this with reference to the Bill at present under consideration in this House—

The leader of the U.N.S.W.P. created the impression that this legislation was to be passed because the Republic was keen to pocket the finances of South-West Africa. Sir, I say this is a reprehensible statement. He went on to say in his newspaper—

I call this a disgrace. The report continues—

This still refers to the leader of the Opposition there—

He continued—

This is the type of propaganda which is being made in South-West Africa against this legislation by the allies of the hon. members opposite. But, Sir, this is nothing indeed. I want to show you, Sir, what they are in fact doing. I have here a front page report which appeared in that party’s mouthpiece of 13th August, 1968, and this report was published in consequence of this legislation. The headlines are (translation), “Vorster attaches little importance to South-West Africa”, and the report reads (translation)—

Further on the following appears—

This is what was said of this legislation by the Leader of the Opposition’s ally in South-West Africa. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not even want to contradict him, and then he comes along with his so-called federal system. I want to read to the hon. member from Hansard, General Smuts’s rejection of this federal system.

No, never; not our federal system. [Laughter.]

It seems to me every hon. member opposite has his own federal system. Nevertheless, on 17th February, 1949, General Smuts referred to these increased powers for South-West Africa, powers for which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is pleading at the present time, and this is what he said about them (Hansard, vol. 66, col. 1297)—

This is the system which he rejected. This is exactly the opposite of what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to-day. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to suggest that the federal system has to be introduced in respect of South-West Africa because it was such a really advantageous one, why does he not advocate the same system for the Free State and the Transvaal and Natal and the Cape Province? It would not surprise me if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, if he wanted to be consistent, were to introduce a motion here to-morrow to the effect that our provincial system was a bad one and that we should apply the federal system in the Republic. In what respect does the position of Natal, the Free State, the Cape Province and the Transvaal differ from that of South-West Africa? Before coming to the other remarks made by the Opposition, I first want to make a few remarks in respect of this whole constitutional issue. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition associated himself with the U.N.S.W.P. to-day. I want to give hon. members in this House an image of the U.N.S.W.P. as far as this issue is concerned; a Party that has changed its attitude regarding the political future of South-West Africa from year to year and from election to election. In 1927 the attitude of the U.N.S.W.P. in respect of South-West Africa was “annexation by the Union”. I am placing this in inverted commas, because these are the exact words taken from the resolution adopted at their congress. In 1928 it merely was “closer association with the Union”. In 1929 they wanted “a larger degree of self government”. In 1932 they made propaganda for—and once again I am placing this in inverted commas—“the incorporation of South-West Africa with the Union”. In 1934 it was “a fifth province of the Union or otherwise as an integral part of the Union”. In 1940, and once again at their congress, “incorporation with the Union without any reservations and without any strings attached”. In 1953 the resolution of their congress was that they wanted to stand on their own feet and wanted to work out their own salvation. In 1954 they wanted an independent status for South-West Africa. In 1955 they wanted recognition as an “independent state”. This then is the Party of which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is a faithful ally to-day. I can think of only one person in this House who can beat this record of the U.N.S.W.P., and he is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who has belonged to five different parties since the discussion of this legislation in this House 20 years ago.

I do not think there is any need to deal with rights which the original mandate agreement gave the Republic, namely “full powers of administration as an integral part”, as was quoted by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Indeed, there was no need for the then Union of South Africa to grant any degree of self-government to South-West Africa. It could administer South-West Africa by proclamation; as a matter of fact, the mandate agreement provides explicitly that it may administer South-West Africa with its own laws. The only condition is that it has to observe certain provisions of the mandate agreement, inter alia,those relating to slave trading, penal servitude, arms and ammunition, intoxicating liquor and freedom of religion. Subject to those conditions, it could have administered South-West Africa by proclamation up to this day.

But who is denying that now?

I am pleased that the hon. member and I now have a point about which we agree. In a short while the hon. member will agree with me even more. The only reason why South-West Africa has been guided in the direction of a fifth province and why it has obtained increased powers, is that experience has proved the provincial system to be the ideal one in Southern Africa. That is why it is possible to welcome this new legislation which was submitted to Parliament to-day and which grants increased powers to Parliament, because this has been proved to be the well-tried system which is working well in respect of the four provinces of South Africa. Consequently indications are that it will also be the ideal system for South-West Africa. As long as there is prosperity in South-West Africa, it is understandable that no change is actually necessary to the powers granted to the Legislative Assembly as compared to those granted to Parliament. At present South-West Africa possesses large sources of revenue. At the present moment South-West Africa can continue on its own, but this does not mean that that will always be the case; as a matter of fact, South-West Africa’s sources are extremely uncertain at present. For instance, one of its sources is taxation on diamonds while diamond mines are a diminishing asset. Another source is the fishing industry which is also a diminishing one, and we are aware of the ever-increasing interest shown in the fishing industry along the West Coast of South-West Africa by foreign powers. The karakul industry in its turn is dependent on fashions from Paris—all uncertain and changeable assets. But we cannot continue in this way for ever; as a matter of fact, the status which South-West Africa has derived from the fact that it has retained certain powers in respect of finance and other matters, has left in its wake a great deal of uncertainty about its political future, a very large question-mark. This is the most important reason why South-West Africa to-day welcomes this legislation with open arms.

Of what use is that now?

They welcome this legislation because it gives them a large degree of certainty about the political future of South-West Africa. It is being linked more closely to the Republic, and this is what South-West Africa wants. We know, and this has also been said and admitted by various foreign concerns, that one of the most important reasons why South-West Africa has had to depend chiefly on capital from the Republic and not from overseas is the fact that foreign investors have been hesitant to invest in South-West Africa because they did not know what was going to become of South-West Africa. This Bill will be the most potent injection for economic development South-West Africa has been given since the establishment of the mandate in 1920. This is absolutely true. There are various reasons why South-West Africa cannot but welcome this legislation to-day. In the first place, it will bring increased administrative benefits for South-West Africa—more efficiency and less overlapping of the departments, as the hon. the Minister said when moving the second reading motion. As regards administrative problems, it has also been South-West Africa’s experience that it could not readily obtain officials from the Republic because officials in the Republic are under the impression that if they accept a post in South-West Africa, they are side-tracked with fewer chances to be considered for further promotion in the Republic. Consequently we have had to grant special territorial benefits to attract officials to the territory. Now the officials of the Republic will administer South-West Africa as one of the provinces.

Will those benefits fall away?

No, the benefits will not fall away. What is more, South-West Africa cannot expect the Republic to spend large sums of money in South-West Africa, as proposed in the Odendaal Report, while the officials of the Republic have no control over such expenditure. That is why this is absolutely essential. The financial benefits which are attached to this legislation are so great that South-West Africa in fact has no second thoughts about accepting this legislation. It has always been a complaint abroad that South-West Africa as not being developed to an adequate extent; as a matter of fact at one stage Advocate Niehaus, the leader of the U.N.S.W.P., said to the U.N. delegation under Carpio with regard to the phenomenon that South-West Africa was lagging behind in its economic development, that they had to exercise pressure on the National Government from the outside and that they, the U.N.S.W.P. would exercise pressure from the inside for increased development to take place. But South-West Africa is receiving other major advantages. For example, the split railway tariff is being abolished, which is a major advantage to South-West Africa. This will bring South-West Africa a tangible economic advantage of close on R4 million. Just consider what a difference this will make to the cost of living of the people living on the pioneers frontier of South-West Africa. But to me as a South-West African the most important advantage contained in this legislation is the fact that the changeable economy of South-West Africa will be linked to the firm anchor of the Republic’s economy, which is at present regarded as one of the most stable economies in the world because of South Africa’s gold production. This will bring major advantages to South-West Africa. The uniform financial arrangements which will follow on this legislation, will promote South-West Africa’s trade, because that territory’s foreign trade will now be included in that of the Republic. Furthermore, it will be easier for the two to combat inflation, for example, than would have been the case if South-West Africa were to have retained authority over its finances and the Republic separate authority over its own financial affairs. For that reason there will be greater advantages. In the case of the European Common Market we find that there has been integration of the economies of member countries for the very reason of enjoying greater financial advantages. Another major advantage is the following. Although provision is being made here for South-West Africa’s revenue to be ploughed back into South-West Africa itself, provision is being made that in the event of any losses on the Revenue Account, as there repeatedly were in the past, South-West Africa will have the enormous advantage of aid from the Republic, just as the Republic at present aids the provinces financially.

In addition there is another great advantage which the provinces do not have at present. South-West Africa is being treated on virtually the same basis as the provinces to-day, and in addition it enjoys more representation in this Parliament than any of the four provinces of the Republic does. Let us examine the numbers. In the Republic there are 160 constituencies. According to the latest survey there are 1,840,530 voters, which means an average quota of 11,503. On the other hand, South-West Africa has 38,414 voters only and six representatives in this Parliament, in other words an average of only 6,402. This means, therefore, that the average voter of South-West Africa, as compared to the voters in the provinces, will have twice as much say in the sovereign Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. I say South-West Africa appreciates this favouritism which we are now being shown, and it is not passing unnoticed.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition alleged here that the voters of South-West Africa did not realize all the implications of this legislation, and he tried to suggest that we had not informed those voters fully. I now want to say that the voters of that territory are fully acquainted with what is contained in this legislation. After the Odendaal Report and its implications had been explained to the voters of South-West Africa, an election was held in which we won all the seats; we made a clean sweep. In other words, that was confirmation of the Odendaal Report and the White Paper tabled in this House by the Government of the Republic. That is why I am saying that the hon. members opposite should not say that the voters of South-West Africa are uninformed about what is contained in this measure. As a matter of fact, last year the congress of the National Party again adopted a unanimous resolution in which it expressed appreciation to the Prime Minister for the legislation which was to be introduced.

South-West Africa is standing on the threshold of tremendous development, and it is a good thing that it has at this stage of its development a ruling party such as the National Party that can see the possibilities of future development and can provide the necessary stimuli for bringing about such development. On the other hand, it would have been a tragedy had the opposite side been in power. To-day, as never before, South-West Africa is getting the opportunity of coming to the fore with a tremendous stimulation of its economy, and it is a good thing that the opposite side, which is opposing this measure, has not had the authority of deciding on the introduction or otherwise of this measure, because that would have been a tragedy to South-West Africa. As a matter of fact, those hon. members on the opposite side of this House who are using the opportunistic policy of the U.N.S.W.P. to-day in view of the fact that a by-election will be held in Windhoek before long, will be disillusioned, because after this legislation has been introduced and passed here, those hon. members will also have to take up a stand in respect of the cardinal issues of South-West Africa when the various departments of South-West Africa are under discussion in the Parliament of the Republic. Then I should like to see how the hon. members opposite are going to present the point of view of the voters of South-West Africa without their having a single branch or a single supporter in that territory, because, after all, they are boasting that they have nothing to do with the U.N.S.W.P. This legislation will have the effect that the U.N.S.W.P. and the United Party will have to fuse in order to be able to say something here about the affairs of South-West Africa, and I think this is one of the reasons why hon. members opposite are shying away from this legislation. I think they realize to some extent that when they are associated with the U.N.S.W.P., a party which indicates so many different directions that it does not know where it will be standing the next day, theirs will be a lost cause.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down referred to a debate in which I participated some 20 years ago and he referred to an appeal which I made to keep the heat out of debates on South-West Africa as far as possible. I want to repeat that appeal here to-day because I think that, although this is one of those matters which has got to be debated here in Parliament, we should try and be as objective as we possibly can, because in the last resort we know perfectly well where South Africa stands as far as South-West Africa is concerned. There is no need to elaborate on that, I think. Sufficient for me to say I think there is no doubt that South Africa stands behind a certain concept regarding its relations with South-West Africa. That concept is, however, broken, and badly broken, by the Government’s policy regarding Ovamboland and the development of sovereign Bantu states. That is where the real big cleavage is.

I wish to come back to the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down, and I want to say I find it difficult to believe the hon. member could become so emotional over the actions and speeches of members in South-West Africa who are members of the United National South-West Africa Party. He said the leader of that party is the “bondgenoot” of my hon. Leader. He knows that it is not so. He cannot say that with sincerity. He cannot repeat it. He cannot stand up here with his hand on his heart and say that believes that that party in South-West Africa …

But you are going to help them in the election. What about the Senators?

I want the hon. member to listen. He cannot stand up here with his hand on his heart and say that he believes that that party is part and parcel of the United Party here in South Africa.

As near as damn it.

The hon. the Minister says as near as “damn it”. You see, Sir, “damn it” is the difference. The hon. the Minister should know it and “damn it”, there is a difference! So the hon. member for Middalland, with all due respect, spent a great deal of time beating a drum; in fact, beating a bale of hay. He is just making dull, thumping noises. There is no substance in it. It contained nothing substantial, except food for a donkey.

Just let us now have a look for a moment at the position which has arisen and go back to the earlier days in regard to legislation dealing with South-West Africa. It is no good the hon. member trying to quote from Hansard in regard to the late General Smuts’ difficulty about mining taxation and income tax. My hon. Leader pointed out that under this Bill, mining taxation is coming to us in this House. Individual income tax still stays with the Legislative Assembly in South-West Africa. But company tax, subject to a certain deduction, is taken away from them. So, the Government is moving right up to the point that General Smuts took, with his prescience and his foresight, in 1949.

I want to go further. General Smuts was always sympathetic towards South-West Africa. There was always in the General’s heart a sympathetic understanding for that small group of Whites who were battling to maintain civilization and keep the territory of South-West Africa. There was always a special relationship. He was not prepared to throw the white man in South-West Africa to the international wolves. That is the truth of the matter. I remember in this House when the late Prime Minister, Dr. Malan, introduced a Bill, dealing with representatives of South-West Africa who were to be their representatives in this House. You remember, Sir, the first draft which came before this House. Those members did not have the right to deal with financial measures in this House. They had limited powers as Members of Parliament. I remember so well General Smuts sitting here, calling across to Dr. Malan, the then Prime Minister, saying: “But why do you not make them full Members of Parliament?” And Dr. Malan said: “They have their own financial autonomy to a very great extent, and I thought that you would object if we also gave them a voice in the financial affairs of the Union. I am prepared to exclude them from participating in discussions of financial affairs here in the Union.” General Smuts said: “No, no. Make them full Members of Parliament. Give them a full say, the same as all the other members.” It was General Smuts who said that. It is on the record. So Dr. Malan said: “Oh! All right, the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to accept that; so be it.” So that Bill was changed and hon. members came here. But now I want to ask in all fairness: When this Bill before us is passed, what then is any kind of reason or excuse whatsoever for having members in this House from South-West Africa? They will have taken the financial powers which have until now rested in the hands of the South-West Africa Assembly. Through this Bill they will arrange for the money to be collected and passed as a lump sum to the Treasury here in South Africa. It is then for the Treasury and the Government here in the Republic to determine under what sub-heads that money is to be spent. Back in South-West they are not interested in it. They cannot even voice a viewpoint. They have nothing to do with it. If this Bill is passed, that money will be brought from South-West where it accrues, to us and the Treasury here, to the South-West Africa Fund. Then it goes back again to be spent under the various subheads as determined by our Treasury in South-West Africa. They have no say in the matter. Their residual powers of finance rest with the Assembly in South-West Africa. They are not members of the Assembly. What are they any longer in this House?

They will have more say in this House than now.

Why?

Of course!

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. the Minister in charge of this Bill when he gets up to tell us what further powers this Bill will confer on the members for South-West Africa. What more say will they have? Will he kindly indicate that to us in the Bill so that we can see what those additional powers are, conferred on Members of Parliament for South-West Africa? Where in this Bill are further powers conferred upon them? The hon. member for Middelland repeated what the hon. the Prime Minister said. I noted it. It is of the very greatest importance that the people of South-West Africa knew what they were doing when they relinquished the powers which they are relinquishing in this Bill. He said they knew what they were doing. They were relinquishing powers after they had weighed the pros and cons, and they were prepared to let that go.

Let me make just one point. Supposing oil is struck in South-West Africa after the passing of this Bill, do the people of South-West Africa realize what they will have given away at the behest of their own Members of Parliament, who say that they knew what they were doing? They did it with their eyes open?

We shall give nothing away.

The hon. member for Middelland said that with the passing of this Bill there were going to be tighter bonds between the Republic and South-West Africa. I do not know what kind of “tighter bonds” he feels there can be. My Leader has said, I repeat it and we all accept it on this side, that this legislation is legal in the sense that this Parliament, of which this House is a constituent part, can legally pass legislation such as we have before us. But that is no question. There is no argument about that. So there can be no tighter legal bonds as a result of the passing of this Bill. There can be no tighter constitutional bonds. Does the hon. the Minister deny that there can be no tighter constitutional bonds as exist at the present time?

Constitutional maybe.

No, Mr. Speaker, Surely the hon. the Minister knows whether this Bill is going to create a tighter bond.

That is not our only obligation.

No, no. I am not talking about obligations. I am saying that with the passing of this Act, there can be no tighter constitutional bonds that bind South-West Africa to the Republic to-day. If I am wrong, let the hon. the Minister say “you are wrong. I will tell you what the tighter constitutional bond is”. No, of course he cannot. Yet the hon. member for Middelland talked about tighter bonds. But there cannot be a tighter constitutional bond, there cannot be a tighter economic bond, because the revenues in respect of all those scheduled matters from South-West are being collected and brought to be allocated from the Republic for expenditure back in South-West Africa. Most meticulous care is being taken that every cent collected in South-West Africa should be spent back again in South-West Africa. But there it is. There is nothing tighter in the way of bonds, so far as that is concerned. Then where are the bonds? As my hon. Leader has pointed out, the Minister of Police in South Africa has always had control over the police in South-West Africa. There is no tighter bond there. There is no greater control over the police. The people of South-West Africa always wanted a greater measure of control over their own police, right down throughout the years. Even those who vote Nationalist to-day, have always wanted to have greater control over the police. There is no tighter control there. Where is the tighter control? Where is the tighter bond?

If you cannot see it, why do you object to it?

I am taking the argument that the hon. member uses. I have shown how hollow that argument is. He made one point, namely the split rate on the railway. The Minister of Transport last year said that he was doing away with the split rate. It is being provided for in this Bill. But it was not necessary to bring it into this Bill. When once the Government had made up its mind to do away with the split rate, it was a simple matter then to dispose of it. Was it necessary to bring it into a Bill of this nature? If it makes for a tighter bond, what kind of a tighter bond does it mean? Does it mean that, in so far as the South African Railways is concerned now, they are prepared to suffer a further loss in the interests of South-West Africa? We have always accepted that we should be sympathetic towards South-West Africa. Where are the tighter bonds the hon. member was referring to? It is a figure of speech and it means nothing. There are no tighter bonds.

Now let us look at another point. My hon. Leader has dealt with a number of very important issues, including the powers of the State President, to change, alter, repeal and amend certain legislation falling within the schedule.

That can all be done. That. Sir, is the basic reason why the members of Parliament from South-West Africa are no longer necessary here, because that is what can be done without them. But supposing that that power was conferred on the State President in respect of the whole Republic. What would we then need in South Africa? We would then only need the Prime Minister and the Minister of Police and I think the rest of us could all go home and leave everything to the State President, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Police. The hon. the Minister of Police is also the Minister of the Interior. Perhaps he could keep that portfolio as well. At the behest of the Prime Minister, advised by the Minister of Police and of the Interior, the State President could change, alter, control and govern the whole Republic and South-West Africa. When it suited him, and he did not like what he had done he could make any legislation retrospective and date it back to the previous month or the previous year. To make this legislation retrospective is incredible, but the hon. member for Middelland sits here smiling happily and says that this will make for tighter bonds between the Republic and South-West Africa and that we will all be such friends together, greater friends than ever.

Let us look at another issue that arises here. In the issue before us there is nothing for the white man in South-West Africa. It is very interesting to note that in the White Paper the Government goes back to the term “Native” when it deals with some of the indigenous peoples of South-West Africa.

Do you know the reason for that?

The hon. member asks if I know what the reason for this is. Yes, I know what the reason is and the reason makes no difference to the facts. One can commit murder and may have good reasons for it, but the fact remains that the law will say that you have committed murder. That is all they will be concerned with. I want to suggest to the hon. member that the Government has murdered its own term “Bantu” which it has fought with and battled with for some years, although we have pointed out that it is grammatically quite wrong to use that term. They have now had to go back because they are compelled to do so as the Natives are not Bantu.

They are Natives.

Yes, the Natives there are not Bantu and so they cannot call them Bantu. They have got to use the term which was in general use before and call them Natives. When they get to the Nama they are again in big trouble. They do not like to make the Nama Coloureds and will not give them a representative in the Coloured Council. They will give the people they call Coloureds in South-West Africa a representative in the Coloured Council, but they will not give the Nama a representative in the Coloured Council. The Nama will be dealt with by the Department of Coloured Affairs here. I want to repeat that in this Bill there is nothing for the white man in South-West Africa. The limitation placed upon their Assembly’s powers to legislate virtually reduces them to the white people in the white areas, with the single exception of public health and hospitals which extends right over. The Government goes further than that and provides here in a form for the Coloured people which they do not provide for the Coloured people here in the Republic, especially after the Prime Minister’s volte face in the debate on the no confidence motion. After the Prime Minister did that complete volte face this makes strange reading, because provision is made here for the Coloured people, including the Namas, in South-West Africa, whereas there is no such provision for the Coloureds in South Africa. In fact, the Coloured people from South Africa now cannot go to South-West Africa and the Coloured people from South-West Africa are also apparently not allowed to travel to South Africa.

To settle.

Yes, I am sorry. I mean to settle and not to travel. Let us look at the position of the Basters at Rehoboth. There is a group of people, small, but they have been governing themselves for a very long time and have a wonderful history. It is amazing how well they have done when one traces the history of these people, and one reads Dr. Vedder’s book on South-West Africa. But there they are and there they sit. They cannot be a viable community and cannot be a modern state in 1969. What corresponding development is there anywhere amongst the Coloured people in South Africa which is now apparently, if I read the papers correctly, going to be safeguarded by the hon. the Prime Minister’s assurance to them that there is going to be a special subdivision in the Department of Coloured Affairs under the Minister of Coloured Affairs to protect them, their rights, their position, their way of life and their autonomy up to a certain point. This is given to the people at Rehoboth in South-West Africa but it is not given to any other Coloured persons in South Africa. Our Coloured people do not get it.

With regard to the Bantu the Government has now found itself in a complete fix. It cannot call them Bantu any longer and it has to call them Natives.

Do you deny the Rehoboth the right to remain a separate group if they want to remain separate?

Has the hon. the Minister really got down to asking standard 3 level questions? He sounds like a standard 3 boy asking his master questions. He asked me if I deny them the right. I am talking about a Bill that is before us. This is Parliament. I am talking about his Bill. I want to ask the hon. the Minister why he treats our own Coloured people in such a cavalier fashion, while he is giving such sympathetic treatment to these people in South West.

Who have got a homeland.

Yes, who have got a homeland and some powers, limited though they may be. I think this complete differentiation in treatment is bad and shocking. I do hope that when the Minister gets up to reply he is going to tell us categorically and clearly where he is going with regard to the Natives of South-West Africa, because there is nothing for the white man. There is something for the Coloured man and the Native people who come under that clammy, dead hand of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in South Africa. Presumably even those who are not Bantu will be treated in precisely the same way as the Bantu in the Republic of South Africa. I do not know, but I hope that the hon. the Minister will tell us what the position of the Native people in South-West Africa who are not Bantus is going to be. We are entitled to know. When I remember the statements made the other day with such force and determination about the moral and ethical right of these people to self-determination I want to ask what right to self-determination the Natives who are not Bantus in South-West Africa have. There is nothing about this in this Bill.

I would also like to deal with the question of the revenue in South-West Africa. At the present time, as far as I can ascertain, there are three groups of people who get specially low interest rates in the territory. They are the municipalities who want loans, the Land Bank and the farmers, although it is not clear whether the loans to farmers in fact are included in the loans to the Land Bank. But however that may be, these folk get a specially low rate of interest, and it is provided here that the rate of interest will remain low so long as the money from South-West Africa is adequate. When this has been received here in the Republic and then handed back to them to meet the calls upon their own funds, those low rates of interest will remain, but the statement is made that if adequate funds are not available from their own resources, then we will have to make loans. In the first place, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether any loan which we may be called upon to make from the Republic to the South-West African Administration for the purpose of meeting commitments to the municipalities, the farmers and the Land Bank, will be provided for in a Bill so that it can come before Parliament as an item for consideration in our own estimates clearly shown as a loan to the Administration of South-West Africa; whether in fact we will see that that money is being taken from here and loaned to South-West Africa? That is the first point. Secondly, Sir, what is the position with regard to the interest rates which are going to be charged? It is stated in the White Paper that if once the money emanating from South-West Africa, the revenue which has accrued there, comes to the Republic, to our Treasury, and is then re-allotted to South-West Africa, is inadequate for the various purposes, the interest rate will not be maintained at the present low level when once funds borrowed in the form of loans from the Republic are made available. What then is the position with regard to interest? Is the interest then to be averaged out with all those who have borrowed South-West African money, if I may call it that, in the past? Is their interest rate to be raised so as to average out with the rate for new borrowers, or what is the position? Are the old borrowers to retain their rate of interest? Do only those who come in and who utilize money which is the subject of a loan from the Republic, have to pay the higher rate of interest? I ask this, Sir, because it is quite clear that in the course of time, it must be apparent that if the development in South-West Africa which is contemplated is to take place, there is going to be a further financial adjustment necessary one of these days between South-West Africa and the Republic.

There is a Bill before the House already—the Land Bank Bill.

Yes, the Land Bank Bill is before the House but it is not clear on that point, as to how when the money from South-West Africa is exhausted—and that is the low rate of interest money—and a loan comes from South Africa at a high rate of interest, the interest is to be apportioned, whether it is to be apportioned equally over all borrowers, past, present and future, or whether it is to be apportioned only over present and future borrowers who have to borrow the money which is on loan from South Africa? Do the old borrowers who have already got their loans incur no further interest liability as the result of borrowing from South Africa?

Mr. Speaker, one last point before I sit down. It is clear that the White Legislative Assembly in South-West Africa has control of hospitals and medical services in respect of the whole of the population, but nowhere can I find any reference to fees. What is to be the position here with regard to fees for medical services rendered in South-West Africa? The trouble with the Government here in the Republic, even in the Bantu areas, is that much as they would like to take over hospitals and put in their own staff, they cannot do it. They can neither train staff nor find trained staff to do the job. In this case, the Administration of South-West Africa is providing the staff and it is providing the services under certain conditions, but the provisions here do not indicate whether fees are to be charged in any shape or form. Can they levy fees; can they levy them against the Bantu? Sir, in the Republic some years ago the power was given to the provinces, contrary to the usual law, to levy a hospital fee on Bantu who came into provincial hospitals. That fell more or less into desuetude after a few years because of the difficulty and the cost of collecting a small amount and it was relinquished. What the position is to be in South-West Africa is a matter which can be of extreme moment and extreme importance because of the imbalance between the small white population, which will be paying the bulk of the revenue, and the larger number of people who are non-Whites who will have to be given public health and hospital services.

The hon. member for South Coast devoted a large part of his speech to particulars in regard to the small groups in South-West Africa. To us in South-West Africa this particular legislation is of so much importance that I do not wish to argue about it now.

As regards the powers of the State President, to which the hon. member as well as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred, I just want to say that the State President has always had those powers, and for as long as U.N. adopts the attitude that U.N. has jurisdiction over South-West Africa, these powers will be necessary there. These powers are necessary specifically because a state of emergency may arise while Parliament is not in session. As we know, all the South African laws relating to a state of emergency do not apply in South-West Africa, and therefore it is necessary for the State President to retain the power to implement legislation which may suddenly be necessary there. For instance, devaluation may take place. Not all of the Republic’s financial measures are applicable in South-West Africa, and if devaluation were to take place, the State President would require these powers.

Mr. Speaker, I shall not reply to the hon. member any further. I just want to repeat that in terms of section 2 of the Mandate the position in South-West is as follows—

What does this “full power of administration and legislation” mean? This matter was dealt with in the International Court in the case of Lighthouse in 1934, and on that occasion the Court ruled as follows—

And then—

As in the case of South-West Africa—

Quincy Wright points out that the descriptions of the covenant and of the mandate vary greatly in definiteness. Some regulations like those on slaves, arms and liquor traffic, etc., are quite definite. On the other hand, certain principles like the well-being and development of the inhabitants are so vague as to admit of a broad variety of policies.

I am pleased to hear that the Leader of the Opposition also agrees that South Africa is in fact competent to launch this legislation through this House. The only question that arises in that case, is what policy is to be implemented in regard to South-West Africa and how these powers are to be distributed. Sir, I am not accustomed to testing my premises against what this or that person said in the past, since circumstances may change, but where circumstances have changed to such an extent that they reinforce the reasons for that premise, I think that I am in fact entitled to refer to them. Nobody will deny that the world situation has changed to such an extent that it has more than ever before become vital for the Whites in South-West Africa to form a united front with South Africa. In this regard I want to refer to remarks made by a few United Party speakers in the past. Reference has already been made here to the former leader of the United Party, the late General Smuts. The late General Smuts was one of the main architects of the mandate system, and he was, of course, an expert in this field in particular. I want to quote what he said since present circumstances corroborate his argument more than has ever been the case before. While Act 42 of 1925 was being passed he, did not only come out for it, but also said that he felt that it did not go far enough. The late General Smuts said (translation)—

It is interesting to note that he also sounded the warning that if these ties were not forged more firmly in good time, the inhabitants of South-West would later tend to move away from the Union. This warning was also emphasized strongly by the Opposition in 1949. On 3rd April, 1944, the late General Smuts stated in the Senate that the time of the mandate system was past and that there was virtually no obstacle to the incorporation of South-West Africa with the Union, and on 11th April, 1947, the following resolution was passed by this House, under the leadership of the late General Smuts as Prime Minister—

“As an integral portion thereof”, not as a federal part of it. Subsequently the late General Smuts went to U.N. where he asked for incorporation, with the consent of virtually the whole population of South-West Africa. I do not think that the Opposition will claim that incorporation forms part of a federation. In passing I want to point out that the then U.N.S.W.P. of South-West Africa led a deputation to General Smuts in 1944, in Cape Town, to ask for the incorporation of South-West as a province. Sir, on 10th July, 1947, a very important statement as published in Die Suidwes-Afrikaner, the mouthpiece of the U.N.S.W.P. (translation)—

Mr. Speaker, this was published in their newspaper in 1947. Now one can see where the hon. member for Bezuidenhout got his federal idea; he got it from the U.N.S.W.P. in South-West Africa. In 1949, in the course of the debate on South-West Africa, General Smuts put his point of view here, and you will remember, Sir, that the hon. member for Midlands quoted here what General Smuts had said on that occasion.

Sir, I am very sorry that the hon. member for South Coast has just left the Chamber, for I want to quote what he said here in 1949 (translation)—

That is what the hon. member for South Coast said here in 1949, i.e. that South-West had to join the Union on precisely the same basis as applied to the provinces. He went on to say—

And one does, after all, not change one’s principles—

Then I want to quote what Mr. Russell said (translation)—

Not "in our federation”. Then I come to Sir De Villiers Graaff (translation)—

And, Mr. Speaker, who supported him? You will be surprised, Sir—S. J. M. Steyn of Yeoville. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said a moment ago that he had referred to minerals at the time. But I want to point out that if minerals were to be taken away from South-West, it would have no revenue for handling other matters, and then all the other powers would fall away in any event, for the revenue from minerals represents 80 per cent of the revenue of South-West. They cannot exercise the other powers if they were to lose the revenue from minerals. Next I quote from what Mr. Durrant said in 1954 (translation)—

He is the only person who has adhered to his point of view, and he has now joined the National Party. Mr. Speaker, you will note that every step in the direction of constitutional development and the coupling of South-West to the Republic, has been criticized by the United Party as allegedly not having gone far enough. The U.N.S.W.P.’s policy, for those who do not know this, is at present that South-West must develop towards autonomy and independence with the approval of U.N. after which it can decide on its relations with the Republic. They and the United Party still have their differences; they have not yet been able to agree on policy, and that is why we find the dispute mentioned here by the hon. member for South Coast. But what is interesting, is this: You will recall, Sir, that I said that as far back as 1925 the late General Smuts sounded the warning that if these ties were not forged firmly in good time, the inhabitants of South-West would later tend to move away from the Union, and, ironically enough, this was emphasized by Sir De Villiers Graaff in 1949; and now it is once again ironic that the same United Party and U.N.S.W.P., these allies, are giving shape to these predictions. But I think I have devoted enough time to the past; I think the future is much more important, and the question now is merely what course is this Government following.

When the British Prime Minister Lloyd George introduced this agreement in the British Parliament on 3rd July, 1919, he put it as follows—

I may add that if one goes into the conduct of the various parties during the drafting of the mandate agreement, it is clear that that was also the general view at the time. There is absolutely no doubt that the interests of South-West and its permanent prosperity can only be ensured by its joining the Republic. The main argument in favour of this is that South-West will in this way acquire a government which will be in a position to deal more effectively with the problems experienced there, problems with which South-West Africa on its own cannot deal in an effective manner. I may just mention the fact that when the National Party took over in 1950, the Estimates totalled R6 million, and now it is more than R100 million. With the manpower available there it has become extremely difficult to handle the position in South-West, and the latter has already had to rely heavily on the Republic’s technical and other services. That is why we have introduced this legislation at this stage. The Odendaal Commission, which consisted of experts in every field—and not only of ordinary people like us here—and which inquired into the position there, stated that since South-West had to develop more rapidly, it was necessary for their departments to be reinforced as they did not have at their disposal the necessary manpower and knowledge and means for taking charge of the development there. It was therefore recommended that the Republic take over those departments; and for another reason, of course, namely that the Republic has to spend millions in order to effect that development. And the Republic is, of course, not going to entrust those millions to a small body without having any control over the way that money is spent. I may, for instance, just mention that the Kunene scheme will cost more than R50 million.

But there is another aspect. In any case, it is vitally important to us in South-West to seek alliance with the Republic. It would be fatal to our 90,000 Whites to be separated from the Republic in a continent with hundreds of millions of non-Whites. We in South-West do not have a single soldier; we do not have any aircraft or cannon. We do not even have one policeman. There are terrorists on our borders and there are threats from U.N. If the Republic let go of us to-morrow, we would be in the hands of U.N. the next day. We know what has happened to the Whites in the rest of Africa, in contrast to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout still had to say here a year or so ago, i.e. that things were not going so badly. But the hon. member lives in a dream world of federations. To put it plainly, federations are out-dated. All modern federations are failures.

You are talking nonsense.

The Opposition need not think that they are so clever and so all-wise. At the time of Union the fathers of our nation considered whether we should have a federation or a union. They did not quarrel about it for months, but soon arrived at the decision to form a union and so to build a united white nation here. Would anybody propose a federation for the Whites in South Africa today? Even the United Party accepts that a united white nation is an urgent necessity. We now have a union here and not a federation. We have 90,000 Whites in an adjoining area, people who ethnically belong with the Whites here. Is it still necessary, then, to quarrel about whether we should enter the Union or whether there should be a federation for our Whites? Yes, if there is an atmosphere of suspicion, if the one suspects the other, and if there is a desire to gain as much advantage as possible for our respective political parties or for some area or another, then we can argue for days. But as I have said, we have a union at the moment and I suppose that on this southernmost tip of Africa we have enough population groups and enough problems without our having to form two white groups in addition, one in South-West and the other in South Africa.

There is a further question I want to put, and then the Opposition can think it over and place themselves in the position of the electorate of South-West Africa. What would Rhodesia have done, and how would they have voted if they had been made the offer of gaining the protection of the Republic, subject to these conditions?

I see that the leader of the U.N.S.W.P. has made an appeal for a referendum to be held on this matter. I myself think that the views of the voters are very important. What are the facts here? Before the Odendaal Plan, with the 1961 elections, the U.N.S.W.P.’s slogan was: “You are doing too little for the non-Whites and that is why U.N. wants to take over.” I shall read to you, Sir, an excerpt from a speech, as reported in Die Suidwes-Afrikaner,made by Mr. Niehaus, their leader (translation)—

That was their slogan. Then the Odendaal Report, which recommended this take-over, was published in 1963, and as you know, Sir, the National Party promised to consult the electorate before they relinquished these powers. Subsequently a referendum was advertised throughout South-West and 73 meetings were held in the beginning of 1964. Those in favour of these powers being relinquished, numbered 2,911 and those against, 148. Subsequently the Legislative Assembly resolved unanimously—17 out of the 18 members were Nationalist and the 18th was Advocate Niehaus and he had walked out; he did not vote against it—to support this step. Towards the end of 1964 there was a by-election in the Windhoek district. It was a United Party seat. That happened after the report. The whole election was fought on this report which had just been submitted to the electorate. There were only 1,800 voters and the National Party majority was 480. Then we come to the general election of 1966. Many interesting things happened there. The election was almost exclusively fought on this issue. You will remember, Sir, that I said that in the 1961 election their slogan was that we were doing too little for the non-Whites. By this time the Odendaal Plan had been put into operation and white farms had been bought out, there were white farmers who were dissatisfied and development was in progress in the non-White areas. Now the U.N.S.W.P. made an about-face and said: “You are doing too much for the non-Whites.” They went to the electorate with that slogan, and I just want to recount what happened to me personally. Advocate Kritzinger supported my opponent, Mr. Nel, in the Swakopmund constituency. The following was taken from the Namib Times, which is not a Nationalist newspaper, and this is what Advocate Kritzinger had to say—

But more interesting than that is what my opponent there, Mr. Nel, had to say. The heading was: “Nationalist Party does everything for the Blacks.” This is not our newspaper, but the Namib Times. He said (translation)

But more important than this is the election manifesto of the U.N.S.W.P. which furnishes a brief description of the most important problems with which our country has to cope, and sets out the course followed by the two political parties. Then it says that this is being done in order that the voters themselves may choose. It goes on to say (translation)—

The disadvantages of the Odendaal Plan were set out as follows—

Then they furnished a table in which a comparison was made of what they were paying at the time and what they would have to pay if they came under the Republic, and how the farmers would have to pay higher rates of interest on Land Bank mortgages. They said that whereas the Land Bank rate of interest in S.W.A. was 4 per cent, it was 6 per cent in the Republic, with an additional **1* per cent which served as insurance coverage on the mortgage; in other words, mortgage interest for the inhabitants of South-West would increase by 87 per cent, and it would also entail further disadvantages for those living in towns. Whereas in the past it was possible for municipalities to obtain a loan from the Administration at a low rate of interest, they would now have to pay more. The house rent paid by public servants would now have to be brought into line with the rent which public servants in the Republic were paying, and which could roughly be compared with the rent paid by Railway officials at that time. Territorial allowances to all public servants and Railway officials would fall away once incorporation had taken place. They went to the electorate with these arguments, and our difficulty was that the Odendaal Plan had recommended that a commission of experts inquire into these matters, and this commission had not yet taken any decision and we could not refute them. In the face of those facts we had to fight the election, and what happened there?

In the 1961 election the Nationalists received 19,260 votes and the United Party 13,186, a majority of 6,064. Next we had the election of 1966 which was fought on the Odendaal Plan. Here the National Party received 21,241 votes and the United Party 10,087, a majority of 11,154. Approximately two-thirds of the electorate was in favour of this legislation which we have here now. But this was still not the end of it. In 1967 there was a by-election in Warmbad, and once again they came forward with the same propaganda, and we still did not have the facts we have to-day. As you know, all those things they predicted, did not come true. Taxes were not increased and Land Bank rates of interest were not increased, but we did not know that at the time. In spite of that the Nationalist majority in the 1967 election was 442, whereas in 1966 it had only been 222. This legislation was introduced in 1968, and now we see what the position is. I can well Imagine how the people in South-West Africa will feel now. At the moment there are two vacancies, i.e. in the constituencies of Swakopmund and Windhoek. The vacancy in Swakopmund falls under my constituency. Two weeks ago the by-election was held there. But what happened? It was an uncontested election, because the United Party did not come forward with a candidate. Now I come to the case of Windhoek. The 22nd January was nomination day there. On Friday, 17th January a big heading appeared in the United Party’s newspaper there: “Van den Berg may withdraw as candidate—virtually no voluntary workers turn up.” Van den Berg was the U.N.S.W.P. candidate there, and Die Suid-wes-Afrikaner is their newspaper. But I want to read out to hon. members what was said under another heading: “Appeal made to party supporters” (translation)—

It was learnt last night that so far only one of the numerous persons who at the congress last year had volunteered to help with the election, had turned up at the party office, and with the present number of workers it will definitely not be possible to conduct the election properly.

Under these circumstances I think that it is arrogant of the leader of the United Party there to ask for a referendum. The Odendaal Plan makes provision for each group in South-West Africa, including the Whites, to decide for itself upon reaching maturity, whether it wants to stand on its own legs or whether it wants to join another group politically or economically. I am now discussing the economic aspects of the matter. According to the information I have given you, Sir, coupled with the fact that all 18 members in the Legislative Assembly and the six members in the House of Assembly support this legislation, the decision of the electorate there is a very obvious one.

Mr. Speaker, I have adduced the necessary proof. The voters of South-West Africa request this legislation. It is in the interest of South-West Africa that we should form one white nation with the Republic here on the southernmost point of Africa. The Republic furnishes proof to-day of a lasting union and a strong united and prosperous state. I want to express the hope that this step will eventually lead to a complete union with the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, …

Your second failure to-day.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say this, and I should not say it to the hon. the Minister, but there is no right of appeal on that question. There is, however, a right of appeal from the debate which we will have now when the people realize what this debate is in fact all about. That brings me to the point I should like to make in connection with the speech of the hon. member for Omaruru. The hon. and learned member for Omaruru did not say one word about the Bill. I am very sorry about that because this is a very interesting Bill. I do not think that the people of South-West Africa or the people of the Republic appreciate quite what this Bill makes provision for. The remarks of the hon. members for Middelland and Omaruru, two hon. members from South-West Africa, will certainly not enlighten anyone who reads Hansard as to what is in this Bill. The hon. members quite obviously want the people in South-West Africa to read the Hansard as far as their speeches are concerned. The hon. member who has just sat down spent all his time quoting election figures and quoting from what people in the South-West Africa United Party have said, all of which has nothing whatever to do with this Bill. The hon. member for Omaruru must appreciate that if he had listened to the hon. member who spoke before him, he would have realized that there is no relationship between the United Party in South-West Africa and the United Party in the Republic. There is not even a federal relationship between these two parties! There is no relationship whatever. The hon. member talked of “sy mense” and “sy koerant” but this has no relevance whatsoever.

The hon. member also spent a lot of time dealing with the mandate. He said that the question that arose was what “full powers of administration” means in terms of the mandate. He then went on to deal with what Lloyd George said when the mandate was discussed in the British House of Commons, namely that it would become an integral part of the Republic, and so on. This is quite irrelevant to the issue before us. My hon. Leader has already said that there is no question at all as to whether the Government is entitled to introduce this legislation. This legislation does not offend the mandate at all, in the same way as our alternative plan also does not offend the mandate. The hon. member is a lawyer, a learned member of the legal profession, and I am sorry that he did not give us the benefit of his views on some of the provisions of this Bill, especially as they relate to the very people for whom he has been making his election speech here to-day. I would have liked to have heard his views on how this Bill affects them, the white voters there. He said that it must be administered as an integral portion of the Republic and not as a federal portion. This is of course not a good point for the hon. member to make. It amounts to the same whether it is administered on a federal basis or on this extraordinary basis. The question is how this measure will affect the public. The hon. member then gave us a vivid history of what everyone else who has sat on this saide had said over the years. He quoted the hon. member for South Coast, the former member Mr. Russell and the former member Mr. Durrant.

Whom you have managed to shed.

Yes, a member we have managed to shed.

Did the hon. member quote me as a legal authority?

No, he did not quote the hon. member for South Coast as a legal authority but he did say that in 1949 the hon. member for South Coast had said that South-West Africa should be dealt with on the same basis as a province. But what is this Bill doing? Does this Bill treat the white people of South-West Africa on the same basis as the white people in a province? It does not.

It treats them the same as the white people in a province are treated.

I shall demonstrate to the hon. member exactly why it does not. I shall point out to him exactly what powers exist in the hands of the Cabinet to apply all sorts of laws which do not exist in respect of the provinces, to the white people of South-West Africa. This is the crux of the matter. This is what the Bill we are debating, makes provision for. So far we have not heard anything to do with the Bill from any member from South-West Africa. Not one of them has dealt with the Bill. We listened to a lot of diatribe all of which is to go into the Hansard to be distributed for the election campaign, as the hon. member for Omaruru no doubt intended.

What is happening here is that we are now going back to the days of 1919 and 1925 when the then Governor-General had full power to make laws in respect of South-West Africa. But hon. members must remember that in those days, immediately after the mandate was given to us, this Parliament gave that power to the Governor-General. This Parliament passed an Act in 1919 giving to the Governor-General the power to make laws for South-West Africa by proclamation. This was done on a temporary basis until 1921 when it was given a permanent status unless it was repealed by an Act of Parliament. I want to emphasize that that power came from this Parliament. In 1925 the basis was changed and we found that provision was made for a partly elected and a partly nominated legislative council. In 1949 the Amending Act stated specifically that Parliament was to be given the power to legislate on those matters in regard to which the Governor-General had formerly had the necessary powers in terms of the 1919 Act. There is no doubt whatever as to what the intention was at that time. If one looks at the White Paper published at the time, in 1949, one sees some interesting things. The whole basis was changed. All the members of the Legislative Assembly were to be elected and the powers given to them were given on the basis of their being a completely elected council. There is no doubt whatsoever that the right given to the Governor-General was abrogated and given to Parliament; I think the Minister will agree. It was laid down that only Parliament would have the power to pass legislation having effect in the territory. In the 1949 White Paper it is specifically very clearly, laid down dealing with the then clause 22, that from a date to be proclaimed for the purpose “only Parliament” shall have the power to legislate in the territory in regard to those matters on which the Assembly was not competent to legislate or for the purpose of overriding the provisions of any ordinance passed by the Assembly.

We then had the South-West Africa Constitution Act of 1968, after various amendments, and the position at that stage, as well as now while we are dealing with this Bill, is that the Legislative Assembly may make recommendations to Parliament for legislation to be passed, emphasizing once again the power of Parliament in this regard. It may make representations for the repeal of any law to Parliament. There exists in the S.W.A. Constitution Act which we passed last year specific provision whereby the white inhabitants of the territory, if they desire such a change, can petition this Parliament for a change In section 37 (3) once again it is provided that—

Subsection (4) states that—"… Parliament may by Act override any ordinance made by the Assembly”. Subsection (5) states that the publication in the Gazette of any Act of Parliament, applying to South-West Africa, is deemed to be publication in the Official Gazette, because before it had to be published in both Gazettes to be effective. If the State President made any proclamation it had to be published in the Gazette in the territory before it was effective. We find emphasized over and over the theme of “Parliament, Parliament, Parliament … has the power to legislate”. We find in subsection (6) that any ordinance shall only have effect so long and as far only as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with an Act of Parliament. This is what we have led up to; this was the idea of the 1949 legislation in respect of the white people, and this is why they were given members of Parliament, why they were given representation here. And now (because Parliament has that power) we find a complete change is to take place and the power of Parliament is to be undermined without any reference back whatsoever, and I want to come to this point.

Why don’t you first deal with section 38 of last year’s Act?

I am going to deal with section 38 of the Act of last year.

It may complete your picture.

Yes, I am going to complete the picture for the hon. the Minister too, because there is section 22 as well as section 38. Section 22 states that the Assembly may not, except with the consent of the State President, make ordinances in respect of certain excluded matters, in other words, those matters in respect of which Parliament can make laws and in respect of which the Assembly cannot, can be legislated upon by the Assembly with the consent of the State President. Section 38 states that the State President may make proclamations in respect of all matters excluded from the jurisdiction of the Legislative Assembly, but, and this is very important, those proclamations which he makes must not be repugnant to an Act of Parliament. That is the important thing; it must not be repugnant to an Act of Parliament. Moreover, they must be laid on the Tables of both Houses, and if there is a negative resolution during that session when they are so laid on the Table they cease to have any effect. That is the difference between section 38 of last year’s Act and what this Bill does. The Minister asked me specifically to deal with it, and that is the difference.

Now we have the position that if in fact the State President makes a proclamation in terms of section 38 of the South-West African Constitution it has to be laid upon the Tables of both Houses. It cannot be repugnant to an Act of Parliament, so there is no question of over-riding Parliament’s powers. But even that proclamation has to be laid on the Table, and moreover it may be negatived. But there is no such provision whatsoever in relation to the power which is sought here which is a far greater power. In fact, I know of no similar power which is as far-reaching as this. There is no provision at all to return to Parliament.

When the Minister introduced this Bill, he said that clause 20 which gives the State President these extraordinary powers is necessary, although the powers contained therein might never be used. If the Minister really feels that way about it, then it seems to me, seeing that the Minister thinks it is unlikely they will ever be used, it is unnecessary for him to have those powers. Surely he can come back to Parliament?

It is more likely that we will make use of section 38 of last year’s Act.

That applies to the Caprivi Zipfel strip only in regard to certain matters. We argued that one out too.

No, that is not what I said. I said it is more likely that we will use section 38 of the 1968 Act rather than this clause you are now discussing.

It is more unlikely that you will use clause 20 of this Bill?

Yes.

Well, that being so, why does the hon. the Minister take such an unlikely power as he is taking in this Bill? It does not do any credit to the institution of Parliament, it offends one as a Member of Parliament and it offends the institution of Parliament itself to have powers like this, namely that a Minister, because this is what it in fact means, may declare any provision of any law of the Republic to apply in the territory, subject to such amendments, additions, modifications, exceptions or conditions as he may deem fit. Moreover, he may “repeal, amend or modify any provisions of any law in force in the territory in as far as in his opinion it relates to a scheduled matter”. I think one must appreciate that no Act of this Parliament applies in South-West Africa unless it is specifically stated by this Parliament to apply to South-West Africa, so that Act of Parliament already applying to the territory quite obviously come to be dealt with by the Minister. I want to ask the Minister why, seeing he is seeking such a far-reaching power here, there is no provision that the matter should be returned to Parliament for Parliament to deal with it? If the Minister has to use the power as a matter of necessity at the time, that is fine, but whatever change is made to an Act of Parliament which Parliament wanted to apply to the territory should be returned to Parliament, in the same way as a proclamation by the State President in terms of section 38 of last year’s Act has to return to Parliament, for Parliament to negative if it chooses. I go further and say that in this case, because it is an amendment of an Act of Parliament in fact, it should come back to this Parliament with a positive resolution applying to it. By that I mean that it should be laid on the Tables of both Houses and cease to have any effect unless and until it is approved of by resolution of both Houses, instead of having the provision that exists in regard to the State President’s proclamation, namely that it is of effect unless it is negatived.

Do you think what you suggest now will serve any purpose, apart from the fact that the matter will be discussed in the House?

Yes, not only do I think it will serve any purpose but I think it will restore to this House a right which it has, the right to legislate for the territory of South-West Africa. As I tried to indicate up to now, this has been the whole trend of our legislation, this has been the history of all our relationships with South-West Africa, namely to give to this Parliament the ultimate power of legislating for the territory.

So it is not really the clause you are against, you would like to see a safeguard?

Well, I do not really like the clause as it now reads, but the only thing that could satisfy would be that sort of thing, namely that Parliament in fact has the ultimate say as to whether that change should be made or not. It should not be done by way of negative resolution. We know the difficulties that one has in getting a resolution when one is past private members’ days and the difficulties one has in getting the matter discussed. It should rather lie on the Table and cease to have any effect until and unless passed by both Houses of Parliament.

That is one aspect of the matter. There are other aspects which my hon. Leader dealt with. If this Bill is to remain unaltered, then what is the function going to be of these Members of Parliament elected for South-West Africa, and of the Senators elected and nominated to represent South-West Africa? You see, Sir, there is no provision that Parliament will be consulted in respect of the alteration of Acts of Parliament relating to South-West Africa or any other laws. There is no provision for the members for South-West Africa to be consulted either. That is their function in this House. They come to this House to represent the people of South-West Africa. There are four Senators. Two of them are nominated on the basis that they are thoroughly acquainted by reason of official experience or otherwise with the reasonable wants or wishes of the Coloured races of the territory. There are another two, who are elected. There are the six hon. members who sit in this House. What is their function here? Surely their function, particularly, is to advise this House of what their electorate think about legislation which we pass in respect of and applying to South-West Africa. As my hon. friend for South Coast has said, they have a say in relation to everything that goes on in this House, but that is their particular interest.

I do not think you understand the position, but I will explain it to you later.

Well, I hope the hon. the Minister will try to do it. I do understand the position very well. Perhaps the hon. the Minister would indicate what the object is if they are not here as part of the consultative process. They are here as representatives in this Parliament, and in this particular House as part of the consultative process. They are here to advise this House as to what their people think. This House makes the decisions. It is very difficult. One must appreciate, and I do appreciate, that hon. members on the other side often confuse what is the function of this House and what is the realistic effect of a decision of this House with what is, in fact, a decision of their party. I think that, when the hon. the Minister said in this regard that these members will now have more powers, I am entitled to say to the hon. the Minister that he does not quite understand what the Bill entails. But I have tried, at least, to explain to him why they will not have more powers. Where in this Bill is their right to be consulted? How does this Bill enhance their right? They have no right to be consulted about any matter affecting South-West Africa dealt with by amendment by proclamation. As I have said, no Act of this Parliament applies in any event to South-West Africa, unless specifically indicated.

Let us now have a look at what, in fact, we have here. Sir, have you ever seen such an extraordinary constitutional dog’s breakfast as is contained here? There are three competing legislative authorities. This is in relation to the excluded or reserved matters provided for in section 22. There is the Legislative Assembly itself, which can legislate upon those matters, if it is given permission to do so by the State President which means the Minister. Then there is this Parliament and then the State President, who can make those laws as well. Now there suddenly is an interceding fourth force. In relation to the Acts of Parliament, the Minister, in the form of the State President, comes along and says that the Acts which have been applied, can now be changed, and Acts which were not intended to be applied to South-West Africa by this Parliament, can now be applied to South-West Africa in some changed form. So there are now four competing bodies. I may say that despite this competition, there is no repeal of one or the other; they all can go on doing what they want. This Parliament can go on passing legislation applying to South-West Africa, or it can pass legislation it does not wish to apply to South-West Africa. But the Minister can nevertheless apply it to South-West Africa. That which Parliament wants to apply to South-West Africa, the Minister can now decide will not apply to South-West Africa in that form. He does not even want to come back.

The hon. the Minister says this is just the same as a province. But I want to ask him: In respect of which province does he or anyone have the power to say firstly, that the ordinances that have been passed, if they are within the purview of the subject matter and are not repugnant to an Act of Parliament, can be changed? Secondly, when an Act of Parliament is specifically intended to apply in a province, where does the power exist for the Minister to say: “No, that shall not apply. It shall only apply in the form I want, despite what Parliament says.” No, Sir. They do not have the powers of a province. They have the powers of a province in name only, so long as it suits the Minister that they should have them. No matter what the will of the people or the legislative assembly is, the Minister can thwart it, as he can the will of the sovereign Parliament of the Republic.

There are so many other aspects of this issue which I will not have time to deal with as fully as I would like to, but for example, not only does this situation exist, but we have the peculiar set-up that the Legislative Assembly can make laws with the permission of the State President in respect of all those matters set out in section 22. Then there is the situation that the State President may introduce or amend legislation in respect of those matters set out in the schedule. The matters in the schedule are different from the matters in section 22. One finds that it is only in respect of the scheduled matters that the State President can alter Acts.

The whole reason for the provision lies in the difference.

Why is it then provided, because this is the situation that is being left, that Parliament …

It is only to accommodate the readjustment.

Why does the situation exist that the Legislative Assembly, in terms of section 22, may, with the permission of the State President, make laws relating to civil aviation, Railways and Harbours, Public Service, military organizations or police forces, movements or operating of units of defence forces, entry of immigrants or other persons, tariffs of customs and excise, currency and banking and control of banking institutions, etc.? The Legislative Assembly may make ordinances in respect of subsections (b), (c), (d), (g), (h), (i), (j) and (k) of section 22 with the permission of the State President, but they are not in the schedule. I would like the hon. the Minister to explain why that is so.

Then there is this extraordinary provision, contained in clause 10 of the Bill, that the minutes of the executive committee are no longer to be recorded in both official languages. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would explain why that is so. It is a most peculiar provision. One might wonder, at first blush, whether this was not really against the spirit of the Constitution. But when one looks at the Act, one finds that in section 26 all draft ordinances have to be in both languages. One finds in section 18 that the minutes of the Legislative Assembly have to be kept in both languages, but apparently not the minutes of the executive committee. They have gone to the trouble specifically to pick this out. It is most unusual, most odd, to say the very least.

While we are dealing with the question of the executive committee, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can really justify the change in the system of the composition of the executive committee. Whereas before they were appointed by proportional representation, they are now to be appointed on the basis of “the winner takes all”. They are not responsible to the Legislative Assembly at all. If he were to go the whole hog and do this job properly and say: “Look, it is unrealistic to have an executive committee unless it is responsible to the council,” then I might understand what he was saying. But merely to say that they must now be put on the basis of “winner takes all”, and not be responsible to the council, just does not make sense.

At least the object of this system, which is based upon the provincial system, was to ensure that you did have a representation of the various points of view, because the provinces were not intended to deal with matters of national concern. The politics of the provincial councils were not intended to be the politics of the Union Parliament. This position applies even more so in respect of South-West Africa which is so much further away and whose interests are so different from ours. Why change that system? The position of the Executive Committee is the most extraordinary situation anyone can wish to be in. No one can remove them. Once they are appointed they remain until the end of the life of the Legislative Assembly and no one can remove them. The Administrator cannot remove them, the State President cannot remove them and the Provincial Council cannot remove them. If that was the intention of this Bill it is one thing. If this is no longer considered to be a proper basis let us do this job properly. If we are going to have a “winner takes all” executive from the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly then let us make them responsible to the Legislative Assembly and thereby give some meaning to the Legislative Assembly and the voices of the people represented therein. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat devoted most of his time to the application of this Bill, and he did not really raise any objections to it as far as the principle was concerned. His objections can be replied to more effectively during the Committee Stage, and I have no doubt that the hon. the Minister will reply adequately to them. I, however, want to confine myself to the objections in regard to principle which the hon. members of the Opposition raised here to-day and which in fact amount to three basic things. Their first objection is that this is not a suitable time, the second is that the inhabitants of South-West Africa do not know what this Act is all about, and the third objection is that the application and implementation of this Act does not really benefit the Whites. The hon. member for Durban (North) stated that he could not see how having six representatives of South-West Africa in this House could hold any advantage. He asked what their function here would be. In the implementation of this legislation greater recognition is being given to that basic idea, i.e. that South-West Africa participates in the sovereignty of South Africa. Here consideration is now being given to the Estimates in respect of Departments and the representatives of South-West Africa are being afforded this opportunity of putting the case of the people whom they represent here. The hon. member for Durban (North) raised objections and said that this legislation should not be introduced. I want to object because I think that the Opposition is not in a position, and does not have the right to participate here to-day and vote against this legislation and pretend to be the champions of the interests of South-West Africa. They have no interest whatsoever in South-West Africa, and they have not taken any trouble to acquaint themselves with the sentiments of the people there. I am going to reply to them by reading from Die Suidwes-Afrikaner, the official mouthpiece of the Opposition there, of 8th November, 1968. The report reads (translation)—

In the middle of the discussion on this important matter the representative of that party left the congress. Is that the extent of his interest in South-West Africa? That, Mr. Speaker, is the interest that party takes in respect of South-West Africa when very important legislation is being discussed there. I accept that to a certain extent they did give pledges and compromise themselves in South-West Africa. I want to read from the leading article which appeared in this same newspaper on 2nd February, 1968. It reads as follows (translation)—

The Opposition therefore pledged themselves in public to fight, and I want to aver to-day that they are not doing so with the deepest conviction. It is a token gesture they are making here to-day by saying to the people of South-West that they are pleading this case in the interests of South-West Africa. After all, they come forward here with arguments which do not hold water. For that reason, seeing that the Opposition in this House of Assembly is the United Party and that it is omitting to state the official standpoint of the Opposition in South-West Africa here and compare their two official standpoints, it would be no more than fair if I, who am a representative of South-West Africa, were also to state the official standpoint of the U.N.S.W.P. in South-West Africa. I am not going to do this in my own words, but by means of quotations from their own newspapers, in order to show what their approach is in respect of these closer ties with and the re-adjustment of administrative legislation and financial matters. And it is essential, in the discussion of the principle here, to note that the inhabitants of South-West Africa are aware of the standpoint of the National Party, of the Opposition in South Africa, as well as the standpoint of the Opposition in South-West Africa. They also know how these standpoints can be tested against the background of moral justification in respect of the welfare and well-being of the inhabitants of South-West Africa in the political, social and economic spheres. In respect of the first official standpoint of the U.N.S.W.P. the Opposition here is divided, and I want to thank the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for the standpoint he adopted, i.e. that South Africa has the right to introduce this legislation here to-day. The Opposition in South-West Africa is of the opinion that South Africa does not have the right to introduce this legislation here to-day. Secondly, the Opposition in South-West Africa states that South-West Africa should first become independent and should subsequently decide itself whether it wants to become part of South Africa. Thirdly, the Opposition in South-West Africa states that they would like to retain South-West Africa as a geographic whole and that they want to appoint four nominated Whites in that Legislative Assembly to represent the non-Whites, which could ultimately lead to a multi-racial government. I would like to quote what their leader himself said, and I then want to ask the Opposition whether they agree with the Opposition of South-West Africa in respect of this standpoint as well, since they have pledged themselves in public to support that Opposition. On 12th November, 1963, the Leader of the Opposition in South-West Africa said the following (translation)—

This Opposition will have to state whether they agree with the standpoint adopted by the official opposition in South-West Africa in respect of South-West Africa. In addition the opposition in South-West Africa state that they do not agree with this re-adjustment or closer ties in the field of finances and administration. The Leader of the Opposition in South-West Africa put it as follows (translation)—

Apparently they agree that in respect of this legislation and the closer ties, nothing can be done for the Whites in South-West Africa, and that they can derive no benefit whatsoever from it. In great banner headlines the Opposition state in their official mouthpiece: “White prosperity placed on the alter. Leader points out disadvantages of take over”.

Then they go on to say—

I think this is a disgraceful approach, and I should like to know from the Opposition today whether they associate themselves with that premise of the official Opposition in South-West Africa in respect of the introduction of this Bill.

In addition the Opposition in South-West Africa states that we do not have the right to introduce this Bill because the people in South-West Africa were not consulted. The hon. member for Omaruru furnished full and adequate proof that this had in fact been done, and that we had fought several elections on that basis.

Japie also had to flee from thence.

I want to let that suffice, i.e. that the official Opposition in South Africa have neglected their duty in not acquainting themselves with the desires of the white inhabitants of South-West Africa, and therefore it does not behove them to state here to-day that this financial re-adjustment holds no advantages whatsoever for the Whites in South-West Africa.

Tell us about all the advantages.

I shall come to that, but since the hon. member is now making an interjection, I want to ask him whether he still adheres to what he said in this House of Assembly? On 4th May, 1954, (col. 4522) the hon. member stated—

Does he still adhere to that? If this measure does not offer closer liaison and greater security, then I do not know what it does offer. The logical outcome of this measure would be a greater economic revival.

You are confusing the form of the ties with the principle of the ties. The form is hopeless.

On the contrary, the policy of the National Party in the political sphere is this—and we are going to test it against the moral welfare and well-being of the inhabitants of South-West Africa—that with the disbanding of the League of Nations the Mandate came to an end, and that U.N. has no supervisory powers over South-West Africa. There we apparently agree with the Opposition here whereas we differ with the Opposition in South-West Africa. In the second place, the National Party adopts the premise that South Africa is governing South-West Africa in the spirit of the Mandate, with the ultimate objective of promoting to the full the material and moral welfare and the social development of all the inhabitants of S.W.A.; thirdly that although South Africa does in terms of that Mandate have the full right to govern South-West Africa as an integral part of South Africa, i.e. full competence in regard to the legislative as well as administrative control, this power is being exercised (1) with full consideration for the desires and needs of the various ethnic groups in South-West Africa—this is the policy of the National Party and we do not come forward here without having taken the desires of those people into consideration and having tested them—and (2) to do so within the framework of justice, practicability, orderliness and with due consideration for the basic requirements for healthy economic growth. The National Party has consistently adhered to this. I want to go on to say that everything which South-West Africa has achieved in the constitutional sphere was given to it by the National Party. The United Party cannot tell us to-day that this is a retrogressive step because the National Party have consistently placed this constitutional development within the reach of South-West Africa, specifically for the Whites of that area. In 1925 General Hertzog was the first man to give South-West Africa larger measure of self-government. The Administrator and Advisory Council was retained, and a Legislative Assembly with an Executive Committee was established. In 1948, after the National Party had come into power again, it was Dr. Malan who went to South-West Africa again and once again looked after the interests of the inhabitants of South-West Africa. He held consultations with the two parties there, and at that time the hon. member for Bezuidenhout played an important role there. [Interjection.] Yes, if only he had remained in South-West Africa; if only he had remained member for Namib. But the hon. member came to South Africa and he now wants to become the champion of South-West Africa. I do not know whether the reason for that is that he hopes to be taken into consideration if Namib should ever become Namibia.

The National Party has adhered consistently to its policy and each step taken was taken against this background, as agreed to by Dr. Malan and the two Parties, which is as follows: The purpose is to continue to build, in the light of present circumstances, on the principle that South-West Africa will in terms of the mandate be governed as an integral part of the Union. I maintain therefore that the National Party is the Party which has led South-West Africa towards development.

Then Dr. Verwoerd came forward and appointed the Odendaal Commission, and to-day we have this legislation before the House as a result of the recommendations of that commission. We have consistently adhered to this premise. In what way can we bring about what is best for the inhabitants of South-West Africa, and what is best for each individual inhabitant? That is not what hon. members on that side are pleading for every day. What they are pleading for day after day is that we must not interfere in the desires of the inhabitants of that area. Is it not best—and this has consistently been the policy of the National Party—to start the population groups of South-West Africa off along the road to self-determination and individual right of possession? That is the best one can give any individual, i.e. that each ethnic group will have the right to decide on its own future, taking into consideration the principle that it is doing so with full responsibility and without dominating another ethnic group. That is the ultimate objective. Since the Government is now coming forward with this legislation, the Opposition wants to pose as the champion of the Whites in South-West Africa. While the Whites in South-West Africa want to move closer to South Africa, they now want to imply that it would not benefit the Whites of South-West Africa to move closer to the Republic. Sir, surely that is no argument. The Whites in South-West Africa have repeatedly decided at public meetings, and at two elections, that they want closer ties with South Africa on an administrative and financial level. But the Opposition now wants to deprive the Whites in South-West Africa of that right to self-determination, and try to make them believe that these closer ties with the Republic can be of no benefit to them, while it definitely would benefit them and would ensure the economic growth of South-West Africa. But the Opposition will nevertheless have to accept that there is only one of two ways. Nobody can remain static. You either move closer to one another or you move further apart from one another, and it is the policy of the National Party that what belongs together, should move closer together. That is the course we are pursuing to-day. That is why the National Party is doing its best to bring about closer ties. [Interjection.] I want to read to you what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said. It does not behove that hon. member to make interjections unless he wants to repudiate himself. On 4th May, 1954 the hon. member stated—

I cannot understand why those hon. members now oppose these closer ties. They cannot honestly oppose them i.e. if they support what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has just said.

Sir, we in South-West and as representatives of South-West are grateful for the steps which the South African Government have taken. We are grateful for the degree of consultation which has taken place, for the way in which this White Paper has been drawn up and for the way in which the committee of experts which investigated the matter was constituted, and we are certain that this measure entails every advantage for us in South-West. But over against this we get the shrill contrast that the Opposition in South-West Africa does not want closer ties with the Republic, but wants to move further and further away from South Africa.

The benefits to South-West Africa of the implementation of the Odendaal plan are legion, and the passing of this measure promises a great deal more.

Sir, I want to point out the benefits which all the inhabitants of South-West Africa will derive from the passing of this measure. The premise of the Odendaal Report, and the policy of the Government, is that these closer ties must be to the benefit of all inhabitants. I want to refer specifically to the economic benefits which closer ties will entail, and in this regard I just want to quote from the Financial Gazette of October, 1968—

Nobody can dispute this. None of those hon. members on the opposite side who visited South-West Africa ten years ago and who know South-West Africa as it is to-day will deny that tremendous progress has been made on every level of development.

It has taken place under the present dispensation.

It has taken place under National Party rule, and the hon. member cannot deny this.

But now you are doing away with the system.

Since this process has been set in motion.

Yes, since this process has been set in motion. The critics of the Odendaal Commission’s recommendations are sitting on the opposite side; they are the people who wanted to prevent this development, but everybody in South-West Africa today admits that fantastic development has taken place in South-West as a result of the implementation of the recommendations of the Odendaal Commission. Sir, for any economic revival, expansion or development, there are a few essential requirements, and the foremost of these is not the production potential or the natural resources but the safety and order prevailing in that country; that is the primary requirement for any economic development. I can mention numerous countries with greater production potential, greater agricultural resources, greater natural resources than South-West Africa, but because there is no security, there is no economic development and no economic revival. Here South Africa steps in and it guarantees the following (translation)—

It is a basic essential that there should be security, and that is why we are moving closer to South Africa and not further away from South Africa. I think many countries in Africa envy us.

The second aspect which is important for any development is not mere resources, but technical know-how and people to apply this, and I want to tell you that we in South-West Africa are making use of staff in our State Departments who are from South Africa. We are dependent upon this technical know-how and its application.

The third important aspect I want to mention is that one cannot have economic development if the infra-structure is not right; and South Africa has seen to the establishment of this infra-structure, and that is why we want to move closer to South Africa. And South Africa not only saw to it in the past, it shall see to it in the future as well and they will make loans available in order to make this possible. We are thinking of our roads, aerodromes, railways, communications and power. A number of the hon. members who spoke before me referred to that and mentioned the benefits this would entail, and how much money was being spent on it. I want to read the following—

To me the reasons are obvious why South-West Africa wants to move closer to South Africa, why it wants its departments to participate in this knowledge which Departments in South Africa have at their disposal, whether it is in the field of agriculture, mining or planning. After all, we have one economy. In respect of planning I think that if we can call in the services of the Department of Planning in South-West Africa as well, and if there is co-ordination one would be able to eliminate a great deal of overlapping. Think of the development of the West Coast in respect of harbours, etc. In this is included every advantage for the revival of South-West, for the stabilization and the development of that economy. It is all included in this White Paper. In addition South Africa comes forward and in respect of what the Opposition wants to level accusations at, i.e. that it wants to swallow up the money of South-West, it under takes certain things. These are that all taxes deriving from South-West Africa will be kept separate and will be utilized to the benefit of that territory only, as is in fact recommended in paragraph 1482. South Africa has done this on the basis of the fact that the Opposition is slandering South Africa by intimating to the voters of South-West that it wants to swallow up the money of South-West. That is why this provision is being included there, so as to give the inhabitants of South-West Africa the assurance that this is not the case.

It states further that it is very desirable that any re-arrangement should cause as little disruption as possible to the population of South-West Africa and should not impose additional burdens on the tax-payers of that territory. This assurance is being given.

I now challenge the Opposition to enumerate the disadvantages of closer ties, based on the White Paper and the Bill. They must come forward with the disadvantages; they must not come forward with veiled objections. Is it that they do not want South-West Africa closer to South Africa? Is that the objection, or have they merely pledged themselves to the Opposition in South-West to oppose this matter in this way? I think they ought to act with greater responsibility. The desires of the white inhabitants of South-West Africa are that this Bill should go through, and that we should form closer ties on this basis and with this assurance which we are being given so that South Africa can participate in the tremendous expansion which is taking place in the Republic.

When one examines the White Paper on the Bill at present before this House, this commission of inquiry, the panel of experts, in my opinion deserves to be mentioned for the gigantic task they performed in conducting a thorough investigation into the financial and administrative arrangements between South-West Africa and the Republic. Our present Administrator was the chairman of this commission and we owe all of them a debt of gratitude for the work they did.

Sir, while listening to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other speakers on his side, I wondered why they were opposing this legislation. Has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition possibly committed himself in South-West Africa? Because he is no stranger there. In 1964, after Dr. Verwoerd had gone to South-West Africa to explain the Odendaal Report to the people, the Leader of the Opposition also went to South-West Africa and he explained the standpoint of the United Party on the Odendaal Report. In this regard I want to quote from Die Suidwes-Afrikaner, theUnited Party newspaper in South-West Africa, of Thursday, 26th March, 1964. The headlines are that the Republic should give more assistance to South-West Africa, and the report reads (translation)—

There was a rather large audience, perhaps out of curiosity, because if they had heard him previously, they would probably not have attended the meeting—

According to this newspaper report, if one is to believe it, the Leader of the Opposition also put forward his federation plan. This is a very lengthy report, evidently a verbatim one, on his explanation of this entire plan. Subsequent to that the Leader of the Opposition went there again. In 1966 he, accompanied by the hon. member for Yeoville, went to address the congress of the U.N.S.W.P. and according to the newspaper of 25th November, 1966, they expressed the following view (translation)—

Now one asks oneself in view of these things whether they committed themselves to such an extent in the past that they cannot escape from that, and whether that is why they are opposing this Bill as half-heartedly as they have been doing to-day; because their opposition reminds one of a person who eats although he has no real appetite. They are in a difficult position because they cannot say too much against South-West Africa. Although they maintain that they do not really have an alliance with the people there, they nevertheless visit South-West Africa frequently enough. This leading article of the same date states that there is no alliance. This article dated 25th November reads (translation)—

In addition it mentions a number of things for which they should fight together. I have now come to the conclusion that the real reason for their opposition to this Bill is that they do not want to leave those friends of theirs in the lurch. As regards this federal policy of the Leader of the Opposition, we have had clear results after the publication of the Odendaal Report. We fought an election on that platform. The 1,500 people who attended that meeting learnt about that policy and they surely informed other people about it. After all, it came from the Leader of the Opposition of the Republic, in other words the alternative Prime Minister. However, I am more concerned about what the inhabitants of South-West Africa say about this legislation.

Now, what do we find in South-West Africa? Immediately after the publication of the Odendaal Report the people still talked because land had been bought up, but after this White Paper had been tabled last year—and it was brought to the attention of the voters of South-West very clearly—the people accepted it without a word. This is something I shall deal with presently. One does not hear anybody talking about that any more. They accept it as though this readjustment has been completed, except for a few United Party supporters who are trying to make a fuss about it. However, they raise a dust wherever they can possibly do so, because they have nothing else to do. That is why they find themselves in the position in which they do find themselves to-day. As far as their political policy is concerned, they are living from hand to mouth. If something happens which they can possibly exploit, they exploit it to such an extent that it falls as flat as a pancake, as happened in this case. One has the position that all sections of the population of South-West accept this. The farming community accepts it, as has been said by the chairman of their agricultural union, as do the businessmen. According to a short report published on 6th September, 1968, the farmers will benefit from this readjustment. The report states that the published memorandum on the readjustments between the Republic and South-West Africa contains nothing detrimental to the farming community. In other words, the farming community accepts that the readjustments will be made and that there will be nothing disadvantageous to them in those readjustments. Now one comes to the other communities, for example, the businessmen. The businessmen have confidence in the policy of the National Party which has developed the Republic and South-West Africa under this National Government to their present position.

Sir, you and other members know what South-West Africa looked like in 1950 when the National Party took it over. Because of the policy of the National Party and its implementation over the years, the people have grown accustomed to the fact that the National Party looks well after their interests, as has become evident from the results of elections held subsequent to 1950. We, as Members of Parliament, accompanied members of the Legislative Assembly to explain this White Paper to the people, and we encountered no opposition from members of the general public who are interested in South-West Africa and its affairs. We encountered no opposition either from the municipalities or from any other source. But the United Party of South-West Africa also tried to explain the White Paper. The hon. members from South-West Africa who spoke before me covered this subject to a reasonable extent. The U.N.S.W.P. behaved like an elephant with toothache. They wanted to destroy and crush everything, and they wanted to plan this in such a way that at the end of that campaign launched by them their congress would be the climax, and that was a failure.

Do you mean United Party supporters?

Yes, I am speaking about the people of the United Party of South-West Africa. From that date onwards they held a series of meetings with their leader in the forefront. An hon. member has already said that the leader of the United Party in South-West Africa, Advocate Niehaus, called for a referendum. I and many other people think that this was a silly request, as he had had several occasions previously for determining what the position there was. As I said before, an election was fought in South-West Africa on the Odendaal Report. At that election they lost all the United Party seats except one. In 1966 we fought another election and won all the seats. That made their leader an ex-M.L.A. I should like to read you a few headlines from newspapers, Sir, so that you may learn how they carried on and tried to exploit the election, in spite of the damage they were doing South-West Africa by doing so. The following heading appeared in Die Suidwes-Afrikaner of 21st Tune (translation): “Niehaus asks for a vote of protest against take-over”; “Millions will be used indiscriminately”. When one reads these headings, one can clearly deduce from them that attempts were being made to place the Republic of South Africa under suspicion in the eyes of the inhabitants of South-West Africa and to incite their feelings against the Republic. They alone will know for what reason they tried to do so. Another few newspaper headings are the following: (translation) “Odendaal Commission for advancement of Blacks; Whites to paddle their own canoe”. This was said by Van der Berg, the United Party candidate, who will suffer his fourth or fifth defeat in South-West Africa on the 5th March. The way in which they nominate candidates reminds me of the old man who was too stingy to slaughter a sheep for his family. If, however, his wife nagged him too much to slaughter a sheep, he would go to the kraal and startle the sheep. The one that fell was the one he slaughtered. This seems to be the method according to which they nominate their candidates. One may almost call this candidate of theirs a chronic candidate. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout knows him and I think that he enjoys this with me. It has come to my ears that the leader, Advocate Niehaus, does not feel like suffering yet another defeat. So he simply pushed in the other candidate who, as the old saying goes, is like a treadmill-donkey; he does not care what a thrashing he will be given.

An article appeared in the newspaper of 8th October under the heading (translation) “Dark future for N.P., says Niehaus”; “Plan merely to impress the U.N. and U Thant”; “interests of South-West Africa neglected”. In Die Suidwes-Afrikaner of 30th July the following heading appeared (translation): “N.P. way led to dead-end”. And so one can go through their newspapers and suspicion-mongering is the only thing one will find. They maintained a deadly silence with regard to their alternative plan for the people. They did not tell the people that they were opposed to the Odendaal plan, although they did state in their election manifesto that they would return the farms to white farmers without land. But they did not explain what alternative plan they would have followed if they had won the election. They did not say whether they would terminate the existence of the homelands or what their plan with the homelands was. They kept quiet about these things.

Mr. Van der Berg was invited to hold a joint meeting but one condition was laid down. Every speaker was to devote the first 30 minutes to his own policy, in other words, he had to give his alternative to the recommendations contained in the Odendaal Report. But Mr. Van der Berg did not accept that. He was willing to agree to a joint meeting, but he did not want his hands to be tied. He did not wish to discuss his policy, but the Odendaal Report and the White Paper. This shows one how afraid he is of putting their alternative. When one looks into the events of the past number of years in South-West Africa, ones which took place after the publication of the Odendaal Report, and into the enormous growth there, and when one examines the statistics of the Municipality of Windhoek to ascertain what will happen during the next 15 years, one finds that Windhoek will have more than 100,000 white inhabitants by the year 1985. At present they are faced with a problem, because they cannot keep up with taking the necessary measures to cope with the influx. This influx proves that people have confidence in South-West Africa, not only because of the policy of the National Party, but also because a start has been made with the implementation of the Odendaal Report. I want to predict that this influx into and interest in South-West Africa will increase. Big industrialists are prepared to invest money in South-West Africa. In earlier days this never happened. People like Oppenheimer are buying large numbers of plots in Windhoek. They buy up to 300 plots at a time and have houses built on them. If this does not prove that they have confidence in the country, I do not know the meaning of the word “confidence”. Surely those industrialists will not invest their money in a country which is unsafe, one which does not have a good future; in other words, they will not invest their money if they cannot earn a good return on their money. They can most decidedly invest their money at numerous other places. Like Oppenheimer, there are many other people who are showing their confidence in South-West Africa in this way.

Now we come to the ordinary inhabitants and even the non-Whites of South-West Africa. In an earlier speech, Sir, I read quotations to you from a few old speeches made by the Leader of the Opposition in Windhoek in which he said that the Nationalists were too useless to remove the old location. It was nothing to remove the old location. It could be done within half an hour. If we had wanted to push South-West Africa back into that international quagmire in which it used to be, we could have done so. But go and see what it looks like now. The location has been removed without a word out of anybody. The people of the United Party in South-West Africa wanted us to get into trouble, because they have so little to put before the people of South-West Africa that it appears as though some of them pray, before going to bed at night, for some disaster to hit South-West Africa so that they might gain some temporary advantage from that. That is the political level on which they are moving at present.

We as well as the non-Whites of South-West Africa realize more and more every day that the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Administration of South-West Africa are at least being honest. The non-Whites realize that the Government has an honest plan for granting them their rights too. These people are not such fools that they do not realize what is happening in other countries which are applying the policy the United Party wants to apply. After all, they read the newspapers too; they have radios too; they know what is happening in the world where federal governments are in power. After all, they know where they stood when they were alone. They know that they are just as dependent on the Whites as the Whites are on their services. They realize to-day that we shall live in that country, each in his own territory, and they accept this. It is an accepted policy with those people to-day, except for a small number of hot-heads one still finds. Many of these hot-heads are egged on by Whites. The ideas these people are conveying are not all their own. We know them. We know that there are Whites who are trying to incite them, as we have also been experiencing in the Republic over the years. We know that there are legal practitioners who are supplying them with legal advice free of charge. One can go to the building housing the advocates and other legal practitioners at any time, and there will always be a queue of these black people waiting at the rooms of a certain legal practitioner or two. They are the ones who are inciting the people. But even if they gain nothing from this they lose nothing either. That is why I say that for Whites to do things like these, without caring what may afterwards happen to their country, is contemptible.

We in South-West Africa accept this measure. I represent a large constituency which is 1,200 sq. miles larger than the O.F.S. The constituency extends over an area of 51,000 square miles. The people in my constituency accept this Bill just as they do in the rest of the territory. They have confidence in the National Party, in the Government and in the Republic of South Africa. They know that our weal or woe is closely linked to that of the Republic, and that we cannot be away from each other.

Mr. Speaker, as one listens to hon. member after hon. member from South-West Africa speaking on this Bill, a mere member from the Republic gets, I think, two feelings. Firstly, one feels the battle of Windhoek is being fought in this House to-day. One feels, for example, that the hon. member for Middelland was trying very hard to say there was no difference between the UNSWAP and the United Party of the Republic, but on the other hand the hon. member for Karas could find practically no agreement between the two because he found so many points of difference. Secondly, one feels those hon. members have in a sense been bluffed into accepting this new arrangement in the belief that they are going to have greater security. I want to dwell further upon that, but before I do so I want to just touch on one aspect, almost as if it were a point of order, Sir, although it is not a point of order.

At the outset the hon. the Minister handling this measure made a very short speech indeed, and I sincerely hope when he replies to the debate he will not then come with his real and main arguments. I cannot believe he will do this, especially as he is a lawyer and knows the courts would not tolerate such a manoeuvre in a court case and would only allow him to reply to those matters raised in the course of debate after his initial address. Lest the Minister feels inclined to follow such a course, I merely utter this warning.

I believe my hon. Leader made a series of points which show that this measure is neither in the interests of South-West Africa nor of the Republic. I believe that to a very large extent, whilst they have been fighting the battle of Windhoek, hon. members opposite have been in default inasmuch as they did not reply to the points made by my hon. Leader. I hope the Minister in his reply will attempt to answer these points, because my Leader and other hon. members on this side made some weighty points which I believe require a detailed answer.

The great justification advanced by hon. members opposite for supporting this Bill is this. They say that in one way and another it will ensure the security of the territory. For example, the hon. member for Middelland said “’n Groter mate van sekerheid in ons toekoms” is why they desire this measure. He also spoke of an injection into and a stimulus for the economy. The hon. member for Omaruru said, “Dit is lewensbelangrik vir die blankes in Suidwes-Afrika om saam te staan by Suid-Afrika … Dit sal fataal vir Suidwes-Afrika wees om van Suid-Afrika geskei te word. As die Republiek ons more sal los, sal ons in die hande van die V.V.O. wees”. The hon. member for Karas said: “Ons moet nader beweeg en dit is die versekering vir die voortbestaan en groei van Suidwes-Afrika.” This is clearly the reason closest to the hearts of hon. members opposite, particularly those from South-West Africa; they all said it in one way or another. But, Sir, I believe they are under a misapprehension, because I do not believe for a moment that it is necessary for the security and safety of the people of the territory that they should embrace this measure, or choose to pass it, and I hope to elaborate upon that. I believe the Nationalist Party has persuaded the people of South-West Africa really to trade their federal independence for virtually a mess of pottage—“vir ’n bordjie lensiesop”. I shall say why. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Government is fragmenting the territory. Last year it set the six native territories on the road to independence, and now it is dealing with the balance of the people in South-West Africa. I suggest in so doing the Government is robbing the territory of the people who add most strength to it. It is true that my party stands for a different arrangement, and this is an important reason why we oppose this Bill. We have a different vision for South Africa and it includes a different vision for South-West Africa. Our vision is that of the central Parliament guiding the fortunes of the four provinces. We see it as watching over the growing self-administration of homogeneous black areas. Above all, we see it watching over the future of South-West Africa, which has always been an example of a territory with a measure of federal links and federal independence. South-West Africa is in a unique position. Its history is quite different from that of the Republic. First there was the German occupation and thereafter there were different stages of development and the control of power since that time, something which we have never had here. Its constitutional position is quite unique, and so is its international character. Moreover, its many non-white races, races different from those of the Republic, make it a unique territory. It has not two but three white groups, people from different extractions, speaking three languages. We have seen that it is best to treat a territory with such unique qualities, a territory of such size and occupying such a position, different from the way we treat the provinces of the Republic. It requires a different approach to matters of education and of language. The people of the Republic have always seen the territory as one which should be granted a greater measure of autonomy than the provinces. And this is where I return to the point with which I started.

There would be no less assurance of safety, security and interest for the people of South-West Africa under our approach. Though the link would be a federal one, it does not mean in any way that the interest in and the concern for the people of the territory, nor the feeling of oneness, would be any less. I believe this to be the fallacy of the approach of hon. members from South-West Africa. They believe it is only by surrendering certain of the powers of the territory and by linking the territory more closely administratively with the Republic that extra security can be achieved. Does anybody believe that the federal government of the U.S.A. or the federal government of the Commonwealth of Australia would be less concerned about the safety and security of one of its states than the Republic would be about the safety of one of our provinces. Hon. members from South-West Africa give the impression that by linking the territory more closely administratively with the Republic, it enjoys greater security. But by bringing the territory nearer to the Republic South-West Africa is surrendering so much of its autonomy and accepting a provincial position. I have shown the position which obtains in federal states, and I state that under the approach of the United Party we would be no less concerned about the future and safety of South-West Africa than that side is, now that the territory is being brought closer administratively to the Republic. But the territory is not being brought more closely to the Republic regarding the determination of the people to watch over their future—not one whit more closely in that respect.

Speaker after speaker on that side has stated that this is the justification for this measure, but I have no doubt they are suffering under a misapprehension. This indeed is clear from certain other comments which came from that side. There is a suggestion that the policy of this side somehow will leave the people of South-West Africa out in the cold. But this is by no means the case. We would ensure that the peoples of the territory are watched over as carefully as ever.

I wish to conclude by saying this. The people of the territory may have supported the Government to a growing extent during elections in the past, but I believe when those elections were held the people were to a large extent nervous about their future. There was a time prior to the decision in the South-West Africa court case when the people of the territory were very nervous about their future. And that nervousness has not entirely been removed. It was during those times that most of the elections were held and no doubt the people were told at the time of the elections, “You surrender these powers, you are now so much more directly ruled from Pretoria, and this must result in greater interest in your future and greater assurance for your safety”. I stress there is no truth whatsoever in that approach, and to that extent, if they believed those arguments, I believe the people of the territory were misled and persuaded to trade their federal independence for a mess of pottage.

Mr. Speaker, from what previous speakers have said in this debate it is quite clear that the United Party does not know what it wants. In the history of South-West Africa there have been good times and bad times, and as soon as bad times occurred the United Party of South-West Africa aroused interest in the possibility of closer integration of the area with the former Union, and even asked for complete incorporation. This is precisely why at the beginning of the thirties, with the economic depression, there was a strong tendency among the average South-West African, whether English speaking, Afrikaans speaking, Nationalist or supporter of the United Party of those days, in favour of complete incorporation with the Union on account of the critical financial position of South-West Africa. A commission was then appointed, namely the South-West Africa Commission of 1936. Judge De Villiers came to the conclusion that the United Party of South-West Africa really did not know what they wanted. In the debate to-day we heard the same when hon. members on this side clearly related how the Opposition Party advocated incorporation, but then, at another stage they ask again that independence should be granted to South-West Africa. I want to refer to a few points discussed in the debate. The hon. member for Pinelands referred to “the belief of the South-West African members in the surrendering of autonomous power and thereby getting security”. This hon. member is completely on the wrong track in this connection. I must say he is apparently not aware of the conditions there. He is forgetting that there are ties of blood between people in South-West Africa and people in the Republic. Throughout the world the trend is at present for people to unite into a larger whole. This is really where the security lies. For this reason people unite into a larger whole and the people of South-West Africa want an even closer connection with the Republic of South Africa.

However, I want to deal with some other aspects of this rearrangement. My colleagues made quite a number of references to the United Party in South-West Africa and to the policy of that party there. Quite a number of newspaper clippings were also quoted. I want to cover another field, namely the development which is at present taking place in South-West Africa. It should be realized that major expenditure has been incurred in South-West Africa at the cost of the taxpayers and the public of the Republic of South Africa, and is being incurred at present, without its having any benefit for those taxpayers. It is a fact that at present schemes are being developed which, together with the sums already spent, will probably cost approximately R400 million ultimately. This is bringing about an enormous metamorphosis throughout the area. This economic development has already been referred to. I now want to elaborate on it. Thus in the past the Republic spent large capital amounts on railways and harbours to serve the area without there being any question of compensation or repayment of capital amounts. Apart from this capital expenditure on permanent works, millions of rands were provided for the purchase of locomotives, vehicles and aircraft. Moreover, the railways accumulated a working loss on rail, road and air services, while the Republic made further contributions of over R6 million to other services. The Odendaal Commission stated in a detailed calculation:

The influence of capital expenditure on the economic growth of a country varies from country to country. The influence of capital expenditure by the Railways in South-West Africa was very great because it has such an extraordinarily great effect on the profitable production and marketing of its base minerals, on the marketing of its agricultural products, such as cattle, and on the provision of its most important source of energy, namely coal, which in fact had to be provided from as far as Witbank. The effectiveness of this capital expenditure is measured by the extent of its influence on the increase of the net national income, and the criterion is the ratio between capital expenditure and production. Thus it is calculated that the capital expenditure of the Railways alone increased the net national income per capita of the total population by R71.4 per annum and the gross domestic product per capita of the population by R117.6 per annum. The Odendaal Commission calculated these amounts to represent 44 per cent of the net national income or of the gross domestic product per capita of the population in 1962—the year of the investigation by the Odendaal Commission. But the real influence of the contribution by the Railways to the economic development of the area is probably even greater than is indicated by these impressive figures, because the great influence it is having on investment in the private sector has not been taken into account here. Even if the Railways have completed their capital expenditure, further productive capital expenditure will have to take place, which in turn will stimulate further capital expenditure in the private sector. Just as the Railways owe their success to their ability to organize and fully control the development, any further great development plans can only be carried through if the means to organize and carry through the programme are available. That is the problem we are faced with in South-West Africa. History shows that in the time of the United Party regime in South-West Africa there was no progress or growth rate that can be compared with that since the time the National Party regime took over there in 1950. When the National Party came into power there in 1950 they conducted investigations into the extent to which the infrastructure in South-West Africa could be improved. This infra-structure relates to transport, roads, water affairs and electricity supply. There is also the other facet which is important in this connection and which relates to transport, namely the airports. For example, investigations were conducted to ascertain to what extent the water supplies of South-West Africa could be supplemented. With a view to that a good deal of research was carried out at the nothern rivers. The result of the investigations indicated that a very large amount of capital was necessary for the development of South-West Africa. In this connection the capital was simply not available. As I have mentioned, these development works which are now in progress there and are in fact bringing about a metamorphosis in South-West Africa, will eventually amount to more than R400 million. In view of the fact, however, that that capital could not be provided out of South-West African resources, the Odendaal Commission was appointed. As a result of the recommendations of the Odendaal Commission we have the development at the Kunene River, where in co-operation with the Portuguese the entire hydrology of the Kunene River has been worked out and the power generation potential has been determined. Hon. members have of course read the recent reports in the Press in connection with the agreements entered into with the Portuguese. Hon. members have probably heard of the pump scheme, the Ruacana hydro-electrical station, a dam in the headwaters of the Kunene situated far into Angola and which will be called the Goue Dam, and the dam at Caluequa on the Kunene River which is situated across the border in Angola. All these schemes, though situated far into Angola, will cost our Government large amounts. All these amounts could not be provided out of the revenue of South-West Africa itself. I am thinking of the amount in the case of the Goue dam, which will be as much as R9 million. Half of that will be a loan to the Portuguese and the other half will be borne by the Government. Some people consider this to be a donation, but actually it is not. We are responsible for half of the cost in view of the fact that if the dam is built, it will ensure a security of flow in the river. It will ensure a constant flow in the river and we will therefore have a guarantee downstream where the hydroelectric scheme will be established at great expense. The Calueque is also the full responsibility of the Government because it is situated closer to the hydro-electric station at Ruacana, which is of course on this side of the South-West African border. I am thinking of all the large amounts provided for all this development work. An amount of approximately R56 million is required for the Ruacana scheme. I am thinking of the present pumping scheme on the Kunene River in Angola, for which tenders will most probably be called next month. The latter also comprises an interim hydro-electric power generation scheme, which will actually be the pilot installation for the larger hydro-electric scheme. Large amounts are required for all these schemes. All these schemes will be to the benefit of South-West Africa’s infrastructure. In this connection I must refer to the importance of technicians, who will play a very important role in all this, but who are simply not available in South-West Africa. I am thinking, for example, of hydrologists. Now, for the first time, hydrological research has become important, and the technicians had to be obtained elsewhere. In view of the extent of the hydro-electric scheme, experts in the electro-technical field had to be obtained. We do not have these technicians. In the end we had to obtain them from the Republic of South Africa. Therefore I cannot imagine how, in these circumstances, with all these large projects and development works, and with the building up of an infrastructure, South-West Africa could have provided these technical personnel from its own sources. Apart from that, what is needed is manpower, and to-day manpower can only be bought. Without the funds it would simply have been impossible to do this.

Capital for such a comprehensive plan can be obtained only if there is certainty as regards sound management and organization being available. That is only available on a very selective basis for selected projects aimed at supplying electricity. These projects are considered to offer the best possibility to the outside world as regards capital provision. In this respect the Republic is the only practical source of capital. However, it is clear that since the Republic has to accept the full financial obligations and the responsibility for the implementation of such a plan, it should also exercise full technical control and supervision over the entire programme, as well as over the effective expenditure of all available funds coming from South-West Africa as well as from the Republic of South Africa, and also from foreign sources. The success of such a development plan can only be ensured if full use is made of the experienced and proven institutions that are available in the Republic. That is why it is so essential that financial or economic planning, together with the political supervision, should fall directly under the Government of the Republic of South Africa. Hence this legislation.

I can only say that, as far as I am concerned, time has in fact passed the United Party by. They do not realize that time does not stand still. In all spheres changes are taking place and there is progress. There is a continual evolutionary trend in all fields, especially in this technological age we are living in. It does not matter where one goes, one sees it happening everywhere in all fields throughout the world. Not only in the field of science, agriculture, mining, and social affairs, but also in the political field, evolution is taking place everywhere. And still the United Party believes in the old ideas which can bring it nothing but stagnation. Stagnation of course leads to decay, and it can be said of the United Party: “The graveyard of obsolescence claims its corpses without prejudice to disciplinary labours of the White man’s leadership in a federation of states.”

It is true, of course, that the unravelling of problems creates new problems. One finds this everywhere. If one starts something new, one always finds that there are growing pains. There are always many other problems one will have to take into account. It is true that in the initial stage of their development all communities are retarded by cultural and religious bonds together with a kind of careless antipathy. The establishment of a sound ideology—and this is where education must play its part—properly manipulated, can help to reduce the influence of the established concepts, and in that way bring about a solidarity among the various ethnic groups of South-West Africa. In the same way communities can use ideological concepts to draw closer together the traditions and identities of the various groups, which can sometimes be very complicated, and to bind them closer into a unit. Behind this unity there is the concept of the community as a natural and organic body in which all the separate factions have their set functions—especially those factions which are linked to the process of development by means of the investment of State capital. In this connection there can be no doubt that the average citizen of South-West Africa and also the average Native of South-West Africa look to the State for the development of his homeland. Here I do not mean the White homeland only, but also the homeland of the Black man, because previously there had been sufficient opportunity for private capital to help them to develop, but except for the usual trade centres and exploitation, there was no development in these non-White areas by private capital. The effect of the investment of State capital is much more rational than the effect exercised by private capital on the development of the homelands, because greater emphasis can be placed on regional planning and scientific long-term investigations to combine the various facets of the national economy of the homeland and to make it function efficiently as a whole.

We therefore have two aspects. In the first place there is an attempt at adaptation to the technological demands of the modern period in which we are living, which makes it necessary for us, if we want to make that adaptation effective, to group the people for the efficient functioning of the planned development in the social and economical fields. That brings to the fore the desire to preserve identity and the motivation of an ideology, with the emphasis on political development and achievements.

Economic growth brings higher standards of living to the homelands. This applies to both the White and the non-White homelands. It stimulates in its turn self-examination in the case of the non-Whites into their own traditional communal system in order to introduce new ideas into that system and to have it used as an instrument to make the new political system function propertly. Older values are being replaced and new values or concepts of traditional tribal life must be modified to be used under the conditions of modern times.

At present the economy of Ovamboland is based on its labour potential—the so-called migratory labour which is provided to the areas south of Ovamboland. Employment opportunities widen the spiritual framework of the labourer and this must necessarily stimulate his ambition and arouse his ideas for the development of his own homeland. We cannot build a Berlin wall of an Ulbricht around the non-Whites. There is, as a matter of fact, continuous contact between White and non-White, and as a result of that a streamlining of the non-White is in progress.

The United Party is in favour of the economic development of the homelands. According to them the evolution must proceed in all fields, except in the political field. All constructive measures and economic development stimulate ambitions, and the natural human tendency of the people there will be to increase the status of their own identity by making demands in the political field. If the Black man does not do this, it will be quite inconsistent with the law of the jungle or with the outlook on life of the Westerner in South-West Africa. Instead of displaying idealism and patriotism, the Opposition is on the lookout for possible opportunities, which obviously shows a misconception of the conditions. While there is peace and quiet in South-West, they are hoping with attacks of this nature to disturb that peace and quiet. They are only placing obstacles in the way of the natural development of South-West Africa, while it is the desire of our people in South-West Africa to become a full and equal part of the Republic of South Africa.

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