I want to be very candid with the Opposition and say that I feel that there is little justification for me to participate in this debate because the arguments raised by them have in my opinion already been replied to more than adequately. I feel, however, that out of courtesy towards the hon. the Leader of the Opposition I ought not to withdraw myself from this debate and that I must therefore reply to his questions and to the statements which he made. It is for this reason alone that I am actually participating in this debate. When I say this, it proves very clearly my view of the character of the debate, namely, that while the Government has come along with what can rightly be called a successful budget, the culmination of many years’ work, there has been no criticism of any far-reaching import on the part of the Opposition which as it were should have compelled me to rise from my seat.

It is actually a strange thing to my mind that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can be so optimistic in some respects and so pessimistic in other respects. It is a strange thing that he is optimistic when he is not justified in being so and pessimistic when he ought to be pleased. For example, I notice that he spoke recently with great optimism in Florida regarding the future of the United Party and the possibility of the Opposition coming into power.

That was quite justified.

As I say, I am pleased to see this optimism every now and again on the part of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition; it is a great pity, however, that it is so misplaced. We know this optimism. We know it before every election and we noticed it at the last election as well. One could not expect greater self-confidence than that revealed then by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but one cannot expect a greater lack of appreciation of a situation as he revealed then either. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition ought to know after their latest defeat that the chances of the United Party coming into power are completely nonexistent; there is not even 1 per cent chance.

That is what Napoleon said when he attacked Russia.

No, this is something which I am prepared to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition after he has tried to attack us. On what does the optimism of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition rest? On nothing less than the same old contention which they have held prior to every election, including the last one when they suffered such a thorough defeat, namely, that there were apparently either deviations or a lack of support within the National Party. On each occasion his prediction was so wrong that we actually showed increased support. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now relies upon the fact that the announcement of the policy in connection with the Transkei has caused any uncertainty or any dissatisfaction on the part of my fellow party members, I am afraid that I shall have to disillusion him. This could not happen because we have put our standpoint throughout in which is included the fact that we predicted what has now happened in this sphere. In any case, if we had not done this, the hon. members of the Opposition would themselves have made full use of the last election to tell the public what was to happen in respect of the independence of the Bantu areas. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) who has just left the House, gave an emphatic interview to the Press to try and create the impression that we were avoiding the consequences of our policy and that they were therefore revealing them. In spite of all this the Opposition suffered a defeat. Therefore I am pleased at the optimism which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has revealed in the sphere of the future of his party but I fear that he is suffering from illusions and that he has given his public, the 600 of them who were present at Florida, according to the newspapers, the wrong impression.

In contrast to this, however, I am amazed that such an optimistic character can reveal so much pessimism in respect of the future of South Africa. South Africa deserves more from a man who becomes optimistic so easily regarding his own interests. I want to express the hope therefore that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will in the future give a little more consideration to the economic position of South Africa, its position in the world and also to its ability to defend itself.

If the hon. Leader of the Opposition wanted to pay us a compliment, he could not have thought of a better way than that which he hurled at us as a reason for his confidence, viz. that our time was up. That was that the National Party has now realized all its ideals and has no further future as a party which has realized all its ideals. It is very true that the National Party has realized its most important ideals but the National Party is a party full of initiative and full of ability to design and to fix further ideals for the country and for the nation. The United Party, which of course has no ideals, could realize nothing. If it has no ideals for the future either, it must not think that when some of our important ideals have been realized, we will not be able to build upon them further. On the contrary, this is precisely what is such a fine thing, namely, that as soon as an ideal has been realized, such as the coming into being of the Republic—one of our greatest ideals—and as our aims progress to create a good form of community in which European and non-European can live together properly in the same Southern point of Africa where they have settled, new and more tasks are continually arising which have to be fulfilled. We as a Government and as a party have the greatest ideals for the future for the Republic which now exists. We wish to make a prosperous and a happy and a peaceful country of it. We will do this but in order to do so there is a great deal which must be done. A very important task in the economic sphere has just been brought to light, namely, in connection with the Orange River’s future. What will this not mean for the whole of Southern Africa? There will also be more tasks. The hon. members on the other side will experience surprise upon surprise in connection with the scope of our ideals. Therefore, the attitude must not be adopted that all our ideals have been realized. The ideals of no nation are ever always realized, otherwise such a nation is dead.

I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition further that the time which he considers to be so favourable for the taking over of power by his party is not favourable and it can never become favourable as long as they are not in a position to come forward with national ideals themselves. It may be that they will progress so far one day that they will accept what now exists and that they will live close to the spirit of the nation. Then they will also be able to create ideals for the future. If these grip the nation more than the ideals which we present to the nation, they will be able to win. As long as the United Party is without ideals, it will, however, never ever come into power because a nation only follows those who can present them with a picture of the future.

Furthermore, I would like to deal with the theme of the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition point by point, at least, the main points.

The first point which he emphasized was that he said that we are still spending too little on defence. He drew comparisons with certain other countries.

No.

But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition drew comparisons with other countries and said that we only spend 10 per cent of our budget on defence while other countries spend larger percentages in this regard. This means that we ought actually to spend more on defence.

I quoted figures which appeared in the Argus.

I am sorry. The hon. Leader of the Opposition considers, therefore, that we are spending too much on defence?

No. In principle we support that amount. I did not say that it was too much nor did I say that it was too little.

I fully accept the explanation of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He supports the amount which we are spending. He does not say that it is too much or too little. In other words, it must be just right and therefore we have his full support.

However, in case one could make the deduction from his comparison with what is spent by other countries—because he mentioned the figures—that he considers that we are perhaps still spending too little, I would actually like to support him in this. I would like to say then that I agree with him and will not argue this point. I think that we are still spending too little on defence. In comparison with other countries we can still strengthen South Africa’s striking power not because I think that we should immediately make an attack upon somebody or ever resort to an attack, but a country owes it to itself to build up its defence machine properly in the world as it is to-day, and in regard to this I shall have something more to say. We need not follow too closely what powerful states like the United States of America are doing and which spend more than 50 per cent of their budget in this regard. We need not emulate them but I think that we can still spend more in this regard. I would not argue in this regard therefore but I want to give this advice to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—which I can perhaps still do because he considers that we are spending just enough—that he must convert the members of his party who adopt the attitude that we ought actually not to incur this expenditure and that we would be acting in a better fashion if we were, let us say, to spend the money on the raising of Native wages or the improvement of various circumstances under which they work. This was what some of his followers advocated. In my opinion I think that they are wrong in this and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is correct. Following upon the argument regarding the amount which is spent, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that there are probably three directions in which dangers threatened for South Africa. The one is the case of a communist struggle, an anti-communist struggle, probably in a world war. The second follows from the possibility that we will have to take action against aggression committed against the Republic. The third direction is the possibility that we may have to deal with international intervention. These are the three directions in which he sees the possibility of danger. I want to say immediately that I agree with him. These are the three directions in which one has to consider the situation of South Africa. Let us consider each one of them.

In respect of the first possibility there is apparently little difference of opinion between us, as regards our attitude and the participation of South Africa in the combating of such a danger as well, were it to arise. This holds good in a case of a communist world war. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition adopts the standpoint, as I understood him, and I am pleased about it, that were this to happen, he assumes that the Republic of South Africa would be on the side of the anti-communist countries. In such a case we in South Africa would perhaps for the first time be undivided in important world happenings because we really think alike in principle in this respect. We would not be compelled to stand together but we would do so because all of us believe that Communism is a dangerous threat to the world in general and to South Africa in particular. This is important evidence to produce on both sides.

I hope, however, that I did not understand the hon. the Leader of the Opposition correctly to also allege the following. I hope that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will be so friendly as to assist me because I do not wish to express criticism of what he did not say. I gained the impression that he used more or less the following words—

Hon. members need not be nervous. As it is put there it can have two meanings. It can mean that he is accusing us of not being willing or it can mean that he considers that the Defence Force is not equipped strongly enough.

Yes.

If he intended the first, I would have been very sorry because if there is one thing which all my predecessors have stated clearly throughout it is that we will stand unequivocally on the side of the Western nations in a struggle against Communism. This was I think stated at UNO by our representatives there—or in any case it was stated in public on every possible occasion. If the contention of the hon. gentleman is merely that we were not adequately equipped for participation in such a struggle, then we can differ in that regard although it no longer makes any difference. He should rather support us, however, if we now wish to make provision for adequate equipment and then I also have to come back to his allegation just now, namely, that he did not say that we are spending too little! He ought then to have said that we are indeed spending too little. If he says that we are not properly equipped, he must not take it amiss of us if we now try to equip ourselves properly. He should even say: “The more the merrier.”

It depends upon how it is spent.

Of course. One must not waste money and we certainly do not wish to do that.

At the moment it is really pathetic.

I fear that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not always have a sound judgment in such matters, partly because he does not know the facts and partly because he criticizes one period in the light of another, as the hon. the Minister of Defence has already clearly explained. Certain demands were made by allies who were considered suitable for the dangers and plans of that period. This was moreover the class of ally which the hon. member would like South Africa to have. Now the circumstances are different. Therefore I do not think he should draw such comparisons. However, at this stage I do not wish to start an argument in regard to what happened in the past. We are trying to see how to take action in connection with any possible threat in the future.

We come therefore to the question: What is one’s impression as regards such a danger at this moment? I want to say very clearly that at this time, in the world as it is now, it is often very difficult to estimate the scope of a danger or at which stage it becomes larger and at which stage it diminishes. As a completely personal opinion, subject to that qualification, I would like to say that I do not think that in the immediate future we will be faced with that type of war. I believe that sufficient is happening in the world to lessen the chances of that happening. At the same time I do not fail to appreciate that when all kinds of weapons which are dangerous are developed, the temptation can arise to use them. On the other hand, the greater the knowledge of the extremely deadly efficiency of those weapons and their destructive effect, the more will this have the opposite effect. Therefore, the development of modern weapons works in both directions. This can lead to trouble; it can also prevent trouble. I am inclined to think that the rebellion of the human soul against the dangers which a modern war will create, will act strongly against that type of world war. However, after having said that I do not think that a country is doing the right thing to allow itself to be plunged into an anxiety psychosis as a result of the continued reports in the Press regarding all the international negotiations and discussions and dangers, at the same time I want to add that it is necessary to make your armed forces absolutely prepared for such a war within the limits of your ability. In other words, notwithstanding the fact that I do not see anything of this nature in the immediate future—one cannot speak about the distant future—at the same time I want to say that this does not detract one iota from our obligation to ensure that our armed forces are prepared. If the evil day does come, contrary to one’s expectations, then allies with whom you will then have to stand together will have the right to expect you to have done what they have done, namely, to be prepared for such an eventuality. Therefore, it is true that the other countries of the Western world with understanding will be in favour of and will co-operate to ensure that we equip our army and navy. They also know that when that day comes—if it is to come—they will have to be able to rely upon us as a very important link in the chain of the West.

The second possibility is that of unprovoked aggression. That is to say, if there were to be other states which wish to impose their will upon South Africa in some or the other manner. It would then be possible for South Africa to be faced with a situation in which she should have her own striking power, a situation in which she could defend herself. It is a fact which no one can deny that from various Africa States, inter alia, the allegation has been forthcoming from time to time that they are organizing themselves to take action against South Africa. It is a fact that some speakers have even mentioned a date, such as 1963, and in another case, 1970. That is not of importance here. What is of importance is that there are efforts on the part of these emergent nations to build up armed forces, that they obtain equipment, inter alia, from Communist States, that they are financially enabled to make purchases by numerous grants, that they are given training and that they speak in such a way. It may only be boastful talk; it may only be bare threats. I am inclined to regard it in this way. However, boasters sometimes try to make good their boasts and if this were to happen, no matter how futile it may be, South Africa would suffer greatly, as the result of irresponsibility, if she were not so equipped that she could send back these boasters to where they have come from. Therefore I say that it would be irresponsible in the extreme on our part—no matter how contemptuously one may consider either the forces or the ability, the knowledge or whatever it may be of the other states from which these threatening voices arise from time to time—if we did not prepare ourselves. At the same time I would not like our public to be driven into a panic in this way and to begin thinking that such attacks are on our doorstep. Therefore I say very clearly that this preparedness is proof of being on our guard but is not a proof of an immediate emergency which we see coming. I think that this is a fair approval of the present position. We take out an insurance policy, as my hon. colleague has already described it, and when you take out an insurance policy on your life, you do not do so because you think that you will die to-morrow; you do so hoping that you will not die. You play safe in regard to what may happen. If you take out an accident policy, it is not because you think that you will be involved in an accident to-morrow and therefore live in fear and trembling in respect of the days to come with a view to the accident which is going to happen because you have taken out a policy! You take it out for safety’s sake in case such an evil day befalls you. You simply do not wish to be caught unawares. So it is also with the defence expenditure which we now have to incur. In respect of this form of unprovoked aggression I say very clearly therefore that we are preparing not because we are pessimistic but because we are on our guard and, as sensible people, are making provision for any eventuality.

I am pleased that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that they will stand by us in the case of what he calls “unprovoked aggression”. I hope of course that we will not have any difference of opinion in regard to the word “unprovoked”. I do not seek that. However, I want to state clearly that I really hope that in this he does not include the idea that because he differs from our colour policy and the States of Africa also differ from our colour policy he will view an attack (if it were to come on the excuse that they are opposed to our Government’s colour policy, that they are opposed to apartheid)—as they wish to depict it—as “a provoked aggression”. I do not think that is his intention; in any case I hope that it is not.

I come now to the third danger which he mentioned and this is the possibility of so-called international military intervention. It is in this sphere that he evinced so much pessimism particularly. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, I think, more or less said that preparation will then be useless and that we will then have to fight against the whole world. He mentioned the examples of large states which have had to give way under international pressure, such as France and Britain in respect of the Suez Canal episode. I would like for a moment to dwell on the Suez Canal episode because I want to make a point which I consider to be of great importance. There are sometimes occasions when large nations are also faced with a severe test, a test which, if they do not withstand it, can cause them tremendous harm not only as regards their morale but also harm for the future, for the world. Viewing the Suez Canal episode in retrospect, in my opinion this was such a case. I want to ask this question: If Britain were prepared to do what France was indeed prepared to do, as far as our knowledge goes, ramely, to go through with the implementation of the policy which they honestly thought was the correct policy there, and if they did not allow themselves to be put off by any other state or combination of states, would the world to-day have been in less danger than it is now? Would it not have been less uneasy? Would Africa not also have been less uneasy? I must honestly admit that I take the view that if Britain had stood fast on that occasion there would not be more danger existing in the world to-day but less. I want to admit further that I do not believe that if she had stood fast by what she believed was right, the pressure which was brought to bear upon her would have been transformed into action against her, which she feared and to which she yielded. This is a personal opinion which I readily concede. It is, however, a personal opinion which allows me to say that there are times when a nation, great or small, may not yield under pressure but must uphold what it thinks is right. Therefore, the standpoint that you should not prepare yourself for what would in any case “be useless” is in my opinion the advice of discouragement. It is surrender before you have started and surrender on a matter which perhaps not only can affect your principles but the survival of your nation. You could never act in this way. You have therefore to prepare yourself even though you have to prepare for great dangers. If, however, my view is also asked in respect of the possibility of international military intervention in connection with any matter which we have to deal with, I want to say straight out that I do not believe that anything of this nature awaits us.

I repeat that in this world a great deal can happen unexpectedly. No person can be a prophet. However, I am asked for an estimation of the situation and I want to give it. My estimation is that I do not believe that anything of this nature awaits us. I say again, however, that this does relieve us of the duty to be prepared for what may perhaps happen. If I am asked now why I do not believe that anything of this nature awaits us, in the first place it is self-evident that the question arises in regard to something to which the hon. Leader of the Opposition also referred, namely, the possibility of action by UNO. A great many things can happen as far as UNO, as it is controlled and constituted to-day, is concerned and bearing in mind the forces which are at work there and the pressure which is exercised there. However, in the long run UNO itself is facing a crisis. UNO has reached the position where many of the Western nations in my opinion have no further illusions in regard to what is going wrong there.

They see the increasing numbers of non-paying members who have a predominant voice because of their voting power, but who mean nothing in paying power and contribute just about nothing towards the upkeep of the machinery of U.N. The Western nations see therefore that this body can easily decide upon something which it cannot afford or which the deciding majority of nations do not wish to pay for. I am no longer convinced that the Western nations will continue to allow themselves to be led by the nose by the superior numbers of those members, particularly in the light of various occurrences which have also to be considered. Not only is the internal financial situation of U.N. of importance, not only is there the appreciation of this strange position in which U.N.O. has found itself—a position which was never predicted and never intended—but also such happenings as took place in the Congo and Katanga. The Katanga adventure of U.N. did not cover it with glory. Its handling of the Congo situation placed a tremendous burden upon its own shoulders. The attitude of U.N. when aggression was committed in Goa by India, together with other matters, made an impression upon world opinion. I put the question pertinently whether U.N. can afford, and whether the responsible and paying members of U.N.O. will want to pay for action being taken against countries where peace and quiet prevail and which are certainly no threat to world peace, no matter what agitators may say in this regard. Therefore I also believe that as far as a threat in this direction is concerned, we have to judge very carefully and not speak so glibly, as is sometimes done in our country, about the “probability” of military intervention of this nature.

However, I would also like to refer directly to something else which some people have in mind and which in my opinion should not occur to anyone—once again, all things being reasonably normal. This is the idea that if, either under the mantle of U.N. or of their own volition, Afro-Asian states were to make an attack upon South Africa or South West Africa, they would receive support from the U.S.A. How on earth can people say such things? Nobody considers that France or Britain will give such support; nobody mentions this sort of thing. Why then the insult to the U.S.A. that it would indeed be receptive to such intentions? We must not allow ourselves to be so easily led by words such as “international military intervention” to have such ideas and to have such a fear. Let us consider soberly why and how such a thing could come about. Is it really worth while for a large nation to attack us? Is there really any indication of such a thing? Then one also has to consider facts such as those which I now want to mention in connection with the U.S.A. It must be borne in mind that in spite of the fact that there are differences regarding our colour policy, for various reasons, including misunderstandings—while there are different views regarding segregation and integration on their part and on our part—there are also vast planes of friendship and co-operation. There is co-operation between the Republic of South Africa and that of the United States in many spheres and in many ways. Not only is there economic co-operation, but this is also apparent in the sphere of research, and indeed that research which at the moment holds the attention of the world and which is of tremendous importance both to the US.A. as well as to the world, namely in connection with satellites and related space projects. Will the U.S.A., which is seeking this friendship with us and arranging these friendships with us on the best basis and in the finest spirit that could be desired, turn around and in the midst of all this friendship attack South Africa because of a difference of opinion which it has with us in only one sphere, a matter which really in the first place affects our own internal policy? I want to mention something else also. That is that the U.S.A. sees herself as a bulwark against Communism. The Western world sees her as just such a bulwark. Do hon. members think that the U.S.A. strategists, when considering the world picture, do not realize the importance of the Republic of South Africa if the struggle against Communism were really to break out? Do they not also see this southern point of Africa as territory which must of necessity be the door between the East and the West for the Western allies? Do hon. members really want to tell me that they believe what I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, that “some of our friends would rather lose us to Communism than lose the Afro-Asian States”? I think that is what he said.

No, those were not my words.

I am pleased that those were not his words. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did, however, say that some Western friends would not want to exchange us for the Afro-Asian States. In that connection I thought that he used the words, “rather lose us to Communism”.

No.

Very well, I shall not elaborate on that. I did not see the manuscript of his speech. I shall just continue to argue on this point, that he adopted the standpoint that there are some of our Western friends who would not want to exchange us for the Afro-Asian nations. In other words, if they have to choose between us and the support of the Afro-Asian nations, then they will not choose us. What I want to contend is that it should be just the opposite. If the U.S.A. thinks in terms of her struggle against Communism, she and the other Western friends in the same way will have to realize which is the strong and sure friend, both economically and strategically, and allow that friend to survive rather than to placate the uncertain and the strategically less important friend at all costs. It is a hard fact that our country is strategically situated here—as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also stated. Besides this, our country with its gold production is also a country which is the furthest developed industrially in Africa, which makes it strong and forceful as a background which they need in a world struggle. I do not allow myself to be told that the strategists of the United States will adopt the attitude that South Africa can nevertheless be thrown to the wolves or be swallowed up in the fluctuating ideological streams which, inspired partly by Communism, flow across Africa, rather than to accept her as being by nature a safe and sure and permanent friend and a force in this strategical position. Therefore I say that I do not believe this talk of so-called international military intervention by a world power.

In respect of all three possibilities which were mentioned by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and in regard to which I agree that they form these three possibilities of attack, we must not on this account be filled with pessimism or panic. We must at the same time be ready for all three situations—as ready as a small country or nation can be. In other words, it means that we have to remain in a position of continued optimistic vigilance, without panic, without fear and without illomens where this is as yet unnecessary.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went on to ask: What good will it do for us to build up our defence when we have no allies or friends to assist us, inter alia, because we are now no longer in the Commonwealth? He also said that U.N. will not as a friend come to our assistance against unprovoked aggression because look, for example, at what happened to Goa. Well, let us see what happened to Goa. Neither U.N. nor Portugal’s oldest ally, Britain, raised a finger there. An alliance in this modern world is therefore also no longer as important as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wishes to make out. How did Portugal’s alliances assist her? But not only this. We have to take into account the fact that particularly in our case our most important troubles are with Commonwealth countries. Our clashes were with Ghana and we had disputes with India. I need not take any further examples. How will Commonwealth membership provide us with allies and friends in those struggles? It will not. Hon. members will perhaps tell the story that when you are in such a situation you can prevent trouble by mutual discussions. Did we not, however, experience the result of mutual discussions? When a certain pressure situation arises and the pressure becomes too great for our friends within that circle, then we see what transpires! In other words, when a country’s struggle and disagreement and disputes are with certain persons within the group, then membership of that group is no longer of any use nor does it give guarantees as far as the others are concerned. Do hon. members think that in connection with the situation in Africa, if the Afro-Asian nations (or some of them, under the leadership, perhaps, of some who are members of the Commonwealth) were to take aggressive action against us, we would find allies to combat this aggression either amongst the Commonwealth countries, including the United Kingdom, or amongst other Western countries? Let us, after all, be sober about these things. The Western countries do not judge on the grounds of the merits of our policy or of any other policy. They will only seek to placate those nations on the basis of their own interests as they see them. Therefore they will not conclude any alliance with South Africa, whether we are in power or whether the United Party is in power. Indeed, there is only one circumstance in which we would obtain allies against any aggression which might be committed against us and that is if we comply with the demands of the African or the Asian nations. This one circumstance in which we could obtain a defence treaty with the Western nations therefore arises when such defence treaty is no longer necessary at all. What does it mean if a policy is adopted here which those Afro-Asian nations want? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself admitted that the Afro-Asian and the communist nations come forward with one demand, namely that of one man, one vote. He says that the Western nations do not demand this. I do not wish to argue this point. The point is that if this is the demand of the Afro-Asian nations, then no government which we could have here, except perhaps a Liberal Party government, could comply with the demands of those nations. In other words, neither of us—Government or Opposition—would be able to obtain an ally against that danger as long as the Western nations continue with their policy of placation. If we cannot obtain an ally against that danger except if we adopt the principle of one man, one vote, then we should also prefer to have no allies. On the other hand, if we were to accept that demand, then we would not need any ally because then White civilization and the Republic would lose everything in any event. The fact is that the only condition on which a defence treaty would be possible for the Western powers in respect of a possible danger of this nature makes such a thing unnecessary. Accordingly, South Africa will have to stand upon her own feet— let us roundly and candidly admit that.

I would, however, like to put the further question: Is it true that we have no friends? Up to the present I have spoken about alliances in the sense of a defence treaty. This question concerns friendship in a broader sense. Is it true that we have no friends? That is certainly not true. It is not only in one sphere that friendship between nations exists. Friendship does not only exist if states or governments agree in everything. Of course the Republic has differences of opinion with many nations, if not with most of them, regarding our colour policy. They will, of course, as a result of their tactics in respect of all kinds of newer states—therefore, for their own purposes—not wish to find themselves in an alliance with us because this would cause those other states to suspect them. That is something that they do not want. But from both facts it does not follow that we have no friends! Do hon. members really want to contend that Britain and ourselves are not on very friendly terms in many spheres of life? Do they really want to say that we do not co-operate or that when we do, we do so with spite and hatred and enmity? Can nations co-operate without friendship in the economic sphere or cultural sphere or in many other spheres? That is surely not so. The fact is that apart from our different colour policies and apart from the points on which our roads diverge because their interests and ours are different, we are great friends, even in respect of defence policy with a view to the communist danger and also in other spheres such as science, research and economy. We are continually co-operating. We deliberate together. We fix common objects for ourselves. Nor is this true only of Britain. It is just as true of the United States. Yes, it is true of almost every one of the other Western nations. Do hon. members really want to say that we are not friends with France, Germany. Spain and Portugal? I can go on in this way. It is obviously silly to make these general allegations regarding our lack of friends.

Why do the members of the United Party persist in regarding an alliance and friendship in one sphere as something which justifies them in speaking about either having or not having friends in general? Do they wish to harm South Africa? Do they wish to run us down even more than some of our enemies run us down? I want to emphasize most strongly that isolation on one point—and it may be a good point; in that case it may even be good isolation—does not mean isolation in all spheres. The expression was once used by Dr. Kuyper, a Dutch stateman, in respect of the Netherlands: In isolation lies your strength. As far as South Africa is concerned, I want to repeat it in respect of our colour policy: In isolation in the sphere of colour policy lies our strength! If we were to agree to the demands of the other nations because in that sphere we are afraid of the word isolation, then we would go under. However, in other spheres we are far from being isolated. Isolation in one sphere does not mean general isolation as hon. members opposite so often wish to suggest. In most spheres of life we are popular partners and friends in the community of nations. Therefore I want to emphasize with the greatest conviction: If we are told that we have no allies or friends to assist us, then this can only be true if what is intended relates to one sphere. Apart from this, it must then be emphasized that the Republic can refer proudly to the great friendship and co-operation which it experiences in most spheres of life in the world. If this were not true, we would not be so prosperous; we would then not have so much promise for the future in our commercial and industrial sphere. However, this is true, to our joy and to the benefit of South Africa.

Hon. members said further that the alienation of friends was the result of our policy. “Apartheid dragged down South Africa.” I think that these are the words which they so often use. These are just things to say; they do not mean anything. The fact is that when a nation has a policy which ensures its survival, that policy cannot drag it down. What actually does it mean when one says that South Africa has alienated herself from her friends because of her policy? The position can simply be reversed and it can be said that those people have alienated themselves from South Africa because of their policy. For example, I find the British policy in respect of the White man in Kenya and Tanganyika abhorrent (verfoeilik). I use the word “verfoeilik” because it is a translation of the word “abhorrent” which was used in the British Parliament, by Ministers as well, in respect of the apartheid policy of the South African Government. The policy by which the White man is left in the lurch by his mother country in the territories which he has developed at her urging and brought to a high level of civilization, is a policy which I find to be abhorrent. However, this does not make me less prepared, it does not make South Africa any the less prepared, or her Government, to co-operate with Britain in all the many other spheres in which we will not speak of one another in this way. The United Kingdom or her Government feels exactly the same way about South Africa: Strongly critical in regard to the one aspect of policy, but the general friendship is not lost. Neither of the two must lose her friend because something in one another’s policies is strongly criticized.

Let me ask whether the policy of the hon. members of the Opposition would be accepted by our Western friends? They boast about their policy of race federation. When they speak about this policy some of them express themselves very strangely. I think, for example, of what the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) said on 16 February 1962 during the election which took place a short way away. At that time he said—and this stands in large type as the heading of the report in the Cape Argus—“U.P. against political power for Blacks”. If any one of us had said this, it would undoubtedly have been branded as a policy of domination. If the United Party says such things they also go out to the world. Therefore I hurl back in their faces the accusation which is so often made against us when they tell us: The manner in which some National Party leaders speak harms South Africa and causes the apartheid policy to be mistrusted. The policy of the United Party through a speech of this nature is branded in the same way abroad as that of a party which is opposed to political power for the Black people. I am not arguing the question as to whether this is a fact or not. All I say is that I contend that if our policy has completely alienated our friends, then the putting of their policy in this way will certainly alienate the same friends in the same way. Let them not have any illusions in this regard. On every occasion that the United Party emphasizes how it believes in White leadership and on every occasion when it states, as various of its members do, that the Black man will only be able to be obsorbed into politics to a small extent, namely through the medium of limited representation in the various management bodies up to the federal government but that for 10, 20 or 30 years he will not exercise any true authority, they are engaged in saying something which will cause them to be branded as also being the supporters of White domination. Anything that they accuse us of, inter alia of losing friends, will also be things for which they will be blamed. It is indeed White domination of which they say they are in favour and that is what people abroad attack. When the Opposition go to the public with their race federation policy, they tell the voters that they are going to ensure by means of a constitution that the Black man will not be able to come into power. They want to keep him quiet by means of merely limited concessions. Whether this will succeed is another matter but I want to contend here that if there is any alienation of friends as a result of our policy, then their policy is no more capable of retaining those people as friends. In respect of the sharpness of the point in regard to which is all the difficulty. they are apparently, even though it is only apparently, in agreement with us. Our accusation in their regard lies of course in another plane, namely, that they will not be able to maintain White domination with their policy. Moreover, we believe that with our policy we are not going to create race enmity because we concede real political rights to the other races amongst their own people, and therefore we will be able to maintain White self-government. Therefore, we have important differences with them, but the point with which I am now dealing is that the alienation of friends, if this is true, will take place just as much or even more as a result of their policy than because of our policy.

I want to add something further to this. The Opposition contend that their policy will once again rectify everything if they come into power, except as far as the communist and the African states are concerned. My contention is that with their policy they will not be able to create any atmosphere in the world or in the Commonwealth which is different from that which we are experiencing. What are the actual facts? What is it that humanity expects of us? The communist and the African states—this the Opposition concedes— expect a policy of one man, one vote because they desire Black domination in South Africa. The other nations are not concerned about the merits of this policy or of ours but are concerned merely in regard to how they can succeed in getting those Afro-Asian states on their side. How can they placate those states? The result is that if the policy of race federation results in the Communist and the African states being opposed to it, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself affirmed they would be, then the Western nations will also have to be opposed to the Opposition because by associating themselves with them they will no longer be able to continue with that policy of placation. That is the crux of the whole matter. That story of theirs that by means of small amendments and concessions we will be able to assist our Western friends, is nonsense. The Tunku of Malaya is alleged to have stated at the Commonwealth Conference: Just give eight representatives to the Natives and we will be satisfied. Allegations regarding the solution of our problems merely through the medium of making small concessions are simply not true. I have said over and over again and I do not know how many times I shall still have to say it. that immediately those proposals regarding concessions were made, I asked the question: Let us assume that we agree—this dealt at the time with Coloured representation—let us assume that small concessions are made, will we then be able to accept as a fact that from then on this question of South Africa and her apartheid policy will never again be raised at a Prime Ministers’ Conference? Will we be able to accept as a fact that this will be the end of this sort of interference in the internal affairs of a country? Then the reply was: “no, but that would give us hope for the future”. In other words. small concessions are taken as a sign of yielding and that you will thereafter continue to make further concessions under further pressure. Once you start to slide, they continue. in other words. to pull at you until you are over the line. That is what they want. Small concessions will not help at all. Do we not have the best test on earth here in regard to what happened in the Federation? What more can the United Party concede than the Federation just to the north of us has already conceded? There they have Native representation in the constituent states. There they decided upon the removal of all kinds of segregation measures which had existed previously. There you have a missed multi-racial Federal government of Whites and non-Whites. Social integration is also already accepted as being imminent. In their race federation plan the United Party Opposition do not even want to concede as much as the Progressive Party or the Rhodesians. Have the concessions made by the Rhodesians given them the support of Britain and of the Commonwealth and of the rest of the world? Or has Britain already faced a charge before UNO with regard to the administration of Southern Rhodesia? Cannot people understand that here we have a clear contrast between the effect of the policy of apartheid in the Republic of South Africa and the effect of the United Party or the Progressive Party’s policy of integration as it is applied in the Federation? One sees the contrast in the way of life within these territories, in the future of the Whites within the two territories, in the degree of peace between the races within those territories as well as in the reaction of the Commonwealth and of the world to those territories. Here we have the clearest object lesson that teaches us that concessions do not bring peace. I say to my Opposition friends therefore when they contend that we are alienating our friends that is not true, but that even if it were true in that limited sphere of policy, it would apply to the United Party, just as it does in the case of the Federation, no less but perhaps even more than it applies to us. Furthermore let me ask this question: If we did alienate friends and if it were in fact our fault, would we rather bear the blame for losing friends or bear the blame for having sacrificed the self-preservation of our nation? Without any hesitation my choice is to have fewer friends and to ensure the survival of my nation.

Hear, hear!

But world conditions will not always remain as they are today. The change is already taking place. May I remind hon. members of a little bit of history. After the French Revolution a flood of humanism also spread over the world; there was the era of “the noble savage”, just as there is to-day; but did that last? Did this idea of domination over the so-called “right” of uncivilized Black nations remain, or was it in fact followed by the period of occupation and civilization and Christianization of Africa and the conquest of certain parts of Asia? The wheel turns and these misconceptions do not remain for ever. I see signs in the world already that the blindness which has existed in recent times is making way for a better understanding of what is reasonable and good for everybody.

The Leader of the Opposition also says that it will take the wind out of the sails of our aggressors if we obtain the friendship of the non-Whites internally and if the Bantu and the Coloureds stand with us. What right has the Leader of the Opposition to suggest that the National Party is alienating the friendship of all the non-Whites? I contend that in spite of the conditioning of the non-Whites by United Party criticism of this nature and by what has continually appeared in the Press over the past 14 years to make them hostile to the Whites, the relations between the Whites and all three non-White groups— Bantu, Coloured and Indian—are improving. It is true that is only his evidence as against mine, but I can state this not only as my belief but also as my experience and that of my Departments dealing with this matter. I want to say with the greatest self-assurance that particularly as far as the Bantu are concerned, and particularly now that we have clearly set out the Transkeian development plan, there is a measure of goodwill and co-operation which, while it does not exceed my expectations because I really expected it, is nevertheless surprisingly great. After my discussions with the Coloured Council I also have reason to know that amongst the Coloured community there is new hope and new faith and that co-operation with the department of the Minister of Coloured Affairs is growing daily. I go further and say that as the result of the appointment of a Minister of Asiatic Affairs and of our contact with that group and in spite of everything that is said in the newspapers, an increasingly healthy and favourable relationship is developing that will surprise hon. members. It is remarkable really that one is able to say this after 14 years of undermining of the authority of the Government, of unfair attacks upon the Government’s policy, of misjudging its good intentions and doubting its motives. In spite of all this and in spite of the personal attacks and propaganda which accompany every good deed that we try to do, as we are now doing again in drafting a constitution for the Transkei, and in spite of the undermining and the agitation and the lies with regard to our policy, one finds the most remarkable evidence of growing goodwill and co-operation.

I want to give just one example. In the latest discussions that I had in Pretoria with the Recess Committee of the Transkei, one of the members stood up and made a touching statement. This was not a member whom hon. members would describe as a “stooge” of ours; this was one of the members whom they usually describe in their newspapers as an opponent of ours. In the course of discussing other matters he also said this: “I just want to say this with reference to what is sometimes stated outside, that if South Africa is ever attacked the Prime Minister may rest assured that we shall stand with him.”

Hear, hear!

This was a person from whom I did not expect this but it was clear to me that he was speaking with the utmost sincerity. This was apparently a rejoinder to the type of accusation which had sometimes come from the United Party circles, that the Transkeian Territory could become a breeding-place for Communism and a jumping-board for a Russian invasion. This was his natural reaction to that statement. I say therefore that to a large extent the wind has already been taken out of the sails of our aggressors. There will, of course, be small groups of agitators who will oppose the Whites or the Government. There will, of course, be persons who will continue to attack the Government and its policy. There are, of course, Bantu who advocate equality and “one man one vote” so that they themselves may become the rulers. There will naturally be such people amongst all three groups that I have mentioned. My statement applies, however, to the vast bulk and to the best of their leaders.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has mentioned another point to which I must reply. He says that he wants to bring to my attention the danger that the policy of creating self-governing territories may have this result that UNO would want to place them under Article 73 (e). In the first place I want to ask this: What is the object of the Leader of the Opposition in raising this matter in this way? Does he want to discourage us from proceeding with the policy of making the Bantu happy by giving him self-government and ever-increasing authority over his own affairs? Would he like to discourage either the electorate or the Bantu? Is that his motive? If that is his motive he will certainly not gain the friendship of the Bantu for himself or for this party. But let me also pose a second question: What about the Opposition’s own policy of creating self-governing communities? Under the race federation plan (although race federation is not always geographic in character) they themselves visualize certain geographic areas as self-governing constituents of their federation. and they have mentioned the Transkei as one of them. The hon. member for Yeoville is one of those who mentioned amongst other things that the Transkei was one of the territories which might possibly be given self-government.

The Leader of the Opposition said it before I did.

Then I am pleased at any rate that the hon. member is in such good company, because that is not always the case. Such a self-governing community in the Transkei, under the race federation policy of hon. members opposite, would necessarily also be subject to this danger, if there was any substance in his argument …

No.

Let me explain that. The mere fact that there will be a Federal Government, in which the Natives will also have representation, will not conceal the fact that self-governing State is subordinate to and dependent for its own internal advancement upon that Federal Government, just as it would be under this Government. [Interjection.] Let me just refer the hon. member to Rhodesia, where there is a Federation and Southern Rhodesia is part of the Federation, although Britain is still the suzerain state.

But with no representation in the British Parliament.

That may be true, but does the Leader of the Opposition want to tell me that he thinks that if Britain liberates a White-dominated Southern Rhodesia but then places Southern Rhodesia under a White-dominated federated government, the position will be any different in principle from what he thinks is a threat to the Republic in respect of the Transkei? If so, I would commend to him that he should encourage the British Government to make the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland independent as soon as possible, just as the Republic is. Then, if his argument is correct, they will at least no longer be subject to this danger. The point that I want to emphasize most, however, is this: I consider his warning unnecessary. I have gone into this allegation with the assistance of law advisers and I am convinced that Article 73 will not be applicable to the contemplated constitutional development here. It is not desirable at this stage to discuss the whys and the wherefores since no constitution is before us at the moment. The factual position at the moment is that the Transkeian authority has appointed a Recess Committee which is to make recommendations to it in respect of various points and which is now proceeding to draft the possible principles of a possible constitution. Nobody knows what the authority will do with this report. The Recess Committee has consulted us so that it will not submit proposals which may then appear to be totally impracticable. It is for the Recess Committee, however. to decide what it is going to submit to the Territorial authority, and thereafter it will be for that authority to decide what request it is going to submit to the Government and to the Parliament of the Republic in respect of a constitution. It will only be at that stage that the Government will be in a position to decide what it is prepared to incorporate in the Bill which will have to be submitted to this Parliament in order to give the Transkei a constitution. At this stage therefore, since no such constitution is properly before us, it is not fair to speculate on questions which may flow from such a constitution, because we have no facts before us to form the basis of argument. I can only say that according to legal opinion, what I myself have announced so far we are prepared to accept. does not mean that Article 73 will be applicable.

There is one thing, however, that I should like to say to the Leader of the Opposition in this connection, and it is this: Why is he creating this suspicion against the Transkeian plan and why is he drawing UNO’s attention to it? Has South Africa not enough problems to face when she appears before UNO? Does the Leader of the Opposition want to play into the hands of those nations who attack us at UNO? They will quote him as a person who obviously believes that Article 73 (e) is applicable.

I am simply warning the Government not to make a mistake.

No, the public statement made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in this connection, without having had any insight into a constitution on the strength of which he could have argued …

I am simply warning in advance.

Rubbish!

I am very sorry indeed, but in the light of the existing situation I think that a warning in public is unheard of and extremely unwise. South Africa’s position at UNO is difficult enough, and the Leader of the Opposition knows that. The endeavour of both of us to maintain the White man and his civilization here is often opposed there. Our endeavour to achieve friendship between White neighbours and non-White neighbours is very well known. Is all this worth so little to the Opposition that they want to want to make our struggle a more difficult one by inviting further interference? I deprecate this most strongly.

The Leader of the Opposition went on to attack the Minister of Lands because the latter allegedly has no right to associate the United Party with apartheid. I do not think that he is doing justice to the Minister of Lands by creating the impression that the Minister allegedly ignored the whole struggle between the parties throughout the years, or by his statement that we allegedly waged this struggle falsely, if the Minister is of the opinion that both parties believe in our policy of apartheid. I do not think it was the Minister’s intention at all to ignore the differences in this regard. That inference is entirely wrong. It is nevertheless remarkable that on the same occasion to which I referred a moment ago the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) made the following statement—

In other words, I could infer from that there was still a form of apartheid, and that form of apartheid is obviously that of the United Party. [Laughter.] The United Party would be very sensitive about it if one were to say such a thing, because we know that the Progressive Party has often tried to catch them out. However, I am not really concerned with that in this argument, because I just want to state again what the Minister of Lands did say—and quite correctly. He was talking about the desirability of standing together in the interests of the protection of White civilization in South Africa against aggression. He then went on to say that notwithstanding all the differences there were obviously two main points of agreement between us on this side of the United Party. These two points of agreement, which have become clearer in recent time particularly, are that all of us stand for the continuation of White rule. I hope there is no difference in this regard. The National Party and, in recent times, the United Party both stand for the continuation of White rule, but our methods differ. The Nationalists believe that with their methods the United Party would lose that rule. The aim of both parties, however, the Minister said, was to maintain White rule. His second contention was that both parties agreed that they wanted separation in many spheres—and he mentioned some of those spheres. He said that with regard to these points there was no difference, and that in the event of an attack designed to deprive the White man of his rule or to destroy this separation which exists in many spheres (which would be the aim of an attack by the Afro-Asian nations if such an attack were made upon us), then we would have to stand together. Why then did a certain member—I think it was the hon. member for Johannesburg (North)—speak in the way he did? That was the point made by the Minister of Lands. Is that not correct?

There is one statement, however, which I am more justified in holding very strongly against the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He used the expression, “The Government dislikes everything English and hated the British connection.”

No.

That is what I wrote down. Did the hon. member not say, “The Government dislikes everything English and hated the British connection”? That also appeared in the report of the Cape Argus.

I said the Nationalist Party.

Very well, National Party or Government—it does not matter which. The kernel of the matter is that he said that we disliked everything English. I say that this allegation is the sheerest wilfulness and is directed against the growing unity which is already to be found in South Africa between Afrikaans and English speaking. He says this in an attempt to prevent it and to keep within his political camp the numerous English-speaking people who are already inclined to join the National Party or to become pro-National. In other words, he wants to try to prevent this unity for political motives and I say that it is the sheerest wilfulness. Of course the National Party was against the British connection; with that statement I do not quarrel, but throughout the years we consistently stated—and this is the important point—that that connection was and continued to remain responsible for the failure to achieve national unity and that our policy should achieve two aims, firstly to get on to a basis with our English-speaking fellow-citizens where we would all recognize one fatherland and form one nation, even though there were political differences amongst us. Secondly, we said that what we contemplated was that an independent South Africa should always be on terms of the greatest friendship and co-operation with Britain. Throughout all the years therefore our specific policy was to strive to get away from the British connection so as to obtain national unity here and so as to be able to forget the struggle of the past so that the friendship between the two countries could be better maintained. In view of the fact that is what we endeavoured to achieve in the most responsible way in past years, including the period of the establishment of the Republic itself and of the severance of the British connection, it is the greatest irresponsibility and the sheerest wilfulness to come along now and to say that we have an aversion to everything that is English.

It is true.

Finally I want to say this. The claim by the United Party that everything would have been different if they had been in power since 1948 makes no sense. Let us look at the two policies; let us see what South Africa’s position probably would have been if the United Party had been in power since 1948 and what South Africa’s position is to-day as the result of the policy which has been propagated and is still being propagated by the Government Party. I cannot test the first picture by every one of the policies of the United Party over the past 14 years, but I want to test it by its present policy. If it had applied that policy if it had remained in power since 1948. what would have been the picture of South Africa to-day? In the racial sphere the result of the application of the United Party’s race federation policy would have been the visible beginning of the gradual swallowing up of the Whites. What would have happened in fact? The Coloureds, on the Common Roll together with the Whites, would have gained domination over the Cape Province by helping to sway the result in most of the constituencies. There would also have been Indian representation in Parliament and the urban Bantu would have had their separate representation here in Parliament, even though to begin with they were represented by Whites. In addition to that there would have been the representatives of the various Bantu areas to which the United Party also wants to give self-government and representation in this Parliament. With such a federal government in which the non-Whites are given representation via these four different sources, it would have been simply impossible to continue to maintain the White man’s control in the face of growing demands. Inevitably such a federal government would in the long run have been dominated by Blacks. In other words, the process would also have started here which has gone a long way already in Kenya and Tanganyika, namely, the transition from a small degree of partnership, which is what the United Party still wants, to domination by the Blacks. There would have been a repetition here of the racial picture and the political process which is going on in the Federation, namely, that of a small beginning, with political integration, leading more and more thereafter to a swallowing up of the Whites. After 14 years of the implementation of United Party policy in this modem world, allowing for all the changes which are taking place and all the pressure which is being exerted, South Africa would have been in a hopeless position to-day, perhaps even more hopeless than the Federation. I do not know how the United Party can still dare to use words such as “partnership” and “federation” to describe their race policy after having seen what is happening to the north of us. Having seen what misery the policy of race federation has brought our neighbour states and having seen the results of the policy of partnership, it simply amazes one to find that hon. members of the Opposition think that they can make any impression on the voters in South Africa while they propagate a policy of that kind.

One can imagine how far South Africa would already have been on the road to Black domination. I want hon. members to picture, after 14 years of the implementation of the race federation policy, how elections would have taken place in South Africa; what mixed constituencies there would have been, and also how the parties would have been composed of Black and White members under that policy. Just imagine the attitude that would have been adopted by the agitators who, even to-day, are up in arms against the White man and his possessions, but who are kept in control when they try to assume the reins with the communist ideology. Can hon. members imagine what our social life would have been like, and how far we would have gone along the road towards mixed schools? What would have happened if the separation between Black and White had started to disappear at elections, in the schools, in social intercourse, in the hotels, in the ownership of property throughout the country, etc? Can hon. members imagine for a moment the picture of South Africa in these and many other spheres if the United Party with its policy of race federation and integration had been in power over the past 14 years of pressure and compulsion from the outside world? In the constitutional sphere the position would also have been different. May I ask hon. members opposite whether they would have wished to remain in the Commonwealth at any price? Can you imagine what the price would have been that we would have had to pay if they had been at the Commonwealth Conference and had submitted to the demands of Nkrumah and Balewa and others who exerted pressure there in the interests of complete equality?

We would not have declared a Republic.

No, hon. members opposite would not have declared a Republic but that would not have helped them in the least. The attitude was clearly adopted there that if this matter had not come up for discussion as the result of the establishment of the Republic, these demands would have been made in any case. In other words, a clash over Commonwealth membership could have only been avoided if hon. members opposite had done what those States wanted, or they would also have been pushed out after having put up a struggle. Otherwise they would have had to yield in spite of the fact that they sought to achieve White rule in a different way and were then called to order because of it. That is what would have happened there. The result would then have been Black domination and, as elsewhere, possibly a Black republic.

But I want to come now to the next point. To begin with then we might not have been a Republic and just think what that would have meant in terms of losing the opportunity of the growing White unity that we have in this country to-day. If South Africa had not become a republic, we would still have had the struggle of the past between the White groups. History is still going to prove that the establishment of the Republic was the basis on which a new nation came into being here and on which Afrikaners and English-speaking all became South Africans. In addition to that, what would have been our position at UNO if the United Party with its policy had been in power? Would the Afro-Asian states have carried on less if a United Party regime had gone there to fight for White rule in the form in which the United Party believes? We believe that such a government would have become a co-appeaser there together with the other Western States. and would have become a co-loser because of this policy of appeasement. Furthermore. let me deal with the economic uncertainty which would have followed in South Africa. The Sasol development would not have taken place because they, who did not believe in it, would not have established Sasol. Would all the other great economic developments, such as the establishment of a chemical industry, have been able to take place here? Would we have been able to obtain the confidence of the world if we had become a second Kenya or a second Tanganyika or a second Federation or perhaps even a second Congo? What hope would hon. members opposite then have had of building up prosperity in South Africa? Just think of the clashes and the unrest that would have existed here to-day between White and Black if the United Party, with its race federation policy, had come into power and had brought about all these changes here by compulsion. One cannot help conjuring up an alarming picture of South Africa when one thinks of the consequences that such a policy could have had in this period which lies behind us.

In contrast with that, what is the position to-day? I know that the United Party tries to paint a sombre picture and to make us believe that we find ourselves in a terrible position to-day. But who would believe that when his own experience is quite different? Is the fact of the matter not that wise separation is developing here more and more, admittedly with some intervening difficulties, but separation is developing and leading to peace and quiet and order amongst our races. It is giving satisfaction to the various racial groups, each of whom, as a result of the fact that they do not compete with one another, is given the opportunity within its own circle to rise from the lowest to the highest positions, each in its own community. Peace and quiet and satisfaction and prosperity are developing everywhere. Just think of all the positions which have already opened up for the non-Whites because of this policy and because of the protection that they have received to advance without having to face stronger competition. Think of the economic growth which has taken place over these 14 years and which the Minister of Economic Affairs outlined the other day. Think of all the big industries which have been established here. One is inclined to forget that it was during this period that the uranium development took place and that the arrangements for future uranium sales were made, that Sasol and Foscor came into being during this period—developments which were all rejected by hon. members opposite. Think of the other great undertaking, which went off so smoothly and which became an example to the world, namely, the decimalization of our coinage which was so strenuously opposed by hon. members opposite. Think of the establishment of the Republic, the pride of independence of a new State, the building up of a united nation, which is beginning to follow from the establishment of the Republic. Think of the peace and quiet that prevails in the Republic to-day. Think of our withdrawal from the Commonwealth. That withdrawal was not sought by the Government, but now that it is an accomplished fact, think of the advantages that it has nevertheless brought about in the sense that to-day there is no longer any quarrelling in this regard and no fear as to the consequences of such a step, as well as the fact that there is an end to the frustration on the part of all the States and to the clashes between them that inevitably take place. Think of the chances of the development of firmer friendship between ourselves and Britain herself, for example. Inevitably there would have been a continual tug-of-war between ourselves and Britain within the Commonwealth because Britain, on the one hand, wanted to persuade South Africa to abandon her policy so as to facilitate matters for her with her Afro-Asian partners. All that arguing, that interference, that annoyance, is something of the past now. Furthermore, picture the further great developments which are about to be undertaken at Iscor, Escom, etc. In that connection I want to refer to the Orange River scheme. The Leader of the Opposition and his supporters are entirely wrong in regarding the Orange River scheme as the same scheme that was under consideration in the past. Opposition members do the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) an injustice when, as the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) did just to be contentious in this regard, they try to describe it as the Bowker scheme. We greatly esteem the role played by the hon. member for Albany in propagating and in keeping alive this ideal, but he himself will become an object of ridicule if hon. members opposite persist with this type of propaganda. I would strongly advise them against it.

One must view this matter in the right perspective. The Orange River scheme, as a desire that the waters of the Orange River should be harnessed in some way or another, received the attention of people for very many years. That goes without saying. It was not necessary for anybody to be particularly clever or particularly skilful or particularly interested to have realized that one day this mighty river would have to carry one of South Africa’s greatest schemes. Nobody doubted that was what would happen at some time in the future. It was submitted to General Smuts during his regime and he said, “This matter is too big for our generation; it will only come perhaps in the time of my children’s children”. That is how people viewed it at that time. I do not criticize them for having adopted that attitude, because while the Vaal River complex was only just beginning to develop, there was no reason for the actual development of the Orange River scheme. It is only when this complex develops to such proportions that it will need all the waters of the Vaal within the foreseeable future that the Orange will have to begin to take over elsewhere. It is a fact that at an early stage already people who had interests in the Fish and Sundays River valleys saw hope for themselves in one of two alternative schemes in the Orange and therefore began advocating it. Other people along the banks of the river itself began to think what some favourite scheme or other would mean for them. People farther down to the mouth of the river began to make it clear what interest they had in other plans; and so it came about that different schools of thought came into being in connection with the future possibilities of the Orange River for irrigation or power, and this gave rise to all sorts of schemes and all sorts of proposals. It stands to reason that from time to time the members, on both sides, who represented these areas in Parliament, put forward pleas for the implementation of one scheme or another. It also goes without saying that the Government of the time was constantly studying the various possibilities and weighing them up against one another. A further fact is that they had to weigh it up against other, more urgent requirements elsewhere. Something which could not be tackled at a certain stage might become urgent later on. Hitherto the time has not been ripe, nor has the planning been complete enough. There have been other more urgent requirements spread over the whole country. The United Party need not imagine that if they had come into power in 1948, they would have started with this scheme that we have just announced.

Nobody toyed with this idea at all. What they would have done, if they had done anything— I doubt whether they would have done anything to the Orange River—would have been to tackle one of those single small schemes— and this great idea of to-day would have been lost. I doubt, however, whether they would have done this, because I have studied the documents that were drawn up over the years and I have seen myself what the recommendations of the Department were in those days and since then. Like ourselves they would have allowed themselves to be led by the expert advice that they had before them, just as we had expert advice available to us. It is perfectly clear that this whole thing was simply in the hatching stage. It stands to reason that at such times when people put forward vague proposals and ideals in Parliament, there is a great deal of concrete information which still cannot be revealed, particularly where there is uncertainty. People continue to think about it, however, and the proposals remain pious wishes. Those persons who at that moment advocate one scheme or another, or who advocate the general idea, draw attention to themselves, and that attention continues to be centred on them if they persist; all that is true, but there the matter ends. It does not mean that the Government, whichever Government may have been in power at the time, was hostile towards anybody’s “scheme” or refused to tackle anything. It simply means that at that moment the economic and technical facts were against the commencement of any scheme. What is important to know is what was done by this Government in recent times when the time became riper. For the sake of the record I feel that it is necessary to set out the position very clearly, because two decisions that were taken in this regard were more decisive in regard to what is happening now than all the arguments throughout the years. Gradually, as the result inter alia of the representations and the discussions here, the Government’s problem was to decide whether the Pongola or the Orange River scheme should be tackled first. We then caused a special investigation to be instituted into these two schemes. And at that time it was simply an Orange River scheme in its narrower sense of building some dam or other. The report which this Government received from that commission a few years ago was to the effect that having regard to the estimated future requirements in connection with sugar, etc., the Pongola scheme should receive preference. The Pongola scheme must first be carried out therefore before thinking of the Orange. That was the actual advice given to this Government and it was this Government which decided, after having considered the matter, not to accept that recommendation but which took the extremely important decision to tackle both the Pongola scheme and the Orange River scheme at the same time. In view of its opinion as to the reason for needing the Pongola scheme, the Cabinet was of the opinion that this scheme could extend over a period of 14 to 16 years without doing any harm to the requirements which caused the technicians to give it preference, because sufficient land would come under irrigation in all the different phases. The result was that financially it would also leave this country free to tackle an Orange River scheme at the same time. In other words, in spite of the technical advice of those days, this Government took a decision of the utmost importance just a few years ago, namely, to cause both developments to take place. It did so on the strength of its opinion as to what would be in the best interests of this country. That is important decision No. 1. But secondly the Government decided at the same time that if both the Pongola and the Orange were to be tackled, it was necessary to think bigger in regard to the Orange River than had ever been done in the past. The Government decided to get away from what had been receiving the attention of the Smuts Government and of our own Government and to begin to look at the full possibilities of the Orange River as the river which extends over the whole southern part of South Africa; to look at it from its one extremity to its other extremity. It was then decided that we should develop a scheme which would create a great image for the future by taking into account how all the waters of the Orange could be utilized. And it was that decision which gave rise to a new investigation for which a special amount was made available in a previous Budget. It was as a result of that investigation, the purpose of which was not to weigh up two or more schemes against one another in order to decide which one could be tackled, but the purpose of which was to decide how the whole of the river could be developed to its fullest capacity, that it was worked out how the Orange River should be tackled phase by phase. These two essential decisions on the part of the Government were the decisive factors. I want to say therefore that while I am prepared to give every credit to all propagandists and planners of the past and while I seek to achieve no more than honour and prosperity for South Africa, I must react to the claims made by the United Party that it is its scheme that we are implementing; that it is to the credit of the Opposition that this great task is being tackled and that we neglectfully delayed its implementation! I want to emphasize very, very strongly that South Africa will be justified in giving this Government the credit for having had the insight and the courage that will result in this great development, and for not basing this scheme on the smaller United Party plan but on the grand scale on which the Government of to-day tackles everything that it considers to be in the interests of the Republic.

Mr. Speaker, here you see the image of a South Africa which is constantly growing. In the past 14 years we have actually brought into being a new State of which we can be proud, a country with a great future, a country which economically is as stable and as promising as it has hardly ever been before; a country which is now able to throw open its doors to immigrants from other parts of the world with a confidence which it could never have had previously. And it is able to throw open its doors because it has created or is in the process of creating avenues of employment for a big population, and it is able to throw them open because by becoming a Republic it created the national absorptive capacity. One cannot strengthen a country’s population if the newcomers will swallow up the indigenous population; one cannot attract foreigners when they have to be incorporated in a nation which is torn asunder internally. They can only come when the nation itself is in the process of becoming one and when it can make foreigners feel that they are part and parcel of the nation. Strangers become acclimatized when the new country is able to offer them a pleasant life and prosperity.

I propose to conclude therefore with this evidence: We have heard such a great deal in past years about the so-called retrogression of South Africa. It is my firm conviction, however, that this Republic has grown in a wonderful way during this period, that it has grown to the stage where greater growth is possible in the future. Never before have I had such a sense of security and so much certainty with regard to future developments and so much faith in South Africa and her possibilities, in spite of everything that is going on in Africa and in the world, as I have at this very time. South Africa is a country of happiness and of prosperity. The time will still come when the world will attribute her success to the firmness of her Government in these very years which lie behind us.

We witnessed a very remarkable spectacle here this afternoon. The hon. the Prime Minister stood up and stated sarcastically at the outset that he was taking part in the debate purely as a matter of courtesy but that he really had nothing to reply to and that there was no case that he had to defend. I think every right-thinking member of this House will agree with me that it is a remarkable person indeed who takes an hour and fifty minutes to reply to nothing.

The Prime Minister has suggested on more than one occasion that we must rely for the future of South Africa on nothing but his views and his insight. Before he asks us to do so, I wonder whether he should not let us have some testimonial or other of the value of his opinion, particularly with regard to international affairs. The hon. the Prime Minister has asked us on previous occasions in the past to rely on his opinions. When he was editor of the Transvaler he asked us to rely on his view that Hitler would win the war for Germany, and recently, together with the Minister of Finance, he asked us to rely on his view that our continued membership of the Commonwealth would be automatic, On both occasions he was wrong. What assurance have the people of South Africa to-day, when he asks us so superficially to accept his opinion and his view against that of the whole of the civilized world, that we should trust him rather than what we see with our own eyes is happening in the international sphere?

The hon. the Prime Minister tried to be sarcastic towards my Leader.

There was no sarcasm.

For example, he suggested that my hon. Leader was mistaken when he pointed out at Florida that the Nationalist Party was outmoded, that the Nationalist Party was functus officio in the history of South Africa; and defended that statement by saying that the Nationalist Party was creating new ideals. He said that the old ideals had been realized and that they were now creating new ideals.

But surely that is true.

Let me put this to the hon. member Did he listen to the examples of the ideals mentioned by the Prime Minister—the ideal of immigration, the ideal of national unity, and now the ideal of the Orange River scheme, the amended Bowker scheme? Is the fact that the National Party is outmoded not demonstrated strikingly by the fact that at this stage they have to come along and confess before the nation that if one really wants ideals for the building up of South Africa one has to go back to the United Party’s policy, the implementation of which was neglected for 14 years under the regime of the present Government; one has to go back to the vision of Gen. Smuts and the vision of the United Party—with this difference that the Government has very little hope of realizing those ideals? As far as immigration is concerned we had to learn recently in the Other Place that if we weigh up the technicians and the trained people who are leaving South Africa against those who are entering South Africa, we are losing 1,000 a year at the present time. And it costs a great deal of money to train one technician. The way in which this Government realizes its immigration ideal is to export education to the value of R10.000,000 per annum. That is their ideal of immigration! Mr. Speaker, national unity? The only way in which the Prime Minister hopes to achieve national unity in South Africa is to apply the Chinese communist’s psychological technique of brain-washing to the majority of people of South Africa, to instil an unholy fear into the minds of the people of South Africa, to unnerve the people of South Africa and to make it impossible for them to think clearly, and then to come along afterwards and to say, “Stand behind the Government, and even if we have to fight until the blood reaches the bits of the horses, we will defend you”. That is the typical brain-washing technique of the Chinese communist!

And then I come to the Orange River ideal, the Bowker ideal. I am very pleased—and there is not a single South African who does not rejoice over the fact—that the Government has come back again now to the opinion of the late Senator Conroy. There may be amendments; this may be a bigger plan, but it is firmly based on the ideal and the vision of pre-1948 days. What is sad, however, is the fact that 14 intervening years have been lost. Nothing has been done about the Orange River scheme. If they had rather followed the ideal of the United Party from 1948 onwards, then at least, even if the Orange River had not been dammed up from the Caledon River up to Oranjemund, there would already have been mighty monuments along that river from Basutoland up to the ocean which would have testified to a government of vision, a government with insight. But what has been done to the Orange River in these 14 years? Absolutely nothing. And what is even more striking is this: If the Orange River scheme is carried out, we shall be erecting another monument in South Africa to the inter-dependence of White and non-White in South Africa, because it will only be possible to complete that scheme, which is going to cost £450,000,000 within a reasonable period so that a few of us sitting in this House to-day will witness its fulfilment, by making use of thousands and thousands of labourers who will not be White. It will be an impossible task for South Africa unless it is done on the basis of co-operation between White initiative and White ingenuity and Black labour. Even the ideals mentioned to us by the Prime Minister contradict the ideal of apartheid.

What was also striking about the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister was this: He has nothing to say in reply to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition but for an hour and fifty minutes he had to follow the Leader of the Opposition meekly. When the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) asked at the beginning of this debate that an appreciation should be given of South Africa’s strategic position, the hon. the Minister of Finance interjected: “Are you being serious; could you mean such a thing? Unthinkable.” But after the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had shown how such an appreciation could be given to the public in a responsible way, the Prime Minister was only too thankful to follow, step by step, in an attempt to elucidate further the appreciation given by my hon. Leader. But even the heads of his argument remained the same as those of the Leader of the Opposition, and look at the hon. the Prime Minister’s comments on the discerning, thorough analysis by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: He is pleased to hear that we agree that we must fight and that we must be prepared for a struggle against Communism. I want to say here that I am sorry that I intervened when he put a question to my Leader. I hope my Leader will forgive me if I was discourteous. But, Sir, do you know what the Prime Minister did? This gives one an insight into the debating technique of the hon. the Prime Minister. He read out the words used by my hon. Leader—“We have criticized the Government in the past because they were not prepared to meet communist aggression”; and then he tried to suggest that my hon. Leader had meant that the Government was not willing to resist communist aggression. Mr. Speaker, anyone who has passed matriculation English in the lower grade knows that it is a misuse of the English language to use the word “prepared” as a synonym of “willing”, but the hon. the Prime Minister did so. Why did he try to score cheap little debating points in that way against the hon. the Leader of the Opposition? I rebelled against it and that is why I interjected.

He also agrees with my Leader about the possibility of an unprovoked attack by some irresponsible Afro-Asian state or a group of Afro-Asian states, but then he goes on to say that it is not necessary for us to resort to scaremongering. Mr. Speaker, what has been done in the past six months in the political situation in South Africa? What has been done by the hon. the Minister of Defence himself in speeches made by him in the recent past? What has been done by the Minister of External Affairs when he has made speeches and quoted statements made by the representatives of Afro-Asian states of lesser importance, statements containing veiled threats, useless, meaningless threats against South Africa? If the hon. the Prime Minister really believes that scaremongering is not necessary he should summon these two gentlemen to his office and have a nice fatherly talk with them and warn them against the errors of their ways.

In the third instance the hon. the Prime Minister followed my Leader in his analysis of the possibility of an attack upon South Africa which would follow on international action in terms of international law as it may be interpreted at the moment. In that connection the Prime Minister asked with emphasis why we thought that South Africa would stand alone, why we doubted, for example, that the United States would be either impartial or against such action. I think the reply to the Prime Minister is this: When a great country like the United States of America feels that her own self-preservation in a dangerous world is at stake she must be very careful in choosing between possible allies, and the test that she has to apply is this: Which of these allies is reliable? The Prime Minister himself said that; the Prime Minister wants us to believe that every big country to-day will assume that South Africa would be a more reliable ally than the hundreds of millions of people who are hostile and bitter towards South Africa. There can be nobody in South Africa who prays more fervently than we on this side do that if this choice has to be made, the evidence will show that in Africa South Africa is the really reliable ally. At the same time we must do our duty and warn the hon. the Prime Minister that unless we can produce concrete evidence to the world that we can rely on the loyalty of population in South Africa, then judgment may be given against us. I think every one of us was deeply impressed when the hon. the Prime Minister stood up this afternoon and produced the evidence of a nameless person who spoke in Pretoria at a secret conference about the willingness of the Natives to fight for South Africa. I hope that will be so. I believe that will be so. But why should people who express that sentiment on behalf of the non-Whites of South Africa do so at a secret meeting behind closed doors, without any status or publicity? Just think how much more it would be worth to South Africa if the same person to whom the Prime Minister refers could make that statement as a person who really bears some responsibility in South Africa; and just think how much more such sentiments would be worth to South Africa if we had in this House another Mrs. Ballinger representing the Natives of South Africa and if she could produce such a testimonial as their representative? Just think what that would mean to South Africa. Cannot the hon. the Prime Minister realize that it is a mistake that was made in the name of apartheid that impels such people to seek expression behind closed doors and that makes it impossible for them to speak in this Parliament of South Africa on behalf of the population of South Africa, Black and White? That is the tragedy, that is the disaster that has overtaken South Africa.

Then the hon. the Prime Minister comes along with the favourite argument of Nationalist propaganda, “ We shall never succeed in satisfying the Afro-Asian nations”; Of course not. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has stated here in the clearest terms that we on this side of the House do not expect to satisfy the communist bloc or the extremists in the Afro-Asian states. We stand by that statement. But my leader said something yesterday that is much more important. He said that it would be worth more to us to satisfy our own non-Whites in South Africa in such a way that the world can see it, than it would be to satisfy extremists among the irresponsible nations of the world. May I emphasize that because it is very, very true: The moment the hon. the Minister of Information can publish to the world, and is able to substantiate it with really responsible statements by responsible non-Whites, that we are a united nation —or should I say a united population—and that the non-Whites in South Africa also have a stake that they can and want to defend, it will immediately spike the guns of the Afro-Asian elements who are firing at South Africa.

The hon. the Prime Ministers wants us to believe that his policy for the disintegration of South Africa, his policy of granting self-rule to a minority of the Natives of South Africa, will bring about that satisfaction. I do not want to go into that, but I just want to say that until such time as the hon. the Prime Minister really has an answer to the future position in the South African community, politically and otherwise, of the majority of the Natives who will never actually reside in the self-governing reserves but who for the rest of their lives will live amongst us, together with their children and children’s children, in weal and in woe, the hon. the Prime Minister’s policy will be no answer to the issue that we are dealing with here. And until such time as he can give an answer in connection with the position in the South African community, political and otherwise, of the Indians and the Coloureds, instead of relying on the fiction of a state within a state, his policy offers no solution, and in that case he and his Government can hold out no hope of a peaceful and safe future for South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister can be very, very interesting. He has stated this afternoon—and in that regard I do not want to differ strongly from him—that to him, and I think at any rate all Whites in Africa, the British policy in respect of certain African territories, in which there are White communities, is abhorrent. The hon. the Prime Minister used the word “abhorrent” (verfoeilik) in relation to the policy applied by the British in Kenya where they are leaving the White community in the lurch. But what does the hon. the Prime Minister propose to do with the White community in the Transkei?

Take full care of them.

If the hon. the Prime Minister has the answer, why all the secrecy then? Why must they be told one moment that full independence will be given to the Natives in their own territory, the Transkei, a statement which is then immediately contradicted by the Minister of External Affairs and the Minister of Bantu Administration himself, and which is then confirmed by the hon. member for Smithfield? Why is it stated one moment that they are going to receive complete independence, when the Prime Minister says the next moment that he will take care of the Whites who remain behind in this area? How can these two things be reconciled? What we should note is that in Kenya there are only 67,000 Whites as against 6,300,000 non-Whites; one out of every 94 inhabitants of Kenya is White. But in the Transkei which the hon. the Prime Ministers wants to give away, just as England is going to give Kenya away, there are 20,000 Whites as against 1,500,000 non-Whites, that is to say, one in 75. Comparatively speaking there are more Whites in the Transkei than in Kenya. When Great Britain does this, it is an abhorrent policy but when the Prime Minister does it, then he is saving South Africa.

Then the hon. the Prime Minister objected to our saying that “apartheid dragged South Africa down to its present position”. But that is the truth. It is the apartheid policy of this Government and the propaganda which has been made over the years to support that policy of apartheid and to make it acceptable to the people of South Africa, which has brought us to our present position.

No, it was the propaganda against this policy.

No, it was the propaganda that we had in the shape of statements such as these “The Kaffir must be kept in his place”; “Do you want your children to marry non-White women?”; “Do you want your children to sit on the same school benches as Natives?” But there is more to it than that. Our present position is due to the deliberate, injudicious way in which this Government, ever since 1948, in the face of the bitter opposition of the Minister of Information and the Minister of Labour, for example, has been concentrating in converting the one conventional custom in our race relations in South Africa into an inflexible law with unnecessarily humiliating penal provisions. It was this Government’s lack of confidence in the White man’s sense of race purity which induced it to pass laws which created this erroneous image of South Africa in the world—instead of having faith in the character of the White man. That is what has brought us to our present position. Where do we stand to-day? We are completely isolated and alone in the world in connection with those matters which affect our future security, whatever the hon. the Prime Minister may say about friendship in a limited sphere.

And then the hon. the Prime Minister comes along and tries to put the policy of the United Party in this connection in South Africa on a par with the position which obtains in the Central African Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. They are a Federation and the United Party is in favour of race federation, and therefore they are one and the same thing! But it is not one and the same thing and he knows it. In the first place the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland is not sovereign. In the second place the international status of the three components of the Federation is different: Rhodesia governs herself as far as all her domestic affairs are concerned but Nyasaland is practically still a Crown colony, and Northern Rhodesia is something in-between. The policy of Britain still makes its influence strongly felt in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, internally and externally. But surely South Africa is a sovereign independent country, or is she not? Does that not make a difference? And secondly, the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland is a geographic federation where the problems of multiracialism are multiplied threefold—in each of the territories—while the federation policy of the United Party is one of a federation which is based on the races and not on a purely geopraphic foundation.

Then the hon. the Prime Minister comes along and says: “Look what happened there; think of all the concessions that they made in Rhodesia and Nyasaland and in spite of that they are still in difficulties; in spite of that they still find that UNO passes resolutions against them.” That is true. But let us again look at the difference. When Sir Hugh Foot of Britain acted on behalf of Nyasaland and Rhodesia at UNO did he find himself in the same position in which our Minister of External Affairs, Mr. Louw, found himself when he had to appear recently at UNO? Was the voting against Rhodesia 99:0? Did Rhodesia find herself in the position that not a single country in the whole world, not even Portugal, wanted to cast its vote in support of her attitude? Or was the voting in the case of the Federation when Sir Hugh Foot appeared before UNO 56:22 in one case and in another case 56:20? Just think what we as South Africans would give if we could still get 19 or 20 states of repute to take our side and to stand with us! And what states! States like Australia, our old friend, which no longer votes for us; Canada, which for two or three years has no longer voted for us; New Zealand, the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, and also the United States of America, one half of the Security Council’s permanent members, practically the whole Western world. And yet the Prime Minister wants to tell us in all seriousness that we must compare South Africa’s position with that of Rhodesia! If the comparison had been a proper one, every one of us would have thanked the Lord that was the position. Our position is infinitely worse. And the only thing to blame for it is not so much the Government as individuals but the way in which they carry out their policy of apartheid in the Republic of South Africa—inflexibly, mercilessly, in a spirit of brutal baasskap.

When the hon. the Prime Minister tells us that a better relationship is developing between the Whites and the non-Whites in South Africa and he mentions the testimonial, to which I have already referred, from a person whose name he did not disclose, a testimonial given at a secret meeting in Pretoria, and he goes on to allege that to-day the relations are better than they were previously when there was a different government in power, then I am inclined to say that I do not believe him. But that would only be one opinion against another, and hon. members on the other side would probably prefer the Prime Minister’s opinion to mine, and there would be a few members on this side who would prefer my opinion to that of the Prime Minister’s. I think it would be fair therefore to say: Let us test the position; there is a simple test. Let the people who proclaim that standpoint be represented and make their voices heard in the Parliament of South Africa, where they will speak with responsibility and accountability to their constituents. The greatest disservice rendered to South Africa by this Government was when it removed the sole representation, the most gentle voice, of the Natives in this Parliament. That together with the fact that the Coloureds were deprived of their 100-year-old rights and that they now have separate representation. Where are the Coloureds? These steps did much more than all the agitation of the Afro-Asian states or of the communist states to alienate the friendship of people who went out of their way to look for reasons to support South Africa and to be South Africa’s friend.

Then the hon. the Prime Minister, still following my hon. leader and still replying to nothing, refers to the warning given by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that Article 73 (e) of the Charter of the United Nations might be applicable to a territory like the Transkei which is developing towards independence; and in that regard the Prime Minister has two replies. The first is, “How dare the Leader of the Opposition warn him?” In other words, he believes that there may be something in it; the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must not warn him therefore. But it is the duty of the Leader of the Opposition to warn the Government. How long have we not been warning him against the disastrous consequences of his policy of complete territorial separation in the Republic of South Africa? And that is just one example of the innumerable dangers connected with this policy. We warn, but it does not help. However right we were in the past in connection with the Commonwealth and other matters, it is of no avail to issue warnings. It is our duty therefore to see to it that the people of South Africa are informed once again of the dangers which are created by the policy of this Government.

His second charge is that if my hon. Leader’s warnings are justified, the same thing will apply under our race federation policy. In terms of our policy, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, it will be possible, in the case of an area like the Transkei, which is continuously and predominantly a Native area, to regard it as a geographic constituent state of the federation. The Prime Minister then said that in that case Article 73 (e), according to my Leader’s argument, must also be applicable under our policy. I do not think the hon. the Prime Minister is being serious. He cannot be serious, because under our policy, although there will be federal separation between ourselves and the Transkei the Transkei will remain an integral portion of the Republic of South Africa in the same way that Massachusetts or New York or California is an integral portion of the United States of America. And who would suggest, even in his wildest flights of imagination, that a situation can arise where the United States may be bound to furnish regular reports about the internal conditions prevailing in its constituent states? If the hon. the Prime Minister wants to reply to nothing, I want to suggest that he should reply in such a way that it sounds like the reply of a responsible person.

Then the hon. the Prime Minister concluded by saying: “Just think how different the position would have been in South Africa if the United Party had remained in power in 1948!” All that I and all of us on this side can do is to re-echo those words: Just think how different the position would have been in South Africa if the United Party had remained in power in 1948! Let me mention one example to show what South Africa would have looked like. South Africa would have been a multiracial state, just as it is a multiracial State to-day and just as it will still be a multiracial State in 100 years’ time, no matter how many Transkeis are independent. But there would also have been signs that the people of South Africa are sufficiently intelligent to admit in their institutions and in their mode of living that they are members of a multiracial State. The hon. the Prime Minister is quite correct; There would have been representation in this House for the other non-White groups, and that representation would have been the most convincing testimonial as to the fairness and the reasonableness and the wisdom and the sense of justice of the South African State, and it would not have been necessary to have the English-speaking people of South Africa influenced by a Minister of Information, because these testimonials would have come from the people who are to-day regarded as the victims of apartheid.

What about you and the fact that you had to go and stand in Yeoville?

I can give the hon. member the assurance that if the hon. the Prime Minister were to approach me and say, “Join me—and it will be worth your while— to show that I also want to serve the Afrikaners in South Africa”, my reply would be “No”, because I am convinced that Yeoville would stand with me if I refused such an offer.

But I want to come back to the picture which the hon. Prime Minister painted as to what South Africa would have looked like if the United Party had remained in power. It would have been a multiracial State, just as it is to-day, and as it will remain, even if the hon. the Prime Minister remains in power another 50 or 100 years. But there would have been this difference: It would have been a multiracial State which admitted to the world that it was multiracial; there would also have been an extra million White immigrants here in South Africa and their children and children’s children would have helped to maintain the Whites in South Africa as the leading group and as the bearers of Western civilization in South Africa.

If any proof were needed that the United Party is indeed functus officio, that as a party it is something of the past, not only because it no longer has ideals —it never had any ideals over the past 14 years—it is to be found in the fact that the hon. member for Yeoville, in order to defend the party, has had to adopt the tactics of the auctioneer, both with regard to the passion, the lack of taste and the far-fetched nature of his arguments. I do not want to reply to the hon. member’s auctioneer’s technique, except in two respects. He advanced the proposition that the situation of the Whites in the Transkei was comparable with the situation of the Whites in Kenya and thereafter he referred to the National Party’s attitude of “brutal baasskap”. As far as the first factual allegation is concerned, I want to say here that is a so-called fact which the hon. member knowingly stated incorrectly. It has been stated repeatedly from the Government side that the interests, materially and otherwise, of the White man in the Transkeian Territory will be protected, while in point of fact the cry of distress that is going up from the Whites in Kenya is that they have no guarantee in respect of their material interests. With regard to the second statement, that is. that our party is responsible for a crude, brutal form of racial propaganda, I want to reject that with all the earnestness at my command, and with just as much force it was flung at us in such an unworthy manner. Neither the hon. member nor anybody else in that party can quote any occasion or any case where a single Nationalist sitting on this side has talked in a brutal way and with a baaskap attitude about “keeping the Kaffir in his place”, “do not allow your child to marry a non-White woman”, the statement which the hon. member attributed to us. That is untrue. That is the oil that they are pouring on the fire in an attempt to stir up distrust not only in the minds of their remaining supporters in South Africa, but also in the outside world. But the hon. member was not only an auctioneer; he was also the Mbonga and the advocate of the Leader of the Opposition. In his role as Mbonga he has to cover up for the Leader of the Opposition and defend him when he sits down; in his role as advocate he has to defend him and put the record straight where he has blundered. I just want to go into one specific aspect in this connection, and I do so because the hon. member for Yeoville has again come back to what I regard as the sensational reference by the Leader of the Opposition to the possible applicability of Article 73 of the United Nations Charter to a developing independent Transkei. I do not want to repeat the arguments which have been advanced here, nor do I want to argue the merits of the possible applicability of Article 73. I merely want to say this: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition touched upon this matter and said that this article might possibly be applicable. Neither he nor the hon. member for Yeoville specifically repudiated the suggestion that it might be applicable. They will be the first authorities who may be quoted at UNO to the effect that this article is possibly applicable. I say that if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had allowed himself to be led by his honest instincts, I know that he would not have done this. An Architophel whispered in his ear that he should make a debating point out of this. A leader and a politician would have written a letter to the hon. the Prime Minister in this connection and said: “That is my opinion and I warn you that I shall publish this exchange of correspondence if and when this matter is discussed in public to the detriment of South Africa.” That would have been the conduct of a politician and a patriot. But the conduct of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was that of a man who tries to please advisers who apparently do not deserve to be advisers.

Both the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition again followed the main theme that our political pattern in South Africa should be such as to gain the support of at least the responsible Western countries. They did not tell us whom they regarded as responsible. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition even talked about the responsible Afro-Asian countries. I shall be very pleased if he or one of his supporters will get up at some stage and mention the responsible Afro-Asian countries that he has in mind so that we can know where to start with this friendship offensive. But I leave it at that. In judging our policy in South Africa, is the question not simply this: Can any Government or any prospective Government judge the policy of this country by the effect it will have on other states? Is the policy of our country not the concern of those who will live with it and the concern of our children who will inherit that policy and its consequences? And as to this question of pleasing outsiders, is the policy that we have to live with and that our offspring will inherit any concern of theirs? It is so obvious that one feels ashamed to mention it but perhaps we should nevertheless mention the simple fable of Aesop to remind the Leader of the Opposition of the danger of trying to behave in such a way as to please one’s neighbours by the fable of the father who was riding his ass to the market and who made his son walk next to the ass; when the neighbours criticized the strong father for riding and making his little boy walk, they changed places; and then the criticism was that the little boy was riding while his elderly father had to walk; then they both got on to the ass and then the criticism was that the ass had to carry too heavy a load, and in the end father and son carried the ass. That is what happens, according to this old wisdom of mankind, when one tries to please one’s neighbours. This statement by the Leader of the Opposition was made in practically identical terms in last year’s Budget debate. The general election then followed and he had his answer from the electorate on this policy. I want to make this simple prophecy to-day: As long as their policy is primarily designed to please the outside world and not to please the people who are here with them in their own country, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party will continue to adorn the Opposition benches, or at least occupy them if they do not adorn them.

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal now with certain other criticisms which have been put forward here and which are all concerned really with this question of confidence. But what we are concerned with here—and I say this by way of introduction in pursuance of an observation made by the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje)—is the question of internal confidence. The hon. member for Jeppes said with conceited self-complacency—

The hon. member says that the leaders of our economic life, who are supposed to have lost confidence, are their supporters—people who are subject to their influence. And just in passing, Mr. Speaker, I found it very amusing to hear the Leader of the Opposition speak with great sympathy for the poor man, in his introductory remarks, and to hear him say that the myth that this Government is a workers’ Government has now been exploded, after the hon. member for Jeppes had prided himself earlier on the fact that they are the mouthpiece of the capitalists in South Africa!

However. I mention this point only in passing because it concerns the question of confidence and because the party over there say in their own statement that they occupy a particular position in relation to the entrepreneurs of South Africa. They are, therefore, in a position either to create internal confidence or to harm it. I admit, Mr. Speaker, that the kernel of this whole matter is confidence. Confidence is the factor which should underlie our defence programme; confidence is the factor which will either increase our economic welfare or retard our economic growth. Confidence in any undertaking is the prerequisite without which nothing useful can be done. That is what Albert Schweizer said; it is true of all human activities and that is what is sadly lacking in the party on the other side. They lack confidence in the future of this nation of which they form part.

Let me come now to a specific point. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and to a lesser extent the hon. member for Yeoville, and various other speakers, have again stated that one of the aspects of our non-White policy which would be rectified to the satisfaction of the world if the United Party came into power, is that the human potential in South Africa— the non-White worker—will be fully used. They argue that the policy of the National Party has a restrictive economic effect because as the result of job reservation and the maintenance of the traditional colour bar, we are not making the correct use of the services of the non-White worker. It is true that the National Party stands by the colour bar without any qualification. But in this connection I just want to point out that the Viljoen Commission, an expert commission, did not reject job reservation. They recommended job reservation on a percentage basis, as it has been amended in the meantime. The experts did not reject it. I also want to point out that job reservation and our traditional colour bar do not only affect the rights and the talents of prospective non-White workers; they also affect the rights and interests and technical skill of the White worker. Must those rights be entirely ignored? The point that I want to make particularly in this connection is this: The proposition is always accepted unquestioningly that it will be possible to create a more productive community if we depart from this principle of the colour bar. I thought to myself: Let us examine this proposition empirically by taking an example. I then sought my example in a comparable country in Africa, a country in which there is no job reservation. In a moment I shall indicate out of the Economist why I chose that example. I refer to the Congo of a few years ago. At that time, in 1958, according to the Economist, approximately two million dollars had been invested in the Congo since 1947; about the same amount had been invested in the Republic of South Africa or the then Union of South Africa. The Economist, like the United Party and the Leader of the Opposition, believes that there they have an excellent economic system that does not recognize this idea of job reservation. I want to quote from the Economist of 13 December 1958—it sounds like old history to-day but let us hear what their opinion was at the time—

Such as our job reservation—

That was their opinion in 1958—

I then went further and ascertained from the 1957 statistical year book of the United Nations what the position was. I took the years 1953-7, according to the figures that were available, and I found that with the great influx of capital that was available there, the means of production of the Congo had increased during that period. Their capacity to generate electricity, which was about one-tenth of that of the Republic, increased in these three years, from 1953 to 1956, by 53 per cent, while the increase in the Republic was only 32.3 per cent. Relatively speaking there was a greater increase in this production potential. The Railway transport index of the Congo also showed that there was no shortage of labour because from 1953 to 1957 there was an increase in the Congo of 17.8 per cent in the ton mileage, while in the Union there was an increase of 14.8 per cent. With this ideal labour organization, with an equal flow of foreign capital to a smaller economy, with a more rapid growth, relatively speaking, of the important means of production, railways and power, one would have expected that the wealth of the Congo would have increased at a very much more rapid rate than the wealth of our fatherland. But what do we find? We find in the first place that in the years 1953 to 1956 exports from the Belgian Congo rose by 24.5 per cent and that the exports of the Republic increased by 32.9 per cent in the same period. I then thought to myself that possibly much of this wealth was used in the Congo itself. After all, it is said that they sometimes eat injudiciously there! I then thought that possibly the export figure was not an accurate reflection, and I checked the increase in the net national income. I found that during this period, under this much-vaunted economic system, there was an increase of 14.8 per cent in the national income of the Belgian Congo, and an increase of 25.8 per cent in the national income of our fatherland. I mention these figures only so as to make this statement. It is always represented as axiomatic that our economy will become more productive if we depart from our traditional division of spheres of employment for the different races. But this example entirely refutes that axiom. I have been talking about the Congo, and what about the Congo? It reminds me of the old ditty—

Here we have the Republic of South Africa, with a system which is firm and stable, with a rate of growth in its prosperity at least as fast as that of the great United States!

But the next charge made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, strangely enough, was that our policy of apartheid was not being implemented fast enough and vigorously enough. He said, incorrectly, that we were spending R25,000,0000 on the implementation of apartheid as against R120,000,000 on defence. I shall come back in a moment to the actual figures. In connection with these accusations I just want to refer to what was said repeatedly by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, that it is not a question of pouring in money but a question of promoting self-help amongst the Bantu. I also want to quote a good witness in the person of Mr. Eugene Black, president of the World Bank. This is what he said in an article in Optima of September 1958—

That in essence is what the Minister of Bantu Administration stated. In order to establish a durable and viable economy it is necessary to bring about a spiritual revolution, a change in the mode of living and in the thinking of the Bantu. It is not only a question of pumping in money and reaping the fruits.

Furthermore, as far as this criticism is concerned, what tempo and pattern of development other than that followed by this Government would that party follow? In the whole of this debate there has not been a single reference to the way in which this Budget makes provision for Bantu development. There has not been a word of criticism, and broadly speaking, in terms of the policy of the United Party, where they say that they also stand for the development of the reserves, it is inevitable that they will concentrate on the same factors which create an economic infra-structure—road links, educational facilities, health services, and primary development at the beginning, which will then be followed by the secondary development.

What are the true facts in connection with this Budget? In the first place, the five-year plan involving a total expenditure of R114,000,000 was announced before this Budget. Of this amount R76,000,000 is for the establishment of towns, R38,000,000 for rural development. This year a sum of R10,000,000 is being granted to the Trust on Loan Account and a further R10,000,000 on current account as a first instalment on this five-year plan. The total provision for Bantu Administration is not just R25,000,000, as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. Provision is being made for R20,000,000 for the Trust, R16,000,000 for the normal administration and R21,000,000 for education, making a very significant total of R52,000,000 in this particular fiscal year.

I want to conclude. We can take every one of these facets of criticism voiced by the United Party, criticism which undermines confidence in the future, and when we analyse them we find that criticism is not well founded. In the whole framework of the United Party’s policy we find that the logic of the situation has forced them, in choosing between the Progressive-Liberal idea and our concept of apartheid, to begin to admit that this party is right; and in spite of the fact that we are able to refute their specific criticism and in spite of the fact that they themselves, in making adjustments to the policy of their party, concede the correctness of our attitude, they refuse to join us to base the future of South Africa on the foundation of parallel development. I ask myself: What inhibition prevents that party from siding with us? I shall tell you, Mr. Speaker, what inhibition prevents them from siding with us. It is the fact that the United Party as it sits there to-day is the skeleton which still houses the venomous tradition of nineteenth century imperialism and antipathy to the Afrikaner, and that germ is still so active in the old skeleton that they are not prepared, in respect of any matter or for any purpose, however good it may be, to co-operate with us, the historical legatees of the Afrikaner idea and the idea of freedom in South Africa. And, Mr. Speaker, in this connection, I want to quote another opinion. This is not only my own opinion. I am going to quote what an enemy of the National Party, an old member of the United Party, Mr. Oswald Pirow, said with regard to this matter as long ago as 1957 in one of his circulars. This is what he says about the United Party—

That is how they feel with regard to this matter. Mr. Speaker, we talk about confidence, we talk about building a future together, but then we must trust each other. We must be objective enough to be prepared to drop the old prejudices and to build up a joint future. Without this measure of faith in me as a fellow human being, a faith which I am prepared to repose in them, without this faith in our mutual potential, that party’s future is as small as their faith is. The party on this side may have its failings; here and there we may fail; we may make errors of judgment, but we believe in political opponents, we believe in the whole of South Africa; we believe in our future and our destiny, and as long as we are the only party having this faith, the permanent political future is to be found on this side.

I do not intend following any of the points raised by the hon. member who has just sat down, except to congratulate him on preserving the notes which he makes from time to time because I think he took up last year’s notes; for the speech he has just made is the same speech which he made last year. I do not think it is necessary for me to reply to him because he has previously been answered on all the points he has raised.

I want to confine myself to the question of the Coloured people. I would like to tell the Prime Minister that he had ample opportunity to deal with the request made by the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) with regard to rethinking, a rethinking of the position of and the attitude towards the Coloured people in the light of the situation which we are told has arisen; in the light of the threat which the Minister of Defence has indicated exists in regard to the safety of this country. I want to confine myself, Sir, to the part which I believe the Coloured people could play in this, their country, and show, with regret, that they are not wanted by the Government. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Defence whether he agrees with the statement that was made by the hon. the Prime Minister when he said—

I speak only of the White people.

Of course, I understand that statement has been slightly varied now. The statement now reads—

I refer only to White people, the Japanese and one Chinaman.

He still excludes the Coloureds. I want to ask the Minister of Defence—and he is an honest man—whether he agrees with that statement.

I am not a philologist.

I would like the hon. the Minister of Defence to tell me Do you agree, Sir, with the statement made by the Prime Minister when he speaks of the South African nation he only talks of the Whites? Do you agree with that statement. Sir? Do you agree with it, Mr. Minister of Bantu Administration? Are those two Ministers—there are only two Ministers in the House—prepared to exclude the Coloureds from the nation of South Africa? No reply, Sir. They are afraid. They must first ask the Prime Minister whether they should say “yes” or “no”.

What colour do you want?

I would not ask the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) because he got a telling off from the Prime Minister himself this afternoon when he spoke about the great part which the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) had played in the Orange River scheme and the Prime Minister said he did not know what he was talking about.

I want to come back to the Coloured people and ask the hon. the Minister of Defence— I asked him this last year as well: In the event of an internal strife or in the event of South Africa finding herself in a position where she has to fight, what does the hon. the Minister of Defence expect the Coloured people to do? His reply was this: “I expect them to fight for their country.” Correct?

Yes.

Is this their country?

Yes.

Are they part of the nation: Are they part of the South African nation, “yes” or “no”?

They are part of the population.

They are part of the population. So is the Native, so is the Indian, so is the Chinaman, so is everybody else. I want the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Bantu Administration—I am sorry the other Ministers are not here, particularly the hon. Minister of Information—to tell us whether the Coloureds are part of the South African nation. And how can you expect people who are not part of the nation to play their part in the defence of a country of which they are denied to be part?

Who said they were not part of the nation?

The Prime Minister said so; he said they were not part of the nation. I can see that the honesty of the Minister of Defence is beginning to show itself. He is not in agreement with that statement. Let me ask him this then: What is he going to do about the Coloured people? Is he going to help them to fight for this their country? Is he going to make soldiers of them? Is he going to arm them? Is he going to take the Coloured people into the confidence of the Government and allow them to play their part? The Prime Minister told us to-day that he had received wonderful reports about “die goeie gesindheid ” of the Coloured people towards this Government. He told us about the secret meeting at Pretoria. However, I am not concerned with that but I am concerned with the statement which the hon. the Prime Minister made in trying to tell his followers in this country that there was this new feeling on the part of the Coloured people towards this Government. May I point out to the hon. the Prime Minister that he must not take for granted what he hears from the Council of Coloured Affairs. All he has to do is to think back six months. Six months ago, Sir, the feelings of the Coloured people were tested. There was an election. They thought twice about putting up a can didate against me. They had such a hiding last time that they did not do that, but they went to my hon. friend, the member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux). A Nationalist candidate stood against him, only six months ago. Surely that was a test of how the Coloured people felt about Government policy. The gentleman who stood against the hon. member for Karoo lost his deposit. On four occasions, the Government’s policy in respect of the Coloured people was tested at elections and on each occasion the Nationalist candidate lost his deposit. If the Prime Minister says today that the Coloured people are rallying around him it is not true. What the Coloured people will do is that they will stand by this country, their country, because in a time of danger their homes, their families and their children will be in as great a danger as those of the White people. They want an opportunity of defending their homes but this Government does not want to give it to them. They were given that opportunity before. They did that during the time of the Voortrekkers; they did that during the two world wars. Today the Minister of Defence does not want to tell the Coloured people where they stand; he does not tell them what he expects them to do. Mr. Speaker, the Coloured people feel to-day that they do not deserve the laws which are on the Statute Book. Whilst they are there and in the light of the dangers which face us—I have no evidence of that, but I am not prepared to say they do not exist—how can you expect the Coloured people to fight for this their country when they are denied the elementary right of a citizen? How can the hon. the Minister of Defence hold up his head in front of the Coloured people and ask them to assist him to defend this country?

Tossie, it seems to me you do not like me.

No, it is because the hon. the Minister is at least honest that I am talking to him in this way. He ought to be flattered, I would not talk to the Prime Minister the way I am talking to him! So he ought to be flattered. You, Sir, as the Minister of Defence, when you one day, as I hope you will, have Coloured soldiers, what will you say when they ask you: Why cannot I vote on the Common Roll? Why can I fight with you, sit next to you in the same troop carrier and be killed and wounded with you in defence of our country, yet cannot vote with you? What will you tell them then? To-day they can fight next to you but they cannot stand in a queue next to you. What is the answer of the Government to all these complaints in a time of crisis when you expect them to take up arms and also to defend their homes and their families? I guarantee that the Japanese will not help us. Unless and until this Government does the re-thinking for which the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) pleaded so eloquently, you cannot expect them really to fight wholeheartedly for South Africa. [Interjections.] For goodness’ sake, make it possible for these people to feel they are part of the nation. Let the Minister go to the Cabinet and tell the Prime Minister he should get up in this House and retract that statement. I want to tell you, Sir, that the Coloured people are humiliated as the result of that statement. They feel degraded, in the light of the history of South Africa, that they should be denied the right of nationhood in this country, which is also theirs. All we ask is to recognize South African citizens as part of the nation. What confidence can they have in the White man if they are told those things? The Prime Minister goes to the Council for Coloured Affairs. I have nothing against the gentlemen who are members of that Council, but they are so completely under his spell, the majority of them anyhow, that they make speeches and call the Prime Minister the Messiah. Have you ever heard such nonsense in your life?

What do you call him?

That would be unparliamentary. I want to say that the South African people, whether they are members of the United Party or the National Party, must realize that the Coloured man is a South African from every aspect, and I want to ask the Minister of Defence to make a statement. He was wishy-washy last night, I understand, when asked a question by the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland). When the hon. the Minister spoke about unity, he said he wanted unity, and he was asked: Unity between whom and amongst whom? According to my information, the Minister first said unity amongst all, and then he must quickly have remembered the statement of the Prime Minister and said: Unity amongst the White people. Now, that is not right. There must be unity amongst the people of South Africa, all of them. I think the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) made an excellent point when he said that until you can show the world that every citizen of this country, whether he is Black, Brown, White or Yellow, is prepared to stand by the Government of the day, to take up arms and to defend the country, that will be the best evidence to the world of unity in South Africa. Let us try to get away from this narrow outlook that unity means unity amongst the White people only. It is the greatest mistake that the White man of South Africa can make if he appeals for unity amongst the Whites only. I once said in this House, and I will say it again: Until you restore to the Coloured man all his political rights and privileges, you will never have peace and unity in this country. Believe me, Sir, that the Nationalists do not yet realize to what extent they are dependent on the Coloured man in the economic life of the country. All the boasts of the Government with regard to the expansion of our economy—it is not due to the White man. Who has made it possible but the Coloured man and the African? When you say to your voters: See what we have done, it is not you who did it. What you did was just fortuitous. You did it with the help of the Coloured man in every phase of our economy, and it was recognized last year by the Minister of Transport. When he spoke about the proposed strike, he said that if the Coloured man had gone on strike for three days it would have paralysed the economy of the city. But although the Coloured man has all the right to strike and to paralyse our economy, he will not do it. They are living in hopes that saner counsels will prevail and that they will still be recognized in every phase, and I want to say this to the Minister of Defence: If it is as serious as you have told us—if it is—you cannot expect the Coloured man to sit at home and not to help. His home and his children are all in danger and you cannot do without them. Why do you not treat them with that respect in every phase of their lives to which they are entitled and make use of them in the South African Army? This will not be a Boer commando or a Nationalist army you are building up, but an army of South Africans, all for one, but you cannot do it unless you show them respect and also respect them politically.

Mr. Speaker, I have made my appeal and the hon. member for Peninsula has made his appeal, but the Minister has not replied. If the Prime Minister believes that the Coloured man is satisfied with the policy of the Government, he is living in a dream world. It is not so. There are some who will follow, but the majority will not. We make an earnest appeal in all sincerity: Remove at the earliest opportunity those Acts which in the opinion of the Coloureds fall harshly upon them every day. Improve their economic position. Increase their pay. Then you will not need subeconomic houses if you pay the Coloured man an economic wage, and you will not have to spend thousands of rand in health services if you give them decent homes to live in. So much can be done.

Is it not being done?

No. The houses which are given to them are of poor quality. There is a medical man sitting here and I will take him out and show him those houses and he will condemn them. He must condemn them. I went out to a little place in the Boland only six months ago, where the people told me: Mr. Barnett, please appeal to the Government; ever since we have occupied these houses, these sub-economic houses with no inside doors or ceilings, and cement floors, our children are dying at a greater rate from T.B. than ever before. Sir, you must pay these people an economic wage. There is not a Coloured artisan who earns a decent wage who occupies a sub-economic house. There is not one of them who is a burden on the Government. It is the poor unfortunate Coloured man who does not get a decent wage on the farm and everywhere. The Government should raise their wages to a level which will enable them to live as decent human beings and not in slums and economic conditions as they live now.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I need take the matter any further. I could have dealt with the Minister of Finance. I could have talked finance with him. I could tell him why he does not get finance from overseas. I know. It started over 12 years ago when the overseas government refused to give loans to this country, but I have not the time to do so.

You are talking nonsense.

If I talk nonsense, you should be able to follow me quite easily. I will not take the matter any further. The Ministers are not here. I have made the point I wanted to make. I appeal to the Minister of Defence to reconsider the position and to try to change the attitude of the Government towards the Coloureds and remove these discriminatory laws and you will find a response to the Government such as you do not expect to find. But remove the cause of friction and hardship and you will see how proudly we will be of the Coloured people of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, when I listen to the hon. member who has just sat down I always think of Leipold’s old ditty …

The hon. member who wants to pose as the champion of the Coloured community only succeeds in doing the opposite. I think he is one of the best examples that we can find of people who spoil the case of the Coloured community. Amongst other things, he makes the reckless statement that it is not the White man who has built up this country and brought prosperity here but that it is the Coloured and the Bantu.

I did not say that, I said that they had helped.

It is no use arguing. But I do not want to deal with the hon. member. I want to come to the hon. member for Yeoville who had to play a role here this afternoon which I think proves the effectiveness and the success of the Budget. In this debate the hon. member who is always one of the leading lights of the United Party played the role of dust-raiser. In his attempt to scratch here and to scratch there and to distract attention from the extremely effective statements made by the Prime Minister, he stated, amongst other things, that the Whites in the Transkei were in the same boat as the Whites in Kenya. That is a far-reaching comparison, and the hon. member knows it and his colleague who represents the Transkei knows it. The doors of the Republic of South Africa are open to the Whites of the Transkei.

The doors of England are also open to the Whites of Kenya.

Yes, but the doors of South Africa are also open to the Whites of Kenya. I personally have come across Whites who locked up all their possessions in their homes and left everything there because they could not get a penny for it. They did not go to England, however, who had treated them in this way; they came to South Africa. The hon. member went on to say that South Africa would have given a great deal if, like Rhodesia who was represented at UNO by Sir Hugh Foote, we could have got 20 countries to vote in our favour. I say that even if the voting against us at UNO is 99 to 0 year after year. I would still prefer that to a vote such as that cast in the case of Rhodesia, together with prospects such as those facing Rhodesia.

But I want to confine myself to the defence aspect of this Budget. There is not a single country in the world to-day which has not found it necessary in the military sphere, just as in the economic sphere, to equip itself for defence in the highest degree. Although this Budget makes provision for the expansion of our Defence Force and for training on an unprecedented scale. I want to say that this is being done in an atmosphere which offers an opportunity such as we have never had before in this country for us to stand together, thanks to the right lead given by the Government in this matter. I do not want to be unreasonable. I want to express my thanks for the attitude adopted here by the Opposition, as indicated by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other members, in supporting the Defence expenditure here, in contrast with the attitude adopted by that party in the Other Place. But while expressing my gratitude for that fact, I cannot help saying that here and there was evidence of an unhealthy subconscious outlook on the part of the Opposition, an attitude which we also saw in the Senate. I refer to the fact that they practically tried to ridicule the motivation of the hon. the Minister of Defence for our extended defence programme. Accused No. 1 in this matter is the Press which usually supports that party, but one cannot help being struck by the fact that party whose leader tried to frighten people 18 months ago during the referendum campaign into not voting for the Republic because the Russians now have a projectile which they can send as far as South Africa, to-day accuses us through its Press of trying to frighten people with the possibility of Afro-Asian action against us. It is the manifestation of those symptoms which makes one feel unhappy. We find this in certain sections of the English-language Press. On 18 March 1962, the Sunday Express, under the heading “Phantom Forces”, wrote as follows—

The Cape Times of 15 March, under the heading “Call to Arms”, wrote as follows—

They then go on to talk about “hypothetical Afro-Asian armies of liberation”, etc. The same newspaper then followed that up the next day by saying that one of its journalists had telephoned the Minister of Defence of Nigeria and asked him how far their troops were on the way to South Africa, and that he had replied that he knew nothing about it. The serious situation in which we find ourselves is being ridiculed. But it so happens that the Cape Times itself wrote as follows on 16 January of this year—

And now that the Government does this, it is condemned and ridiculed and it is stated that the Government is frightening the people. No wonder that a leading publication, which does not support this Government and which is published in London, Southern Africa, gave those sections of the Opposition Press in South Africa a bit of its mind a few days ago in its latest edition. I have not got the magazine itself with me, but I have a translated version which appeared in the local Afrikaans Press. In a leading article this magazine wrote as follows, amongst other things—

Then Southern Africa says—

That is this magazine’s opinion about the attitude of this unsympathetic group of newspapers. Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the opinion of Maj. Gen. Sir Frances de Guingand who was Lord Montgomery’s Chief of Staff in the last war, and who has confirmed the attitude of the hon. the Minister that unless South Africa prepares herself in the military sphere there is a real danger that action will be taken by these Afro-Asian states, according to information at his disposal. The hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) adopted the same tone in this House yesterday as that section of the Press. He expressed doubt as to the possibility that those states might organize an offensive against South Africa. Amongst other things he asked who would give them arms. I did not expect such a stupid question from an ex-soldier. He wants to know who is going to lead them, but then he goes on to say that the position of the independent Transkei in South Africa is going to be worse than that of Algeria, and he envisages the possibility that South Africa might be threatened by the Transkei. Have you ever heard of anything so ridiculous? There we have the Afro-Asian states which, as we know, are busy organizing. Here we have a friendly Transkeian Territory whom we are helping on the road to self-government, but as part and parcel of their usual propaganda to frighten the electorate with regard to the Transkeian plan, he alleges that the Transkeian Territory will become a danger to us. The hon. member also stated at a meeting in the Peninsula that we would have to have some shocks in this country to get this Government out of power, and according to the Cape Times of 14 March he said—

The hon. member put a number of questions to the Minister of Defence yesterday. I think he owes this House an explanation as to what he meant in connection with shocks which will have to come from outside and as to where they will come from. There is a great deal of evidence in this connection of the activities of the Afro-Asian states. There is the report of 28 November 1960 in the South African Press of a telegram which was sent to Dag Hammersjoeld by President Nkrumah of Ghana, saying that he had made an urgent request to nine independent African states to consider the establishment of an Africa supreme command with military planning headquarters in some suitable place in Africa. The forces for this command will be provided by the independent Africa states. This command is to act independently or to be placed at the disposal of UNO to provide assistance to any African country which finds herself in the position which prevails at present in the Congo. Those countries were the United Arab Republic, Ethiopia, Liberia, Libya, Guinea, Mali, the Sudan, Morocco and Tunisia. We are also aware of the setting up in Cairo of a preliminary government consisting of people who are hostile to this Government, and we know that the following report appeared in the Cape Argus on 22 February from Dar es Salaam—

I do not want to deal with the statements made at the last sitting of UNO with regard to this matter, but there we have abundant proof that if this Government does not make South Africa strong in the military sphere, this threat will become a reality.

But there is another aspect with which I want to deal in conclusion, and that is what we have heard in this House from the lips of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) who presents the defence programme of this Government as though it is tantamount to the use of violence to force apartheid upon the people. She said that the Government was making people panic-stricken by contributing this sum of R120,000,000 not to safeguard South Africa against aggression but to force apartheid upon the people. In the same tone the Natal Mercury wrote as follows on 15 March with reference to this question of defence—

Then a last quotation. Last year during the election campaign the hon. member who sits next to the hon. member for Houghton, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson), according to the Burger, said the following at Kuils River on 12 September—

Mr. Speaker, statements of this kind are extremely irresponsible. It is statements of this kind which bring down upon us the venom of enemies outside our borders. It is this type of statement which undoes all the good work which this Government is trying to do. I want to express the hope therefore that we shall make use of this wonderful opportunity to stand together in the sphere of defence and that we will all throw in our weight behind the Government.

It is a particular privilege for me this afternoon to say a few words in the first place about the Budget speech which was delivered here a few days ago. I can say that the reaction of the people outside to the Budget was excellent. We who make contact with the public from time to time can bear witness of the fact that the complaints regarding the Budget were so few that one can practically ignore them. However, a few very important things emanated from the Budget, things which can stimulate the economy of South Africa to a very large extent. One of the things in regard to which all of us, including the Opposition, are very pleased, is that in the very first place the old people in our country are being looked after; that they are being better cared for under this Budget. I heard the remark from the Opposition that not enough is being done for our aged, but then one thinks back to the time in the past when they were in power. What was the position of our elderly people in South Africa then? Their position to-day under this Government compares particularly favourably with their position under the United Party Government. This Government is looking after them as no previous Government has ever looked after them.

A very important factor to stimulate your national economy is the large amount which is being set aside in the Budget for the improvement of defence. A country without a proper defence may be regarded by other countries as not being sufficiently safe for the making of investments and the better you are prepared for possible assault from outside, the more you stimulate your economy.

A third matter is the money which is being voted for the development of the Transkeian Territories. This will also stimulate the economy to a far greater extent than was the case in the past. In our recent past, history has taught us that we in South Africa have to ensure that the White man retains authority and if you do not plan in advance as is being done now. there is the great danger that we will not retain this authority. We have sufficient examples of Governments where the government is in the hands of Bantu and Europeans jointly but not one of them has succeeded up to the present. Eventually the Europeans in each of those Governments will have to disappear completely and therefore it is necessary for us to take these precautionary measures timeously here in order to ensure that the European will retain his authority here in South Africa.

What I actually wanted to talk about was the fourth announcement which was made by the hon. the Minister of Finance and thereafter by the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services regarding the Orange River scheme. I am the Member of Parliament for a constituency in which both of these large schemes fall, namely, the van der Kloof and Ruigtevlei schemes near Norvalspont.

That is favouritism.

My hon. friend says that it is favouritism but it is a good type of favouritism. It so happens that the most suitable places were found there. Recently I opened a large congress, the congress of the South African Development Association, in Bloemfontein and I addressed people there who have been interested for many years in the development of the Orange River and I said that we should not be shortsighted in regard to the precise site of the dam. We have our technicians here in South Africa and they will have to find the place where the necessary strong foundations can be built for the dam. Fortunately, those two places were decided upon. Hon. members will realize that if any Member of Parliament tried to move the hon. the Minister to build a dam here or there, this could have fatal results because if the foundations of a large dam of this nature are not sound—just like the United Party which does not rest on good foundations—it can have fatal results below the dam if that dam is full and the wall breaks.

The United Party contends that in connection with this Orange River scheme, we have stolen their thunder, to express it in that way.

That is true.

It is only someone who is completely unacquainted with the facts who could make such an interjection. I was still a young man when I began to attend congresses and I myself was chairman at a congress at Colesberg when the late Minister Strydom, when he was Minister of Irrigation of the National Party Government addressed that congress. We learnt there from his own lips that he was very well-disposed towards the Orange River scheme but that there were problems connected with it. Hon. members will understand that this is a very expensive scheme. We know what the position was in South Africa when the National Party Government took over from the United Party. I want to ask my hon. friends there where they saw their way clear to spend R20 on the Orange River scheme. That is what the position of South Africa was at the time under the United Party Government. I well remember the numbers of difficulties which we had when I came to the House of Assembly. One made an application in Johannesburg for a permit to load sheep. One eventually obtained the permit and three weeks after the permit had expired, only then could one obtain a truck to load those sheep. This was the position of the railways in South Africa. The power station here in Cape Town almost came to a halt because it could not obtain coal. The hon. the Minister of Lands has a very thorough knowledge of this because he had to take over the Railways. The United Party had no confidence in the economy of South Africa; they did not expect that there would be expansion and progress; they simply allowed things to take their course and when the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) took over the Railways, he had to pay the piper and he experienced tremendous difficulties. Thousands of millions of rand had first to be spent on the Railways, the main artery of our country, in order to expand it to such an extent that the Railways could handle all the traffic offered. Let us imagine that it was to have been announced in 1948 that the Orange River scheme, as it is now being planned, had to be tackled; how do hon. members think they would have been able to transport the material to the construction areas? There were no transport facilities, there were no trucks. However, this was because the United Party had no confidence in the economy and because they did not plan for future expansion. The transportation system had first to be put in order and this has now been done. A second important matter was that South Africa was being eroded away. My farming friends on that side—there are very few of them—who have a knowledge of this matter ought to know this. South Africa simply eroded away because there was no planning for soil conservation and water conservation. The hon. the Minister of Lands and the Minister of Agriculture realised the tremendous amount which had to be spent on soil conservation. Now that the Railways have been put in order and now that soil conservation and water conservation have been tackled, the opportunity is there and now we can afford to continue with these schemes such as this scheme which has now been announced. I would like to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs together with his staff—and this is a very great privilege for me—for having had the honour of being able to announce this tremendous scheme. It required a great deal of work. I well remember that he recently flew over the Orange River in a helicopter and landed there and visited all the possible dam sites. He climbed up the ridges and had a look at the position against the mountains at Van der Kloof and also at Norvalspont.

As I said, various congresses were held by the National Party but I cannot remember one congress which the United Party held to discuss this extremely important matter of the development of the Orange River. There were individuals such as the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) who worked for the scheme and I pay tribute to him in this regard. but what they advocated was an ordinary irrigation dam. On every occasion that the hon. member for Albany stood up, he spoke about the Orange-Fish River scheme but we heard nothing about his tremendous development lower down in the Northern Cape where the platteland became completely depopulated as a result of continued droughts and where parents had to tell their young sons: “You cannot remain on the farms; do you not see how we are struggling?” The young boys and girls all left the farms and moved to the cities. I think, for example, of a town like Petrusville. Where the D.R. Church had between 500 and 600 members there, there are to-day less than 200. I think of the high school there which had 450 children at school and which to-day is a two-man school where there are only 48 school children. Most members of the United Party know the platteland has been depopulated as a result of circumstances over which we have no control. We are very pleased that towns like Petrusville will now receive a good shot in the arm. We foresee that a town like Petrusville will grow—and it must grow because the dam will be about five or six miles from the town itself.

That town has deteriorated under National Party government.

No. I am sure that the hon. member does not even know where Petrusville is. If I tell him that it is situated in the Transvaal or in the Free State or in Rhodesia, it will all be the same to him.

He does not know where he is now.

Mr. Speaker, this scheme can also bring problems. There are already inquiries in connection with the siting of these dams. Expropriation of land will have to take place and while the hon. the Minister is here I would just like to ask him to make a statement on this matter reasonably soon. I think now of a member of the family of my hon. friend here, the Chief Whip, who has 800 morgen, every inch of which will be under water. There are reasonably young people farming there and it may just be that with a view to future planning they would like to know when expropriation will take place so that they can make their plans for the future.

I am very grateful for the opportunity to say these few words, but I would just like to add this: In these dry parts, 360,000 morgen can be brought under irrigation. I have made a small sum and I think that 20 morgen per person will be more than sufficient. This means then that we will be able to return 18,000 farmers to those depopulated areas. Just think of what that will mean! We will be able to cut out 18,000 holdings of 20 morgen each. There are also the industries which may arise there. A place like De Aar for example where you have all the railway connections will be the appointed place for industrial development. It is not only settlements which will be established on these 360,000 morgen; schools and churches will have to be built; businesses will arise there and it will put a stop to the depopulation of the Cape. Once again, before I resume my seat I want to express my hearty thanks to the staff who have had anything to do with the working out of this tremendous Orange-Fish River plan. I was fortunate in having a brief interview with the Secretary for Water Affairs and it was clear to me that he has the details of this tremendously large scheme at his fingertips.

I am surprised to hear the hon. member for De Aar-Colesberg (Mr. M. J. de la R. Venter) praising the services being rendered to the farmers by the Railways. I wonder whether he can explain in that connection why it was that a resolution was presented at the last Cape Congress of the Nationalist Party—and here I have part of their secret agenda—which said—

That resolution comes from a place which is not very far from the hon. member’s constituency.

Sir, the hon. member praised this Budget and thanked the Minister. For my part I believe this to have been one of the darkest and most dismal Budgets our country has ever seen. The only ray of hope that I can see in this Budget is that it is probably better than the one that we shall have next year. We must remember that for the first time in the history of our country the National expenditure now exceeds R1,000,000,000. We must realize that income tax has been raised by 10 per cent, one of the biggest increases in peace years. We must realize that the unemployment figure has reached an alltime high; that we have had an increase of 100 per cent during the past years. I am very happy about the Orange River scheme, but in that scheme I can also see a way in which the Government might be able to meet its responsibility in respect of the 100 per cent increase in unemployed during the past years. It might very well be that the sons of the roadworkers of 1930 will become the damworkers in 1962. Sir, the Defence expenditure in this Budget is the biggest in our history. We can take it, we have to take it and we shall take it, but nobody is going to make the country like this bitter medicine. And then, Sir, that august and prim Victorian lady, the Reserve Bank, has been told to go on the street —Throgmorton Street—and earn sustenance for our country. She, so long the repository of all good virtue, has been told to go bulling and bearing in the Kafir market to make money for our country. I am referring to the Kafir market of the London Stock Exchange. That is the sorry picture of our country in the Republic. Year One. Instead of the boom in our economy that we should have liked to have had. we can only hear the boom of the cannons that we shall have to buy in future for our country’s defence.

What was your majority in Orange Grove?

Instead, to maintain White rule in this country, we shall have to be bled white.

I have here the minutes of the Nationalist Party’s Congress held at Sea Point last year. The chairman of that Congress was no less a person than the hon. the Minister of Finance. I intend reading some of the resolutions submitted at that Congress and to ask hon. members of this House to judge whether things are actually as wonderfully rosy as painted by the hon. the Minister of Finance himself.

Your name is Rosy.

If I were the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) I would not make so many remarks. I actually would have supported the idea of one of these Orange River dams being named after him, but if he keeps on making those remarks, I think I should tell the country that there is already a dam named after the hon. member for Cradock—Loskop.

At this Cape Congress of the Nationalist Party last year a resolution was submitted, for instance, from Humansdorp and Uitenhage expressing “deep concern about the alarming deterioration of the position of the Whites in the Cape Province” (“Die onrusbarende agteruitgang”). There came a cry from Uniondale and Caledon at the Nationalist’s Congress last year saying—

This is the Government which has been exalting itself to the skies on account of the great industrial development for which it is supposedly responsible. Here we have a resolution condemning the lack of industrial development in this country. No wonder that there was a resolution from Porterville complaining that the Cape Province was becoming the Cinderella of all the provinces, and that Richmond at this Congress once again asked for a policy which would put an end to the invasion of the Bantu into the European areas. Are these the signs of such a wonderful South Africa that we are supposed to have to-day? Prince Albert pleaded for military instruction for Coloureds. Cape Town (Gardens) wants a measure of military training for women. However, not all the resolutions submitted at the Congress of the Nationalist Party are to be condemned. Here is one, for instance, coming from the Nationalist Party of Sutherland and of Wynberg, asking for increased allowances for large families. The policy of family allowances has been the policy of the United Party for many years in the past, and it is indeed good to see that they are adopting that policy. Then there was another resolution which I should probably read out. The Nationalist Party of Port Elizabeth (North) put forward this resolution—

Exactly what we in the United Party have been asking for years and years! And it was turned down. There was one remedy that was suggested at this Conference, which is of such an alarming and shocking nature that I think we should get a reply to that from the Cabinet itself. This is a resolution which comes from Calvinia, and which was adopted. It reads—

What is wrong with it?

This resolution was accepted: “Met meerderheidstem aanvaar”. I want to know what that resolution means. Does this mean that whenever a constituency grows too large it can be cut up into two parts irrespective of the number of voters in that constituency? Are we going to have ant-heaps instead of voters represented here in Parliament? This was a resolution submitted at the Cape Congress of the Nationalist Party presided over by the Minister of Finance, and we demand a reply from him.

The Minister of Finance is indeed a man of many parts. When presenting his Budget in this House he can paint a very rosy picture. However, when he is at his own Congress, the picture that he paints is not nearly so good. I have here a copy of his speech at this Congress in which he said the following, amongst other things—

We did not hear much about that “alarming deterioration” in his Budget speech. He said—

Sir, I come from one of the northern provinces. Is it indeed wrong that the Rand should develop and develop further, that it should be the economic centre of South Africa itself? He added—

Are we to take it from that the Transvaal is not a stabilizing factor in the economy and in the politics of South Africa? I can well believe that it will not be a very great stabilizing factor in the politics of the Nationalists, particularly where the hon. the Minister of Finance is chairman in the Cape and we know how Cape Members of Parliament are indeed worried about the influence of the Transvaal in their party. I accuse him of playing politics with the finances of this country when he comes to a Congress of his Party and talks about the political influence of the different provinces and suggests that it will have to be changed by Government policy. He added—

He admits that his province is economically backward and that it is politically going backward under his chairmanship of the Nationalist Party.

No wonder.

Therefore I cannot understand the eulogy that we heard over the radio after he had made his Budget speech, in which he was congratulated on how eloquently the Budget had been delivered, how it was cleverly thought out and how everything in the Nationalist’s garden was rosy. In fact, if I may say a few words about the radio, I believe that the South African Broadcasting Corporation now forms part of a pattern of sinister indoctrination that is taking place in the Republic. It is our greatest internal danger. Our freedom is being threatened today, not only the physical and international freedom of our country; but also the freedom of men’s minds as it is being threatened by this Corporation. I say that it is becoming a little State within a State; that it is growing above the law in this country. Sir, if you read the Broadcasting Act you will find that every year the South African Broadcasting Corporation must present certain particulars to Parliament—“particulars” is the word used in the Act—dealing with staff and administrative matters, buildings, speeches, programmes, and in the past 14 years those reports have only been submitted once in such details. I put a question here to the hon. the Minister and he himself had to admit that he was worried about the position; that he was taking legal advice as to whether the South African Broadcasting Corporation has been complying with the law in the facts and the figures that it has been giving to us during the past few years. This is an important matter that we hope will be raised later again.

Do we realize to what a vast extent people’s minds are being conditioned by this vast and all-pervading monstrous machine of propaganda? There are 1,000,000 licensed listeners; the Corporation takes more than R2,000,000 a year from us, and they have become an indirect taxing machine through the raising of licence fees during the past year or two. There are over 20 stations, and this pill is well-sugared, of course; there are some good programmes but the centre of the pill is the propaganda that we are given in the news services, and so, Sir, we find that this fetid, mephitic miasma is creeping over South Africa out of the Nationalist’s swamps, conditioning the minds of innocent people, seeking to make of South African an amorphous mass of spineless, gelatinous mental dupes— puppets of the Government.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

This debate has ranged over a large field, but I wish to come back to one of the questions raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, namely the possibility that South Africa might be called upon, arising out of the carrying out of the policies of the hon. the Prime Minister to furnish reports in respect of territories which to-day form an integral part of South Africa, when such parts may become subject to the provisions of Section 73 of the Charter of UNO, and more particularly to provisions of paragraph (e). The hon. the Prime Minister raised objections to this question being raised in this House, but, if I may say so, I think his remarks were rather unworthy as to the motives behind the raising of this question. I would say to the hon. the Prime Minister that surely this is the place where questions which affect the real well-being of our country should be raised. The hon. the Prime Minister surely does not want to suggest that questions affecting South Africa should be hidden. I would say that I believe that it was in the highest interest of this country that this question was raised. I believe that the Government has completely overlooked the provisions of this chapter and the history of this Charter since the time when the Charter came into being after World War II. But it lays down perfectly clearly that in respect of members of the United Nations who assume responsibility for the administration of territories, where people have not yet attained the full measure of self-government, “the principle is recognized that the interests of the inhabitants in these territories are paramount and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of these territories, and to this end (a) to ensure with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social and educational advancement, their just treatment and their protection against abuses”. Then it goes on to deal with the development of self-government, and in paragraph (e) is the provision which requires such countries “to transmit regularly to the Secretary-General for information purposes, subject to such limitations as security and constitutional considerations may require, statistical and other information of a technical nature relating to economic, social and educational conditions in the territories for which they are respectively responsible, other than those territories to which Chapters 12 and 13 apply”. That is to say the territories which are under trusteeship. Now if one looks at the Year Book of the United Nations which is published year by year, the latest apparently being in respect of the year 1959, it will be found that these questions and questions arising from this provision have constantly been the subject of debate at the United Nations. Sir, I would like to put right immediately a misstatement of the hon. the Prime Minister here this afternoon. He said that it is quite clear that the provisions of this clause in respect of the Transkei would apply equally as much whether the Government in power is the present Government, or a government which which might replace it, viz., a United Party Government. He said it was quite clear that in both cases, if there is a responsibility placed to deal with these territories under the provisions of the Charter, this provision would apply. Now it is quite clear that the hon. the Prime Minister was utterly wrong in that regard. There are two precedents that I know of, and there may possibly be others. The two precedents are Alaska and Hawaii. They are territories in respect of which reports were regularly submitted to the United Nations by the United States of America, but in due course when these territories were included as additional states of the United States of America, according to the decision of the Assembly itself, it was decided that it was quite unnecessary to report any further in respect of those territories. The result would have been quite different if the procedure which was followed in respect of those territories had been the procedure which the hon. the Prime Minister intends to follow in respect of a territory such as the Transkei. The aim of the hon. the Prime Minister is that these territories will be given a measure of local self-government, leading to a greater and greater degree of self-government, and in the end result they will become completely independent. That is what the hon. the Prime Minister has said quite clearly, and I give him full credit that he has been prepared to say quite frankly to this country what is the ultimate end of the policy for which he stands —it is a policy of the division of these territories and other similar territories from the Republic of South Africa as we know it today, forming entirely separate states. The hon. the Prime Minister has had the courage to say quite frankly that is the stage of development which he envisages and which in due course of time “na hul vermoë” they will be able to achieve. I can only say that it would have simplified tremendously some of the problems of this country, and I believe it would lead to the elimination of some of the criticisms of this country if other hon. Ministers on political platforms would not state that the end-result is not the end-result envisaged by the hon. the Prime Minister.

Quote them.

It is not necessary for me to quote them. These things are spread through Hansard and elsewhere. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development for instance will not gainsay that he had on political platforms repudiated the hon. the Prime Minister by stating that these territories will always remain a part of the Republic of South Africa. There sits the hon. the Minister and he does not deny that. The hon. the Prime Minister has been perfectly honest and straightforward with this country, and I say it is time that he lined up, as a “kragdadige” Prime Minister, his followers in respect of this matter so that we can know exactly what it is that we are to face in this country. Because an aspect of the hon. Prime Minister’s policy to which this side of the House will never agree is the idea of the division of the Republic of South Africa as we know it to-day into a series of separate and independent states, because we believe that is not the correct answer to the problems of South Africa as we know them.

Sir, the provisions of this clause can quite clearly apply in the circumstances which we are discussing. There is the case of Malta, which is a very important example. There the British Government originally submitted reports. Malta was given a constitution, they ceased to submit reports, that position was accepted, but at a later date when the constitution of Malta which did not give them full government was suspended, a query was raised and Britain at first refused to report, but after going into the matter decided that it was proper that reports should have been submitted. Sir, I say that the hon. Leader of the Opposition rendered a service when this matter was raised, because it is important in respect of the road on which we are travelling —whether we like it or not, it is a road which we will have to travel together, whatever the consequences may be, and it is at least necessary that we should realize what are the problems we will have to meet.

May I put a question to the hon. member? This fear he has in regard to the Transkei of falling under Section 73 when it gains self-government, does that also apply to the protectorates and to the policy Great Britain is following in respect of the protectorates?

The hon. member raises the question of the protectorates. Let me say that I have no fear for the future of this country. I have fear of the future of this country under a Nationalist Government, but I know that the people of this country will realize where we are drifting to. So far as the protectorates are concerned, I would like to say quite straightforwardly to the hon. member that I believe that if we South Africans have the wit in the years which lie ahead to find a basis on which those territories can with us join a great state of Southern Africa, it will be in the best interest of the people of Southern Africa.

You are not anwering my question.

The hon. member asks whether the protectorates will also fall under Art. 73. Sir, it is not a question of them eventually falling under Art. 73. Reports in respect of those territories have been submitted by Great Britain right since 1947. The difference, however, is that the declared object of Britain in respect of the future of those territories and their development is of course not the same as what has been the declared policy of the Nationalist Party in respect of the Native peoples of South Africa.

What is the difference?

The difference is that so far as the protectorates are concerned, Britain is advancing them along the road. Let us leave it at that. But so far as South Africa is concerned, this Government under the leadership of the Minister of Bantu Administration and the Prime Minister, is seeking to provide a basis in South Africa on which it is obvious that nothing more than one-third of the Native people, will ever live in such a separate territory, and the Government holds the view that two-thirds of the Native people, who quite obviously in terms of what has happened under this Government will always be resident in the so-called White area of South Africa, will have to exercise their political rights in the Bantustans which many of them have never seen. That is the difference. If it were possible that the Native peoples of South Africa could go back to those areas, it would be quite a different matter. But it is perfectly obvious that any policy which denies to a big section of the people of this country any right whatsoever to representation in Parliament, and suggests that they can have representation in countries from which they or their parents or their grandparents or their great-great-grandparents came at some time in the past, is a policy which is a wrong policy for South Africa and is not the policy on which South Africa will get the goodwill and support of the free world.

Will Britain ever make Basutoland and Swaziland and Bechuanaland free states?

If the hon. the Prime Minister is to remain Prime Minister of this country that will be the result. In the event of another government in this country, which will find a sounder basis for the administration of the country, being able to preserve one territory which does not have the danger of the policy held by the Prime Minister …

Answer the question.

Britain undoubtedly, Sir, if there is not a change in the position in this country, will see those countries eventually becoming free.

And therefore, according to you, Britain will send reports?

It is quite obvious that the hon. the Prime Minister has not read the Charter. It is while they are advancing to full self-government that reports will be sent. When they have become free countries, quite obviously there is no need to send reports. In the case of the hon. the Prime Minister’s policy when the Transkei becomes a free and independent part of what is to-day the Republic, it will not have to send, nor will any future government of South Africa have to send reports to UNO. If the hon. the Prime Minister reads Section 73, he will find it says “while advancing towards a full measure of self-government”, and it is quite obvious therefore than when these territories become independent, which is the present policy of the British Government, it will not be necessary for Britain to submit reports to UNO. That is perfectly clear.

Will there be two charters, one for South Africa and one for Britain?

The hon. member for Vereeniging, if I may so describe it, puts a foolish question. Of course there are not two charters. But the British Government and this Government are not following the same policy, and it is quite clear that if the present Government remains in power long enough, and separates from the Republic of South Africa certain of the territories at present falling under this Government, the Government of the residue of the Republic of South Africa, when that day is reached, would not have to send reports to UNO in respect of those territories. It is only so long as they are dependent territories that the Government is obliged to send reports. Once they have become independent, that obligation falls away, because it is quite obvious that once they become sovereign independent states, and possibly members of UNO, there is no longer any necessity for another country to send reports. It is quite obvious that the course upon which this Government is set is a course which holds within it the seeds of the eventual destruction of the Republic of South Africa. This division of our country is a policy which we believe to be utterly wrong and utterly against the interests of this country. We believe that the Republic should remain as it is and that it should continue to include within its area these territories, and that on a constitutional arrangement, such as the race federation policy of the United Party, they could be included within the territory. It would obviously mean that the whole of those areas would have to have representation in some form or another in the Central Parliament, but that is the only alternative of any consequence before the people of this country to-day in respect of the future political development. Hon. members on the other side of this House have queried the loyalty of members of this House to South Africa, and I would like to say this that whatever may be the political differences, every hon. member on this side of the House is as loyal to South Africa as any hon. member on the other side can be.

More.

No, I am not claiming that, but what I am claiming is that the loyalty of members on this side of the House to South Africa cannot in any way be regarded as any less than the loyalty of hon. members on the other side, and just as hon. members on the other side may believe that the solution which they are propounding is the right one, and just as they may say that they believe that the solution propounded on this side is the right one, we must realize—and I believe it would be a good thing if we could realize— that we are South Africans who have placed on our shoulders one of the most difficult tasks of all history.

Hear, hear!

I am glad to hear “hear, hear! ” from the hon. member, because I believe it is so. Some doubt has been raised in the course of this debate, reflections have been cast on some of the English-speaking people of this country, and I would say that the contribution of the English-speaking …

When were such doubts cast?

I claim as an English-speaking person that we have done as much towards the development of this country as any other people. I go further and say that it is an historical fact that more English-speaking persons have fallen in the course of this tremendous problem during the wars arising from this problem in the past. I will put it quite simply what I would like to see in this country: As a father and a grandfather, this is the only country I know, and just as it has provided a good life for me, I look forward in the years ahead to enabling it to provide a good life for them. It might have been easier, Sir, if they had had the opportunity of growing up in a country which does not have some of our problems, but I wonder if it would not be better sometimes if we could look at it this way, that the challenge with which we are faced in this country may and ought to enable us to play a tremendous part in the years ahead in the solution of the tremendous problem with which we are faced in this country, this clash of different races, of different colours, because in fact so far as the whole world is concerned, that is the clash of the twentieth century. And just as we can’t avoid it in this country, so the world can’t avoid that clash, Sir, and I believe most sincerely that we can make an enormous contribution in that regard, but I don’t believe that we can make it on the basis of the policy of the Nationalist Party opposite. For that reason I look forward to the day when there is another Government following other policies in this country, because I believe that the policies of the Nationalist Party—although I accept the honesty of hon. members who believe in it— are policies which are fatal to the future of this country, fatal to the future of my children and their descendants in this country, and perhaps the happiest day this country will know in my time will be the day when this Government is removed from power and when South Africa once again can march forward in a spirit of co-operation, in a spirit worthy of General Smuts to try and find a way in which the various sections which Providence has placed together in this country can face up to the problems of South Africa. I say that this Government is running away from the real problems of South Africa and that the policy of this Government is fatal to South Africa. I only hope that the people of South Africa wake up in time.

Unfortunately, I cannot devote much time to what the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) said. His Leader found himself in difficulty yesterday with his remarks about Section 73 (e) of UNO Charter, and we will still have to hear a great deal from the United Party side before they are out of this difficulty.

I would like to refer briefly to what the hon. member said at the end of his speech, namely, that the National Party has a policy which is fatal for our children. I will link up with this remark just now. The United Party and also the hon. member for Germiston (District) made much of the fact that they have a colour policy which is acceptable to the outside world. That claim is made time and time again. I do not wish to weary the House with the many examples in this regard but I want to mention a very recent example on the part of the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) where he wrote in the Cape Times of Tuesday—

On this statement that the United Party has a policy which is as they say acceptable to the outside world …

He did not say that.

… the continued claim of the United Party is made to be placed in power. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his followers now pretend that we and the voters must be convinced that the United Party has such a policy which is acceptable to the outside world. I want to tell them that is not the problem. The problem is not to convince this side and to convince the voters that the United Party has a policy which is acceptable to the outside world. I accept that and the voters accept it. I shall give my reasons for accepting it and why I take it that the voters accept it. When a party makes a claim of this nature—and we take it that the United Party is a responsible party—then every voter knows that there is a simple yardstick which can be utilized to test the validity of such a claim. This is not something which need be done in abstraction. I take it that if the United Party makes that claim, the voters depart from the supposition that the United Party has tested its claim by means of this yardstick, or otherwise it would not make such a claim. I want to give the Opposition an example of the sort of yardstick to which I refer: Does the race federation plan of the United Party as it is announced to-day conform in its aims and methods with what Mr. Macmillan explained to us here in Cape Town is the policy which his Government supports for Africa, namely, no discrimination on the basis of race or colour but “merit and merit alone”? That is the yardstick which Britain has set for the policy which it supports for Africa and if the United Party lays claim to the fact that the outside world finds its policy acceptable, I imagine that it includes Britain. Then it has a very clear yardstick by which it can test its claim. The voters accept the fact that the United Party has tested its policy in this way and that it complies with all the requirements. There were other such yardsticks. We can take the remarks of leading figures in America who have also made it clear what the requirements are of American policy in regard to Africa. However, I do not wish to deal with this. There is a second reason why the voters accept the fact that if the United Party states that it has a policy which is acceptable to the outside world, that the policy really complies with the requirements of the outside world, and the second reason is that the race federation plan of the United Party contains all the elements which will satisfy the outside world.

The Prime Minister does not say so.

If the hon. member will listen for a moment he will be able to tell me just now whether he agrees. The United Party states that with its race federation policy the political power will remain in the hands of the European “for the foreseeable future”. That is what they say. The United Party admits that it is a real element of its policy that it envisages the end of the right of self-determination of the European in South Africa.

Nonsense!

But that is what the United Party propounds and I shall prove it. Let us look at the race federation plan of the United Party. I do not wish to go into details; just as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said “I don’t want to get bogged down by detail.” There are simply a few real elements of the policy upon which I wish to dwell. The first is that the Bantu areas must remain an inseparable part of Africa. The second is that this Government, this “Whites only regime”, as the Star calls it, must now be replaced by a multi-racial Government in which the Bantu and the Indian will at the start obtain limited representation. The third is that the United Party states that it is going to grant the franchise, without discrimination within a racial group, to all the qualified members of the various racial groups. There we have one of the cardinal points. The whole idea of “voters” and “electorate” in South Africa is being affected and changed by that provision of the federation plan of the United Party because the meaning is being extended thereby to all voters of all race groups. This links up with the fourth point. The United Party states that the political representation of the Bantu in the Federal Parliament can only be changed after a referendum of all voters. This boils down to the fact that if the United Party comes into power and puts its federation plan into operation, any change in the representation of the Bantu thereafter can only be effected through the medium of a referendum of all the voters.

This is a very important matter and therefore I do not wish to leave it in the air but wish to quote the evidence on which I base my case. The first witness is the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) who said at a meeting at Doonside on 20 September last year—

He said therefore that the Bantu can be represented by people of their own race, if a referendum result is in favour thereof. The second witness whom I wish to quote is Mr. Stanley Uys who had the following to say in an article in the Sunday Times of 10 December last year under the heading “ United Party Plans a Multi-Racial Parliament”—

My third witness is perhaps also the most authoritative. This is a paper which the United Party distributed during the election. The title of this paper is Election News with a sub-heading “The truth and nothing but the truth”, issued by the United Party Division of Information. Then, in a black frame, the following is stated—

And the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself said the following last Saturday at a meeting at Florida (according to the Sunday Times of last Sunday)—

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the import of these words is as clear as daylight. As soon as the race federation plan is put into operation, the Bantu majority in South Africa is given the opportunity of deciding through the medium of a referendum of all voters to extend Bantu representation in the Federal Parliament in such a way that the Bantu majority will be able to take over the Government. [Laughter.]

That is really the best I have ever heard.

For this reason I accept and any person who can read and understand will also accept that the United Party has a policy which is acceptable to the outside world. We would like to give this reference to the United Party which it apparently wants so much. The United Party does have a policy which is acceptable to the outside world for one single reason, namely, because it clearly and unequivocally envisages the end of the right of self-determination of the European in South Africa. Therefore, it answers to the requirements of the outside world.

I do not wish to challenge that claim but what I do challenge are the reasons which the United Party gives for the desirability of this policy. The most important reason which is given by the United Party is that with such a policy South Africa will be able to buy alliances and security for herself in the military sphere. This claim of the United Party is rejected by the voters of South Africa and the United Party is being rejected because it cannot succeed in convincing the voters that with its policy of a race federation it can bring security for South Africa. In this connection the United Party must answer a very simple question, namely, why it is that Rhodesia could not buy security for herself with her policy of partnership, a policy which was designed by Britain herself. It must also tell the voters why Sir Edgar Whitehead with the policy of partnership felt compelled to speak in the same vein as South Africa’s Minister of Defence with our policy of separate development. I want to quote to the House what appeared in the Rhodesian Herald on 3 March this year—

It is in the light of this reality that the voters are not prepared to believe that there is friendship and safety in the policy of the United Party, this policy which has been specifically designed to win foreign acceptance. Because the voters do not accept this argument of the United Party, the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) threatens them with shocks from abroad. I hope that the hon. member will listen. I say that he threatens the voters by saying that they will be shocked from abroad. He is, however, sober enough to see that the policy of his party which they sell so easily abroad, finds no market in South Africa itself. He realizes it to the extent that he admits that he can see no more light except that a shock will come from the outside world to put the Government out of office. Although the hon. member is so candid regarding the depth of the misery of the United Party, I must say that this is not the vein in which a person speaks who considers himself to be a part of the White nation of South Africa. These are not the terms which a man who loves South Africa uses and who has seen the misery over the past years which foreign interference has brought about in other parts of Africa—for example, the destruction and suffering in the Congo.

Just look at the misery which you are bringing to our country.

Is the United Party prepared to go so far in its ideas merely to see this Government defeated? I contend that the United Party is making a mistake as it has so often done in the past. This time, however, it is a fatal mistake. In the striving and struggles of this Government the Whites of South Africa see their own striving and struggle. The United Party makes out that by means of a policy of alliances at any price it will be able to give South Africa security but if the people have to believe that the best they can expect in the future is the policy of the United Party, then I say that with the coming of a United Party Government every vestige of security which we have to-day will immediately disappear. There may be security in alliances and defence measures but these do not offer the basis for confidence and security. In the international situation to-day there are two factors particularly which give security for South Africa. The first is the security which the European nation finds in his own desire for survival and self-maintenance; the second is the confidence which the people have in the knowledge that this Government will not betray the Europeans of South Africa as the Europeans in the rest of Africa have been betrayed.

We experienced this year that the hon. the Minister of Finance introduced a Budget which outshines all other budgets in the history of our nation up to the present. It can serve as a model for coming generations. As we always remember the coming of Jan van Riebeeck and as we always will remember the coming of the Republic, so we will always remember the year 1962 as the model budget year. There are great ideas, far-sightedness and statesmanship contained in this Budget. The question is, however, whether the Opposition have answered to their task. This task of the Opposition is twofold. Firstly, it is their duty and responsibility to support the Government in everything that is right; secondly, to point out mistakes and to criticize by way of the introduction of alternative proposals. I must say that I am sorry that South Africa is saddled with an Opposition which is not able to fulfil this function. We do not wish to have only a group of prophets of doom in our midst or a number of negative critics.

All you want are dullards.

We do not want an Opposition which can only make promises. In 1948 they lost the election as a result of the promises which they made to the voters. Thereafter they lost election after election with their same promises. I would like to tell one story in regard to what happened in this connection during the election of 1948. Two National Party recruiters went out to do recruiting work. They eventually came to a returned soldier. He said that he was going to vote for the National Party and when he was asked why he did not want to vote for the United Party he said that before he joined the army that party promised him everything, inter alia, a farm where he could start a dairy. When he returned all he got was a bull and a cream separater! That is typical of the promises which the United Party made, while as an Opposition to-day they hold no promise at all.

There are two matters which I wish to deal with this evening. Firstly, I wish to make an earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister to ensure that more attention is given to the training of economists and business leaders. We are on the threshhold of a tremendous economic development of a scope perhaps greater than we can realize to-day. It is therefore very necessary that we should not only cause emphasis to be placed on the training of scientists but that we should also ensure that sufficient economists and business and industrial leaders are trained. We must assist people who wish to be trained in this direction, financially.

Secondly, I want to refer to what is being attempted behind the scenes in the economic sohere to harm South Africa. In this connection I wish to give you a comparison of the share prices of two mining companies, namely, those of Anglo-American and those of New Consolidated Gold Fields. We know that the first-mentioned is a mountain in comparison with the second. I wish to draw a comparison between the prices of the shares of these two companies as quoted on 6 July 1955 and again on 6 July 1961. Firstly, the shares of Anglo-American: Bancrofts dropped from 41s. to 13s., that is to say by 68 per cent; Daggas from 54s. to 20s. 6d., that is to say, by 62 per cent; President Brands from 70s. to 58s. 6d., that is to say by 16 per cent; President Steyns from 39s. 3d. to 17s., that is to say, by 56 per cent; Western Reefs from 38s. 6d. to 28s., that is to say, by 27 per cent; Welkom Gold Mines from 22s. to 13s. 9d. that is to say, by 37 per cent; and S.A. Lands from 23s. 6d. to 14s. 3d., that is to say, by 39 per cent. The shares of New Consolidated Gold Fields on the other hand were as follows: Doornfonteins rose from 26s. 6d. in July 1955 to 31s. 3d. in July of last year, that is to say, by 18 per cent; Libanon rose from 8s. 3d. to 14s. that is to say, by 69 per cent; Venterspost from 13s. 3d. to 22s. 6d., that is to say, by 70 per cent; Vlakfontein, from 17s. to 19s. 6d. that is to say, by 58 per cent; West Wits from 37s. to 57s. 6d., that is to say, by 55 per cent; and then we have two shares which dropped, namely, Vogelstruisbult from 29s. 6d. to 4s. 6d., that is to say, a drop of 82 per cent and Waterval Plats from 15s. to 12s. 6d., that is to say, by 16 per cent. From this you will see that over the course of six years Anglo-American suffered a capital loss of an average of 45 per cent per annum while New Consolidated Gold Fields over the same period made a profit of an average of 30 per cent. The capital loss suffered by Anglo-American investors was greater than the dividend which they received over that period while the dividend of New Consolidated Gold Fields remained uneffected.

What does that prove?

These are things which are happening under our very eyes. You may ask me how Mr. Oppenheimer and his group succeeded in forcing those prices down. There are three reasons for this. Firstly, there was a very willing Press assisting him; secondly, there was a willing President of the Stock Exchange and his committee; and thirdly, there was this Opposition of ours. It was due to the disloyalty of the Opposition and the type of speech which is made by its members even here in this House in which they are continually speaking about a lack of confidence that the share market is forced down to that extent. Mr. Speaker, if somebody steals a sheep for people who are hungry …

What has sheep-stealing to do with the share market?

… the people who are hungry will do most to have that sheep stolen. The Opposition will do everything to break the Government economically. Therefore they are so vociferous without caring whether our European civilization is harmed or not. In 1953 they suffered a tremendous defeat and thereafter, at every election. Nevertheless every year they came along with the same policy. The share market can be regarded as the nerve system of the economy of the country. Nevertheless, the Opposition has continually tried to harm that nerve centre. Let us think of all the statements by their press. In spite of our sound economy we have statements like “loss of confidence; impending financial crises, sell Kaffirs while you are still able to; who wants Kaffirs amid this chaos”, and so forth. This is the type of statement which we have experienced throughout on the part of this Opposition. My acusation against this Opposition is that they continually lend themselves to these things and that they continually co-operate to make this type of swindle possible.

Prove it.

That is all that the Opposition have done these past six years.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member entitled to accuse the official Opposition of swindle?

You do not even cooperate; you merely swindle.

The hon. member may proceed.

I accuse the Opposition of always having co-operated to make this swindle possible on the share market. I hope that they will now begin to realize it and to co-operate for the retention of European civilization in South Africa. In this way they can assist to create a future for themselves as well.

Mr. Speaker, it is the task of this Government to ensure that the Republic is governed well. Therefore, we have for the past four days been engaged in focusing the spotlight upon the Budget which has been placed before this hon. House by the hon. the Minister of Finance. The people outside, by way of the public press, have made it known what they think of the Budget. In many cases the hon. the Minister was congratulated while in other cases dissatisfaction was expressed. The broad masses, however, waited to receive political guidance from the parties which represent them in this hon. House. We have received constructive suggestion from this side of the House, suggestions which are aimed at establishing continued internal security, military defensibility and to ensure adequate living space to the inhabitants of the Republic. These standpoints of this side of the House have not yet been refuted by the arguments of members on the other side in their efforts to belittle them in the eyes of the people. The Opposition have come along once again with broad statements and a generalization of the facts. For example, they came along again with the hackneyed allegation that the Republic is living in isolation as a result of the colour policy which we are following. Then they ask who will defend us if we do not have any military agreements with stronger countries. They say further that the apartheid policy of this side of the House is plunging the country into darkness. By making allegations such as this the Opposition has only succeeded once again in alienating itself even further from the people even further than it has been alienated from them in the years since 1948. The hon. member for Constantia said that the Opposition accepts the defence expenditure for which provision is made in the Budget because the money is required to strengthen our military defensibility. After this, however, other members on the other side participated in the debate, inter alia, the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) who expressed the opinion that the appropriations for the Votes Social Welfare and Defence, respectively should have been reversed. He said that an amount of R1,500,000 which is at present being voted for Social Welfare is suffiient to make our country militarily defensible. After this we heard the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) say on behalf of his party that the Opposition are not prepared to approve of the proposed appropriation unless more details are given by the hon. the Minister of Defence. This strikes me as being strange from a member of his calibre and experience in the Defence force. He ought surely to know better. Lastly we heard this afternoon from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself that we are not appropriating too much nor too little but just enough. Therefore, I want to make the point: That the United Party is busy once again taking with both hands, sitting between two stools with the purpose of satisfying both trains of thought of the voters, those who say that too much is being spent for defence and those who say that too little is being spent.

It is, however, not my intention to speak about defence but indeed about agriculture. Our agricultural industry has earned R336,000,000 in foreign capital for the Republic in the past financial year. In the light of this I think that it is a pity that during the whole debate so little emphasis was placed upon the problems of this industry. It may perhaps be a good thing if we cast a glimpse at the agricultural industry. Since Jan van Riebeeck set foot here in 1652 agriculture has always had its particular problems. The agriculturists and the South African farmers have experienced years of joy and sorrow. They have had to find their own way because they had no sources to consult. They had to start from scratch under foreign circumstances and in an unknown country. I want to mention only two great setbacks of the many disasters which have struck the industry over the years. In 1896 rinderpest struck which exterminated more than half of the cattle herds in our country and thereafter we had the Anglo-Boer War which destroyed practically everything in the northern provinces and which had as a result that everything had practically to be started from scratch. However, the South African farmer did not allow himself to be deterred by these setbacks but once again put his shoulder to the wheel and carried on. As far as the northern provinces are concerned we can say therefore that the agricultural industry there is not older than one century, but nevertheless a great deal has been achieved to the point where we can say today that the industry is earning R336,000,000 in foreign currency for our country, and this after a difficult road over the years. We can compete to-day with other countries where agriculture is already centuries old and this in spite of the fact that South Africa, viewed from the agricultural point of view, is less well-endowed than many of those countries. There are three factors particularly which have a very great influence on our agriculture. In the first place there is our topography which holds many detrimental features for us in the agricultural sphere; secondly, there is the infertility of our soil and thirdly, there are our climatic conditions over which we have no control. With this in mind, it is such a pity that our young country with all its problems with which it has to struggle should be subject to such criticism and be continually measured by the standards of the old Western Countries. What is particularly sad is that such criticism also sometimes comes from our scientists who ought to know that only things which are comparable can be compared.

I would like to emphasize the economy of our agricultural industry. In the life of a nation agriculture undoubtedly plays a very important role not only in feeding the nation but also in serving as a basis for the development of internal industries and trade. It is also an important channel by means of which foreign currency can be earned. It is a fact that the more people inside and outside of such an important industry in our national economy who can obtain a knowledge of the various facets thereof, the better it will be in order eventually to bring home the importance of the industry to everyone and in this way to make it possible to undertake the necessary planning for the present and for the future. The full potential of the Republic has only been developed to a limited extent. There is a great need to-day therefore for clear thinking regarding production and marketing in the sphere of agriculture. The more people who can be associated in this economic thought and these plans the quicker we may expect a solution. Information is necessary for this, however, and capital investments are also required. In this connection thought has to be given to the interest burden which springs from this. We will have to accept the fact that a portion of these capital investments will have to come from the private sector of our economy. In the first place this is the personal funds which are made available. Then you have private loans which are usually short-term. You also have private mortgages. These are long-term and you have financing which is also a short-term Investment. All these are available from the private sector. On the other hand you have the State and there you obtain loans from the Land Bank which are normally long-term loans. You have the State Advances Recoveries Office and the Department of Lands.

When we experience difficult times, in certain facets of agricultural industry, it is a fact that at the moment we are experiencing much financial inconvenience. We think particularly of the drought conditions which prevail in the Northern Transvaal where in certain constituenies like Waterberg and Groblersdal a terrible drought and disturbing conditions are at present prevailing. We are aware of the fact that 90 per cent of the farmers in this area can no longer reap a crop. Many of them have not had the opportunity in previous years to reap a good crop either and it is precisely as a result of these factors which I have mentioned, namely, the unpredictable and untrollable climatic conditions which they have had to deal with. Five per cent of those farmers may perhaps be fortunate in recovering their expenses and the others may show a limited profit. This brings us to the necessity of ensuring that those farmers must not disappear but must continue and the only way in which this can actually be assured is by making the necessary operating capital available by the means indicated by me. It is because of this that we say that the most extreme need prevails precisely because the operating capital and development capital and even necessary investment capital cannot be found. In this regard, we are aware of the fact that the Government is giving its attention to this matter and I would like to make use of this opportunity to thank the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing heartily for the friendly reception, and good prospects and the already available financial support and encouragement which we have received from him. However, we must approach this matter upon a broader basis and we must appreciate the fact that a greater responsibility must be accepted on the part of the State. As I have already advocated in this House previously—and I want to associate myself with it again—we must resort to the establishment of a separate department which will be known as the Department of Agricultural Financing from which the necessary funds which are to-day available from the State in various other directions will be placed under one group and this then will be made available when the need arises. We are aware that a commission of enquiry was appointed to inquire into the whole matter. I want to indicate briefly what its findings were. I want to quote from the report of the Commission of Enquiry into European Occupancy of the Rural Areas, paragraph 417—

It goes on further to say in paragraph 430—

But we have a further important point of view which I would like to indicate to you. In paragraph 570 the report states—

And in paragraph 571 they say—

We are aware of the fact that the Government is not disinterested and is giving attention to these matters and I would just like to emphasize that it is hoped that progress will be made in that direction which has already been indicated to us and that it will be expedited as far as possible.

In the last place I want to come to what I call the wind of change which has struck the agricultural industry. When we think of the wind of change we must of necessity say that the winds of change have struck South Africa in various ways recently and exerted their influence. As far as agriculture is concerned, however, we want to state that the South African farmer was given a particular task to perform. He was given an instruction to feed the nation because it is true that the nation had to import food at great expense and therefore the purpose was to increase production in this country, and that was done. I want to state that the greatest achievement of the South African farmer is his greatest danger. We say this is so because those farmers answered the call which came from the part of the Government and they produced, and to-day, the agricultural industry is saddled with and bowed down by those surpluses. However, I want to refer to the fact that the United Party is now trying to make political capital out of this unfortunate situation. The hon. member for South Coast accused the Government and the National Party of being responsible for those surpluses which have been built up here. That is certainly not true. That is an unfair statement which was made. The hon. member knows that those surpluses are being dealt with under the Marketing Act. It is also a fact that it is necessary for us to amend the Marketing Act from time to time in order to give it the necessary elasticity and adaptation according to the requirements of the times. Let us deal for a moment with the question of surpluses. The surpluses of yesterday may be the shortages of to-morrow. There is no indication that this will be a permanent position and on the other hand there is the call that agricultural prices must be raised. In my humble opinion, however, this is not the answer in every case because this will have the reaction of higher land prices in excess of their production potential which on the other hand brings a drop in consumption, and, as indicated, the agricultural industry has been set up in such a way that it not only offers opportunities for employment to agriculture but to various groups and facets within our national economy. As soon as you reduce production you immediately have fewer opportunities for employment. We must therefore not stare blindly at this popular statement that the farmers should produce less and should obtain higher prices, but, Mr. Speaker, we want to contend that the normal and natural increase in the production and expansion of the agricultural industry is something which may not be stopped.

What are the facts? The present position has been brought about by climatic conditions, the limited markets which exist, the inadequate marketing methods, the limited information and the inadequate financing possibilities within the agricultural industry. These are the great problems which we have to struggle with to-day. These are the problems of our farmers. We believe that the National Government will do its duty in respect of agriculture as well. We believe that the necessary consumption and our marketing circumstances will improve in such a way that things will again go well and that what to-day are surpluses will be able to be transferred into possible shortages. We do not wish to place all that responsibility upon the Government. That is not right. We must accept the fact that the primary producer also has his responsibilities to bear. The agricultural cooperatives also have their responsibility and the State has its responsibility—a partnership in responsibility.

Let me state this in the last instance, the responsibility which we feel that the State ought to bear, inter alia, the training of young farmers. We must consider that those young farmers have now to build up and modernize an industry in changed conditions. They can no longer farm as was previously the case. The necessary information has to be given to the old-established farmers. There have to be extension officers; more experimental farms have to be undertaken by the State to give the necessary information, experiments on the part of private farmers, the distribution of literature, lectures and talks, radio talks, and trade missions are sent overseas not only to sell our industrial and other products there but also to allow justice to be done to our agricultural products. However, Mr. Speaker, we want to suggest to you that the primary producer must also bear his responsibility and in my humble opinion one of the most important tasks which he has to undertake is the changes which have to be effected in his own industry by himself in order to adapt it to the necessary requirements of the times as indicated by this wind of change. In this we want to include the fact that farming must be conducted on a more economic-scientific basis in order to ensure a larger production per unit, to have at the same time a lower cost structure and by so doing to give the farmer a larger profit.

We are aware of the fact that those things will receive the attention of the Government and we must also think of marketing. We want to congratulate the Government on this association which has been established under its guidance, namely, the Agricultural Economics Association under the chairmanship of Professor Tomlinson who has expert advice at his disposal on the committee in order to ensure that the marketing problems of agriculture are tackled and solved in a scientific and economic basis. However, we also want to thank the Government and in particular the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing for having created those special posts in our London offices by the appointment of Mr. S. Smit as the chief investigator of the Marketing Council with an area of the whole of the United Kingdom and the Continent of Europe and with a special instruction to promote the marketing of our agricultural products there.

In the last place I hope that I will be permitted to emphasize the fact that the South African farmer with what he has done for the country, the currency which he has earned, is also entitled to the whole of the internal market of the Republic. We also wish to add that we must make sure and that we will make it our task to buy South African because when a farmer buys an implement, he does his best to buy an implement made in South Africa. It is because of this that we make an appeal that when the consumer purchases his requirements he will also remember to support the South African farmer. In this way we grow together, buy South African.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Groblersdal (Mr. M. J. H. Bekker). I think he is the only member in the House who can compete with the Chief Whip of the Government in the speed of his delivery, and not only can he compete with him but he has beaten him. The hon. member cannot expect me possibly to deal with the subjects he touched on tonight. Although he spoke for only about 25 minutes, I am certain his Hansard will be longer than that of the Prime Minister.

He is a champion.

I was glad to hear the hon. member offer not criticism but some of the misgivings of the agricultural world with present-day conditions. He started off by saying that the United Party had not mentioned agriculture. Of course, until the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) spoke, agriculture had not been mentioned at all. The Minister of Finance only gave about two and a half lines to it in his speech. The hon. member for South Coast brought it into the debate, otherwise it would have been forgotten. I would like to point out that the hon. member for South Coast did say that it was the Government’s duty to deal with the surpluses, and I am sure that had the United Party been in power the hon. member for Groblersdal would not have offered to solve the problem, but would at once have called upon the United Party to do so. [Interjections.] But of course if the United Party had been in power there would have been no problem. But the general tone of speeches from the Government side to-day is not only reflected by the rank and file of the Government, but we even find it in the Prime Minister’s speech. I wonder why the Prime Minister brushed aside so easily the question my leader raised about the interference … [Inaudible] in the Transkei. It is quite obvious that in replying to the question put by the hon. member for Germiston (District), he did not realize what the problem was which was facing South Africa and did not realize what the Leader of the Opposition was warning him about. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) had something to say while he was sitting over there. The problem of the Transkei for South Africa is getting more serious than the Protectorates and the other British colonies, because he will remember that the Prime Minister, in offering self-government to the Transkei, does not treat them as forming part of the Republic of South Africa, but he has gone further and offered them their own citizenship, and if the hon. member for Vereeniging would read the Charter—I have it before me for him to read, but I have not the time to read it myself— he would realize the dangers that are facing us in connection with this promised constitutional development which the Prime Minister offered the Transkei.

The hon. member for Innesdale (Mr. J. A. Marais) asked whether the United Party policy would be acceptable to the outside world. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) dealt with this question the other night. We do not and never contended that our policy will satisfy the communist members of the Afro-Asian bloc. We have never pretended that our policy will satisfy their claims for equality, but what we have said is that there are members of the Afro-Asian bloc who will be satisfied.

Who are they?

An important member which would have been satisfied and which would have kept us in the Commonwealth was Malaya. [Interjections.] The Prime Minister of Malaya at the Conference said that if we gave the Bantu ten representatives in this House he would be satisfied.

That is not true. He said ten members as a beginning. [Interjections.]

May I put a question?

No. The Tunka of Malaya was prepared to accept ten members on the separate roll, and we have had evidence also from other Western nations outside the Afro-Asian bloc that they would have been satisfied with our policy if we did that. The Prime Minister of Canada intimated that all he wanted was four members.

As a beginning.

The hon. member for Vereeniging keeps on interjecting “as a beginning”. I do not know where he gets it from, but supposing it was as a beginning, the fact is that we would have had these people as our friends and we would be talking to them still, and as long as you are in a position to talk they would still be our friends. But the hon. member for Innesdale doubts whether we could keep the friendship of any of the Afro-Asian countries. What I ask is this: What is this Government doing to win the friendship of any country, not only the Afro-Asians? What is it doing to win the friendship of the Western powers?

Some of them are our enemies, too.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw.

The whole world is the enemy of this country.

And you rejoice in saying so.

I do not rejoice in saying it, because unfortunately this Government has made practically all the nations of the world the enemy of my country and I have to bear the brunt of that hatred, and so have my children and their children.

The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) quoted certain figures from the Budget with regard to the development of the Transkei. I wish to go into those figures in more detail. This is the first Budget that we have had since this House accepted, through the Government majority, the principle of the establishment of separate Bantustans, and this is the first Budget we have had to test the genuineness of the Government’s promises and their policies. The hon. member for Kempton Park asked what the difference is between United Party policy and the Government’s policy with regard to the development of the reserves. Sir, I can state that quite simply in a few words. The difference is that the United Party wishes to encourage White initiative and White capital in the development of the reserves in a practical way.

Then the Bantu will have no more reserves.

The Government’s policy is to exclude the White man from playing any part in the development of the reserves. Before I get on to the figures of the Budget, I want to deal with something the Prime Minister said. I am sorry he is not here, but I am glad to see the Minister of Bantu Administration here, as usual. He is the one Minister who does his duty and listens to all the debates.

The Prime Minister said in the course of the debate that the British policy in regard to Kenya was abhorrent, and the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) asked him what the difference was between the British policy in Kenya and his policy in regard to the Transkei. The British Government’s policy in Kenya is abhorrent to the Prime Minister because of the way the British Government is dealing with the White citizens there. The interjection of the Prime Minister to that was, “Ek sal volledig vir hulle sorg”. Now I have raised this question on several occasions: What is this Government going to do for the White people in the Transkei? I have likened their position to that of the White settlers in Kenya. This is the first time I heard the Prime Minister say that he will care for them and it is time now that either the Minister of Bantu Administration or the Minister of Finance should tell the House and the country how they will care for these people. I will deal with the position of the White man later again, but I hope we will get a reply from this Government to that question. Sir, the principle of separate development has been accepted by this House, but what we fear is that unless this Government takes active steps to make the Transkei viable, the whole project must fail, and if it fails we cannot foretell now what the consequences will be to the whole of South Africa. Economists, notably Professor Hobart Haughton, have told us for a long time that the reserves are a drain on the economy of South Africa, and the function they fulfil to-day is really no better than being a reservoir of labour. The Government has protested for years that it will develop the reserves and save the soil. For that purpose it appointed the Tomlinson Commission to make recommendations. That Commission, of which the Minister was a member, reported eight years ago and it recommended that the sum of £104,000,000 had to be spent within ten years. Eight years have now passed. The Prime Minister disagreed with that Commission. He said that only £36,000,000 need be spent. The Tomlinson Commission said the matter was one of urgency. The development of the reserves in the interests of South Africa should have been as big a scheme as the Bowker Plan.

Is that the new name for the Orange River scheme?

It would mean as much to South Africa as the development of the Orange River scheme, but the Government has been dilly-dallying. Eventually now we have a five-year plan which has seen the light of day, or at least it has seen the light of the Minister’s office, because nobody has seen it yet; it has not been tabled. This five-year plan is the act of faith of which the Minister and the other members of that Commission spoke.

Oh, ye men of little faith!

It provides for the expenditure in five years of R114,000,000. The Minister of Bantu Administration has changed his mind. This five-year plan only provides for R114,000,000. Last year an amount of R17,500,000 was set aside for the Native Trust, but approximately a third of this money was not spent. R5,500,000 was not spent. This year R25.2 million has been set aside for the Native Trust and that includes the R5.5 million which was not spent last year. In terms of the speech of the Minister of Finance, we are going to spend this year R8.1 million on establishing villages. In terms of the five-year plan we are pledged to spend R9,250,000. We are falling short this year in expenditure on the plan by over R1,000,000. On irrigation and water supplies, in terms of the Budget speech, we are going to spend R1.8 million. In terms of the five-year plan we are supposed to spend R2.3 million. We are R500,000 short again. Soil reclamation: In terms of the Budget, we are going to spend R1.7 million, but in terms of the five-year plan we should spend R3.1 million, a shortfall of R1.4 million. I admit that the Government is spending more money on other things and that in terms of the speech of the Minister of Finance we will spend R25,000,000 instead of R17,000.000 this year, but we are falling short on irrigation and soil reclamation, the two things most required for the development of the reserves. The Native can only improve his livelihood on his own without great expense and help by tilling the soil, yet the Government is falling behind now on the five-year plan, and the five-year plan is only being introduced eight years after the Tomlinson Plan. All the Government is really now doing is stabilizing the position. Take the Transkei. Under the five-year plan the Government is going to irrigate in the Transkei to the tune of R3,500,000. That is what they are going to spend on the Cofimvaba scheme, a very laudable scheme, but in terms of the report, the note to the expenditure in the five-year plan, says—

Now, 1,400 settlers in five years under an irrigation scheme in the Transkei is not very much, and only R300,000 is to be spent on other water supplies. The Tomlinson Commission reported that the water supplies in the Transkei have to be developed. All the rivers there are running to waste. In 1927 the Director of Irrigation reported that there should be a survey of water resources in the Transkei. I raised this question on several occasions and the civic associations have raised it, but nothing has been done. All the Government is going to do for the next five years is to build the dam at Cofimvaba to settle 1,400 families, when you are dealing with 1,500,000 people in the Transkei. This is typical of the type of expansion envisaged for the reserves. The economists differ on a number of theories, but on one thing they all think alike, including the Minister of Bantu Administration, that what is required is something imaginative, instead of which we get the very opposite impression. In the five-year plan for the reserves, and in the present Estimates, the bulk of the funds available for the development of the reserves is allocated to the building of villages without making provision for the gainful employment of the inhabitants…. The five-year plan, in fact, allocates 70 per cent of the expenditure to the building of these villages. Professor Hobart Haughton has already closely investigated the progress of one of these villages. The inhabitants have been taken off the land and their incomes must henceforth be derived from wages, but at the time of his investigation the professor found that there were no opportunities for employment in the village other than a couple of builders and carpenters, and the same has happened in a village near Umzimkulu. That sort of thing cannot go on. What we want and must have is a scheme which is justified in the eyes of the people at home and our friends abroad, and it must embrace an infectious creation of income and earning opportunities inside the reserves, and that needs imagination, and as I said before, plenty of money being spent, and not what this Government is spending now on the five-year plan. The Tomlinson Commission believed that it would be possible to accommodate 50 per cent of the present population as fulltime farmers, but the King William’s Town experience—this point was raised by the professor—now indicates that this was overoptimistic. The Bantu areas in the King William’s Town district comprise 135,000 morgen, with a population of 68,000. There are estimated to be 11,400 families, but detailed planning indicates that ultimately there can never be more than 3,400 farm economic units. Thus the land can be expected to give support to only a little more than one-third of the present population and almost two-thirds of the present population of that district, and all the natural increase in the future will have to find employment in secondary and tertiary industry. No amount of agricultural reform or improvement will alone solve the problem of poverty in the Bantu areas. To illustrate this fact, a single factory, the Cape of Good Hope Textiles, built by my friend, the hon. member for Green Point while he was Minister of Native Affairs, is likely in future to support a larger number of families than the whole agricultural potential of the area. We are not without men of imagination, but unfortunately they are not in the Government. The Government could do a lot worse than take the advice of a man like Dr. Anton Rupert when he pleads for a change from the use of the word “apartheid” to “co-existence” and says—

That is just what the Prime Minister will not do. He just will not allow it. The Tomlinson Commission Report eight years ago said that the White man must take part in the development. Not enough development has taken place since that Commission reported. The Bantu Development Corporation has been established. How much African labour has been employed through the activities of that corporation? The Prime Minister set out his policies in this House with regard to this development a little while ago. He said—

To assist the African industrialist, the Prime Minister says that the Bantu Development Corporation has been requested to draw up a one-year plan and a five-year plan for both the Transkei and other territories. Here we have another report. The Tomlinson Commission reported and here we have another report, and we have more and more commissions. The Tomlinson Commission was supposed to give us a plan. The Prime Minister later said in this House on the same day—

Another plan, Sir, for development on the border reserves, but nothing is being done. A small factory has admittedly been started in the Transkei. But the Prime Minister went still further in talking of industrial development. He warned entrepreneurs that if they opened businesses in the High Commission Territories or in the new Bantustans they were looking for trouble. He said that if they were faced with such problems as nationalization they must not seek the protection of the Government. A very nice warning, Sir, and what encouragement to any industrialist to invest his money where opportunities still exist in the reserves! But what about those who are already established there; those who established themselves there before this policy of separate states was enunciated by the Prime Minister? As I said before. Sir, they were encouraged to go there and to establish themselves in the Transkei, in the same way as people were encouraged to go to Kenya, but with this difference: The White man who went to the Transkei went to his own country. He was not going away from his native land to another country to establish himself; he was remaining in part of his homeland. What sort of security is this Government going to offer to those people who have established themselves there? It is no good the Deputy Minister saying, as he did the other day, “we will look after them. We will look after the civil servants” and when I told him we were not interested in the civil servants, they have their jobs, he said “We will look after them right up to the end”. The point is, Sir, that they must be looked after now. Since the enunciation of this policy property values have fallen. The Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration will not invest money there to-day. He would not invest money in a business there, would he? I challenge him. Nobody is prepard to go to invest money there to-day. If there is a forced sale of landed property or of a business you simply cannot get a buyer. Who is prepared to invest money there at the moment? The time has arrived for this Government to tell the White people in the Transkei what it is going to do for them, how it is going to guarantee their security of tenure. The Prime Minister himself said that those people who were going to establish themselves in the Bantustans must not come and worry him afterwards when they feared nationalization. We want him to tell us to-day, before the new constitution of the Transkei is drawn up, what protection is going to be given to the White and Coloured people in that area. The Minister of Finance must tell us what he is going to do.

There is another point which is worrying the people in the Transkei. They are in confusion. Not only are the White and Coloured people in confusion but also the Bantu. They do not know what is happening. We have been told by the Prime Minister that he cannot tell us the terms of the constitution because it must first be discussed by the Transkeian Territorial Authority. We have to wait to hear what they have decided before we can discuss it here in Parliament. In other words, that Authority there might accept a constitution and we will have no opportunity of discussing it in this House. It will be forced upon us. We read in the Press last week that a Bill will be introduced in January next year. We are not told that by the Minister. That information was given to the Press by Chief Kaiser Mantazima. The only information we get to-day is from the Native chiefs. The only people who know what is happening in the Transkei is the Secretary for Bantu Administration and Development, the Minister of Bantu Administration, the Prime Minister and the chiefs. I think it is time we were told what was happening. We want to know the terms of that constitution.

There is another point. I have asked this question before and I think it is time the Minister or somebody gave us an answer: Where are the boundaries of the independent Transkeian State going to be? The Deputy Minister for Bantu Administration said that we were bound by the 1913 Act and by the Native Land and Trust Act. That is no reply, Sir. The Native Land and Trust Act provides that the Trust can buy land. It can keep on buying more and more land. That is no assurance to people that the Government is bound by those two Acts. The Minister will have seen that there are resolutions on the agenda for the next Territorial Authority meeting at Umtata asking for the districts of Indwe, Elliot, Maclear, Ugie and Mount Currie to be added to the Transkei. Has the Minister or the Prime Minister told the Recess Committee or whoever is discussing the constitution now, that the boundaries will be as defined at the moment and that they will not be altered? There is a resolution demanding Mount Currie. Mount Currie falls within the Transkei but it is a White district. The Prime Minister has given the assurance to the farmers that it will remain a White area. But this assurance was given many years ago before there was a suggestion of self-government, just as an assurance was given to the people of Port St. Johns that the White areas in the district of Port St. Johns will remain White. Has this Recess Committee been told that these areas are going to be excised from the Transkie, that they will never form part of the Transkei or come under the jurisdiction of the Territorial Authority? Do they know that the richest area in East Griqualand is going to be cut out of the Transkei? In terms of the resolution before the next Council session, Mount Currie will come under the Transkeian Territorial Authority, under the new Parliament. And as far as Port St. Johns is concerned, must we believe that it and Mount Currie will be the only two permanent White areas in the Transkei? I want to ask the Minister whether that is so? Will Port St. Johns for all time be a White area? Will it for all time be outside the jurisdiction of the independent State? I wish the Minister would reply to these questions because the people in that area are worried. The Government won’t buy the farms and nobody wants to buy property there because they say it is going to become a Black area.

If the British policy towards the Whites in Kenya is abhorrent then I say just as abhorrent is the policy of this Government towards the White people living in the reserves which are going to become independent. The Minister of Finance should answer these questions; he was the Minister who introduced the Group Areas Act. Is the Transkei going to be exempted from the operation of the Group Areas Act? If not how are the villages going to go Black? This House and the country have not as yet received replies to these questions and I want the Minister of Finance to reply.

I think there are two unhappy people in this House this evening. The one is the hon. the Minister of Finance who is still waiting for criticism of his finances in the correct way and the other one is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who is still waiting for his members on the other side to set a real battle in motion. I do not wish to interfere with the hon. member who has just sat down because the speech which he has just made on the colour problem and the Tomlinson Report is one which I have heard since I came to this House. It has never been different; it has always been so. On every occasion there has been a detailed reply from this side but it has not penetrated those heads on the other side at all. It has never penetrated and I am not going to try during the few minutes at my disposal at this late hour of the evening to try and get it through their heads.

When I was sitting listening here—and I listened regularly—the question arose to my mind as to what is actually the duty of an M.P. in this House? When I listened to the speech on the other side I felt that when we come before our voters they expect certain things of us. The first thing a voter will expect of you is to put South Africa, your country, first. If you are a United Party voter, then you will expect your United Party representative to do everything in his power to overthrow the National Government after it has had South Africa under its protection. However, now they are not going to take South Africa under their protection. Everything is now going to be destroyed if they can only overthrow the National Party. That is the whole spirit which we experience on the other side. Mr. Speaker, you know that with each one of those efforts they become weaker. If weeds on my lands come up so weakly, I do not even take the trouble of hoeing them because those weeds will not be able to affect the plants. I will leave the weeds because they will destroy themselves. It has been proved on each occasion that hon. members on the other side are not rendering the service of a Member of Parliament; they are not doing the service which they have been called upon to do. Let me try and explain. The hon. the Minister has framed a Budget for us. He has told us how he is going to manage the affairs of the country. What do hon. members on the other side do? They do not think about those finances. In my simplicity I would think in this way: If the hon. the Minister has explained his financial programme and one of the knowledgable people, as they make themselves out to be, stands up on the other side, he would criticize the items on the programme item by item. Then he would put his own, those which he considers to be right, against those which the hon. the Minister considers to be right. This would show the force of their mental ability. In this way the voter of the Republic of South Africa would see both sides of the question. He would be able to say: I do not agree with the Minister of Finance on this item in his budget; I would put this in its place. Then the voter outside could consider the two sets and make a study of them and keep them at the back of his mind. On the day of the election he will be able to reconsider these two standpoints and judge accordingly. The hon. members on the other side have never given the voters of South Africa that second set of views. The voters have always only received the one set. We have never received that second set of standpoints on the part of the Opposition. This has always been completely overlooked. I think that when we receive criticism from the other side we must receive proper criticism and in place of that which the Opposition condemns we must obtain something better. Mr. Speaker, if one has normal conversation with another person, it is merely an exchange of thoughts. The one expresses his ideas as against the others. I challenge any of the hon. members to tell me that if he has a guest who has this to say in respect of any matter which he puts: “I do not agree; that is nonsense”, that he will continue with that conversation if he cannot put forward a better idea than the one you have advanced. How much longer will you converse with him? I am very sure that you will very soon say: I cannot converse with a fool any longer; I am going. Year after year we have to experience that in the Budget debate. I want to show how the Budget is dealt with. I do not merely make the allegation without proving it. The first speaker in this financial debate, the great spirit of the United Party, the spirit who has given the guidance, the spirit who is regarded by everyone outside as the first spokesman in regard to finances, acted exactly as I have indicated. I respect him. His experience and his knowledge must surely be of a certain value. It must surely be visible somewhere. I want to ask hon. members on the other side whether it could be used? Was it worth anything to them? Could they become wise from it? I am very sure that they could not. He did not criticize finances. He criticized the colour policy of the Government. All the things which the hon. the Minister of Finance told us were pushed aside because the colour policy of the Government was not the colour policy of the United Party. If the colour policy of this Government was the colour policy of the other side, nothing would have been said about this Budget. That is the impression which the first speaker, the most important speaker, made upon us. However, he went a little further and this is what hurts and cuts deeply. I am not in a mood to-night to fight and to wage war. I would like to talk nicely. However, if I find something in my way I have to push it out of my way. The hon. member who spoke first said at the end of his speech: Mr. Speaker, I can see nothing in this Budget. Mr. Speaker, he could see nothing in the Budget. But this was surely not the honest opinion of hon. members on the other side. If it was his honest opinion then he should have destroyed item for item in that Budget but he did not say a word about the Budget. After a weak effort he concluded with: “Mr. Speaker, I can see nothing in this Budget”.

That is not true.

I will come to that hon. member just now. What did the hon. member tell the world? I emphasized the fact a moment ago that he is one of the persons who is taken notice of. He said nothing to this side of the House but as the first speaker on the other side he told the world that the Budget was worth nothing. That is what he said. That is his affection for the Afrikaner. That is what I did not expect him to do. He should first of all have protected his country and he should first of all have saved his country from the dirt which is hurled at it day after day and then he should have attacked the Budget of the hon. the Minister of Finance. No, he left the Budget to one side and he said: “Mr. Speaker, I can see nothing in this Budget”, something which was probably published on that same day in the newspapers overseas.

I want to solve this matter once and for all. The first foundation stone of civilization is surely gratitude; the second one is courtesy. I challenge that hon. member, who always has such a lot to say, to show me one occasion where an hon. member stood up here to thank the hon. the Minister for something and he did not start laughing impertinently, in the most impertinent manner imaginable, Sir. What happened the other day? When the hon. member for Kimberley (South) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) stood up to direct a word of appreciation to the hon. the Prime Minister, what did the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) do? He clutched his head, hit his bench and laughed in such a way that it would have been revolting to the biggest barbarian in the Transkei. The hon. member for Kensington also grasped his head and fell over backwards and laughed in the most discourteous manner. Those two leading members of the Opposition side acted so discourteously that they showed me what they are made of. I do not want what I saw there. On the contrary, what I saw there would cause a child of four to get convulsions. Now the hon. member wants to interrupt me.

You make me laugh just as much at you.

You may laugh at me; I do not care. I have always said that I have respect for the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay), but that respect is decreasing. The hon. member for Kimberley (South) spoke about the three monuments which have been erected. Mr. Speaker, was it not no more than right on his part to say this? It showed gratitude. Those three matters will be acknowledged as monuments in our history and the hon. member for Kimberley (South) mentioned them. However, he mentioned something else which was attacked so cruelly later on by the hon. member for Simonstown. The hon. member for Kimberley (South) also admitted that there were still monuments standing, monuments which were raised by the army of the South African nation. Then the hon. member for Simonstown stood up and he also mentioned another two monuments, but he did not mention them because he wanted to add to what the hon. member for Kimberley (South) said; he said this because he wanted to destroy what the hon. member for Kimberley (South) had said. He told the hon. member for Kimberley (South) “I must remind you that there are still two monuments standing in the world, monuments which will not be broken down as your stone and mortar will but which will stand forever, the monuments of the South Africans who died for the freedom of this world We also say yes to that. The hon. member forgot, however, to mention another monument which will also remain standing forever and that is the blessing which they gave to communist arms. That monument will also stand forever. There is another monument which will remain standing and that is the one under the throne of Haille Selassi where the bones of Afrikaners hold up his throne and where he now sits on that throne and orders boycotts against South Africa. That is also a monument which will always remain. Why must we so provoke one another as I have just been provoked? I said at the start that I am not in a fighting mood but I cannot do otherwise. You know it hurts me to hear that Haille Selassi sits on his throne and organizes boycotts against South Africa. You know it hurts if Communism causes the world to bleed from one end to the other. You know it hurts me but it is rubbed in as though we do not wish to know one another. Are these things not the common property of all of us? If we made a mistake at the time with regard to Communism then we must bear that blame together and not obstruct and malign one another. We must admit that we have made Communism as strong as it is to-day. If the Hammer and Sickle again causes the world to bleed, you and I will both suffer thereunder. Why must we do this sort of thing, of trying to destroy the small amount of conciliation there is, or which there may be, in this way? Why do we hear this sort of impertinent laughter on every occasion that an hon. member on this side stands up and thanks a Minister or the Government for assistance to the farmers, for a dam, or whatever the case may be? Then they laugh so much that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) almost falls out of his seat.

If they go on in this way there will eventually not be anything left of them. The electorate are just as tired as I am of all this talk about the colour bar. The hon. members on the other side really have nothing to raise in this House. If they could raise anything in the House they would certainly not drop to the pettiness of having to fall back upon the colour policy and say that it is the fault of this Government that we are in a position where we have no friends. “We have lost our friends because of our colour policy; this has happened to us through our colour policy ”. They have harped on this from the time it started right up to the present, and it will probably not end before all of them have disappeared. The hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) is also not here but I cannot help it; I must take the offensive. The hon. member said that they wanted more information from the hon. the Minister of Defence. He expects the hon. the Minister of Defence to lay his cards on the table for the Opposition. If you think about this quickly it sounds right. One would normally think that the Minister would do so. In the same breath the hon. member said that the hon. the Minister mentioned a certain number of aircraft and that they are not there. In other words, the hon. the Minister told a lie when he mentioned that number of aircraft. If the hon. the Minister comes to light with another statement the hon. member for North-East Rand will again say that is a lie. The hon. member can simply take nothing in. I want to ask: Is it desirable for the hon. the Minister to make a statement in this House if it appears in the Press of England to-morrow that the Minister has told a lie; he does not have those aircraft? Is that right and sensible? Any nation which has an eye on us will feel that this is boasting: “They speak about R120,000,000; it is only boasting; one of the whips says that such a thing does not exist; the Minister did not tell the truth; he does not have those aircraft”. Supposing the hon. the Minister was wrong; supposing that is true, then we still must not tell it to the world. We must approach the hon. the Minister in another way, not in this way. The Leader of the Opposition can then go to the office of the hon. the Minister of Defence and say: These are things which have leaked out. Are they true? However, this is told to the world to create a lack of confidence in us— the government says things which are not true! I am still fond of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition but that affection is waning rapidly; there is only a little left. I do not wish to attack him in a humiliating fashion, but I certainly do not wish to praise him. In his speech the hon. the Leader of the Opposition challenged the hon. the Prime Minister to do something because they no longer believe in the Bantu stories of the Government. He also said: “I also thought that this was possible, but now I no longer believe it”. After this the hon. the Prime Minister stood up and announced that we were going to give self-government to the Transkei. What did his first lieutenant, the hon. member for Yeoville, the great spirit of the United Party, then say? We know one another well. He speaks in a most capable manner but he is using his gift of eloquence in a manner which I cannot respect. He pulls those good deeds of the Government from under the feet of the Government and he tramples them into the political mud so that you cannot recognize them. He throws them, smeared with political mud, at the newspapers of Europe and he says that it is a bluff. If one dares to tell him that he is not an Afrikaner one will see how his eyes roll! You must tell me, Mrs. Speaker, whether this is the heart of an Afrikaner. Hon. members must accept one thing: We love our country and we have proved it. The hon. member for Yeoville must also accept this. Does he accept it? The hon. member has never proved that he accepts it. He believes that we are traitors to South Africa. He believes that we are the destroyers of South Africa. He says so every day.

You do not know what you are doing.

Every good deed which is done here and which the hon. member for Yeoville can get under his feet is smeared with political mud and thrown away over his shoulder. Since I have been in this House I have never yet heard a single word of appreciation from the hon. member for Yeoville. He does not know such a thing. If you give him something, Mrs. Speaker, he will grab it; he will not be able to take it and say “thank you ”, because he does not understand gratitude. Such a thing does not exist in his makeup. I am sorry that I have to say all these things but this is how I see matters. I must say what I see; I cannot do otherwise.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) is also not here this evening. We expected very much more from the hon. member. He is like the other members of the United Party, a big display-window through which they all shine. If the hon. member for South Coast walks past here—and I say this with respect—with his strong body, then he shows precisely what he is. So it is with hon. members on the other side. The voters of South Africa see them as a great display-window. The voters of South Africa have already seen right through the hon. member for Yeoville with his wonderful talent for speaking. This is a great display-window and there is nothing that the voters do not see; and what they do not see, is not there.