I move—

1. (1) That Government business shall have precedence on Fridays on and after Friday, 13 April; and
2. (2) that the House at its rising on Thursday, 19 April, adjourn until Tuesday, 24 April, at a Quarter-past Two o’clock p.m.

I second.

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask your ruling. I should like to discuss the behaviour of certain journalists in the Press gallery and the shocking way in which certain of them harm the safety of the country and its good name, and abuse their position in the gallery. Am I allowed to discuss it under this Vote?

No, the hon. member cannot discuss it under this Vote; there is no provision for it under this Vote.

Since we last debated a Budget in this House certain changes have been made in this Chamber. The portraits which hung on the wall have now been removed. I now want to ask whether an extra bench cannot be built above the gallery. I make this request because I find that certain of our newspapers and publications cannot be represented here as the result of a scarcity of seats. It is essential that all our newspapers should have representatives in this House. I am thinking, e.g., of Landbouweekblad and the Farmer’s Weekly which can never publish agricultural debates because there are no seats available for them here. I want to ask whether we cannot provide more seating so that certain newspapers and publications may have their representatives here.

If we kick out a few of the others, will it not solve the problem of the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins)?

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 4.—“ Prime Minister ”, R152,000,

Mr. Chairman, may I ask for the privilege of the halfhour? The ground that I would like to cover with the hon. the Prime Minister in the course of the discussion on his Vote may be conveniently divided into three groups of subjects. The first would concern South Africa’s relations with countries and bodies outside of South Africa. The second would concern the particular aspects of the policy of separate development which are of a national character. I shall be careful, Sir, not to trespass on your ruling in respect of how far one can go in regard to the discussion of the ultimate independence of those areas which are to be separately developed. The third group of subjects deals with certain other matters of internal policy which are, in my opinion, of national importance.

In the field of external relations, the first group of subjects, I think there is one issue above all others which is exercising the minds of the people of South Africa and this is the problem of the mandated territory of South West Africa, a subject on which the Government has now for some considerable time—and in my opinion far too long—been frighteningly silent. It is a subject in respect of which I would suggest that Parliament and the nation have a right to be better informed. The background to this issue is well known to members. South West Africa was granted to the Union of South Africa as a C-mandate by the Associated Allied powers after the 1914-18 war to be administered as an integral part of South Africa. And it was accepted that administration was to be subject to the supervision of the old League of Nations. We all know that the old League of Nations has ceased to exist; that there have been cases before the International Court of Justice; that we have changed from the Union of South Africa to the Republic of South Africa, but the mandate is still with us and it has been made use of to launch a two-pronged offensive against South Africa, one in the legal sphere and the other in the political sphere. I do not want to say much about the offensive in the legal sphere because there is at present a case pending before the International Court of Justice in which certain of the issues which will concern whether or not that territory has been administered in accordance with the terms of the mandate. But I would point out that this case has been pending for some 18 months already; that the Government apparently have been extremely active behind the scenes, but so far there has been no clear statement in this House, either from the Prime Minister or the Minister of External Affairs, either as to the attitude of the Government or as to what the consequences will be in the event of our either being successful in that case or in the event of judgment being given against us. I have said before, and I want to repeat this afternoon, that in this case the Government is not acting for itself. It is acting for the people of South Africa, and the people of South Africa, like any client, who are involved and will have to pay the bill one way or the other, are entitled to know what is to be expected, what to hone for and what to be prepared for. What will happen if our defence is successful in this case? Will it put an end to much of the criticism that is being levelled against us at the United Nations Organization? Will it mean that judgment will be accepted by that Organization and put an end to much of the discussions concerning South West Africa? What will happen if we are not successful? How is a judgment of that kind implemented? What will be the consequence if we do not accept the judgment? I think these are matters which the people of South Africa are entitled to be forewarned about, to be told about, by the Government.

So much for the legal sphere. Now we come to the political sphere. Here the Government record seems to have been a miserable one of one diplomatic defeat being piled upon the other. It would seem that the Government believed that by disregarding the legal opinion of the International Court of Justice given in 1950, and its subsequent acceptance by the General Assembly of the United Nations Organization, it would be successful in preventing UNO exercising any supervision at all over its administration of South West Africa. In fact. Sir, what has happened? The United Nations Organization has exercised virtually exactly the same supervision over South West Africa as it would have done had we accepted that judgment originally. The effect of that original judgment was merely that administration was subject to discussion, subject to the force of public opinion, and really nothing more, and it is subjected to exactly that now. But by refusing to accept that judgment, it would seem that we have created a great deal of ill-will which we have not lived down and which has been with us ever since. Let me give another example. The Government apparently also believed that by declining to submit annual reports on its administration of the territory to the United Nations Organization, even as an act of grace, not accepting that it was legally bound to do so, it would succeed in preventing discussion of its administration of South West Africa, and particularly by the Afro-Asian bloc and the communist countries and certain South American states referred to from time to time by the Minister of External Affairs. What has been the result? The exact opposite has been the result. Through the South West African Committee reports have been before UNO on the administration of South West Africa—comprehensive annual reports—and these have led to a full public discussion, whether we have liked it or not, whether we have participated or not, in the very manner in which it was hoped that it would be avoided and by the very members who it was hoped would not be able to participate in discussions and criticism concerning this subject. The Government has refused to transmit petitions from inhabitants of South West Africa to UNO, but nevertheless that Organization has received petitions from inhabitants of the territory, almost as fully as it could have done had the Government been transmitting them itself; almost as fully as it could have been done had the Government transmitted those petitions in accordance with the advisory opinion given by the International Court of Justice on this very issue. Sir, when one looks at the position to-day it seems that the only real effect of the Government’s action over the past 10 or 12 years has been that these reports and petitions have been debated; our administration of South West Africa has been debated without the Government being present to explain matters in regard to which there could have been doubts, to point out errors, and to show up unjustified complaints by petitioners. I believe there have been far too many unjustified complaints by petitioners. But what has been done by this Government to show up their inaccuracy and the error of their ways, except on a few rare occasions?

Are you being serious?

I am very serious indeed. In fact I go so far as to say that as a result of the inaction of the Government on these issues, an image has been created of our administration of South West Africa which is probably far from accurate and which I believe bears very little relation to the truth, but an image which is reflected on us internationally and upon the opinion in which we are held by the important countries of the world, and the result has been that hostility directed towards us, because the image created in respect of South West Africa has spilled over and had an effect upon our relations with other countries in other spheres, quite apart from this issue. I know that there has been a measure of change of late. The Government has taken to the United Nations Organization an individual—I believe now the hon. Under-Minister—to be available to give information, I believe on the basis that he be not questioned. I believe that in effect we have gone so far that we have virtually accepted the opinion given by the Court in 1950, in many respects, but nevertheless on this issue we find ourselves to-day utterly isolated and with virtually no support whatever from any other country in the world except Portugal, and we find our position becoming more serious daily. I do not think that the position has been helped by the Government’s stand that it was not prepared to discuss this issue on certain occasions because there was a case before the International Court of Justice and because the matter was in its opinion sub judice and therefore should not be discussed, because whatever the opinion of South Africa has been it is quite clear that the nations of the world do not accept that opinion. They do not regard the issue as being sub judice and the fact is that virtually unanimously they have continued to discuss the matter regardless of the fact that a case is pending at the International Court of Justice. In fact, despite the pretension that the matter is sub judice, yet another committee has been appointed, this time a committee of seven, with terms of reference more severe, more unacceptable, more unfavourable to us and more urgent than any previous committee—and there have been a number of committees on this issue. It seems clear that UNO is more determined than ever to bring this matter to a head as soon as it can. And yet up to now, when May the 1st, a critical date in so far as this committee is concerned, is only a few weeks off, we have had no authoritative statement from the Government as to its attitude, nor have the people of South Africa been taken into its confidence, either as to its plans or what the consequences may be to the country. Sir, it is no good underestimating the seriousness of this matter; it is no good adopting an ostrich-like attitude and hon. members trying to bury their heads in the sand. This is one of the occasions where statesmanship is necessary, where perhaps a new approach is necessary. I hope that to-day we shall have a statement from the hon. the Prime Minister on this issue, and I hope that statement will be of such a kind that it will be possible for this matter to be approached in the future on a non-party basis. I hope it will be possible to forget about the blundering of the past and to take this matter out of the field of party politics in the interests of the future of South Africa. Sir, that is going to involve a somewhat different attitude on the part of certain members of the Government.

And the Opposition.

And perhaps a different attitude on the part of members of the Opposition. I quite agree that they will have to be prepared to forgive and to forget. However, if we can get away from these petty interjections for a moment, I do hope sincerely that it will be possible on this issue to reach a stage where this matter is moved out of the sphere of party politics. Sir, we are not only isolated in respect of this issue at UNO; we are not only isolated on colour issues in respect of world opinion, but we seem at the moment to be entirely cut off from the rest of the Continent of Africa, outside of the Federation and perhaps Portugal, in a way which we have never been before. We on this side of the House remember a speech made by the hon. the Minister of External Affairs some five years ago at the University of Pretoria where he spoke on the role of South Africa on the Continent of Africa. I must say that we thought at that time that he had advanced a sound basis, that it would be the basis for Government policy. We approved of what he said and we said so at the time. Now, Sir, what has happened in the meantime? The hon. the Minister suggested that there were three important steps. Firstly, suspicion about our colour policy had to be removed. He showed that would be a gradual process. Secondly, African states would have to accept South Africa as an African state. Thirdly, the Union (now the Republic), as the most developed country in Africa, had a big contribution to make in the treatment of matters of common interest to all the other states of Africa. What has happened in so far as the Government is concerned in respect of those three steps? We are faced to-day with a Continent of Africa which is fermenting and with which we seem to be entirely out of touch. We do not seem to have any knowledge of the trends, political or economic, which are taking place in the rest of Africa; and the need to do something about it is intensified by the fact that now that we are out of the Commonwealth we have no means of ready information concerning those countries through diplomatic channels. In the past we were kept informed by London, as a member of the Commonwealth, as to the developments in those emergent countries of Africa, as we were kept informed of developments in other parts of the world. Now we are completely cut off. The trade side also is important. There are tens of millions of pounds being poured annually into those territories by way of equipment, by way of other capital goods, and the question is whether we should not be getting our share of those markets.

Who cut us off?

We would like to know; perhaps the hon. member will tell us. As far as we know the Government has done nothing in respect of the steps outlined by the hon. the Minister. We are even out of the C.C.T.A., of which so much was made by Government apologists. If we want to be realistic, surely some attempt must be made to break this deadlock somehow. If the Prime Minister is right in the thesis that he advanced the other day that nations disapproving of our colour policy are nevertheless prepared to be friendly with us over other issues, then this should not be impossible. The first step quite obviously is that we have to get rid of prejudice, prejudice based on ignorance, and here probably personal contact is the only way in which a better image of South Africa can be created amongst those emergent Africa states.

Ones sees that the Federation is establishing diplomatic relations in certain of those other states of Africa, and one wonders whether the time has not come for us to consider establishing embassies at strategic points.

Where?

Order! The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) will get an opportunity to speak.

Are hon. members opposite suggesting that there is no state in Africa to-day in which an embassy from the Republic would be accepted? Is that what I must accept from them this afternoon, five years after the hon. the Minister of External Affairs outlined his policy? I want to pose the question whether the Prime Minister of Nigeria has not perhaps given us an opportunity to be considered. I would like to know whether the Government is considering his suggestion that he would visit South Africa if he were invited. So far as we can see nothing seems to be happening at all. Instead we are arming; we are building up our Defence Force. The Minister of Defence has told us of the danger of an Afro-Asian army of liberation. When he spoke to the B.E.S.L. on Monday it was a communist threat. The hon the Prime Minister has said that big talking may lead to big doing and should be discouraged. The Minister of Finance not so long ago told us that one of our biggest dangers was from a Commonwealth nation but we could not encourage him to tell us which one. We have heard that there has been a statement by Gen. de Guingand that he has knowledge of an Afro-Asian plan concerning South Africa. The Minister of Defence, in reply to a question, says that he has not been informed by the General as to what that plan is or as to which countries are involved. Is that the situation with which we are faced in Africa, instead of friendly relations, instead of steps being taken to advance common interests and trying to work together; or must we accept that as long as we have this Government in power we are going to be entirely isolated on the Continent of Africa?

Don’t talk politics.

Is this non-political?

I do not want to pose this question for Africa only. I want to pose the question in respect of the countries of the Far East as well. We recently had a trade mission going, at considerable expense, to the Far East to consider the question of markets there and the prospects of selling our goods. The hon. the Minister of Transport is sending a mission to Japan to study the working of their Railways; yet so far as I know our only representative amongst the Eastern countries is a trade commissioner at Singapore. I know we are doing quite a bit of trade with Japan, but I think the thing we should remember is that all these countries in the Far East are members of UNO; they are people who can vote for or against us when it comes to decisions which are taken in the General Assembly. What is our view; are we going to have diplomatic exchanges with certain of these countries? What is the position in respect of Japan?

White Japan.

Is an attempt going to be made to have diplomatic exchanges with Japan? You see, Sir, the position is really a parallel to that on the Continent of Africa. We are out of touch, although perhaps not so much out of touch. We no longer get the information we did when we were members of the Commonwealth. We no longer have the courtesy of the diplomatic despatches which go through those other countries, and I think we are entitled to know from the hon. the Prime Minister how he visualizes our relationship with those people in the future. Cannot we break this deadlock? Is there nothing that can be done to find further markets, further friends, further support for South Africa? How do we stand with countries like India and Pakistan now that the Prime Minister has at least evolved a policy for the Indian, a matter which we will have to discuss with him again later on? Or is he satisfied that we should stay completely cut off from the rest of the world, completely cut off with no attempt whatever to improve the situation?

Sir, I have raised this issue in respect of UNO and with South West Africa, in respect of the rest of Africa and in respect of the countries of the Far East. But there is another issue on which the House is not informed, and that is to what extent there are negotiations taking place between the United Kingdom and the Republic as to our future relations. Since we have left the Commonwealth Great Britain has introduced legislation which is before Parliament and which I think has already passed its third reading. We would like to know whether negotiations are taking place between our Government and the British Government on this subject at the moment, and whether the Prime Minister can give us any report on these negotiations? We want to know whether they are covering the question of the Protectorates; whether in the future citizens of the Protectorates are going to be aliens in South Africa; whether we are going to be aliens in the Protectorates when we visit them; whether some hon. members opposite who own property in the Protectorates will be regarded as aliens in those territories?

You should also reply to questions for a change instead of asking questions only.

At last I am getting positive response from the hon. member. I think we should like to know from the Prime Minister whether he feels that it is possible for the ambassador of the United Kingdom here to remain High Commissioner for the Territories. We also want to know what our relationship with the Federation is going to be now that we are out of the Commonwealth. Are they going to be aliens here and are we going to be aliens there? Are we negotiating? What is happening about South African interests in Swaziland? We have had exactly the same time as Great Britain to deal with this issue. What are we doing? We seem to be fiddling around while they have gone ahead and got legislation before Parliament, which has proceeded quite a long way. I would be very glad if the hon. the Prime Minister would give us some indication of what is taking place on those issues. [Time limit.]

Normally I would have got up and resumed my seat immediately again in order to give the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity to complete his speech, but I do not think it is in the best interests of the country to allow him to carry on the irresponsible way in which he started talking this afternoon. I have often heard him make irresponsible speeches before, but seldom has he been more irresponsible than he was to-day. He asks why we do not make friends with India and Pakistan. It is arrogance on his part to ask for something like that—he and his party who do nothing else but revile this country to those nations, he and his party and his Press who do nothing else but sow suspicion against South Africa in the minds of those countries and of all the countries in the world, and then he still has the temerity to ask whether there is not some method by which we can break this deadlock, and make friends with those people. Yes, there is a very good method of doing it, and that is that he and his party and his Press, who have a much stronger voice abroad than we have, should reveal a little responsibility and patriotism. That would be a very good beginning.

Then in regard to the South West Africa problem, the Leader of the Opposition says; “It is no good under-estimating the seriousness of the position.” I quite agree with him, but if it is unwise to under-estimate the importance of this matter, why is he so irresponsible as to mention the matter in this House and to have it discussed in the way in which he did? And then he asks such nonsensical questions! He puts this question to the Prime Minister: If we win the case in the International Court, will you then accept it? How can the Prime Minister know that? Nobody can predict what UN will do to-morrow or the next day. How can the Prime Minister do so? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows that this is a very delicate matter. What good does he think can result from dragging a matter like this into a political debate? What will happen if a member like the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) starts talking about this matter, or members like the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) and Sea Point (Mr. J A. L. Basson)? One would require a thousand Eric Louws and Prime Ministers to remedy what they would destroy here in one afternoon. They are regarded as members of Parliament; it is not generally known that they are not taken seriously either in this House or in South Africa. If this matter is discussed here they will be the first to enter the debate. There is only one front-bencher on that side who is irresponsible enough to participate in a debate like this, and that is the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell), and it appears to me that he wants to do so. No, I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is just being mischievous in regard to this matter; he should reveal a greater sense of responsibility. What is he doing now? He is playing the game of the so-called petitioners. He now wants to know from the hon. the Prime Minister why he did not, in terms of the judgment of the International Court, submit the petitions of these people to UN. The Leader of the Opposition knows that those petitioners who have taken action hitherto are nothing but a lot of agitators in South West Africa. He knows that the main petitioner has hitherto been the arch agitator, Michael Scott; that he is the per son who led those people. Why does he now want to make available to Michael Scott the channels of this Government? Because that is what he asked for! Why does he want to make available the channels of this Government to that other lot of agitators who fled from South West Africa and then made all kinds of false accusations against the South West African Administration and the Government of the Republic of South Africa at UN? I now challenge the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He asks that the Government should have sent the petitions of those petitioners to UN! I now challenge the Leader of the Opposition to say where he or any responsible member of his party at any stage opposed those petitioners. When did he ever tell UN that they should not listen to the lies of Michael Scott and his associates? On not a single occasion has he done so. and on not a single occasion has he opposed those petitioners. The Oppositions plays along with those people. The Leader of the Opposition is regarded as a responsible man, but instead of telling UN, “Do not listen to Michael Scott, because he knows nothing about South Africa and conditions here”, instead of saying, “Do not listen to those other petitioners because what they say is not true”, the Leader of the Opposition acts here as the apologist for those petitioners. No, the channels of the Government must now be made available to them.

Then the Leader of the Opposition says that we are now isolated in two respects. We are isolated as the result of the policy of the present Government. I want to ask him whether we are in any way more isolated than Portugal is, Portugal which follows precisely the opposite policy from ours? I ask him whether we are any more isolated than Rhodesia is, which follows precisely the opposite policy from ours? In Rhodesia one does not find an Opposition which continually supports the enemies of the country and which acts as the apologist for the agitators against our country.

And then the Leader of the Opposition comes along with this further bit of irresponsibility in wanting the Prime Minister to make contact with the African States, and he blames the Prime Minister for the fact that there is not a better relationship between us and the African States. Is he not ashamed of himself? Why does he not blame Nkrumah for it, Nkrumah who boycotted us? Why does he not blame Nehru who, whilst we were willing to have his representatives in South Africa, recalled that representative and sent back our representative there? Why does he blame the Prime Minister for this? The Leader of the Opposition recently said at Florida that his chances of coming into power have never been better than they are now. Now I want to take him at his word for a moment, and I want to assume that he comes into power to-morrow, and then I want to challenge him. He asks that there should be better relations with the African States. When he gets up to speak again, if he still has the courage to continue further with the foolish statements he made here, let him then tell us, or let the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), that old prophet of doom, tell us …

The hon. member must withdraw the word “foolishness” (sotterny).

I withdraw it with the greatest pleasure, Sir, and I say “the greatest stupidity”. But he now alleges that he has a chance to get into power, and I want to ask him to get up and to tell us whether he, if he gets into power, will immediately enter into diplomatic relations with Ghana, with Ethiopia, with Liberia and with Nigeria? He cannot accuse this Government of not entering into diplomatic relations with these countries which without exception and without any provocation on the side of South Africa and of this Government, broke off diplomatic relations with us. May I remind the Leader of the Opposition that there was a standing invitation to our Minister of External Affairs, Mr. Eric Louw, to visit Ghana, and that invitation was withdrawn in the most discourteous manner. Merely in order to hurt our Minister of External Affairs Dr. Nkrumah said he was cancelling the invitation. Has there ever been a word of condemnation in that regard by the Leader of the Opposition? No, we must crawl on our knees and tell Nkrumah: “Please, may we send a deputation to your country?” after our Minister of External Affairs was insulted in this way. That shows how irresponsible the Leader of the Opposition is. And then he says it is our policy which does us so much harm economically on the Continent of Africa. He says that we are losing business worth millions of rand. But who started the boycotts against us? The Leader of the Opposition should stop talking about economic matters. He knows much less about it than his younger brother. He says it was due to our economic policy. But what has the Lombard Bank now decided to do? To withdraw every penny it has invested on the Continent of Africa. [Time limit.]

I think the hon. the Prime Minister will agree with me that it is a bit early in this debate for comic relief to be introduced into it. I am sorry for the hon. the Prime Minister, because apparently the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) does not trust his Prime Minister to reply to the questions put to him by the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition made a plea this afternoon that these matters which affect not only hon. members opposite, but every person in this House and every person in the country, should be discussed in a serious manner, and he expressed the hope that the particular issue of South West Africa if it was to be discussed, should be discussed on a non-party basis. The hon. member for Vereeniging does not seem to think much of the idea. But the key to my Leader’s remarks was the isolation in which South Africa finds itself at the present time. The hon. the Prime Minister has sought to minimize that question of isolation, and I must say I do find it alarming to see such apparent complacency in regard to the situation in which we are placed at the present moment. The hon. the Prime Minister in minimizing the question of isolation, depended on two things. First of all he relies on our anticommunist views and our strategic position to secure our position in the event of a hot war. I think there is a good deal in that argument, but at the same time as an argument in respect of the broader questions, its value may have been exaggerated. In the second place he denies that we are isolated, except in the matter of race policies. He told us on a previous occasion during this Session that in respect of our colour policies in isolation lies our strength. I have thought over that phrase and I cannot see what he means by it.

He did not say that.

He did say “in isolation lies our strength”.

He quoted. You are not giving the whole story.

I said “in regard to our colour policy”.

Yes, “in regard to our colour policy, our strength lies in isolation”. I say that I cannot see the force of that argument. If we were geographically or even economically isolated, well away from the rest of the world, there might be something in the argument, but unfortunately we are not—we are part of a very much integrated world today, a world that is becoming more integrated politically and economically every year that passes, and I say that I do not believe that isolation in any aspect of our national life, from influences throughout the rest of the world, can be anything but a source of weakness. But, Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister having pointed out that in respect of our colour policy there is possibly isolation, went on to say that in most spheres of our life “we are popular partners and friends in the community of nations”. One asks: If that is the case that we are popular partners and friends, why are we politically and economically barred from the rest of the Continent of Africa and from most of Asia? Why are we apparently in great danger of being barred from international sport, almost every aspect of it? Moreover, I think the hon. the Prime Minister will agree and will concede that this vexed question of South West Africa has been further complicated by the fact that we are isolated from the rest of the world. The hon. the Prime Minister argues that race policies can be kept quite separate from other spheres of life. Is that true? Does not the very fact that in every sphere of our national life, every aspect of our national life vis-à-vis the rest of the world to-day, this question of colour policy overlays and colours the whole of the attitude of the rest of the world towards us, gainsay that argument? The Prime Minister went on to say that apart from our different colour policies, on which we do differ, we are great friends, great friends with the United Kingdom and various other countries. He said that was just as true in the case of the United States. Well, let us take the United States. What does the United States say about us? In addressing the Community of Nations, to which presumably the Prime Minister referred as good partners and friends, only five or six months ago, the senior representative of the United States on the political committee at New York made a long statement on the subject of South Africa. I do not proposed to read it, but to quote one or two passages to give an idea of what the argument is. He said—

Whilst those discussions were private of course, nothing could be said about them, but now that public reference has been made to them, I think we are entitled to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether such approaches were in fact made, what were they, and what reply, if any, did our Government make to them? Speaking on behalf of the United States Government and people he went on to say—

Do you agree with that?

I am not discussing my view. What I am trying to get into the apparently rather dull skulls of hon. members opposite is what the official view of the United States is at present time in regard to this country.

If you don’t agree with those views, why quote them?

The statement goes on—

Finally, he says—

This is quite a long report, but it does indicate very clearly what the views of the United States Government are, these great friends of ours to whom the Prime Minister referred. [Time limit.]

I have been listening to the hon. member and particularly noted that when he was asked what his standpoint was he said, “I am not expressing my views”. That is the trouble with this Parliament. Everything wrong said about South Africa abroad is repeated to us by the Opposition, but we never get them to adopt a standpoint on any matter. This afternoon the hon. member and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made certain suggestions in regard to our relations to the outside world, but I think the very least we can expect from them is that they should give us a single example of what we should do which has not yet been done. To tell the truth, I think that if there is one party which is a danger to the diplomatic relations of South, it is the United Party. And, you know, Sir, they are becoming a danger to all of us in regard to our relations with Britain, because as we heard again yesterday, if the United Party nowadays wants to vilify the National Party, it compares us with Britain and says we are doing what Britain is doing in Kenya. That is now the swear-word hurled at the National Party. But in contrast with what the hon. member has said in regard to South Africa’s isolation, I want to say this: We have been hearing this story about isolation since this Government came into power. Day after day we hear that South Africa is so isolated. Now I want to state as a fact that in regard to the diplomatic relations South Africa has never been in closer contact with the world than it is to-day. We are less isolated than ever before. The isolation to which the United Party refers is the standpoint adopted by other countries in regard to our colour policy. But in regard to all other relations, the relationship of South Africa vis-à-vis other countries is just as good and even better than it ever was before. Our relations with the outside world in respect of economic affairs, South Africa’s trade with the outside world, has never been on such a high level before. Now hon. members will say that this is not the case in regard to the African states. But now I ask where any country has acted more responsibly in regard to any matter than South Africa has acted in regard to this matter? Boycotts are launched against South Africa at UNO, particularly by African states. What does South Africa do? As a responsible country, South Africa has not launched a boycott against any of those countries, nor will we do so. That is the difference between a responsible state and some of the young states which have now been established. South Africa has handled its foreign relations honourably, and in the past it earned high regard as the result. I have referred to economic affairs. Let us take another matter. In regard to our foreign relations, South Africa has given increased status to our representation in certain other countries by opening embassies. Let us pause for a moment to deal with the diplomatic history of South Africa since this Government ha been in power. The Nationalist Government has always earned the greatest praise and honour on every great occasion in our diplomatic history. In 1949 when the matter of India becoming a republic was discussed the late Dr. D. F. Malan played an honourable and great role on behalf of our Government. When negotiations were in progress in regard to Simonstown, South Africa handled the matter, as all hon. members must admit, in an honourable and responsible manner. Our relations to-day with the U.S.A. and Britain in respect of defence are on the highest and soundest level possible. There is absolute co-operation and we see it every day. Where does the hon. member get the idea that we are isolated?

He is isolated.

Not only are those hon. members isolated, but their party is becoming a fossil. But let us leave the matter there. Our relations with all the Western countries, including Britain, are excellent. Take, e.g., the handling by the hon. the Prime Minister of our withdrawal from the Commonwealth. Where in the world is there a nation and a Prime Minister which could have handled it more honourably than our Prime Minister did? After three days of consultations our Prime Minister did not walk out. He has told us that he went to the Prime Minister of Britain and said to him: Do you now see the matter as I do? I do not want to cause you embarrassment, and therefore I am withdrawing our application. Britain was not embarrassed.

Sneering references have been made to the Budget now before us. This Budget does not provide only for our internal safety. The Prime Minister has quite clearly said, and has informed the world, that if trouble arises with Communism, the world will know that South Africa by means of this Budget is preparing itself to play its part. Let us take our actions at UN. South Africa conducted herself honourably in the Korean episode. Coming to membership fees, if there is one country which can be relied upon, it is South Africa. When it came to paying for the Katanga episode, there were many countries which said they would pay but did not pay. What did South Africa do? She stood up like a man and honourably gave notice that she was considering the matter, and that perhaps she would not pay part of the expenses, and later on she said definitely that she would not contribute towards the costs. Let me mention another matter, our relations here in Africa. The Leader of the Opposition referred to the C.C.T.A., South Africa. South Africa contributed more than its share right up to the end. We have left it, not because we wanted to, but as the result of their actions. Now I put this simple question to the Leader of the Opposition. When he talks about diplomatic relations and returning to certain of these organizations, let him not give me five or ten or 20 examples, but let him tell me what his policy is, the advice he wants to give to the Prime Minister. With which countries must we have diplomatic relations? Mention just one. Must we do so with Ghana? Must we do so with Nigeria? The Leader of the Opposition referred to the rumours of a possible visit by the Prime Minister of Nigeria, Balewa. Is it his advice to the Prime Minister that we should extend an invitation to the Prime Minister of Nigeria to visit South Africa? Then the United Party would be adopting a standpoint.

What is your standpoint?

I shall clearly state my standpoint. The hon. the Prime Minister will, on behalf of the Government, say what we will do, but just let me remind hon. members of the circumstances. We have no diplomatic relations with Nigeria, and secondly, it is to us an unheard of thing in the Western world for a man publicly to state that he would like to be invited to visit another country. In the third place, Nigeria is one of those countries which not only launched a boycott against South Africa at UN, but actually applies a boycott against us at present. Now I have the statements of the Prime Minister of Nigeria here, and I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition whether it would be unreasonable of us to say no, we cannot invite such a person. Commenting on reports that he was invited to visit the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland and South Africa, Balewa said the following—

Nigeria also said at UN that South Africa should adapt itself to changed circumstances or else find ships to emigrate elsewhere. Does the United Party want such a guest in South Africa? Let the Leader of the Opposition mention a single African State in regard to which his party will go out of its way to have diplomatic relations. [Time limit.]

Just over two years ago, Mr. Casey, Australia’s Minister of External Affairs, said in a speech on Australia and her neighbours—

I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. the Prime Minister agrees that statement could be made by him with the substitution of the word “African” for the word “Asian”. In other words, we have to develop policies which take full account of our desire to maintain friendly relations with our African neighbours, and as the hon. the Prime Minister is at present the supreme arbiter of our destinies it is his duty to tell the country what his policies are towards our African neighbouring states. The hon. the Prime Minister must surely admit that all avenues must be explored to bring the African States onto a reasonably friendly basis. If they are reasonably friendly with us, there can be no question of our being left in the lurch by the Western nations. Surely with so much at stake, everything must be done at least to temper their enmity towards us. These new states have many problems of their own, and they will take many, many years to settle down to the new way of life they are going to reach through much travail. They are united at present only in their hatred of us. The Prime Minister and I have different views as to the cause of this enmity, but we both know that it exists. The hon. the Prime Minister cannot sit back and wait for things to develop. That way lies eventual destruction for us all. We are spending R120,000,000 on Defence this year, apart from globular sums on the police. Will the hon. the Prime Minister, I wonder, please tell me later whether he does not think that every possible avenue should be explored therefore to brighten our relations with the new African States, because that would reduce the expenditure that is necessary at present? Practically nothing has been done to establish any kind of reasonable relationship with these states at all. In 1960 the Minister of External Affairs admitted that the only contact with the North at ministerial level had been that the Minister of Defence landed at Ghana for an hour or two and was shown around. He said further “our relations with Ghana are good, our relations with all African States are good”. There must have been a very quick deterioration! This is what he said too—

And that was the sum total of consultation at ministerial level at that date. There has been nothing since. We have given the states to the north of us considerable technical advice and help. A very great deal has been given by our Government Departments. Every day now this help is being spurned. They refuse it. Relations grow worse and worse and dangers grow greater and greater. We all know it.

I should like to tell the House what Australia is doing under similar geographical circumstances. To the date of Mr. Casey’s speech they had contributed £30.7 million to the Colombo plan; 6,500 Asian students were at Australian universities; 830 Asian students were given Government scholarships to attend universities; there were 500 technical trainees which number was increased later to 1,000; 340 Australian advisers were seconded to Asian governments. And Australian and Asian Ministers were continually paying reciprocal visits to each other. Under this Prime Minister’s policy few of these things can be done by South Africa. Even the thought in those days that we could not afford to provide money to help these new emerging states in Africa must have disappeared to-day in view of the enormous sums we have to find for our own defence.

I want to know and the country wants to know from the Prime Minister how he intends to tackle this question of our relations with the people to our north. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has failed completely, he has failed completely even to break the ice. He had to fail under the Prime Minister’s policies. He cannot offer scholarships to Africans; he cannot offer technical training to Africans; he cannot offer funds to help. We can offer technical advice but this is now refused by those states. Words only cannot bring friendship, Mr. Chairman. We have got to reduce the enmity of these people. I hope the Prime Minister will tell us what action he proposes to take in order to break down some of this enmity. High defence costs, loss of markets, loss of free movement, loss of all friends are too high a price to pay for the policy of this Government. If the Prime Minister feels that a storm is inevitable please let him tell us. We have faced storms before—on this side anyway—and if another storm comes we will face it again.

All the speeches of hon. members opposite have thus far had a single theme—we must do something to gain the friendship of the African states! But not a single one of them could tell us what to do. Not one of them is prepared to tell us what we should do. They are the Opposition. Our policy is well known throughout Africa and the world. Our Government has stood on that policy for 13 years, and it has obtained increasing support from the people of South Africa. Hon. members opposite have hitherto not been able to formulate any policy, and it is no wonder that the people of South Africa are abandoning them increasingly.

We heard from the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson)—I assume that he is a responsible member of the Opposition; I accept that in all seriousness—that we should deal seriously with serious matters. Those were his words. I quite agree with him. But did he do so? He got up here to say a few odd words to cover the nakedness of his leader, and then he sat down again. What do they want us to do? I now direct myself to the Leader of the Opposition. What must we do to satisfy the demands of the nations in Africa? I just want to ask him a few questions. Does he want us to betray our past?

He only asks questions.

Yes, I know he only asks questions. But is he prepared to betray his past? Does he want South Africa to betray her glorious past? Does he want to betray the present, or is he prepared now to abandon the future? I would like to put these three questions to him: what must we change and what must we expunge from our past? What must we change in our present, and what must we envisage for the future in order to gain the goodwill of the world vis-à-vis South Africa? I think the Leader of the Opposition ought to devote his serious attention to this. He continually asked us: Let the Prime Minister get up and tell us what his plans are. But that is already well known. The whole world is attacking us on the basis of those plans, and the Opposition also.

Tell us what your plans are.

If you do not know, are you then attacking us because of a chimera? Why are you attacking us if there is no plan? If there is no plan you are simply attacking us merely in order to attack, and unfortunately that is just what you have been doing for the past 13 years. There is no alternative plan—none at all. The Govrenment has simply been reviled and attacked.

But there are other matters. If the Opposition should land in the impossible position—I am talking theoretically now because this is pure theory, and they know it as well as I do—but if they should come into power tomorrow, what will they negative of the things this Government has done during the past 13 years? What will hon. members opposite negative? In the past you have opposed everything done by this Government; without your consent, without your co-operation, these things became the law of the land and the practice during the past 13 years, and gradually you supported and accepted every one of the things you opposed. Just think back. We had one general election after another; you opposed everything. Hardly had it become the law of the land when you got up and said you accepted it for the sake of South Africa. If you accepted it for the sake of South Africa, why did you not help us to make it the law of the land? Why create all that disunity and why have these continual quarrels if you are going to accept it in any case? Now I want to predict that you will also accept these things which you now oppose. The day they are put on the statute book, the day they become policy in South Africa, you accept them in the same way that you accepted all the other things in the past.

Like the franchise for the Coloureds for example.

We are not concerned now with a vote here or a vote there. We are concerned with the broad policy, and as we have seen, the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) has already accepted the policy for those areas.

When?

He opposes it now and he goes back to his own area, and he is only too glad that it is so and that this policy is being implemented. He will not get it otherwise and he does not want it otherwise. It is these things that we want to know from hon. members opposite. We are not here to attack the policy of the Government. That policy was laid down by the Prime Minister and it is the policy of the country. But we are waiting, and we have been waiting for 13 years, to get from the Opposition what they propose as a possible alternative policy to the policy being followed to-day, which has become the policy of the country and which is accepted here and also internationally as being our policy. Whether they agree with it or not is not relevant at the moment.

The question of South West Africa has always been a delicate one and a year ago when a formal charge was laid against the Government in the International Court in regard to its political management of the area, it became even more so. You can, therefore, quite understand the embarrassment in which the Government finds itself in respect of this question. Parliament would, however, be failing in its duty if for this reason it did not give its attention to this matter. Had it only been the legal offensive which Abyssinia and Liberia instituted at the International Court against the Government, it may perhaps have been just as well not to discuss it. But alongside that legal offensive is a much wider political offensive, a political offensive which is much more dangerous because it is accompanied by so many wild emotions. That is the political offensive which is being carried on at UNO against the Government and the Government’s racial policy and in which South West Africa is really nothing more than simply a stick with which to beat the Government. This offensive, apart from the legal offensive, is being continued at the same pace and is increasing daily in vehemence and is becoming more systematic and Parliament must go into the question as to whether the Government’s actions are such that the country may feel confident that its interests and the interests of South West Africa will be looked after successfully. Parliament at least always owes this duty to the country and it owes that duty to itself as a Parliament. As a matter of fact, I believe that the greater the crisis the more alert and active should it be, naturally always, we hope, Sir, retaining its own sense of responsibility. If the Government wish to be consistent, they will agree with me wholeheartedly. In the midst of the last war, a war which was of particular interest as far as the future of South West was concerned when the Government was in opposition, they conducted the most far-reaching discussion on the country’s war policy. In one respect the then Opposition exceeded normal custom and regarded it as its duty to seek and to plead for a separate peace with a fighting enemy of South Africa. The country can rest assured: There is nobody, I believe, in the present Opposition who, as far as the question of South West is concerned, will allow any party political nationalism to undermine his broader patriotism to that extent. However, it is inherent in the spirit of the parliamentary system, a system which we ourselves have chosen, that national matters should be discussed in public in a candid manner. To give a well-known example, we found that in the midst of the Suez crisis the British Government showed its reactions voluntarily and immediately and what is more, vehemently as well and the question of the embarrassment of the Government of the day was never used to interfere with Parliament’s rights of discussion or to try to limit them. That is why there should be a full-scale and proper debate regularly and in all circumstances in this Parliament on the question of South West Africa and the Government should be prepared to give an account of its stewardship as best it can.

I also think we should go further. In the difficult and abnormal circumstances which are descending upon us under this Government, a comprehensive parliamentary committee should be brought into being where plans and counterplans can be submitted and discussed more regularly between the Government and the Opposition. After all, South West is the concern not only of the Cabinet or of all six members who represent that territory in this House, but of the whole Parliament.

However, to return to the crux of the matter. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the time has arrived that the country was told clearly that there is every reason to feel worried about the ability of this Government to deal successfully with the problem of South Africa. The Government has had its party political successes in the country. Nobody can quarrel about that. Its main weapon to attain those successes was small apartheid and the various emotions which that so easily stirs up and all the unreasonableness which follow upon that. Internally that has yielded the necessary fruits to the Government party, but externally the country has had to pay a colossal price, namely the total expulsion of South Africa from the friendship of the nations. Every friend we had turned into a public opponent. Every opponent we had turned into an inspired enemy. As recently as last year the Burger of 30 November 1961 still tried to teach the Government by saying—

The advice which the Burger gave was ignored. After that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs returned from UNO and reported and disclosed the final failure of the Government and the absolute impotence of our diplomacy. He said the following to the Press—

Not smaller and weaker, but greater and stronger—

(The Burger, 4 November 1961.) What a message of collapse, what a message of despair and of lack of planning on the part of the Government! The hon. the Minister’s wife returned before he did and reported to the Press as follows—the Burger, 2 December 1961—

Mr. Chairman, what a terrible position for a Government, for his delegates and for a country, to be in! Even the diplomatic channels, the ordinary channels of friendship, are no longer open to our Government. Mr. Chairman, a country’s diplomatic front is its first line of defence. Its military front is its last line of defence. The fact that we are practically daily being called upon by the Govern-to hold ourselves in readiness to go into the trenches stands in direct relationship with the total collapse of its diplomatic front. The Government finds itself in this unfortunate dilemma: In the outside world its position in doomed because the evil lies in this country, and here the Government cannot do what is the most difficult of all tasks to any Government, that is to put right those far-reaching mistakes before the eyes of its own people, which it has made in respect of human relations. In such circumstances no other road remains open to Opposition members than to put the facts before the people and to state its own alternative policy.

In the first place we should not continue to make the mistake of regarding all criticism from outside as malevolent. There are malevolent attacks. There is evil and unfounded criticism but it is not difficult to recognize those. I am convinced that the responsible Western nations do not base their conceptions on these grounds. They at least have their own competent representatives and observers here in South Africa. There is also well-intentioned criticism which is justified and which rests on sound foundations and we can only gain if we take a little more notice of that kind of criticism and put our own house in order as so many of the Government’s own newspapers have already asked it to do. Not for the sake of other people, but for our own sake.

Had the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) still represented a constituency in South West Africa it might have been worth while paying some attention to what he has to say. But had South West Africa treated me the way they treated that hon. member—treatment which he deserved—I would not have let the name of South West Africa pass my lips again. The last occasion on which the hon. member spoke in this House I asked him what interest he still had in South West Africa but I am even more justified to-day in asking him that question. I think it would be more fitting for him to confine himself to his interests in Bezuidenhout than to drag South West Africa into the debate in this House.

I wish to return to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said. I will not go into detail. I do, however, want to tell him that South West Africa will not thank him for having dragged this issue of South West Africa into the debate. I wonder whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition realizes that every word which is uttered here and which will subsequently appear in the newspapers and which will later on invite discussion, is recorded at UNO and will be used against South Africa …

Not against South Africa.

… at the International Court. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition realize that he has now started a ball rolling which will have a snowball effect? Does he realize how many irresponsible people will grasp at this subject and make a great hullabaloo about it and what the result of that will be when this case appears before the International Court? The same questions which the hon. member has asked the Prime Minister were put in South West Africa by his kindred spirit at one election after the other and what did the South West voter think about them? They discarded him completely. Not only have they destroyed him but they have destroyed his party. South West Africa realized that was not the way to serve the interests of South West Africa. They realized that other ways would have to be found. I wish to say this to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that if he were really interested in the welfare of South West Africa it would have behoved him as the leader of the official Opposition Party to have gone to the hon. the Prime Minister, to his office, and to have said to him “Look, let us discuss this matter and let us see what we can do.”

What is the object of Parliament in that case?

Mr. Chairman, the object of Parliament—and if the hon. member as a young member does not know it he should rather remain quiet—and the responsibility of Parliament is that when you are dealing with contentious and delicate matters you do not discuss them across the floor of the House, but that there are other ways in which they can be discussed. I merely wish to say this to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and to everybody opposite, members whom I regard as responsible and who indeed have the interests of South West Africa at heart: Do not let us drag this question into the public or across the floor of the House; let us discuss it in a fitting manner.

To continue with what I was saying earlier on: We must first of all put our own house in order in respect of those things which affect ordinary human relationships. We have those humiliating practices which unnecessarily affect and insult the dignity of people. However, you do get the impression on occasions that the Government is beginning to realize the damage which all these small unnecessary apartheid measures have done to our country—all those demonstrative and provocative small apartheid measures which were introduced during the first wild days of apartheid. I wish to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he does not think the time has arrived for us to remove these unnecessary burdens from our political economy. He need not answer publicly. He can simply do it. I wish to ask him, if he refuses to do so in the four provinces, not to delay doing it as speedily as possible in South West Africa. The fortunate part is that the Government has not as yet gone too far with the introduction of its negative apartheid measures in South West Africa. I am saying that in its favour. Such a morally indefensible measure as job reservation, and other measures with nasty stings in them such as for example the Group Areas Act and race classification, the Government has fortunately consistently kept out of South West Africa. There are members, however, such as the hon. member for Karas (Mr. von Moltke) and my successor at Namib (Mr. Cloete) who did their utmost to have those measures introduced in South West Africa. But very propertly the Government— and I wish to thank the Government for this— has prevented that. The Government has stopped some of its own members in their activities. I wish to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that it will considerably strengthen the future of South West Africa if the Government acted speedily and put an end to those humiliating forms of small apartheid which are practised in public buildings of the country.

In the second I think it is essential that in respect of our general overseas problems and that of South West in particular, we adopted a less tense approach. Perhaps the expression “a more relaxed approach” is more fitting. Mr. Chairman, the Government is making a very big mistake to be always bad tempered and to respond irritably to anybody who looks askance at it. That has no positive value. If others with to do so, good and well, but it does not promote the dignity of South Africa. Least of all does it create an impression of selfconfidence. Whether our hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs will be best able to adopt such a relaxed approach, he will be best able to say. I wish to state that the Minister in question has admirable qualities, but it worries me to read about the unnecessary personal attacks which he sometimes makes on prominent representatives of other countries. He said the following straight out in a newspaper interview about the Netherlands delegation at UNO: “I do not take any notice of them and treat them coolly.”

Where do you get that from?

The Sondagblad of 29 October 1961. That is the newspaper of the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. The Minister said that during an interview which he gave to Mr. Beaumont Schoeman. The hon. the Minister said: “I do not take any notice of them and treat them coolly.” I always think it is a pity when a foreign representative takes the political struggle too much to heart. We deprecate it in others if they do it towards us and I do not think we should adopt the same attitude towards others. The people overseas are after all not against the South African nation. They are against a political system and what we should not forget is that nearly 50 per cent of our own Whites are equally strongly against the Government’s compulsory apartheid policy as a system. One naturally appreciates, Sir, that any foreign representative sometimes finds himself in the position where personal feelings come into play. That is the reason why leading Western countries follow the policy of changing their Ministers from time to time, their Ministers who are charged with the difficult task of foreign affairs or with matters dealing with colonies. We do not have the same flexibility in our Cabinet system and for that reason our Minister, whoever he may be, should try his utmost not to allow his political struggle to develop into a legion of bad friends at the diplomatic front.

The Prime Minister has a tremendous responsibility towards South West Africa. South West Africa is nearest the fire, and not as a result of her own actions. The nation is dispersed in such a way and general circumstances are such that it should really not be so difficult to find a solution to the problem, a solution which will at least satisfy the West. As far as the legal aspect is concerned, we have the strong advisory opinion of the International Court of 1950 to the effect that South Africa is under no legal obligation to hand the Territory over to the guardianship of the UNO. I believe we can create a less tense atmosphere on either side; if we adopted a more relaxed approach in our general attitude towards foreign affairs it should not be impossible to solve this difficult problem of South West Africa. I wonder whether we in South Africa should not set the example and take off our hats and sincerely thank our ambassadors who have hitherto been putting up such a brave fight and nominate a fresh, selected team, a team which is not committed to the old standpoints of the past, a team which is free from the old disputes which have characterized the scene so far and who will then be able to approach the matter afresh and evolve and submit fresh solutions to our problems. And Heaven knows, Mr. Chairman, South West urgently requires that an end be put to the quarrels and that finality be reached as to its future.

Had the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) not referred to me by name, I would still have been able to imagine that he was the hon. member for Namib and that he had the right to talk about South West Africa; had he not referred to me personally I would have ignored both his speeches. However, I wish to state something in his presence and I wish to ask him to deny it if it is not true. He said that we should get rid of all the small, provocative apartheid measures and later on he called it “small apartheid”. I wish to tell the hon. member straight to his face that together with me he voted for every one of those small apartheid laws on the Government side when he was still a member of the National Party.

That is untrue.

He voted for every Act and his vote is on record. As Whip I was the teller. He defended them with me on the platforms at Namib and at Karas and in the Middellands; he cannot deny that.

I deny it.

In that case the hon. member must mention one single apartheid measure which was introduced by the Government when he was a member of the Government, except the last one which was introduced after he had been kicked out and for which he did not vote, because his name is on record. I say he ought to be ashamed of himself to tell such an untruth in this House and that in the presence of people who know it is not true.

May I ask a question? I wish to ask the hon. member whether he was present in Windhoek when I very clearly objected to the head committee of the National Party of South West against the small apartheid measures …

I was present, because I was chairman of the head committee. That was the time when the hon. member objected to one Bill and when he came on to the head committee he objected to all of them and I was the person who asked him why he had voted for all the other small apartheid measures. There are more people in this House who were present at that meeting of the Head Committee. He first of all voted for all the small apartheid measures and then he looked for trouble with the hon. the Prime Minister because the English-language Press had built him up in South Africa as a big giant and now he is sitting there as the small dwarf from Bezuidenhout. He voted for all those laws, but to-day he is talking against them. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is the person who accompanied me on all the platforms throughout South West. He is the person who agreed with me personally that it would be in the interest of South West if the Government— any government, the United Party or the National Party Government—would make the fullest use of its rights under the mandate. He was the hon. member who pleaded with me that our fiscal system should also be incorporated with the Union, but to-day, in an open discussion, he talks about the affairs of South West. What responsibility has the hon. member towards South West after they have dropped him like a hot potato? What responsibility has he ever had towards South West? He has never yet done anything else in South West but to earn money from the United Party and the National Party and when both those little fountains had dried up, he packed his little bags and received a constituency from the United Party in Bezuidenhout as a present. [Interjections.] I wish to ask the hon. member this: According to his standards Rhodesia has not small apartheid.

It has.

Oh, he says Rhodesia does have small apartheid. Has Portugal, who grants equal rights to all assimilados small apartheid? All Natives who attain a certain standard of education are treated as assimilados. I have had some of them working for me and I have read their certificates. There is no colour bar. Portugal is as isolated as South Africa. What does he suggest? Does he wish us to go down on our knees, or should we go and lie down in Bezuidenhout like he is doing? No, I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout would do well, after his chequered political career—yes, he is the person who said at Oranjemund that he did not want the English votes, but to-day he is crawling to the English Press for a little bit of publicity, and he is also getting it.

[Inaudible.]

On a point of order, is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout allowed to say “That is one of your Grey Shirt lies”?

Will the hon. member withdraw that?

I withdraw the word “Grey Shirt”.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it and say it is an untruth.

That was published in his own paper when he was deputy organizer of the National Party and he never corrected it. He was assistant secretary to the National Party in South West and that appeared in our newspaper and he never denied it. That was a dangerous thing to say and for the sake of his party he ought to deny it if he never said it. Is it true or is it not true? Mr. Chairman, it is this type of irresponsibility which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout displayed this afternoon which has done South West endless harm. I do not want to go into the merits of South West Africa’s case. I leave that to the Prime Minister or the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I do not wish to talk about it because it is too dangerous for us. I have invested every penny I possess in South West Africa and it will remain there because I realize that South West will stand or fall by the Republic of South Africa, or vice versa. I do not wish to talk about that. To me this is too serious a matter to be thrown to and fro across the floor of this House like a political football, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout obviously wants to do. I say he has very little invested in South West. Perhaps he still has his house there, but the rest of us have all our possessions there and we deprecate the fact that in this House …

All mine are there.

All yours are not there.

Your constituency is not there.

We deprecate the fact that people discard the responsibility which they formerly carried for South Africa for the sake of a constituency in the Republic and that they come here to-day and try to throw such a serious matter as this across the floor of the House like a play ball; as the Leader of the Opposition also did to-day in an utterly irresponsible manner.

I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister in his reply to take the matter of the defence expansion of the country somewhat further than he took it in his speech to the House about a week ago. I want to ask him to clarify the confusion which is being caused by the very widely conflicting statements which are being made with regard to the reasons for this expansion, particularly with regard to the threat of external aggression. Apparently, from the information we have, both from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence, our defences are being expanded to deal mainly with external aggression in some shape or form. I want to have no misunderstanding in regard to the position of the official Opposition in regard to our defence. That was made perfectly clear in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition on 28 March, and that position stands. So there can be no misunderstanding in regard to our position. But I feel that the Prime Minister owes it to the country to give a much clearer statement. In his speech on 29 March the Prime Minister said in regard to the three points on which external danger could threaten us, three points which were raised by the Leader of the Opposition, that he agreed with the Leader of the Opposition that there were three directions from which danger threatened. We then dealt with these three at considerable length, the first being in the event of an anti-communist struggle, probably a world war in which we became involved and in which South Africa would be on the side of the Western powers. After giving a number of reasons and going into the matter in fairly full detail, the Prime Minister said that it was his personal opinion that—

Order! I hope the hon. member will not continue on those lines.

I merely want to give the Prime Minister the background to the questions I am now asking him, because the line taken by the Prime Minister in dealing with the defence of the country was that this depended on three factors and those three factors are vital in regard to the questions I wish to ask. Other than that, I do not propose to deal with it. The second danger the Prime Minister dealt with was an unprovoked aggression by other states who wished to impose their will on South Africa and who were supported financially and otherwise by the communist states. The Prime Minister dealt with that aspect very fully and said it would be irresponsible on our part not to take notice of what was happening in that direction, and he said “that 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”. The Prime Minister went on to say clearly that the preparations proved that we were on our guard, but it was not proof that any immediate emergency could be seen coming. The third statement was the one with regard to international intervention in the affairs of South Africa. Here the Prime Minister said that he did not believe that there was any possibility of international military intervention. The Prime Minister then clearly stated that whilst there was threatening talk he did not accept that there was any danger of any early aggression or military intervention in the affairs of South Africa. This is just a short summary of the salient points in the Prime Minister’s remarks, and I assume that in making those statements the Prime Minister based his views on up-to-date official information available to him and to the Government, and not available to the public or to Parliament. It is only 11 days ago since those statements were made to the House, but on 9 April, addressing the Congress of the Commonwealth Legion of Ex-Servicemen in Muizenberg, the Minister of Defence, whom one assumes has access to the same information as the Prime Minister, made a most important speech and announced not only that the Republic was being placed on what was practically a war footing, but by direct implication, to a great extent contradicted the more optimistic views expressed by the Prime Minister on 29 March. On that occasion the Minister of Defence also largely changed the reasons for which South Africa is re-arming from those that he gave in his Army of Liberation speech in the Other Place a few weeks earlier. You will remember, Sir, that the Minister of Defence has given several of these speeches, the “blood up to the horses’ bits”, the “army of liberation”, and now the “holy war” speeches, and in each of those he changed to a considerable extent the grounds on which defence preparations are being made. In the war of liberation speech he said we were expanding our defence organization to meet the threat of aggression by an army of liberation close outside our borders, the threat which the Prime Minister said that although we must be on our guard against it he did not want the public to begin thinking such attacks were actually on our doorstep. Giving Congress his reasons for the expansion of the armed forces, the Minister of Defence, after summing up the communist policy of infiltration and the cold war, said according to the Cape Argus—

I think everyone can support the idea behind the Minister’s thought, but there again, he is at cross-purposes with the statement made by the Prime Minister in which the latter emphasized that he would not like the public to be driven into a panic and to begin to think that such attacks were on our doorstep. In his speech at Muizenberg the Minister of Defence made the statement that after four years, in 1966, South Africa would have 33 battalions, including 28 A.C.F. battalions and five full-time Permanent Force battalions, which would be kept at full operational strength, in addition to a much expanded Navy and Air Force. Dependent on the numbers on which the Minister based his battalion strength, because they vary considerably in accordance with the type of warfare envisaged, the Minister’s figures reveal that the Republic will have an army of anything between 20,000 and 30,000 fully equipped men maintained at full operational strength. It is normally accepted that to maintain an army in the field at least 12 persons—14 is the usual figure given—have to be behind the army in order to maintain each man in the field. Taking only half this number, not 12 but six, it means that if the Minister’s figures are correct and we will have 33 battalions at full operational strength, the supporting strength inside the Republic will be anything between 120,000 and 180,000 persons who will have to be diverted from their normal occupations in the economy of the country and diverted into some form of maintaining defence. It must be clear to anyone that to justify those figures —and they are really startling figures in peacetime, that in this virtually placing South Africa on a war-time footing both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence must be acting on information regarding the possible dangers to South Africa which is much different from what they dealt with when they made their previous speeches in this House, because there was nothing in those speeches to justify this provision. In view of the grim picture painted by the Minister at Muizenberg, I feel it is essential that the Prime Minister in reply should give us more information on any danger threatening us which calls for this far-reaching expansion. There is the effect of this expansion not only on the security of the nation but on the national economy of the country, the diversion of so many men both to the armed forces and to the supporting services. Every man has to be fully equipped and armed and they have to be maintained in that condition, and although a large number of the men in the A.C.F. will, I assume, be following their normal occupations in the periods between their training periods, they will still be on call all the time, will have to be kept equipped, and kept in training to a much larger extent than hitherto, so there must be a tremendous amount of dislocation in the ordinary life of the country. One accepts that you cannot be prepared to resist an attack and you cannot have an army ready to resist it without having some dislocation in the normal running of the country. But from the figures announced at Muizenberg, figures incidentally which the House has been trying to get from the Minister and his predecessor for a number of years without success, both in regard to the numbers to be under arms and the equipment supplied—it is startling to realize that in time of peace, even with the best intentions and with the utmost desire to support the Minister and his Government in the protection of this country, they are figures which cannot be described as anything else but startling as a peace-time defence force.

I rise to make an appeal to the Opposition. It is no good our closing our eyes to the facts which are looming on the international horizon for South Africa to-day. The Opposition have a very important role to fulfil in this House. We do not begrudge them the opportunity of criticizing the Government, but when it comes to a debate on the external policy of the Government, I think all we can do, as a result of the measure of responsibility which we think the Opposition has, is to make an appeal to them to face up to the facts with which South Africa is confronted to-day.

They blame the policy of this Government. They wish to place the responsibility for the emnity which exists in the world to-day, on the policy of the National Government. It suits the Opposition to forget something which we have repeated time and again, namely that even when the United Nations were differently constituted in 1946 the policy of that party could not satisfy UNO and it could not satisfy the Asiatic nations—at that time there was not as yet a bloc of Afro-Asian nations. To-day the Afro-Asian bloc has developed to such an extent at UNO that even Britain did not have sole say in the recent debate on Rhodesia. If they could not satisfy UNO in 1946 what right have they to-day, where we are conducting a serious debate and discussing serious threats to South Africa, to ignore those facts and to lose sight of them? I make bold to say that there is no party in the country, neither the Opposition nor the Progressive Party, which has a policy which will satisfy UNO and the Afro-Asian nations. Where we must face up to our problems and find solutions for them, why must the Opposition adopt this one-sided attitude which they have adopted to-day? We will never find solutions if we adopt this attitude, and let us be very clear on that. That party, as well as the Progressive Party and this party, every South African, is subject to the same criticism and same condemnation on the part of the world outside, we are all faced with the same challenges and the same enmity. There is not a party here who can contend that his policy offers a solution. That is why I say we cannot learn a better lesson than the one we learnt last week in the case of Rhodesia. I have no axe to grind with the British Government. On the contrary, I wish the British Government could achieve more success with its policy in Rhodesia than it is achieving at the moment, but in spite of all the concessions which are being made they are still having trouble. The Opposition wish us to make concessions, but they know as well as we do that one concession will lead to another and having paid one instalment we will also have to pay the second and the third until the final payment has been made and that is absolute equality. That party is not prepared to do that, neither are the Progressives; why must we argue on this basis?

I now come to the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay). For years, through the hon. member for Simonstown, the Opposition has been pleading with us to expand our defence force. At the beginning of the 1950s we were preparing ourselves for another eventuality. We were then preparing ourselves to bring a task force into being, a force which would fight on the side of the West in the case of a war between the East and the West. At that time the Opposition was anxious for us to expand our forces and to spend more money. Must we take it to-day, Sir, that because the position has changed in the world and because we are preparing ourselves for another eventuality, they are no longer as anxious as they were that we should embark upon that expansion and spend that money? We are told that we are to-day more isolated than ever before, but let me state this fact. If we were to fight on the side of the West in any war, South Africa will not be isolated; in that case South Africa will be standing on the side of the West and whether we are inside or outside the Commonwealth, the West will welcome us as before. In other words, the fact that we have withdrawn from the Commonwealth has not made us more isolated in this respect. If we had to face a possible threat by an African State, a local war between one or other state in Africa and South Africa, I do not believe that had we remained a member of the Commonwealth Britain or any other country would have acted on our behalf. Britain would not have been willing to run the risk of inviting the odium of the non-Whites in Africa on to her head for the sake of South Africa, because they are courting the friendship of the non-Whites in Africa. Whether we are inside or outside the Commonwealth, we are also no more isolated in this respect. Hon. members plead that we should try to enter into alliances. I merely want to know this from them: Will any country in the world not be more prepared to enter into an agreement with a strong nation than to enter into an agreement with a weak nation which cannot defend itself and which will only be a burden on its shoulders? When a nation is strong and capable of defending itself, that is the nation which seeks other nations with whom to enter into agreements. If we have to look for agreements and defence alliances, that is the very reason why we should strengthen ourselves in order to be able to do so. There is no doubt about it, as the hon. the Minister of Finance has said, we are expanding our defence force to serve as an insurance policy. The West is to-day spending greater and greater sums of money; even this year America has placed a larger defence vote on her Statute Book; Britain is in the process of placing a larger defence vote on her Statute Book, Rhodesia is doing the same thing. Why? Because each one wishes to have a deterrent to aggression. And where we are also trying to-day to expand South Africa’s defence force as a deterrent to aggression, we are pleased to note that in some respects the Opposition is supporting us. They supported us when we passed the legislation last year but now that the law is being applied, now that we are training 10,000 men per annum, they want to know from us what aggression is on our threshold. When we passed that legislation last year the Opposition supported us. That is why I want to make this plea to the Opposition this afternoon. [Time limit.]

I just want to deal with some of the remarks that the hon. member who has just sat down gave vent to. I was very glad that he adopted the tone he did.

On a point of order, when the hon. member stood up he said, “Meneer die Voorsitter”. Is he not obliged to continue his speech in Afrikaans?

I am very pleased that the hon. member adopted the attitude which he did adopt.

On a point of order, surely if an hon. member gets up and says “Meneer die Voorsitter” or “Mr. Chairman” it is not part of his speech. Is he not just drawing your attention to the fact that he wants to speak?

I am quite prepared to continue further in Afrikaans. After the hon. members for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) and Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) have had to put up a smoke screen to evade the difficult but nevertheless absolutely reasonable questions put by this side of the House, we have had a constructive contribution by the hon. member who has just sat down. I want to devote a little more time to it than I perhaps should. In the first place I wish to say at once that, were he has asked us to face up to the facts, we have indeed asked what the Government’s plans were in respect of the future of South West Africa and in respect of our own relationship with Africa. Those are the very facts which we are asking the Government to bear in mind; and then we are asked what our replies are to those questions. I wish to suggest immediately that not one of the hon. members who has spoken so far really had a great deal to say under this Vote. I wish to say that we on this side of the House have been at the helm during many difficult times in South Africa. We had the answers at that time. And when we handed over to hon. members opposite, our name was held in as high esteem as at any time in the history of South Africa.

I also wish to reply briefly to the point raised in regard to Rhodesia because that has often been raised by hon. members opposite. There is a vast difference between our position and that of Rhodesia. In their case the British Government is in a position to force a constitution on to the two northern states of the Federation and that is the very thing which is causing the difficulty there because the Government of Southern Rhodesia have said that they were not prepared to remain within the Federation if the two northern states were to fall into the hands of the Black man. That is exactly the difficulty. In respect of their position at UNO they are in a much stronger position than we are. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) said in his reply to the hon. the Prime Minister that when a vote was taken at UNO the voting was approximately 56 against 22 and I fervently wish that had been the position in the case of South Africa.

I may be able during the course of my speech to say a few words in connection with the Commonwealth, because that is the part of my speech which I should like to make. Where my hon. Leader and other members on this side have asked questions in regard to the future I should like to devote some time to a certain policy of the Government for which we have paid very dearly. I refer to the policy of the Government to withdraw from the Commonwealth. It is exactly a year ago that step was taken and I think that the results of that step have been much more serious than we on this side warned. I want to say at once that it is no use crying over spilt milk; we definitely wish to do our utmost to save what we can save and to do what we can do. I suggest that a great deal remains to be done, especially if we can have a change of government, but I think it is important that the electorate should know for what they have paid so dearly and who is really responsible for it.

Let me just deal briefly with our economic position. Immediately after our withdrawal from the Commonwealth there was a flight of capital from the country, a fact which we regretted but it resulted in the fact that shortly afterwards we had to place a prohibition on the export of foreign capital, a step which no Government in the history of South Africa ever had to resort to in the past.

And the share market rose immediately.

We are a strong country in the economic sphere and in other respects. Never before has it been necessary to take this step and it is still necessary to-day to retain this prohibition. I was pleased that the hon. the Minister of Finance was able to announce that our reserves had risen, but where he suggested that proved how good they were, we wish to remind him immediately of the fact that this prohibition is still in force, and no reasonable comparison can therefore be drawn. It is difficult to say what effects this prohibition has had on our economic life. I definitely think that it has led to unemployment, something which we should not have had. Nor was the Government in a position to increase wages whereas they should have done so. I suggest that the tragedy of South Africa is that we do not know what we have missed as far as progress and prosperity are concerned as a result of the Government we have.

I now wish to deal with the international front, seeing that the hon. member who has just sat down spoke about our withdrawal from the Commonwealth. As far as the international position is concerned, we think that we are in a much weaker position to-day than we were in the past. It is very possible that this question of action against South Africa may sooner or later come up before the Security Council.

What was our position in 1946?

Nobody can convince me that countries like Britain, Britain especially, will adopt the same friendly attitude towards us there which she would have adopted had we remained a member of that family circle. I admit that the attitude which countries are adopting towards us is a marginal question. Where the hon. member has referred to 1946 I wish to say that the voting against us at UNO at that time was not at all what it is to-day.

I also wish to add that it is very important to note that now that we have withdrawn from the Commonwealth our expenditure on defence has soared sky-high. Why? Hon. members opposite could not mention any new dangers which they could not have foreseen earlier. They did not mention any new dangers. In other words, they must have realized that we were in a much weaker position to-day in respect of the old dangers than we were previously, and that can quite easily be due to the fact that we have withdrawn from the Commonwealth. I just want to say this that where we talk about other shortcomings as far as defence is concerned, the hon. the Minister of Defence said the following a short while ago in the Senate—

We can mention one thing after another in respect of which we have been adversely affected as a result of our withdrawal from the Commonwealth. The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs mentioned some of the disadvantages when he made his statement in February of this year. The same conclusion can also be drawn from the fact that recently it was stated in the British House of Commons that there were 40 Acts under which we formerly enjoyed benefits, benefits which we will no longer enjoy. I refer to our citizens, etc. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) tried to launch an attack on three or four fronts. Let me first make a remark in regard to Defence. It is quite clear that the Opposition is only now recovering from the shock they received when the hon. the Minister of Finance made his Budget speech, because the main point in that Budget was that we were spending R120,000,000 on Defence and only had to find R35,000,000 by way of extra taxation. That was a shock which the hon. member suffered, and now he makes this speech here which he should really have made some days ago during the Budget debate. He is a little behindhand. I want to suggest to him that he should discuss the matter again under the Defence Vote, where it belongs.

Then it surprises me that the hon. member blames the hon. the Prime Minister and this side of the House for the fact that we have left the Commonwealth. We ourselves left the Commonwealth and he should not say to-day that by doing so we did something we should not have done. I just want to quote to him what the Prime Minister of Australia said. Mr. Menzies said that if he had been in the position of our Prime Minister, he would have done precisely the same thing. But that is what we have from the Opposition. Whenever there is an opportunity to be unpatriotic, they are the first to make use of it. That is also what this debate to-day reveals. Against the background of the cold war we have the situation that pressure is being exerted on us from abroad. Some exert pressure on us from abroad to change our policy because they cannot tolerate our presence in the southern part of Africa, because they have communist tendencies; others again because they want to use Africa as a place to unload their emigrants; others again have different reasons, but in any case they have common ground for attacking the Government of the Republic of South Africa. The method of attack is by applying pressure from abroad; the one organizes a boycott, the other initiates litigation in the International Court of Law and the other tries to initiate a case at UN, but everything is calculated to exert pressure on us from abroad.

When one reads the foreign newspapers, one finds that during the last year there has been a new trend in the reports emanating from South Africa in the foreign Press, namely that the people there are being praised for the pressure they are exerting on us. It takes the form that they are praised for exerting this pressure, which results in encouragement to them to increase the pressure and to make further trouble. What the Opposition is doing here to-day is nothing else but inviting that pressure from abroad still further. That is the light in which we should regard the nonsensical questions put by the Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister: What will he do if we lose the case; what will he do if we win the case? It does not matter what replies the Government gives to those two questions. If it were to give a reply it would simply be creating two further fronts on which pressure can be exerted on us. And that is what the Leader of the Opposition wants. Whenever the Opposition gets an opportunity to say or to do something unpatriotic, it does so, and that is the whole reason for the attack here. Hon. members opposite asked why the Prime Minister does not reply himself; why he leaves it to us to speak in this debate. Let us just see how nonsensical the questions are which were put by the Leader of the Opposition. No person concerned in a lawsuit—and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has surely appeared in court at least once—will surely tell the Opposition what he is going to do. Surely a litigant is not so stupid as to tell his opponent what he will do, or to tell the outside world: Whatever the Court does, I will give a reply to it now. It is madness to put such a question. But let us go further.

On a point of order, I do not feel that it is parliamentary language for the hon. member to say that what was said by the Leader of the Opposition is a form of madness.

Let us just analyse the questions put by the Leader of the Opposition. We behaved correctly by not commenting whilst the case was sub judice.

Order! If the hon. member used that word, he should withdraw it.

On a point of order, if the word “madness” is allowed, surely it is in order to use the word “paranoiac”.

Order! I shall deal with the hon. member myself. I have ruled that he should withdraw the word “madness” (kranksinnigheid).

I withdraw it. Sir, let us now analyse the nonsensical questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition. We behaved very correctly by saying that immediately the case is discussed in the Court we will not comment on it. That is a rule in all civilized countries. By asking that question, the Leader of the Opposition creates the impression that he disapproves of us behaving so correctly. Does he want to side with those uncivilized people who deny the existence of all international law? Then we must be living in a mad world when, our own people in this country co-operate with people who no longer recognize international law. And then we find a person like the hon. member sitting next to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), who blames the Minister of External Affairs for standing on a law point when we refuse to submit reports to UN. So also the Leader of the Opposition. He asks why we did not report because in fact there were reports and petitions. But does he not realize that in international law the position is the same as in any other section of the law, namely that when one makes an admission, when one agrees to something, one is held to it, when one says A one must also say B, and that one will be blamed if one has said A and then refuses to say B.

One will also have to say Z.

Yes one will have to continue up to Z. And when we have the law on our side it does not behove the Opposition to blame us for appealing to the law. But it is just the same old thing over again, and quite in line with the nature and character of the Opposition. When they get an opportunity to attack this side and to give ammunition to people abroad to exercise more pressure on us, they fall over each other to make use of that opportunity. I think that is a shame and I am sorry that I am not allowed to use the word “madness”.

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to play the fool with the Chair in this way and to repeat the word which you, Sir, ordered him to withdraw?

I do not want to follow the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) in his remarks about the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, although I will have something to say about that at a later stage when I discuss the question of South West Africa, because I certainly do think that we have made many mistakes in regard to our behaviour at UN and in dealing generally with the whole question of South West Africa.

But I want to come back to the question of our relations with the rest of Africa and the outside world at the present stage. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) exemplified a common tendency amongst members on the Government side when they talk about the relations of South Africa with the rest of the world. This tendency is to lump the entire outside world in a solid phalanx of enemies against this country. Sir, that is not so at all. There is a considerable distinction between what the Western world demands of this country and what, for instance, the Afro-Asian group demands of this country. There are differences even within that group itself and there are differences too between what the Afro-Asian nations and communist Russia demand of South Africa. It is a common fallacy for Government members always to say that complete and utter capitulation is demanded of this country as far as its racial policies are concerned. That is certainly not the case as far as the Western world is concerned. The Western world has consistently demanded that this country should turn its face against the direction of racial discrimination. It does not demand that the Whites in South Africa should hand South Africa over to a Black Government. That is quite different from the demands that hon. members say are being made on South Africa by the rest of the world.

What about Rhodesia?

Obviously the policies of Rhodesia may be open to objection and they may be criticized, but nevertheless none of the Western countries, at any rate, have demanded the complete abdication of the Whites in Southern Rhodesia, nor have they demanded that everything that is asked by the Blacks in Rhodesia be granted. [Interjection.] I do not know. It was never demanded by Great Britain of this country and it was never demanded at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference.

The point that I want to make is this, that even amongst the Afro-Asian group itself there is no complete consistency of thought. Everybody objects to our racial policies—that is perfectly true—but Africa is not one solid group; the independent nations are not grouped together in one solid group. If hon. members would study what is happening on the Continent of Africa a little more closely, they would see that there is a very sharp division. There is a division of interests between what is known as the Casablanca group of African states and the Monrovian group of African states, and the latter are, of course, much more benign in their attitude towards this country than the Casablancan states, which stands for direct intervention. The Monrovian group of states are not for direct intervention at all. They object to our racial policies but they are not nearly as extreme in their attitude towards this country as the Casablancan group. Hon. members must also realize that the Afro-Asian group must not be identified with the communist group. If they would study the voting at the United Nations they would see that there are many occasions when the Afro-Asian group votes solidly against the Soviet bloc, and therefore hon. members should not simply, as is the tendency on that part of the House, always link together the Afro-Asian and the communist bloc. They do it consistently and it is incorrect. Hon. members opposite should know a little bit more about international affairs before they commit these major diplomatic blunders, which they are constantly committing.

What are the demands of the Casablanca group?

I am not saying that we must give in to the demands of these different groups. I say that there is a tendency to assume that the same demands come from everybody in the outside world, and they do not. That is why I say that there is room for manoeuvre for this country, and its whole diplomatic attitude should change. It is absurd to play tit-for-tat diplomacy in these difficult times. Where there is room for manoeuvre we should use that to our advantage and we should manoeuvre. I would take the case of the Nigerian Prime Minister as an example. I say that I believe that we should invite Balewa to visit this country. He is the head of one of the most moderate of the independent African states, and it is a very powerful state, containing some 35,000,000 to 40,000,000 people. It is the largest of the independent states and it is one of the most moderate. It is true, as hon. members have pointed out, that there is a boycott in Nigeria against this country. It is also true, for instance, that Nigeria refused a visa to a South African doctor to attend an international conference, but nevertheless gestures have been made in the past by this Government and gestures are being made now. As I have said earlier, it is absurd for this country to isolate itself further by this type of childish tit-for-tat diplomacy. We should be looking for friends, and if the Prime Minister of Nigeria, the largest of the independent African states and belonging to the Monrovian group, which is much more favourably disposed towards this country than the Casablanca group is, wants to visit South Africa, I think it would be sensible for us to invite him here and to show him the many advantages that the Government is always claiming it has given to the non-Whites of this country, and perhaps in some way it will soften his attitude towards this country.

Why do you not suggest that he should stop his boycott?

I think that will be a sensible thing for this country to do as far as Balewa is concerned.

Now I want to say something about the economic aspect of the isolation into which we have gradually fallen. I wonder if hon. members opposite know what is happening in the other states of Africa. Do they know, for instance, that it is estimated that something like £2,800,000,000 worth of goods are taken by the independent African states from Europe, in imports at the present stage? It is estimated that the African market will probably double itself within the next ten years.

But our exports to Africa have increased.

Our exports to Africa are going to suffer a severe loss as the result of severe boycotts which are now being instituted against this country. We are completely and utterly losing our advantage as the industrial hub of the African Continent.

Why did the Lombard Bank leave Africa?

This country is doing itself a grave disservice by not looking for markets in the rest of Africa. At the present stage our diplomatic and consular and trade representation in the rest of Africa is scandalously small. I asked the hon. the Minister of External Affairs this Session—

The answer was that we are represented by a High Commissioner in the Federation and a Consul-General in Kenya, Mozambique and Angola, and that is the total scope of the diplomatic and trade representation in the rest of Africa. I say that this country which should be the industrial hub of Africa, which should be looking for markets and looking for friends is doing itself a grave disservice by childish tit-for-tat diplomacy in not inviting representatives of other countries to visit us and, secondly, in not broadening our representation in the rest of Africa. Sir, we have seen other nations practise the same sort of isolationist tactics; we have seen other nations embarking upon a sort of defiance campaign in Africa, and in each case it has led to grave repercussions. South Africa cannot simply proudly talk about isolation, spend money on defence, increase its army and its police force and hope thereby to insulate itself from the whole tide of events in the rest of the African Continent. I say quite emphatically that the hon. the Prime Minister will be doing this country a service if (a) he displays diplomatic maturity and does invite the Nigerian Prime Minister to visit this country and (b) if he takes immediate steps to attempt to win the friendship of the other independent states in Africa by making concessions on racial policies, which I believe would be to the great advantage of this country in the future. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) now wishes to tell us that there is a difference between the demands of the West and the demands of the Afro-Asian nations which are made of the Republic of South Africa. However, she forgets to tell this House that the Western nations are compelled by the majority of the Afro-Asian nations at UN to fall in with the demands made of South Africa. She forgets to tell this House that even from to-day’s news at 1 o’clock it was very clear that the UN Committee of Inquiry which also wishes to go to Rhodesia told the British Government, after the British Government officials had given them an interview and had said that they could not interfere with the Southern Rhodesian constitution because they had made these provisions 40 years ago—this same UN Committee told the British Government: “ We have only one demand and that is, one man one vote.” They said that they were not concerned about conventions of 40 years ago. They demanded one man, one vote. The members of the Opposition prefer not to notice these things. It is convenient for them to leave them on one side. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) does perhaps want this, just like the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) who told us here that if we were a member of the Commonwealth when the Black states and the Black communistically orientated states made demands of South Africa, our position would be far better. They conveniently forget that Mr. Macmillan told us here in South Africa that we are a harmful burden to them, a burden which embarrasses them; that we are expendable to them because they wish to satisfy the large Black majority. The hon. member forgets this. The hon. member wants us to make concessions. What concessions? Must we make concessions which will eventually lead to one man, one vote, concessions which must eventually result in the disappearance of the White man? The hon. member for Houghton says that the African states are not unanimous in regard to their demands. The one section wants direct interference and the other does not want direct interference. But that is not the point. The purpose which they have is the same in both cases; it is only the method which differs. Both of these groups ask for one man, one vote; both of these groups say: “ Away with the White man in Africa.” The one merely follows a different method from the other. The method of the one is direct interference and of the other indirect interference. The hon. member for Houghton wants the hon. the Prime Minister to invite the head of a certain state to this country, the Prime Minister of Nigeria. Perhaps they do not say that they want direct interference but they state emphatically: “One man, one vote,” in all respects. They say that Africa as a whole belongs to the non-Whites, to the Africans, as they put it. It does not help to try to tell us that there is a difference. There is only a difference in method but the aim is precisely the same. There is no difference in the eventual aim. The hon. member for Houghton says further that we must invite the Prime Minister of Nigeria because he is the most important and the Prime Minister of 40,000,000 people.

He is a moderate man.

Is it “a moderate man”, if I may use her words, who sets a boycott against South Africa in motion because he is not satisfied with the internal policy of South Africa? Is this the modern manner in which foreign states interfere in the domestic affairs of other states, so much so that they apply boycotts against another state? Is this a moderate man? Is he a moderate man? Is this a man whom she wishes to accept as a leading spirit in favour of peace and love? Are the Progressive Party and the hon. member living in a fool’s paradise? Do they forget this? However, the hon. member goes further and says that the exports from Europe to the African states now amount to R2,800,000,000. This is the annual buying power of the African states and we have to try to get into their good books. I want to put two questions to the hon. member Why does she not also admit that the exports of the Republic to the African states have increased and not decreased over the past year? Why does she not also admit that our exports have increased notwithstanding our difficulties? But what is more, has she not read over the past two days that the Lombard Bank has withdrawn all its money from Africa?

What does that prove?

What does it prove? It proves that the Lombard Bank is concerned about the money of its shareholders and no longer has any confidence in the policy of handing over Africa to the non-White. But she wants to hand us over. The hon. member must not take the one amount of R2,800,000,000 and say that for the sake of these exports we have to forfeit our entire survival and crawl before the African states and say “Let us for a short while derive benefits from all these exports, even though we perish afterwards.” The Lombard Bank already realizes that it is going to perish in Africa if this policy continues in this way. It is because the Progressive Party merely wishes to live for brief economic advantages and does not want to look any further at the survival of the White man and of South Africa and peace that it acts so irresponsibly. This is merely a revelation of what we have once again experienced in this debate on the part of the whole of the Opposition, an unpatriotic action the like of which we have never before seen in South Africa. I want to refer back to a few examples in this regard. The hon. members for Benoni and Constantia hold up Luthuli to us as a great example, a man to whom the world has presented the Nobel Prize, who can bring about peace, and they want us to approve of his policy. By implication it boils down to that. Why otherwise would he cite Luthuli if he does not want us to accept Luthuli’s policy? He is a moderate man, his priest of peace; this is his priest who will ensure the survival of civilization in South Africa. Our party can rightfully tell South Africa that through the medium of the hon. member for Constantia and the hon. member for Benoni the United Party wishes to approve of the policy of Luthuli as being the policy which forms an alternative to the apartheid policy of South Africa.

Then you will be telling an untruth and you know it.

Order! The hon. member may not say that the hon. member for Wakkerstroom is telling a lie.

I only said that he was guilty of an untruth.

The he hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it.

What sense is there then in mentioning Luthuli as an example here? In order to show up the action of the Opposition very clearly I want to refer again to the State which was mentioned by the hon. member for Houghton, namely, Nigeria. I wish to put our problem in South Africa through the medium of this one single example. On 30 September 1960, at 12 o’clock midnight, Nigeria obtained independence, a country of 40,000,000 people, and there was no doubt on their part, there was no argument on the question as to whether they wanted it or not. Everyone asked for it and accepted it unanimously and wholeheartedly. [Time limit.]

I am sure I am not the only member in this House who was astonished to hear the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) say that the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) had advocated that we in South Africa should adopt the so-called moderate policies of Luthuli, because, Sir, that is a misconstruction which I would say, with respect to the hon. member, is as unforgivable as it is inexplicable. What the hon. member for Constantia did, in fact, was—in the course of reading extracts from a speech made by Mr. Francis Plimpton at the United Nations—to refer to Mr. Plimpton’s statement that Mr. Luthuli was a moderate man. By no stretch of the imagination, however vivid that imagination might be in the case of the hon. member for Wakkerstroom, can anybody suggest that it was said by the hon. member for Constantia.

However, I want to deal, if I may, with other matters which I think are far more important. It appears, Mr. Chairman, that the Government has three lines of defence against the dangers that threaten South Africa, and we must bear in mind that on the very day that Parliament opened, it was the hon. the Prime Minister himself who warned, and in fact assured, the House and the people of South Africa that we are living in grave times. Now it appears that up to now, the gravity of the times in which we live has created in the minds of those responsible for the government of South Africa the idea that they can shelter, and so can all of us in South Africa, behind three lines of defence. The first, oddly enough, is the Parliamentary majority of the Nationalist Party. It seems that all that has to happen and must continue to happen in South Africa is for the National Party to have, say, a two to one majority over the Opposition; then they will protect themselves and everybody else in South Africa against any of the external pressures which are only too well recognized on that side of the House. That is the first apparent line of defence, which, I suggest with the utmost respect is so flimsy that even they themselves do not believe that it can do more than give them a certain sense of comfort—and a very temporary comfort, in my opinion—in this House. The second line of defence, which, of course, was brought about as a result of the introduction of the Defence Budget, is the new military preparedness and the planning of that preparedness for South Africa. It was said over and over again that whereas R120,000,000 was a very large sum of money for South Africa to vote for its defence, it was, in fact, a drop in the ocean by comparison with other countries in the world. That was said, and yet we seem to be forgetting that all the time. But let us assume that we do not need to use all the weapons that will be acquired in terms of the R120,000,000 spending programme. It was said over and over again that we all hope that it will not be necessary, but we must assume that it is the intention to make that military preparedness as efficient as possible. Yet, if we on this side of the House suggest for a moment that there may be doubts about the efficacy of the planning and the efficiency of our preparedness, we are immediately accused of sabotage.

We know you.

I would like the hon. member to listen to this. In regard to “Defence” there is a statement to which I would like to draw the attention of hon. members. I quote: “We are told that the Government is making adequate preparations to defend the country, but if this is proceeding with the speed of most Government Departments, then we will manage to be prepared 20 years after South Africa ceases to be a sovereign state.” I would like hon. members to listen to this. Somebody will be very quick to say that is United Party propaganda, that is our Press, the so-called United Party Press. So before they come out with such interjections, like “Lombard Bank”, which now appears to outdo “Soapy” Williams in the Hit Parade, I want to say that statement, that “we will manage to be prepared 20 years after South Africa ceases to be a sovereign state”, comes from a man who favours me with his broadsheet fairly regularly; certainly not a friend of mine, or of this side of the House, Dr. J. M. Haldeman, of 259 Zoutpansberg Rd., Rietondale, Pretoria—probably well known to the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt). That is one point of view about preparedness.

The last line of defence, of course, is the certainty—apparent certainty—that regardless of what we say and regardless of what we may do, regardless of whether we do or do not amend our policies, “the West needs us”. That has been said three times this afternoon: “The West needs us, we are the bastion of the West on this Southern tip of Africa.” Regardless of what we are, how we behave, and how we support the Western powers, for example, they need us so much that the moment we are under pressure—the argument runs—they will immediately come to our assistance. This, regardless of the fact that we have no alliance with any of the Western powers. I want to suggest that sort of thinking, which is encouraged very greatly by the hon. the Prime Minister himself—and, of course, what he says and does is never questioned by his side of the House—that sort of thinking leads to the further and next step, the most dangerous of all, that the United Nations is a world forum about which the less said the better; in fact, it is not efficient; in fact, it is not likely to survive much longer. Outside of this House there are many people who can confirm what I am saying this afternoon—there is the general attitude that we need not be perturbed about what is said about us or against us at the United Nations, because we all know that it is liable to fall on its face any day. That is a very dangerous state of mind, and unfortunately it is encouraged, as I say, by the hon. the Prime Minister and those who support him. For example, Mr. Speaker, on the day that Mr. Speaker reported the State President’s speech at the opening of Parliament, he reported that His Excellency said the following in that speech—I only refer to those excerpts in, shall I say, the first three hundred words, which are relevant to my argument. He said, to begin with—

Parliament’s deliberations during the coming Session will no doubt take into account the present international situation.

The outstanding feature of the present international situation is the progressive deterioration of the United Nations.

The defects of the United Nations clearly came to light.

There is the weakened position in the United Nations …

Two recent events have dramatically but tragically shown up the direction in which the United Nations is moving.

These things have to be remembered.

Those are facts.

Very well, I want to read another two extracts—

The hon. member over there says that those are facts. What is a fact is that the United Nations is not a perfect organization. What is a further fact is that it is subjected daily to criticism from any of its member-nations. But what is not a fact is the argument which those hon. members over there would like us to accept: That it is about to collapse. That is a very different thing. In order to support that, it is relevant to remind the hon. member of what another member of the United Nations thinks of the United Nations, and perhaps with a better right to form an opinion. I refer of course to the man who pays the piper, or the man who gives the piper the biggest instalment on his payment, the United States of America. Here, for example, as compared with the opinion of the hon. the Prime Minister and the opinion of His Excellency the State President, is the opinion of the President of the United States about the United Nations. In his address, known as the “State of Union” message, a very well-known feature of American political custom, at the end of last year, he said—

Remember that. Far from taking the view that it would be a good things if this trouble-making body, the United Nations, were to disappear, the President of the United States reminds us that if the organization is weakened, those troubles can only increase. He goes on to say—

[Time limit.]

I want to issue a warning to the United Party. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) deceived the National Party consisting of the vast majority of Afrikaans-speaking people, politically; he deceived the United Party consisting of the vast majority of English-speaking people during the last election and in Bezuidenhout he deceived the Jews, and I now want to warn the United Party that he is deceiving them once again. I see that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout issued a statement in the Karoo and that he said: There is a good change, and it will be desirable, for the National Union and the United Party to combine. I want to warn the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: You must be on your guard.

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

Yes, Sir, I wish to warn the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. There is more political ingenuity in the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that there is in the rest of the United Party put together. I say that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must be careful. He will not be able to say that I was not magnanimous in warning him in time While warning the hon. the Leader of the Opposition I want to say that we are now becoming sick and tired, and I think that people throughout Africa and also abroad are now becoming sick and tired of this sickly sentimental humanism which has once again been revealed here to-day. If you sit and listen to their speeches, Mr. Chairman, you will find no hint or sign of a plea on their part for the cause of the White man. To my mind this is an impossible position in which we find ourselves but the Opposition is the victim of this post-war morbidity which has already had a corrosive affect on various continents and chiefly on the Continent of Africa. We are living in very serious times in which we have to think very soberly and realistically. We are also sick of these dream politics which we experience from the other side. I listened to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. During the debate on the motion to go into Committee of Supply certain questions were put to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I want to repeat one question with emphasis; I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: What will you and your party do to remove these various fronts on which South Africa is attacked and frustrate the various efforts which are made to open more fronts on which they can attack us and to satisfy the attackers? The hon. the Leader of the Oppotion must answer that question. I and my bench companion started counting and we counted 30 questions which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition put to the Prime Minister. However, he himself has not yet answered one single question.

We are living in serious times, in times in which the cold war is beginning to assume serious proportions. These proportions throughout the world, the Western world, are such that everyone is engaged on an intensive armament programme. Everyone is arming. I think that our country is one of the few countries which spend such a small percentage of their national income on armament. All the countries spend a great deal of money in strengthening their defence forces. This is a cold war which in my personal opinion, and I think that I am correct, is strategically aimed at Africa, and all these fronts which are opened against us at UNO, to the north of our border, here in the interior, are all fronts which are opened because they are seeking an opportunity to enter the country. With Africa as the first primary strategic aim, the White man in Southern Africa, who is still a stable element, has to be removed. If we are removed they then can conquer Africa strategically. Now the Opposition come along and they ask us about and try to create suspicion in connection with our defence programme. They ask questions such as: Why did the hon. the Minister of Defence say this at Muizenberg, and why did the hon. the Prime Minister say that?

Why?

I will tell you. You are trying to sow suspicion. I think that the purpose for which you are striving is a contemptible one. While we are trying to prepare ourselves just as all the other countries of the world are doing, you come along and create suspicion. We see what is going on and are convinced of the fact that we are the last stronghold which they wish to conquer in Africa. We have to go; the White man in South Africa has to go if they are to achieve their purpose. If Africa falls and the White man disappears completely from Africa and the White man loses in Southern Africa as he has lost in the rest of Africa, then I tell you that the group and the combination controlling Africa will control the entire world. Africa is a strategical necessity in this entire cold war as a prelude to the eventual conflict which must come. This strategy which is used against us on as many fronts as possible, at UNO, on the economic front, here in the interior, has to be overcome. Just see how the Opposition are trying to force an entry here. I am sure that they are not acting of their own volition but they are acting under duress. If a newspaper says something to-day or if some or other agitator says something outside, the Opposition repeat it in the House of Assembly to-morrow. Now our Group Areas Act has to be watered down; we have to forego minor apartheid matters; we have to undo what is causing the irritation. You see the tactics. The tactics are that we have simply to open fronts so that they can come in. We have to break down our front so that they can effect an easier revenge. It is because of this too that the cry now arises from the other side that we must foster diplomatic relations. It is not that they are so much concerned about diplomatic relations. They know that the standpoint of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs is absolutely correct but they wish to throw that spanner into the diplomatic works because this is one of the fronts which they wish to open in order to gain entry. Where do we find ourselves in these serious times? I want to say this. In our entire political evolution to where we are to-day we have had to deal chiefly with five important active factors. In this regard I wish to give every credit to the hon. the Prime Minister to-day in that in respect of these five factors he has stood his ground and given a clear lead. I want to mention them: The first factor which played a deciding role in our entire political evolution was the colour problem. [Time limit.]

The speech just made by the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) is rather typical of I think all but one of the speeches which have come from the Government side this afternoon. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition put a number of very serious questions affecting the future of this country to the hon. the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will no doubt answer but in the meantime what have we had? We have had example after example of defeatism which would make me fear for the future of South Africa, were it not for the fact that I have abundant faith in the South African people. [Interjections.] That hon. member must not try to distract me, Sir. I repeat, that I have never heard such defeatism as I heard this afternoon from the Government benches. Member after member opposite, and even the hon. member for Ventersdorp who is usually a realist, have in effect said that there was no hope for the White man in southern Africa. That is the effect of what they have said, Sir. No country can exist for all time in the situation in which South Africa finds herself to-day, a position where she has lost the vast majority of her friends throughout the civilized world. The hon. member for Ventersdorp—I shall deal with my subject by referring to him mostly as he was the last speaker—referred to the future of the White man in this country. Let me say this to him that viewed from a long range the future of the White man can be secured in southern Africa. We on this side of the House are just as determined that there will be a future for the White man in southern Africa, as hon. members opposite are. But what we do say is that we who have the privilege of being White in South Africa must be very careful to see that our policies are based on fairness and on justice. If we can do those few simple things we can create an abiding future for the White man in southern Africa but not otherwise.

Did I indicate that I did not believe in the White man’s future?

The hon. member for Ventersdorp, Sir, indicated it in this way. He was coming to certain points with which he has not dealt as yet, so perhaps he will give them to us and we can judge. But the whole tenure of his speech, as in the case of the speeches of hon. members who spoke before him, was a very deep fear for the future of South Africa instead of an abiding faith in a country which was until very recently the most respected of all the small countries in the world.

There is nothing in what you are saying.

Sir, the situation is this. I should like to repeat again words which I quoted before, the words of the Roman Geneca who said this—

I would go further, Sir, and say, that I do not believe that the strength of this nation can rest on the type of legislation which this Government has put on the Statute Book over the past 12 years of its control in this country. Hon. members, one after the other—the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) among others—have shown how deeply concerned they are. If they are so deeply concerned I would like to beg this of them that instead of looking to the outside world and what is being said in Nigeria and what is being said elsewhere, we should rather follow the Biblical injunction to look first to the mote in your own eye before looking elsewhere. I believe, Sir, that there are very many things in this country that could be put to rights quite easily and thus change the opinion of the whole outside world in regard to South Africa.

How?

I will tell the hon. member how. Restore the Coloured voters in the Cape to the common roll; restore the representatives of the Native people in this House. [Interjections.] Let me make my own speech. I was asked a question which I am now answering and I hope hon. members will give me the opportunity of doing so. I have mentioned two points. Eliminate the unfairnesses which exist in the Group Areas Act.

Why not repeal the whole Group Areas Act?

I am not suggesting that. Hon. members have asked me for a practical policy and I am trying to give them a practical answer. Eliminate the hardships which have flowed these past years from the provisions of the Population Registration Act in this country. Think of the bitterness which has been caused by that. Do hon. members opposite really believe that it has done the name of South Africa any good in the outside world that under the Population Registration Act numbers of people have been kept in doubt as to their race classification for years on end? [Interjections.] Hon. members must not try to prevent me, when they have asked me to state what should be done, from catalogueing a number of things. Do hon. members opposite believe …

Will you repeal the Group Areas Act?

No, I did not say that. I said eliminate the hardships. Do hon. members opposite believe that we can ever persuade the outside world that you can keep the majority of the Native peoples in what is so-called White South Africa without any voting rights at all?

Do you think they will be satisfied with three or four representatives in this House?

The hon. member can criticize the policy of my party, but I am answering questions raised by that side of the House as to what we can do at least to get some goodwill for South Africa.

To satisfy the world.

No, I am not suggesting that.

Order! Hon. members in the frontbenches must give the hon. member an opportunity of making his speech.

There is other legislation too, Sir, that might just as well be reconsidered. There is the legislation to which I have already referred; there are the franchise laws and there are other provisions which have done great harm to South Africa, for instance the legislation in regard to our universities. There is job reservation. We know what the traditional position has been in this country. We know what the pattern is which has developed here. But I say to hon. members opposite that I wish they would remember that every time a piece of restrictive legislation is put on the Statute Book it means that South Africa loses a few more of the friends which we have.

The way Rhodesia is being helped?

I am not dealing with Rhodesia, Sir, I am dealing with South Africa. Hon. members quite obviously do not like what I am saying that is why they are doing their best to distract me. I am quite prepared to meet them in regard to the position in South Africa vis-à-vis Kenya and Rhodesia, Sir, but at the present time I am dealing with a question which was put to me from that side as to what can be done to improve the position. I have catalogued some of those things. I believe the thing which is needed most in South Africa at the present time is that we should cease—and I say this to all members of this House—to allow our actions in South Africa to be governed by fear. There is no reason, I believe, why, if we proceeded in faith in this country of ours—and I have every faith in this country—why we should not be able to go a long way, certainly not to meet the demands of the Native states to our north, but quite definitely to win a great deal of goodwill in all those countries of the world which have stood by us in the past. [Time limit.]

I am very sorry indeed that the hon. member who has just sat down has tried in his typical way to fight the last election all over again, the election in which that party suffered such an enormous defeat. In other words, he had no new contribution to make. He repeated the complaints which they aired at the last election and on which they were rejected by the public of South Africa. He did, however, say one thing to which I should like to react immediately. I do not want to do the hon. member an injustice. He said, “The strength of a nation lies in the strength of its friends”.

I said, “The strength of a nation lies in its friends and not in its armies”.

I want to take him up at once on that point. We have recently had the case of Portugal. Portugal is England’s oldest friend. That has been proved in the past few hundred years. Portugal had a small possession, Goa, in the East. It must be remembered that Mr. Nehru was presented to the world as the great apostle of peace. He now comes along, because it suits him, and takes possession of Goa at an inopportune time for Portugal. I ask any hon. member on the other side, and I ask the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) in particular What was the use of those friends to Portugal?

What did Portugal do during the last war?

Wait a moment. Does the hon. member want to suggest that England retaliated against Portugal?

No, not at all.

That is what it amounts to. What does the hon. member want to insinuate then? Must Portugal be rejected now because of what she did during the war? What he is advocating here now is retaliation. Then we come to this other great friend who is supposed to mean so much in the world, namely America. What did America do to check India? When it suited America she told England, France and Israel not to enter Egypt. But did it suit her to check India? Oh, no. Mr. Chairman, I have said before that a time comes in the life of a nation when it dare not allow itself to be deflected from its course. Even if it has to die fighting, it still behoves it to do so because then at any rate it dies honourably. South Africa is in that position to-day. Hon. members make a song about isolation. Let me point out to this Committee this afternoon that we are not children; we are adults, and there is a history still to be written. Let me ask this Committee what has happened to the White man to the east of us? He started, just as hon. members in this Committee want to start, by making concessions in Indonesia, Burma, and Central Africa, and throughout the world, and to-day the White man is out of those countries. Before Africa can fall, this southern tip of Africa must fall first. And now I want to put this pertinent question to hon. members, a question which every White man in this country would ask himself because our skins are White: Into whose hands did those countries fall? This is a truth that we cannot get away from—and this is the point that I want to put to my hon. friends on the other side. They fell into the hands of the communists. That is a fact that we cannot get away from; they fell into the hands of the communists.

Which countries?

The lot. If my hon. friend over there does not know it he ought to go into history a little more and then judge objectively where those states would stand in the event of war, as far as the position of the White man in the world is concerned. These two cries which are being raised by certain people for political gain, namely isolation and colonialism, are cries which have been raised by Russia; Russia has been using this cry of colonialism for her own gain. Colonialism has been echoed like a parrot-cry over the length and breadth of Africa, and for what purpose is it being used? I am afraid that my hon. friends on the other side of the House are allowing themselves to be misled. I want to take this matter a little further. I have been sitting here for some years. Every year when we come to the Defence debate we have heard that our Defence Force is too weak, that it is too small, that it is ineffective, etc., etc. And now that South Africa is going to spend R120,000,000 on defence, now that she is going to prepare for eventualities, this same Opposition, who in previous years have said just the opposite, attack this increased expenditure and sow this suspicion. We are arming to-day—with what purpose? Just think for a moment what has been said in this House in recent times by the Opposition in connection with the arming of South Africa. I cannot help expressing my disappointment at the Opposition’s attitude in this case. I thought that we as a nation would eventually stand together in this country, that we would speak with the same voice and together try to do great things so that the public will realize that when it comes to the defence of our fatherland we stand united and that we speak with one voice. I want to express my disappointment this afternoon in the Opposition.

Then just one final observation to my hon. friend on the other side. I must say that he is a person for whom I have great respect. When he refers to the defeatism revealed in the speeches which have been made on this side and views our attitude in that light, then I cannot help saying to my hon. friend that the interpretation that he places on speeches from this side is entirely erroneous. I believe that the public is very grateful to the hon. the Prime Minister, to the hon. the Minister of Defence, for the fact that we are preparing ourselves so that if anybody should be foolish enough to attack us we shall be ready for it. That is how we accept the position, however regrettable it may be that is the position. But do not imagine that, because we are sorry and because we deprecate that position, we have already hoisted the white flag.

Nor have we.

That is not the kind of people we are, as other nations have discovered in the past. In other words, Mr. Chairman, the point that I want to make is that in heaven’s name we must get away from this great fear of isolation. Even if we are isolated, who are the people who are so eager to isolate us? Let us probe for a moment into the history of those nations. [Time limit.]

I am glad to have the opportunity to follow my good friend, the hon. member for Pretoria District (Mr. Schoonbee). I am glad because that hon. member and I often agree on many things. A year ago that hon. member proposed, in the course of a Defence debate, that Bantu should also be armed in time of war.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I submit that the matter was put right in the press and that the hon. member knows that it is not true what he has just said.

What the hon. member did was to put the matter right in the press, but he has not put it right in Hansard.

If it is stated in Hansard, then it can be proved from Hansard that is the case.

What is the point of order which the hon. member wishes to raise?

I want to say on a point of order that the hon. member is telling a lie.

That is no point of order and the hon. member must withdraw the word “lie”.

Then I shall say that he has uttered an untruth.

Order! The hon. member must please pay attention to what I say. It was not a point of order which he raised, and the word “ lie ” that he used with regard to the hon. member for Sea Point must be withdrawn.

Very well, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the word “lie ” and say that it was an untruth.

Mr. Chairman, I knew that somebody was going to take the bait but I did not expect that poor hon. member to take the bait so soon. I am very fond of him. He has improved; the Nationalist Party is improving. Gradually they are adopting the policy of the United Party. That is all to the good, but the trouble is that it has both embarrassed and annoyed them. And there is only one emotion—I think it was said here once by the Minister of Bantu Education— which is worse than this combination of embarrassment and annoyance, and that is alcoholic remorse. For many years we have been warning the Government that it cannot continue to follow the path it is pursuing. We warned the Prime Minister. Some members did, from time to time, show an understanding —like the hon. member who has just raised so many objections. He has come to our assistance now and then but as soon as there is an election and he has to fight a nomination, he is in trouble again. But in their hearts they know the policy indicated by the United Party is the only policy that can get South Africa out of this sordid mess again, they know that.

This afternoon I listened to the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) trying to make the House, believe, in the kind of speech which one would expect from him outside this House, that South Africa’s relations with the outside world have never been better. He says this in spite of the fact that his party political mouthpiece, Die Burger, says that South Africa has become the polecat amongst the nations of the world. Whom is he trying to bluff? Since when has a polecat been such a sweet-smelling animal? Let us get down to the truth and let us no longer have the type of accusation which we heard from the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, and of course also from the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee), namely that we on this side of the House are imitating the agitators in South Africa. That is not the case. I would like to say here to-day on behalf of the United Party that no one condemns more than this side of the House does the irresponsible and sometimes untruthful utterances of persons such as Michael Scott and various others who libel South Africa and harm her good name. [Interjections]. And now that I have said this the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) is annoyed because I have said it. Why? Because they would like to make political propaganda out of this kind of thing and because they are more interested in political propaganda that they can make than in the service which they can render to South Africa.

If those hon. members and the hon. the Prime Minister seriously intend to have our support, then the hon. the Prime Minister should curb those backbenchers of his and not constantly allow them to accuse us of being disloyal to South Africa and of echoing the anti-South-African agitators. That is not what we are doing and I would like the hon. the Prime Minister to know that when the time comes when he really needs help to defend South Africa and to uphold the reputation of South Africa, he can rely on the whole-hearted support of this side of the House. And the hon. the Prime Minister knows that. It seems to me that the Chief Whip on the other side does not like my saying this. He feels despondent. I do not know what his stand will be, but I know where we are going to stand. Because although we do not agree with the Prime Minister’s policy and ask him respectfully to renounce that policy and not to be stubborn, we will nevertheless stand by South Africa. Mr. Chairman, to compromise is not a sign of weakness.

It has been said here this afternoon that the Nigerian Prime Minister should not be allowed to visit this country because he has stated that if he comes here he will attempt to convince the Government of the wrongness of its policy. And for that simple reason he is to be permanently debarred from visiting South Africa. If countries like Britain and America were to adopt such an intransigent attitude, then no member of the Cabinet, from the Prime Minister to the Minister of Foreign Affairs would have been allowed to visit England or America because at some time or another all of them have said offensive things about America.

Give us some proof of that.

I do not want to produce evidence now. I think it is time we stopped making that type of accusation. But I want to say this to the Prime Minister. He knows as well as I do, and as well as any other responsible person does, that we cannot continue in this way, with feelings as they are at the moment in Africa. He also knows as well as the whole of the party on this side that we cannot have the system of “one man one vote” and that we do not want it in this country. If we had that system in this country there would be chaos. I ask him to be honest with the Republic of South Africa and to tell this country, just as he does overseas, that the United Party, like all other parties including the Progressive Party, does not stand for the system of “one man one vote”. Let him stop his adjutants from running around in the rural areas telling people that the United Party stands for “one man one vote”. I think that is a fair request. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to make a political speech here to-day. (Laughter.) I have not come out with the worst yet; I am just starting. Greater people than the Prime Minister or I or anyone of us have said in the past that when you have enemies and you want to defeat them, the most effective way of doing so is by making them your friends. I wonder whether the hon. the Prime Minister will not be magnanimous and big enough to say, “I am the Prime Minister of South Africa and I am not afraid to have the Prime Minister of Nigeria, with whom I want to live on good neighbourly terms, visiting South Africa. I shall receive him here as Prime Minister of another Africa state; I shall show him what is going on in South Africa, and I trust that he will be magnanimous enough to say to the world that the Native and the Coloured are not being oppressed in this country. We have a different method, but our aim is the same, and that is to help and to uplift the whole of the community.” What is wrong with that?

May I put a question to you?

No, the hon. member can speak again later on. It is perfectly clear to me that we are all agreed, from the State President down to members of this House, that a black future awaits South Africa in the circumstances which prevail to-day. There is not a single person who does not agree with that. And what hope, what solution, is the Prime Minister giving us? He cannot come along and say that he believes that a world war will provide the solution for us. I hope I am wrong but the impression I get is that the Prime Minister says that a world conflict will take place and that there will be chaos, and whether we then win or lose, at least the blame cannot then be placed on his shoulders. Is it a statesman-like policy to hope for chaos so as to be able to save your own country? [Time limit.]

I fully agree with the previous speaker that he did not make a political speech, but that he gave us an example of a speech which was made in alcoholic remorse, to use his own words.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw. In any case, he made a clear admission of the policy of the U.P. in respect of arming Natives. He referred to the speech of the hon. member for Pretoria-District (Mr. Schoonbee), the contents of which were not admitted by that hon. member, but he said the hon. member had helped “us” by his speech, and if that does not prove that the U.P. supports the policy of arming the Bantu then I do not know what does. It also agrees with their federal policy which will result in Bantu representation in this House, of whom one may possibly be the Minister of Defence, and then the arming of the Bantu may possibly take place.

In regard to a statement made by the hon. member for Germiston-District (Mr. Tucker), I just want to say that he said that the White man in the Republic and in Southern Africa could only continue to exist if a policy was applied by the Whites in respect of the non-Whites “based on fairness and justice”. Now I want to put it to him that this Government is in fact applying a policy based on fairness and justice. That is precisely what the Government is doing in terms of its policy of separate development. But I want to ask the hon. member where in Africa the implementation of a policy of fairness and justice helped the White man in any way. He really gave a definition of his policy of fairness and justice and we are grateful to him for it. He said that if we replace the Coloureds on the common roll and bring the Bantu representatives back to this House and amend the application of the Group Areas Act in such a way that it will have no meaning any more, because he says it must be applied in such a way that it will not hinder anybody, and if we amend the Population Registration Act, or in other words, do away with the colour bar, that would be a policy of fairness and justice.

On a point of order, the hon. member is misquoting everything I said.

The hon. member says that if the Government were to restore the mixed universities and abolish job reservation it would result in more goodwill and it would make friends for us abroad, because that would be a policy of fairness and justice. I want to ask him where such a policy ever helped the White man in Africa? Did it help the Hollanders in Indonesia, or the Belgians in the Congo, or improve the position of the White people in the Federation? And they did not apply any of the measures which he says we must repeal. Nevertheless there is no assurance that they will be able to continue existing as Whites in those states. In other words, his application of a policy of fairness and justice will mean the beginning of the swamping of the Whites in this country.

I just want to say this to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). She alleges that this side of the House does not differentiate between the attitude of the Western countries and that of the Afro-Asian states against South Africa. I want to say that our attitude on this side is that basically there is no difference in their attitude, because they are all guided by just one idea which I call the exaggerated granting of human rights to non-White nations which are not yet ripe for it. With that they link the granting of full, unqualified political status for all, in terms of the principle of one man, one vote. There is therefore no basic difference in principle between the Western Powers and the Afro-Asian group in regard to their inimical attitude towards our colour policy.

In so far as the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) is concerned, he said that side of the House came out with their flags flying after the time of crisis they experienced during the Second World War, and everybody was their friend. But there is a very big difference between circumstances just after the war and to-day. After the war South Africa was one of the Allies which had achieved victory and had fought together with the communists and had blessed their arms and had prayed for Russian successes. Then there was not yet this rising Black nationalism. The winds of change had not raged over Africa then as they are doing now. The communists had not yet extended their sphere of influence into the very heart of Europe. UN did not have a majority of non-White states, nor did the Commonwealth. Circumstances were very different. The Government is fighting here against a wall of prejudice born out of the post-war conditions. The new circumstances are the struggle between two world powers to gain the friendship of the Black man of Africa, which puts the interests of the White man in issue. It has nothing to do with having emerged from the crisis of war honourably.

Then just a final remark in reply to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel), who says that we rely on it that we are so important to the Western world and therefore we believe that they will not leave us in the lurch. But is that not the truth? Do we not in fact mean so much to them? Does he want to suggest that the Western world will benefit by it if South Africa eventually has a Black Government, particularly if their policy should be implemented, as the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) recently admitted, namely that it would take just ten or 15 years before the Black man is in the majority if the United Party policy is implemented. If this Republic were to stand under a Black Government, would that be to the benefit of the Western Powers? If South Africa were under the control of the communists, would that benefit them? Has the Republic of South Africa an exclusive and selfish task in respect of its own interests if we arm ourselves in order to protect ourselves against the threat of attacks emanating from the north, or do we also have a task and a duty to perform in regard to the Western Powers, and vice versa? [Time limit.]

Apparently the hon. member over there assumes that the moment I arise the end of the debate has come, but he is very far wrong, as he will discover very soon. It is a pleasure to answer the very courteous question the hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler) has just put to me and my party, and I will do so immediately. Dealing with my statement that the Government is obviously determined to assume that because, in their opinion, the West needs South Africa, they will under all circumstances come to our aid in an emergency, he asks whether I think that the Untied States will stand by and allow this country to be ruled by a Black majority.

I did not mention the United States.

Having referred to the Western states, he then referred to the U.S.A. It is a little too early for me to quote from his Hansard, where he will see what he said. He asks in effect whether I thought that the U.S.A. would stand by and see this country ruled by a Black majority. Surely he is not so naive as to believe that the U.S.A. or any Western power is concerned with the complexion of a Government as far as pigmentation is concerned? It is only concerned with its methods and form of government. In other words, the U.S.A., in my opinion, will certainly deal with any government of any country provided it is, in the opinion of the U.S.A., a democratic government and supports the mutual policies and interests of the two countries. That is the simple answer which I would like the hon. member for Marico and other hon. members opposite to ponder carefully. They assume that under all circumstances we in South Africa can rely on the West to come rushing to our aid, because we are a “White” country with a “White” government. I think the hon. member for Marico thinks that one of the reasons why they will come to our aid is because we are governed by the National Party. [Interjections.] What I would like the hon. member to bear in mind is that the complexion of a democratic government is of no significance in this world. You can be White or Black or Yellow or Green. But I do not wish to pursue this argument because if that is one of the illusions held by hon. members opposite, our dangers is even greater than I feared it was.

This question of our defence as dealt with in the Budget is a remarkable situation in many ways, because on 28 March the Minister of Defence told us, in Col. 3414 of Hansard—

He said “We will be on the side of the West”; he did not say that the West would be on our side, and there is a big difference between the two, I submit.

On a point of order, may an hon. member quote from a Hansard of this Session?

No, unless it refers to the same debate. [Interruptions.]

Mr. Chairman, may I go on, or must I consume my time in silence?

The hon. member may continue.

I am very pleased to see that on the one hand there are statements about the gravity of the situation, whilst on the other hand we see the smiling faces of members of the Government. Everything in the garden is lovely. They have never been so happy in their lives, and all these threats of danger are insignificant. The outside world will one day realize who is wrong and who is right. The Minister went on to say—

Now, if that is the position in fact, what have we been offered to combat these dangers? We have been offered by the Minister of Finance what he calls an insurance policy, and that was subsequently taken up by the Prime Minister when he referred to the insurance that the people of South Africa were getting by spending this money. But I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance to the fact that before you take out an insurance policy, you want to satisfy yourself fully about the probity of the company, the integrity of its directors and the ability of the company to pay out your claim on due date. Those are very important considerations. But what do we find? The Minister of Finance asks, who will begrudge the premium if the accident does not happen? That is a very bland way of putting it, because if you insure against something which does not happen, normally you would not begrudge the premium if the accident did not happen; but that will only be the case if in fact you have insured yourself with a company which has the undoubted ability to meet your claim if the accident does happen, and regarding our defence that is a matter for serious doubt. I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance to the fact that his colleague the Minister of Transport not long ago had to issue a public statement in the Press drawing the attention of thousands of people in South Africa to the fact that one of the insurance companies through which they had taken out policies for a certain purpose was in such a position that those policies were no longer valid, because the company was in very serious difficulties. He knows which company I am talking about. Therefore, the important thing is for the Government to assure the country that in paying this premium which it demands of the country, it is in fact providing an insurance policy which will be effective under all reasonable circumstances; and that is the test, reasonable circumstances. That is the point I want the members opposite to understand—that as far as the attitude of this Government to UNO is concerned, we are in no sense strengthening that insurance which we hope to obtain through the premium of our defence budget, but we are in fact weakening it, and we may even be running a serious risk of invalidating the entire policy; because as I pointed out earlier, those who pay the largest share of the cost of running this very much criticized organization take a view which is diametrically opposed to that of the Government of this country, about the needs for and the efficacy and the future of UNO. [Time limit.]

I wish to reply to the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) who has expounded a curious philosophy of life here this afternoon, one which I cannot allow to pass unnoticed. He started off his speech by saying that the strength of a nation lay not in its weapons, but in its friends. But there is also another very famous saying which says—

The hon. member has evidently never read that. The hon. member said we would have had many more friends to-day had we restored the Coloureds to the common voters’ roll. In that way you will acquire international friends. Restore Bantu representation in Parliament; change the Group Areas Act and you will acquire international friendship; repeal the Population Registration Act. But I want to ask this: Having obtained that friendship and having the eight representatives of the Bantu, which is their policy to-day—there were always three—how long will you retain that friendship? In 1946 an Act was piloted through this House by General Smuts in which he did exactly what the hon. member asks us to do to-day. What was the reply? The reply given by Mrs. Ballinger was that kind of concession would still cause civil war in this country—and that is recorded in Hansard. That was not the end of the matter. Those words of Mrs. Ballinger’s were quoted at UNO. However, the hon. member is again asking for that type of legislation to-day.

In 1948 we were still in the majority at UNO.

But is it not much worse to-day? How long will we be able to retain that friendship at UNO if we put such legislation on the Statute Book? Will that not simply amount to a retrogressive step?

Why do you not restore the Coloureds to the common voters’ roll?

Order! The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) is very troublesome. He will get an opportunity.

I say that type of legislation will undermine your own position and strengthen that of your opponent. Why does the hon. member want it? The hon. member for Germiston (District) has advanced that as his solution. [Interjections.] Please be quiet. I say that if the hon. member thinks our friendship will be strengthened by those examples which he has quoted, he is making a big mistake because he will be sacrificing his own position. Because, in that case, he will be proving that he had been wrong and he will be proving that those people ought to have representation. In that case he will be asked at UNO whether he considered eight people in this House to be adequate representation for millions of people. By saying you admit that there should be representation for the non-White, you are opening the whole argument at international level. That is why our course is the straight and honest course, namely that representation for the non-Whites of South Africa should be given in those areas where they will not in any circumstances run the risk of a majority group oppressing or dominating a minority group. That can only come about on the basis on which we are continuing to-day. However, it seems as though hon. members are concerned because it appears as though we are nearing the end of our struggle and as though the eyes of the world are gradually opening, because the time may come when UNO will compare the countries which are governed by us in this way with other countries and that we in South Africa will outshine the others and be regarded as the model. The people who criticize us to-day, including the Opposition, will then realize that the only way in which you can confer full human rights on groups living in one country, is to confer them in such a way that you can always guarantee that no majority group will oppress a minority group.

Mr. Chairman, I think the time has arrived when we can reasonably expect the hon. the Prime Minister to take part in the debate. After all, it is his Vote. We had the experience this afternoon of having various members on the Government side criticizing the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, so much so that one got the impression that this was not the Prime Minister’s Vote but the Leader of the Opposition’s Vote. The Leader of the Opposition put various points to the Prime Minister. The Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister to deal with the question of South West Africa and international relations. Although we did not expect the hon. the Prime Minister to answer immediately, it is quite clear to us on this side of the House that a good deal of home-work has been going on in the meantime. We only hope that the home-work has been well done. On the other hand, we have not had any contribution by any member on the Government side under this Head. All they have done has been to criticize the Leader of the Opposition for having raised the matter. There was nothing constructive; no suggestions; no solution; no advice whatsoever. All they wanted to do was to stifle criticism and to have secret meetings. One wonders what Parliament is for when one hears members of the Government side speaking, or the lesser lights on the Government side.

Another point raised by the Leader of the Opposition was the relationship between the Republic and the other states in Africa. We have had no contributions by members of the Government side in that regard. There has only been a suggestion that the rest of Africa did not want us. Is that their attitude that they have written off the whole of the rest of Africa? [Interjections.] The hon. the Chief Whip opposite is interjecting. Has he lost all his personality? Does he think that even if the Prime Minister sent him, the Chief Whip, to the rest of Africa, he will not be able to do something for the good of our country? Mr. Chairman, if we are going to win friends and influence people in the states to our north, please do not send the Chief Whip, but send somebody responsible, somebody who will win friends and influence people. I even want to suggest that they might send you, Mr. Chairman. I know that when you have had the opportunity of going north you have been able to make a good contribution.

We do hope that the Government will realize that since it has come into power virtually nothing has been done to strengthen our representation in the states to our north. It was only towards the end of last year that Tanganyika got its independence and what did we find then? We found that the nations of the East as well as the Western nations were bidding for property in Dar-es-Salaam in order to establish their embassies. Judging by the interventions of Government members in this debate to-day they have written off Africa. They say that Africa will not be satisfied with anything less than one man one vote. They have written Africa off. Surely that is an irresponsible attitude, Sir.

Let me deal with the next heading raised by the Leader of the Opposition. He asked what the relationship was between the Republic and the Eastern countries. What we expected was that some members on the Government side would tell us something about our relationships with the East. Surely some of those hon. members know about the visits to Japan. We have representation in Malaya, but we do know that the trade with Malaya has not grown anything like as much than the trade with Japan. Surely, Sir, we can expect some contribution on the part of the Government side. Surely they can give us some information as to how our trade is developing and how our relationships are developing with the East, what bases have been established and what further developments are contemplated. We have been sitting here since quarter past two and in the main we have had nothing but soap-box speeches from that side; playing for time until the Prime Minister was ready.

What is your contribution?

The hon. the Minister of Finance is the last man to interfere. The Minister of Finance failed completely when he dealt with legislation as Minister of the Interior. I hope the Prime Minister is not going to make him the next Minister of Foreign Affairs. He has certainly not made a success of finance so far. Legislation is being passed and is pending in Great Britain in regard to the Republic, but we have had no contribution whatsoever in that regard from the Government side. [Interjections.] I expect interjections of the kind from the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee). The hon. member for Vereeniging has made no positive contribution to this debate. That hon. member reminds me of a small boy putting up skittles in a convenient position so that he can roll them over easily. That hon. member puts up his own skittles to suit his own case. I think it is high time that the Prime Minister intervened in this debate and gave answers to the questions put by the Leader of the Opposition, questions put in an objective manner, questions demanding an answer and questions which should be answered before this debate proceeds any further.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down is usually very serious-minded but this evening he was quite amusing. Immediately after he had ascertained from us that I would shortly enter the debate he made this very strong appeal to me to rise! Let me assure him that he has not forced me to my feet. He also said that I had had to do some home-work, whereas I was only trying to help his hon. Leader by remaining seated. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition told us this afternoon that he had three points on his mind, but he dealt with only one of them. So I thought that in order to enable him to get the rest out of his system, because he seemed to be worried in those three directions, I wanted to give him an opportunity to do so, an opportunity which he did not take. I can understand however that he wants this first aspect to be dealt with first, but there was this very good reason for me to wait on him to finish the whole speech which he had announced in advance. He did not take that opportunity. Now I wish to follow his various arguments. This may prove slightly tedious but nevertheless I have to do so, because after all it is my task to reply to the debate.

The first point with which I wish to deal is the plea which he apparently made for a non-political basis on which the South West African question had to be approached in the future. I must say that I too feel very strongly that this matter should not have been raised at this stage, namely this question of South West Africa. This is a time when of necessity one has to be very cautious in everything that is said or done if the interests of South Africa are to be truly observed. For that reason I do not intend going further in making my reply than I think is justified in present circumstances. However, the point which he raised as to whether we were prepared to deal with the South West African question on a non-political basis, does need some discussion. Firstly I must say—and I hope the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will not take such a disclosure amiss—that I have taken up the attitude in the past, and the Government with me, that, seeing that one does not know to what these matters may lead, it was necessary to keep in touch with the Leader of the Opposition to the extent to which it was possible. Therefore, a little while ago, I did have discussions with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition although I could only tell him that there was nothing new to divulge at the time. I also made the offer that I would be prepared to keep him informed as further information was received by the Government. That means that we did take the Opposition into consideration. That at least has been done. I wish to restate very clearly however that up till this week-end nothing of any importance was received from UNO which I could convey to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Therefore the two occasions on which we discussed these matters could not have been very enlightening to him, but that was only due to the fact that neither I nor the Government had further information. When we talk about dealing with the South West African question on a non-political basis I want to ask what exactly is meant by this statement. The attack which was made upon us to-day was not a very auspicious introduction to such a plea. I do not know why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition saw fit to start a dog fight on what had happened in the past, and on the question of whether the Government had acted wisely or not in the past, if he intended to lead up to such a plea. I should say that if people want to face a dangerous future together, they should build on a better foundation that such reproaches and recriminations as we have had from him. I feel that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not lay a sound foundation for good co-operation in this matter, especially after I had shown my willingness by these invitations, to which I have just referred, to confer with him from time to time.

I want to take this matter away from the type of discussion which we have had this afternoon and ask very definitely what is meant by the request that this South West African question should in future be placed on a non-political basis. Does that mean that we as a Government who remain responsible to the public, should only discuss with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and through him with his party, the various stages of developments as they come to pass? Or does he suggest something more? Does he suggest that the Government should not be entitled to act unless it is with the full agreement of the Opposition? If the second alternative is his intention then I cannot see that this is practicable. After all the Government very often has to act at short notice. For instance, the only communication on which we can base a decision at present was received over the week-end and the reply must go forward practically immediately. Even in a case like that I could and would be prepared and was now in fact prepared, to give the Leader of the Opposition the information at my disposal. But if we were to differ, perhaps differ strongly, on what attitude should be adopted by the Government then there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that it is encumbent upon the Government to come to a decision and not to allow itself to be led by the Opposition into compromise action, with which it did not agree and with which it could not face the public. I also believe that it is encumbent upon the Government not to allow a retardation of action to take place because of such discussions. It is therefore not an easy suggestion to accept if it means that joint decisions have to be taken that is to say if that is the meaning of dealing with South West Africa on a non-political basis. It would on the other hand be something quite different if I were asked to keep the Leader of the Opposition well informed on behalf of the Government as to what is happening from time to time and also to obtain his opinion—which I take it would be the opinion of his party as he knows it—on what should be done. If the Government could see eye to eye with the Leader of the Opposition one would only be too happy to act on such a joint opinion. I could not however, make a Government decision dependent upon, shall I say, Opposition policy in this connection especially if that policy differed greatly from ours. That must be very clearly understood. Perhaps when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition rises again he will inform me on what his idea is of a common non-political basis for dealing with the South West African question.

The reproach was made by the Leader of the Opposition that the Government was frighteningly silent, as he called it on what had happened in connection with South West Africa. I must confess that I do not understand what he meant by that. What was there to say? I have told him before, and I am telling him again in public, that during all these months not a word was heard from UNO. The first news came when the Committee was appointed on the eve of the adjournment of the General Assembly. That is well known. There was nothing in this on which to be silent; there was nothing on which anything could be said. Shortly after that the membership of the Committee was announced. That was also announced in public. It appeared in the newspapers at the same time that the Government received the information because it was immediately made public on the other side of the ocean again. There was nothing on which one could be frighteningly silent; there was nothing on which one could say anything at all. Thus as far as that matter is concerned there was nothing for the Government to make public until this week-end when a certain approach was made to the Government. Furthermore, after this approach had been made in this very delicate matter, an approach to which a reply must be given quickly, it would be quite wrong for the Government to make any public announcement at this stage on what reply was sent to the Committee at UNO before the reply has been received by them. Only then should this jointly be disclosed. I am therefore not prepared—and I hope the Leader of the Opposition accepts my view that it will not be diplomatically correct on my part to do so—to make any further statement in that regard at this stage.

The reproach was also made that we were apparently frighteningly silent not only on this matter with which I have already dealt, but also on two other matters. The one was in regard to the court case which, the Leader of the Opposition said, had been pending for 18 months. He said that the Government had acted but had made no statement on the case. He said that the people of South Africa were entitled to know not only what our defence was going to be but that they were entitled to know what outcome we hoped for. In prophesying the verdict we should also prophesy what UNO would do about it if the verdict went against their desires and what we would do if it went against us. We should also say of what use it would be to us if the verdict were in our favour. Surely a more foolish number of questions than these cannot be asked of a Government. I think it would be utterly wrong and dangerous to South Africa’s case if we dared to do what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has requested. I think it is the duty of the Government to fight this case on behalf of South Africa and to do so in a perfectly correct manner without in any way acting against the interests either of the court or of our own case. For that reason I am not prepared to say anything more or to make those deductions or to give that information which the Leader of the Opposition has asked for. I do not think I would be serving the best interests of South Africa if I were to do so.

The next point which the Leader of the Opposition made was in connection with the more political sphere. In this respect too he said that we had been frighteningly silent after we had suffered one diplomatic defeat after the other. Surely the Leader of the Opposition must know that is not a true statement of fact. South Africa has been under attack for the past 14 years and more. The attack started during the period in office of the late General Smuts. On every occasion throughout these years both Governments, the one which was in power up to 1948 and the present Government since then, have met the increasing attacks with great care and I think with great honour. Far from having suffered one diplomatic defeat after another, I think the very fact that we are still in the position in which we are to-day, is the result on one diplomatic victory after the other. It is quite true that the position has worsened during the years. But what else could have been done than to sacrifice South Africa’s case at some stage? And what would have been South Africa’s position to-day had we done that? When one small nation has to stand up for its rights against the encroachments of large numbers of nations banded together for their own reasons, and with some others prepared to support them in their own interests, even without believing in the justice of their case, and such a nation holds its own, like South Africa has done throughout the many years, I think we have everything to be thankful for. Far from indirectly praising the others and stating that they have inflicted defeat upon us, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should have proudly lauded the way in which South Africa has stood her ground.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also reproached us because we did not accept a former judgment of the International Court, and said that all this ill-will had been created as a result. In the first place, as everybody knows, that judgment was an advisory opinion. There was no obligation on us to accept it.

I said it was an advisory opinion.

Yes, quite true. But I say again that there was no obligation on us to accept that advisory opinion. And we did not accept it. Do the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party wish to insinuate that, in order to obtain the support of the Afro-Asian nations and others, we should have sacrificed our stand? Because, after all, if we did allow UNO to bring pressure to bear upon us in the direction in which it wanted to do so, and had we allowed ourselves to be forced into delivering reports—irrespective of the fact that one could add that this is being done voluntarily since this would be ignored— the Leader of the Opposition should realize that we would have been in far great difficulty than we are to-day. It is also foolish to say that the present ill-will against us was caused by our refusal to accept that advisory opinion because the ill-will which exists is not based on a purely technical matter like that. The ill-will which exists, has grown up in the course of time due to continuous communist instigation and due to the fact that the Afro-Asian nations are all shadow-boxing and looking for somebody to blame for something when anything goes wrong in their own countries. They have banded together against the White man and South Africa is attacked as the symbol of the White man. For those reasons ill-will has gradually been blown up to the present size at UNO. The Western nations should have supported South Africa had they adhered to their own principles in respect of many matters, and thereby could have contained the ill-will, but they gave way because they sought the support of these Afro-Asian nations in their struggle against Communism at all costs. The basis of whatever ill-will exists is to be found in much larger issues than our non-acceptance of this particular advisory opinion. I do not think the Leader of the Opposition should allow himself to be led astray and to make such remarks which do not rest on a foundation of fact.

The next point which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made was that the Government in declining to submit reports even as an act of grace, thought it would prevent discussion by the Afro-Asian nations. Surely he knows that we believed nothing of the sort. Whoever thought that by declining to submit reports we would prevent discussion? Of course we knew they would go on; of course we knew that the attacks would continue. But we certainly did believe that if we did submit reports we would not be upholding the principle on which we had always based our case, namely that UNO had no jurisdiction with regard to the South West African situation. That was the foundation on which we based our stand.

The point was also made that the Government had refused to transmit petitions. The Leader of the Opposition suggested that had we done that we would have found favour. But must we sacrifice our rights by making useless gestures? Should we have passed on misleading petitions from Kozonguise who went to Red China in order to show what a good communist he was. He spoke at Peking and put up a strong case for his communist friends. Should we have sent through petitions by Michael Scott as was suggested to-day —petitions on behalf of Hosea Kutako but not actually emanating from him but from those who egged him on? We would have achieved nothing on earth for South West Africa by doing that. We would however have created the impression that we acknowledge that UNO had a right to intervene.

The Leader of the Opposition also suggested that the present situation was due to the fact that the Government was not present in the Fourth Committee to defend South Africa against unjustified accusations and that it was the Government’s inaction which was responsible for an image of South Africa having been created which was far from the truth. But surely even in General Smuts’s time in 1946 this hostility already existed. It has been built up since at UNO, but the basis was there. General Smuts foresaw that this wrong image would develop more and more in the course of time. He had no illusions, as far as I can read between the lines, about what was going to happen afterwards. He returned to South Africa fully disillusioned. Furthermore this image cannot be a result of the fact that the Government has done nothing to expose the unjust accusations since, in fact, the opportunity was taken to do so during the sessions of 1948, 1949, 1954, 1955, 1959 and 1961— even if it was only by way of illustration to answer accusations and to show how unfounded they were. It is true that during other sessions for various reasons this course was not followed, either because it was not necessary or it was not possible or it would have been wrong due to special circumstances. South Africa’s case has indeed been fully heard. Because certain nations do not want South Africa’s case to be dealt with impartially, because they want to oppose South Africa without restraint, this struggle continues. It was not because South Africa’s case was not put and was not put well by our representatives, amongst whom our present Minister of Foreign Affairs was the one who put our case the strongest, that this unjust image has been created.

I now come to a further point made by the Leader of the Opposition namely that another Committee has been appointed with more unacceptable terms of reference which shows that the United Nations are determined to bring this matter to a head, and that it must be deplored that the public have had no authoritative statement as to the Government’s attitude or its plans. As I have already said: it was only during the last few days that we received a definite request—over the week-end —and I do not think that it will be either wise or useful or in South Africa’s interests to make a statement at this stage as to the Government’s attitude. At this stage we are in the process of negotiation. Therefore I am not prepared to say anything further with regard to this matter.

The further point that was made was that we were cut off from the rest of Africa, bar the Federation and Portugal. The Leader of the Opposition went on to say that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs had spoken about South Africa’s role on the Continent of Africa five years ago and that he had mentioned three steps which should be taken, firstly to remove suspicions, secondly that the African States should accept South Africa as an African State and thirdly that the Union, as the most developed country, had a great contribution to make to Africa. It was said that we had now abandoned this attitude. That of course is not correct. The fact is that it is the States of Africa, in their eagerness to demonstrate against South Africa, and in trying to achieve their own purposes within the sphere of their struggle amongst themselves— sometimes for greater support: the one group against the other—that are not prepared to co-operate with us. They make it impossible for us to remove these suspicions although we try to do so. They do not accept aid from us. However, I will return to this point a little later in connection with the attack made by another member. All I wish to add at this stage is that surely the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not suggest that with his policy of White domination, as he states it to-day, the situation would have been otherwise? How could the situation have been different? Had the United Party been in power and had they told Ghana or Nigeria or Liberia or Ethiopia or any other African State that they, the United Party, believed in the domination of the White man in South Africa, does the Leader of the Opposition suggest for one moment that South Africa’s situation would have been different? Surely that is what is nowadays defined as the policy of the United Party!

Could you not try it and see?

I would not take the risk because I know that the standpoint of the United Party, as put before the public from time to time, deviates according to what is expedient from time to time. I therefore refer emphatically to “the standpoint as they state it to be to-day”, but I do not believe for a single moment that the United Party if it were in power, and were brought under pressure, would not slip all the way down to “one man one vote” ultimately. Therefore I would not try their form of integration. The role of South Africa on the Continent of Africa would not be improved in the least by such a change of government and such a change of policy. There is no doubt as to what the people of the African states want in South Africa—they want Black domination of South Africa, and they want that because the conditioning by the communist powers has taken place over a long time and the communist countries see in White South Africa the one big bar to their domination over Africa. Consequently, pressure will be brought to bear from the North, through Middle Africa, along the East and the West coasts, down to South Africa, if they can have their way. The sooner the Western world realizes this and begins to resist, not for our sake alone, but for their own sake, the better it will be for them. Therefore I say: If we are cut off from the rest of Africa at the present moment, so would any government be which was prepared to stand for White man’s rule.

I must also add that when we are reproached with being out of touch with the world and when it is said that because we are now out of the Commonwealth, we do nothing (as was said by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition) and that we are even out of C.C.T.A., then all the hon. member’s facts are not correct. For instance: we are not out of the C.C.T.A. What is true; however, is that it is being made very difficult for South Africa to operate within the C.C.T.A. But if that is true, then it means just this: that while South Africa is prepared and was prepared and will remain prepared to make its facilities available and, to allow the knowledge accumulated in South Africa on all technological matters to be used by other states of Africa, it is refused by these people against their own interests for other reasons than economic or technological reasons. Our assistance is refused for political reasons. Therefore it is not just to say that the Government did nothing and does do nothing. Why put all the blame upon us? Why not for a change get up in this House on the Opposition side and say: We are glad that the Government remains prepared to provide all the technical assistance that Africa needs and we, the Opposition think that it is wrong of those states to refuse to co-operate with the Republican government in spite of political differences. Why not for once take South Africa’s side instead of the side of attacking African states?

Would you allow a conference to be held here?

Then the hon. Leader of the Opposition said that personal contacts would be useful, and in particular he referred to the statement of the Prime Minister of Nigeria that he would like to visit South Africa provided he was invited. Now I have met Balewa and have spoken to him privately and at the conference table while in London and tried to get a fair outlook from him on the South African situation, particularly in view of the discussions at the Prime Ministers’ Conference. My opinion is that he is not a moderate (as is suggested so often) with regard to relations between White and Black. I think he is wrongly described as such. He is a fanatic in respect of his own cause. I am not blaming him for that. Many of us are fanatics in our own cause. (Hear, hear!) If hon. members of the Opposition do not believe in their own cause to such an extent as to throw all their energy behind it and be fanatic to that extent, they will never achieve government. Only people who really believe in their cause and work for it and fight for it with everything they have, will achieve something. When I say that this man is a fanatic in his own cause, that is nothing to laugh about. It is foolish laughter. There are certain factors which we have to take into account. One is that this man did not either wait for an invitation in the ordinary way, nor did he approach us through diplomatic channels as one would expect from the head of a government. He threw out a public suggestion …

What diplomatic channels could Balewa use?

He could, through his ambassador in London have approached the South African ambassador in London. In that way South Africa could have had the information that Balewa would like to be invited. The channels are open. But the Nigerian Premier did not follow that road. He threw out a suggestion, and not in a sympathetic manner. The Nigerian head of state threw out the suggestion, daring South Africa to invite him, while he was still continuing to show enmity towards South Africa in many ways. By his boycott movement, by even refusing the visit of a South African representative to the Conference on Tuberculosis which was held in Nigeria ten days ago. The Nigerian Premier exposed his attitude and this in spite of the fact that we were prepared to give of our experience to Nigeria notwithstanding the enmity shown towards us. We were prepared and are still prepared to let our experts go there and help. They refused to receive them. This same Prime Minister who refused expert technical assistance from South Africa and who instigated trade boycotts, who spoke scathingly of South Africa’s policy, and who was prepared to say even now: “If I go to South Africa, I go to help to turn the Government away from its policy”, that type of man must be invited and brought to this country in order to achieve friendship! Have hon. members opposite no sense of what is practicable and of value? Have they no sense of the honour of their country and don’t they realize that an invitation cannot be issued under such circumstances? I repeat now what I said to him and to others on London: If there are African states which would like to establish friendly personal contacts with us, we would like to establish contact with them. If they depart from the present attitude of enmity and give an indication of a desire for friendship, then it would be possible for us (at first not on an ambassadorial basis but through direct contact from time to time) to build up goodwill and co-operation. The form of contact could move further and further ahead as friendship grew. The African states are not prepared to follow that line as yet. When the Prime Minister of Nigeria says that he would be prepared to exchange embassies, it only means that we would have to accept (under those circumstances) not an embassy from one friendly state to another friendly state as is usual, but an embassy, with whom the same problems might develop which the Russian Consul-Generalship created formerly. We are not prepared to endanger South Africa and her relations with other people by introducing a source of discord and we are not prepared to endanger our relations with our own non-European people in South Africa by subjecting them to detractors in our midst. We are prepared to cultivate friendship with the other states in Africa, but it must be on a proper basis and as can be expected from nations who honestly wish to be friends.

Then I was asked: What about further African missions and further missions in the East. I am not going to reply to those questions. After I have dealt with this general principle of our readiness to build on a basis of friendship with such other nations and to face facts which might flow from that—after I have given a clear statement of general government policy in regard to this matter—I do not think I need enter into details of missions either from Africa or in the East. That falls within the scope of the hon. the Minister of External Affairs, and I think such matters should be brought forward under his Vote, if they are to be brought forward at all.

A further question put to me was: To what extent are discussions on mutual relations going on between South Africa and other Commonwealth countries? Are any further negotiations taking place with Great Britain and do they cover the protectorates? And then we had certain questions in regard to citizenship, etc. In regard to all this I want to say that at the present moment discussions are still continuing with the United Kingdom on our relationships, both those between us and with regard to the Protectorates, or rather the High Commission territories. Those facts that could be disclosed so far with mutual consent were disclosed some time ago, I think on 26 February, in a statement by the hon. Minister of External Affairs. It is quite true that since then the United Kingdom has placed legislation before the British Parliament in connection with matters on which they have to decide, particularly in regard to certain aspects of citizenship. It was necessary for the United Kingdom to deal with these matters soon in accordance with their Parliamentary Rules. In our case the situation is somewhat different. We were not forced to bring this matter to a head within the first few weeks of the Parliamentary Session. We are drafting the necessary legislation, but need legislation only in respect of certain matters, whereas the United Kingdom needed legislation in respect of more matters. That deals with the one factor. Another aspect of the matters raised is that we are first exploring the whole position with the United Kingdom in order to base on that our negotiations with the other old members of the Commonwealth such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. When our legislation comes forward, it must deal not only as the British legislation does, viz. with relations between one country and another—that is the United Kingdom and South Africa. Our legislation would have to cover the situation between us and various states. For that reason too we required more time. There are however, certain problems still outstanding. On those outstanding problems we cannot make any statements without the concurrence of the United Kingdom and until these matters have been fully settled to the satisfaction of both sides. We are at present also discussing with Rhodesia the matter of citizenship. All these negotiations do not call for a statement at this stage, but I do not think it will take very long before we will be able to place before the country an exact statement on the standpoint of the Government. Much of this will in fact be dealt with in legislation to be introduced here. Certain of these aspects must be dealt with under legislation of various departments, but a number of matters will be contained in an omnibus Bill which will also be placed before Parliament this Session. All this legislation is in the state of preparation even while negotiations are still continuing. More than that surely cannot in fairness be expected from me at this stage.

The question was also asked whether the ambassador of Great Britain can remain High Commissioner for the Protectorates.

I asked whether it would be desirable.

That is for the United Kingdom to say. My personal opinion, and I think that is the opinion of my Government too, is that it is not advisable. But it is a matter for Great Britain to decide on as she thinks fit. The reason why I think it is not advisable is that there may be clashes of interest. These High Commission Territories are now on the road to independence. They will have their separate legislative bodies. It may be that their interests and the interests of South Africa differ from time to time as so often happens between neighbouring territories. The Ambassadors of Great Britain, as all ambassadors, have the function of keeping up and developing friendship with the nations where they are stationed. If in exercising that function in respect of the nation to which he is accredited, an Ambassador is embarrassed by certain duties he has to perform in exercising other functions, this cannot be in the interests either of the country that sends him or of the country which receives him, or of those territories on whose behalf he sometimes has to operate. For that reason I say that I think the double function is not advisable, but it is for the United Kingdom Government to decide; he is in their service, not in ours.

I think I have dealt with most of the points raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. There were some minor points, but I think they have been covered by my remarks. The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) asked whether I did not say that in isolation lies our strength in colour policy. I certainly did say that, but I am not sure that the hon. member gathered the import of my remarks quite correctly. I will try to repeat what I believe I said, and in any case intended to say. My attitude is this: If other states, all the other states or most of the other states, stand for integration and wish to force upon us a policy of integration, whereas we see our salvation, the preservation of the White man in Africa in some form of segregation, then most certainly it would be best for us not to try and satisfy, or link up with, the colour policies of these other people who differ from us so greatly, but to stand on our own two feet. Then we must, as far as that is concerned, accept the fact that we can only gain by isolating ourselves from those policies in which we do not believe, and which we believe will mean the disappearance of the White man’s rule in South Africa. Our strength lies in isolating ourselves from such policies. If it could be said by the Lombard Bank that the British policy in Africa is dangerous, breaks down relations and is disadvantageous for their economic future and that therefore they wish to withdraw from Africa, then I say we should certainly isolate ourselves from that type of policy. I too condemn the British policy in Africa with regard to the White man, and I certainly would wish to isolate my country’s policy in colour matters from that of the United Kingdom. I am convinced that our strength for ensuring our survival lies in that isolation. I have no hesitation in saying so. But that does not mean that we will be isolated as a state from all those other states. As I said before, I am prepared to take up the standpoint that you can have isolation in certain matters, with full co-operation in others. When the hon. member for Constantia says that if we have friends in other respects, why are we economically isolated from Africa and most of Asia, then of course it is quite clear that he is confusing two separate issues. We do not have friends in economic affairs in Africa apart from Portugal and the Federation. We do not have the friendship of Great Britain in terms of its Kenya and Tanganyika policy, and they do not have ours, and this cannot be because we disagree with them as much as they disagree with us. But that does not mean that if the Republic differs on such policy and is economically isolated in Africa or Asia at the moment—or rather in respect of certain nations there, not even all—that we have no friends in any context or anywhere. I think that was a wrong deduction made by the hon. member for Constantia, if I understood him correctly.

I also did not argue, as he thought, that colour policy can be isolated from all other matters. I fully realize that one’s attitude on colour policy very often intrudes in other matters. We see that happening in sport now-a-days. We have seen that happening in the field of amusement; we see the outlook on colour and integration penetrating in various directions. But what I do say most emphatically is that in spite of such differences, or clashes on matters of colour, we are still basically friends with many nations and governments. I state as emphatically as I can that we are still basically friends with the U.S.A. and Great Britain, and I dare anybody to say that is not true.

The hon. member for Constantia said that he was going to test whether this is correct, and he tried to test it by quoting what Mr. Plimpton said at UNO. He suggested that he would, by reading a number of quotations, indicate that the U.S.A. was officially against South Africa. In fact, the hon. member for Constantia, I think wrongly, said that these were the official views of the United States of America on South Africa. I do not think even that was correct. At most it could be fairly said that was an official’s view on the colour policy which he was attacking at UNO. There is therefore a tremendous difference between these two evaluations of what happened, and in addition every single quotation he laid before us dealt with colour policy only and did not deal with our co-operation in technical, economical and many other matters. In fact it has been quite clearly stated in this country, I believe even by the U.S.A. ambassador in this country, that his country values the friendship between our countries in all those matters on which we do see eye to eye. That was the wise, generous and sympathetic standpoint to take. I think that in this Chamber we South Africans should repeat that attitude rather than to cast suspicion upon this friendship.

Then I think the hon. member for Constantia also said that we have not replied to this U.S.A. statement.

I asked whether you had replied.

Oh, then I can make the statement that we certainly did give a reply through the Minister of External Affairs, and this very morning a report was laid upon the Table in which that reply can be found.

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) asked me: What is the Government’s plan in regard to the development of goodwill and friendship towards the states of Africa. He asked what action the Prime Minister would take, without having said what he thought might be feasible methods. I do not want to evade that question. I have already dealt with it to a certain extent by saying that when South Africa has to deal with the African states to-day, it must be under most inauspicious conditions. It is not very easy to develop goodwill, even when you wish to do your utmost for them without any advantage to yourself. It is very difficult to get in touch with them and to aid them. Therefore we have to take up this standpoint that we cannot concentrate to-day on trying to achieve direct contact and make trade or other agreements, or burden them against their will with the many forms of aid that we would be prepared to give. We cannot force that upon them. What we can do is to keep our own spiritual balance even if they are temporarily out of balance. In other words, we must remain prepared to give aid whenever they change their mind and their attitude. Whenever they are prepared to receive our assistance, we will therefore still be there as a mature state which, in spite of all that has happened before, will be prepared to co-operate or to give assistance, technically or otherwise. We have announced more than once through the Minister of External Affairs and myself our continued preparedness to co-operate once the other states give up the enmity in practice which they exhibit to-day, as well as their attempts to interfere in our internal affairs.

But then there is something else that can be done. That is: Let conviction as to the good intentions of South Africa towards her own non-White people, particularly its Bantu, grow by being seen in its actions. When hon. members attack us in connection with our Transkeian policy, or whatever it might be called, they must realize that they are attacking one of the only channels open to us through which to create goodwill in the rest of Africa. When our friendship and co-operation with our own Bantu increases as it is doing—I say this with great conviction, especially after my recent contacts again with some leaders of the Bantu people—I have no doubt that will gradually penetrate the minds of other people in Africa. Thereby a foundation will be laid which will help to retrieve any co-operation or friendship which has in the meantime been lost. Those are the lines on which I am sure we can accelerate progress in creating goodwill. We certainly cannot seek this by sacrificing our policy. There is indeed this one way in which we could get the support of all Africa immediately and that is to give one man one vote. Nothing less would be deemed satisfactory now. But if we were prepared to grant “one man one vote” in South Africa, we would thereby sacrifice the very existence of Whites, Coloured and Indians, and also sacrifice the masses of the Bantu people to the black dictators which would then arise. We would also in this way sacrifice the whole prosperity of South Africa as we know it to-day, and so harm all workers and families of all races, and all investors throughout the world. Then one could achieve friendship with Africa at one blow, but by doing that, nearly everybody would be losing all. We certainly are not prepared to pay that price for the friendship of Africa.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) asked me to clarify what he called conflicting statements on the reasons for defence expansion —supposed conflicting statements of the hon. Minister of Defence and myself. I cannot agree with him that our statements were conflicting statements. I dare say that I described the situation in calmer and less flowery language than the hon. the Minister of Defence did, but basically there is no difference of standpoint whatsoever.

Your horses are only up to their knees in blood!

There was a difference in the form in which I analysed the present situation and the way in which the hon. Minister of Defence sought to impress upon people what hon. members on the other side had been pleading for for years, namely, that it is necessary to build up the Defence Force to a greater extent. The hon. Minister of Defence expressed himself very vehemently in support of that desire. That is understandable. After all it is the task of the Minister of Defence to get the people of South Africa to realize the need for the development of a strong Defence Force. Hon. members on the other side have pleaded for that so often that they should surely support his strong appeals rather than attack us. But it is not correct to say that there is a fundamental conflict of opinion between us. Indeed I think the hon. member for Simonstown understated my standpoint and overstated, or over-interpreted the hon. Minister of Defence’s statement. [Laughter.] I do not think there is anything amusing in suggesting that. For instance, I did not say that there is “ no possibility of attack ”, which were the words attributed to me, so I understood, by the hon. member for Simonstown. In fact I said that there always is a possibility. Otherwise the world would not be arming itself. There is the possibility of a communist world struggle developing. I said candidly that I did not believe it was imminent. But I did not say that it was not a possibility. In fact if it is not even a possibility, then the United States, the United Kingdom and France and all the other Western nations would not be arming themselves to the extent they are doing to-day. We are all arming ourselves against the possibility of such a conflict. It would therefore be an under-statement of my attitude if it were said that I expressed the opinion that there was no such possibility. On the other hand, the hon. Minister of Defence certainly did not try to indicate, by showing the extent to which South Africa was preparing itself, that there is an imminent danger of attack. When he gave certain information to a convention the other day, that information did not imply, as the hon. member for Simonstown apparently thought, that a large number of young people would be taken out of civil life and kept on a permanent basis in the army. All that he said was that there would be a certain number of battalions …

33.

Yes, 34 battalions at operational strength. This means that the number of young men who are trained each year and will be in different training camps, will be roughly 7,500. The other battalions would consist of those young men who had already passed through that course and who could, if mobilization took place, be immediately called upon and could immediately take part in operations. The expert opinion given me on this matter is that the training which took place before, when young men were trained, I believe, for a month or two or three months per annum in a training camp, was not sufficient and that they therefore had to receive six months’ training after mobilization before they could take part in operations. But my information is that the young men who go through the present-day full training course of nine months can upon mobilization at any time during the next five years immediately take part in operations. With the aid of short courses each year they are kept up to standard. I accept this expert opinion as more valuable than the opinions of interjectors, and therefore contend that in this particular case too, the hon. member came to a wrong conclusion. In counting our battalions for the future, we are not dealing with a large number of people who are taken out of civil life thereby decreasing their value to our economy. It is therefore also not correct to say that South Africa will continually be on a war footing. It will, however, be in a state of continual preparedness without at the same time detracting from the value of our young men in their civil occupations. I must also emphasize, together with other members on my side, that I am amazed that while we have always been attacked in the past for keeping South Africa in a state of unpreparedness, the Government is now all of a sudden being attacked for being over-prepared! How I am to understand that, I do not know.

The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) talked about the consequences of our departure from the Commonwealth and said that the cost thereof to us was not fully understood. These are generalities to which we are now becoming accustomed. When one analyses what South Africa’s position either in or outside the Commonwealth could have been, this cannot be justified. Take, for instance, the economic position and the flight of capital to which the hon. member referred. The United Kingdom itself has had its balance of payments problems and also Reserve problems. It had to take special measures in order to save the country from great troubles in the same way that we here had to do. The United Kingdom’s presence in the Commonwealth could not save her from that. How could it then have saved us? The hon. member said that our reserves increased “a bit” and that he was glad that the hon. the Minister of Finance could announce that our reserves had increased “a little bit”. That type of derogatory remark shows, I think, that hon. member cannot have thought very deeply about these matters, because the sensational increase in our reserves, which is to the greatest credit of South Africa, should not be underestimated in that manner. Another point he made was that South Africa’s international position was worse than it would have been were she still a member. He said that if anything should happen and the Republic had to appear before the Security Council, it would not have the same support from the United Kingdom as it would have had, had South Africa still been a member of the Commonwealth. On that argument I beg to differ. The very simple reason for that is that we have a proven fact on which to base our opinions. This fact is well-known, namely, that when Mr. Macmillan came to South Africa both before we became a Republic or had left the Commonwealth he told us that the United Kingdom would not, in her own interests, be able to support us at UNO any longer as before. We were, in other words, given a fair warning before we had even become a Republic, let alone before we had left the Commonwealth. Our presence in the Commonwealth would, therefore, have been no safeguard for us. But what safeguard is it to Rhodesia to-day that she is in the Commonwealth when UNO seeks to attack her? To what extent is it not perhaps a danger for her to be a member, especially in view of the fact that a decision in her case is now not only taken on the value a certain line of action will have for herself, but also with full consideration of the implications any line of action will have for Great Britain as the backer of the Federation and guardian over parts of it? For this reason I say that, as far as the international position is concerned, we would have been no safer through being in the Commonwealth. There are other facts which prove this very clearly. I have already said before, that it was Ghana, India and other members of the Commonwealth, who were mainly responsible for much of our troubles internationally. Our presence in the Commonwealth gave us no protection against their attacks whatsoever. To say, therefore, that our position in the international world has become worse because of the fact that we left the Commonwealth, is I think patriotism of the wrong kind towards the former fatherland of the hon. member.

It was also alleged that our defence expenditure had to be increased as a result of our leaving the Commonwealth. But the Federation is within the Commonwealth and yet its expenditure on defence has increased! Is that because it is in the Commonwealth and has our expenditure increased because we are out of the Commonwealth? Take the case of Australia and of Canada. Their expenditure on armaments is increasing as well! And what about the U.S.A.? Surely the U.S.A. was compelled, just as we are, by world circumstances to increase defence expenditure? There is, therefore, no logic in the arguments of the hon. member as far as this subject is concerned. He also alleged that following upon our withdrawal from the Commonwealth, our sources of information have fallen away. That is true; but if, on the other hand, we had to submit to the aims of the Afro-Asian nations in order to remain in the Commonwealth and thus have certain sources of information left to us, then the price for that would surely have been too high. Moreover; the hon. member is a little pessimistic about the information we do get and possess. I am afraid that he does not realize that although information obtained through British sources in the past was of great value, we have since seen to it that other sources of information became available to us so that we do know what is going on in the world and are not left in the lurch to the extent that hon. member as well as the hon. Leader of the Opposition seem to think. The fundamental point, of course, is that if we had to purchase our membership of the Commonwealth at the price of doing what the Afro-Asian nations tried to compel not only us to do, but also tried to compel the United Kingdom to demand from us, while the latter did not want to interfere in our affairs, then our membership would not have been worth while. In actual fact, South Africa has picked up wonderfully in all directions since having left the Commonwealth and we need not despair of the future.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) said that the Western world did not demand the handing over to Native rule of our country, but only wanted to act against racial discrimination. If the latter is true, however, then the Western World will not be satisfied with the United Party or the Progressive Party either, because in both parties’ policy there is flagrant discrimination since neither of them wants to accept the only principle which will remove all racial discrimination, namely, the principle of one man, one vote with absolute political, social and economic integration throughout. You cannot avoid social or economic discrimination, or political discrimination in some form or other under the policies of these two parties. Both of them have remnants of discrimination to a greater or lesser extent. There is no doubt about it that the Western World will not be satisfied with that, if her statement is correct. Let me add to this one more point, namely, that when only some political concessions are made, which is what she means, the Afro-Asian nations will not be satisfied. The Western Nations who are supposedly asking us only to make certain concessions, in order to make it easier for them to pacify the Afro-Asian States, will when they find that they cannot pacify these nations with limited concessions, not draw a line and say that they are now prepared to make enemies of the Afro-Asian States because they ask too much of South Africa! No; they will come with further demands for concessions. As a matter of fact, as much has been intimated to us. It is not a question of making room within which to manoeuvre. Rather is it a case of manoeuvring yourself into trouble. That is exactly what the hon. members opposite are doing. It is better, therefore, not to try these lady-like tricks because you are bound to get into trouble sooner or later!

I should like, finally, to deal with points made by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). He said that we apparently had no hope for the White man and that we exhibited a distressing form of defeatism. That must either be a casual remark, or a silly accusation, because nobody has any doubts that we on this side not only have the greatest confidence in South Africa, but that we are not prepared to make concessions which would sacrifice the White man’s future, in order to entice others to support us now, as the defeatists opposite wish to do. Everybody on this side who has taken part in the debate to-day, took up the attitude that we must courageously make a clear stand in regard to what we believe in, and in doing so make quite sure that South Africa be saved, not only for the sake of the White man or for the sake of civilization, but also for the benefit of the other population groups as well. That has, basically, been our standpoint throughout. How anybody can call that defeatism, is beyond my understanding. I am afraid that the hon. member realizes that he and his colleagues are on slippery ground because every time they plead for concessions of whatever kind, they show that it is they who do not believe that South Africa can stand on her own feet. They are afraid and want to get others to support them and bolster up South Africa’s defence. We, on this side, believe in South Africa and we know that the Republic is progressing in all directions beyond many of the expectations of our friends on the opposite side. We believe that South Africa has a great future, and that this future will become much greater much more quickly if only hon. members opposite would show a little less defeatism and more support for South Africa and the South African point of view and not always try to run her down as they were doing again in this debate to-day.

It was most interesting to listen to the reply of the hon. the Prime Minister and to hear him as the knight in shining armour coming to the defence of South Africa apparently against the Opposition. It seem to me, Sir, that it is time that we have a little more realism in this debate, and that it is appreciated that it is because we wish to defend and preserve South Africa, that we find it necessary to criticize the very bad Government we have to-day. We have heard the hon. the Prime Minister expounding his theories as to, I might almost say, the advantages of being outside the Commonwealth! In fact, he was trying to give us to understand that there have been no disadvantages in consequence of that fact. I suppose that is why our sugar growers have lost a couple of million rand and I suppose that is why the hon. the Minister of Defence has declaimed in the Senate about the difficulties he has in getting defence information! Or is this another case of disagreement between the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Defence? I suppose, Sir, that it is not because of our leaving the Commonwealth that certain sources of military information are no longer available to us and that Great Britain is not negotiating also on our behalf for participation in the common market. I also suppose that the various educational and technical exchanges which were available to us, are still available? You know, Sir, that when the hon. gentleman takes up an attitude of this kind, I find it a little difficult to appreciate that he is the Prime Minister of South Africa and not just a politician. I want to say that there seems to be quite clear differences between him and the hon. the Minister of Defence in regard to the dangers of an attack on South Africa. I should like, however, to thank the hon. the Prime Minister for having acted in a more responsible manner by having stated the position in regard to this issue more clearly and with a great deal more realism than was done by the hon. the Minister of Defence, For this the country is, I think, grateful to the hon. the Prime Minister. I also like to express to him my personal thanks for the replies he has given me in regard to the negotiations between the Republic, on the one hand, and the United Kingdom, the Federation and other Commonwealth countries, on the other hand. At the same time I should like to state that I appreciate that it is not possible for him to make a more detailed statement at this stage. We are, however, glad to learn that those negotiations are proceeding. In regard to the issue relating to relations of friendship between the Republic and other African states and states in the Far East, or in the eastern part of the world, it seems to me that we must conclude from the statements made by the hon. the Prime Minister that he accepts that while the policies of his Government are being followed here, there is no hope whatsoever of friendship with any state in Africa and also very little hope of friendship with any state in the Far East. The Prime Minister has said that his Government is ready and willing to enter into relations of friendship with states who are anxious to be friendly with the Republic and who have shown their willingness in that respect. At the same time, however, he said that there were no such, states so far. It seems, therefore, that we must accept that so long as this Government is in power, our worst fears will be realized, namely, that there is no hope whatever of the admirable policy statement which was made by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs five years ago, being carried out in so far as the Continent of Africa is concerned. The Prime Minister, however, went even further and suggested that if the Opposition was in power, there would also be no such hope. Well, Sir, if I am to judge from what the Tunku of Malaya said, that is just not true.

Do you accept him as your authority?

Yes, on Malaya. As a matter of fact, he knows probably quite as much about Malaya as the hon. the Minister knows about Transport I should like to go so far as to state that I believe there are many states in Africa and in the East who understand the points of view of the Opposition. I have difficulty, therefore, in understanding why the Prime Minister has suddenly decided that the policy of the United Party is one of White domination.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Minister of Finance knows very well what the policy of the United Party is. It rests on four principles. One of these is to share civilization with those who show the capacity for taking joint responsibility with us for the future of South Africa. Another is the maintenance of White leadership; another consultation; and the other recognition of the dignity of the individual. But let us leave this matter and try to deal with some of the points made by the hon. the Prime Minister. He suggested that the hostility towards South Africa existed already in 1946 and had little changed to-day. The voting at UNO, however, does not prove that.

How many black states were there then?

How many members of UNO voted for us before that hon. gentleman went there to represent us? How many members voted for us even during the first few years he so represented us and the Minister of Finance represented us? When did we score a round duck at UNO? For the first time last year.

We defeated two hostile motions during 1948.

That only goes to prove my point. In 1948 then we were in a position to defeat hostile resolutions, while to-day we have no support at all, or only perhaps the support of one State.

The Afro-Asian nations are to-day in the majority at UNO. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman. I do not think it is necessary for me to say more on this issue. The position to-day is worse than it was and the hon. the Minister will be the first to admit that this is so. He explains that on one ground, but there may be others. I believe that certain of these grounds are the actions of this Government committed during the period during which it has been in power. Let us now go a little further. The hon. the Prime Minister has also said that our case is continually being put. He knows very well that it is not continually being put because there have been occasions when we walked out of the Fourth Committee, when we have not answered, or criticized the evidence which was led on petitions which were submitted. In short, our case has gone by default on a number of occasions. This the Minister knows very well. Last year he went back to one of the Committees for the first time after I do not know how many years …

I replied to them during three successive sessions. [Interjections.]

I wish the hon. the Minister would get up and make a statement. May I say, Sir, that the hon. the Prime Minister has answered some of the criticisms which I made of occurrences which I described as diplomatic defeats. He suggested that if we had agreed to transmit petitions to UNO about S.W.A. we would have endangered our rights. I want to suggest that we were bound to transmit petitions to the old League of Nations and I want to suggest that it would have been perfectly possible for us to do that and save our rights. The tragedy with which we are faced, however, is that because we did not submit reports, the Committee was given an excuse to hear oral evidence because it was only in that way, it said, that it could get proper reports on South West Africa. To that extent we suffered a diplomatic defeat. I should like to go further and say that the suggestion was made that had we accepted the judgment of the World Court in 1950, we would have endangered our position as the attitude of South Africa all along had been that the UNO had no jurisdiction in regard to South West Africa. [Time limit.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not only showing a smaller sense of responsibility every day, but also less courage. He came here this afternoon and asked the Government to enter into diplomatic relations with the states of Africa. He asked what the Government intended doing in that respect. From this side of the House he was questioned over and over again as to the African states with which he wanted to establish diplomatic relations and how he proposed to accomplish it. I am now charging him with a lack of courage to answer. For example, he lacks the courage to say whether he will enter into diplomatic relations with Ghana or whether he would like to see such relations entered into. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is now pretending to be reading. If he would only listen we may perhaps have more respect for his courage. However, he is not prepared to answer one leading question. That is why he is emerging from this debate with disgrace.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order! Is the hon. member entitled to make the same speech which he made this afternoon?

Order! The hon. member may continue.

I am saying, Mr. Speaker, that it is shocking that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has continually asked this afternoon what the Government’s plans were in connection with the establishment of diplomatic relations with African states whereas he is not prepared to mention one single step which he is prepared to take. He is not even prepared to mention one single African state with which he would be prepared to establish diplomatic relations. Then he comes along and says that the Afro-Asian countries are quite satisfied with the policy of his party. In this connection he mentioned the Tunku of Malaya because he had said that he would be satisfied with 10 representatives for the Bantu in Parliament. But was that all that he said? Did he only say that he would be satisfied with 10 Bantu representatives in Parliament, or did he also say that he would only be satisfied with that as a start? I challenge the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to deny that his policy—his latest policy—is based on discrimination on the ground of colour. The hon. member for Yeoville or any other member of that Party can also accept this challenge.

Answer!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition lacks the courage to reply to that. Of course his policy is a policy of discrimination on grounds of colour. The Opposition also say that it does not matter very much whether the countries of Africa accept it, as long as it is accepted by the countries of the West. In this connection I also want to challenge the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to mention one Western country which is prepared to accept his policy of racial discrimination. Is Mr. Macmillan prepared to accept his policy of racial discrimination? Is President Kennedy prepared to accept his policy of discrimination on the ground of colour? Or is President De Gaulle prepared to do so?

Nkrumah is not prepared to accept it.

I am not talking about Nkrumah because they themselves say that we are unable to satisfy him; the same applies to Nigeria. Now they come along and say that if we would only be a little more “flexible” or if we would only accept their policy, those countries would be satisfied. But I challenge him to mention one leader of a Western nation who is prepared to accept his policy of discrimination on the ground of colour. There is no such leader, and he knows it. Yet, he comes along and says that if we accept his policy all our problems in international politics will disappear.

He made great play this afternoon of the fact that we were worse on economically as a result of the policy of this Government than we were before. However, we recently had the announcement by the Lombard Bank that it was withdrawing all its investments in Africa.

Tedious repetition.

I challenge him to tell us why that bank intends withdrawing its investments. Is it as a result of the policy of this Government? No, Mr. Chairman, it is as a result of the policy which that Party want to introduce in South Africa. What did the manager of the bank concerned say? He said he was withdrawing his bank’s investments as a result of the mess in which Africa had been landed because of the policy of the British Government. And while such a big financial institution is going to withdraw its investments as a result of a policy which that Party also want to apply in South Africa, we find that other big financial institutions are prepared to make investments under the policy of the Verwoerd Government. Think of all the loans which were granted to the Union Acceptance Corporation, and think of the loans which Anglo-American obtained in Switzerland. In the rest of Africa, however, investments are disappearing directly as a result of the policy of the British Government. Is it responsible of the Leader of the Opposition to come here and to make such allegations in these circumstances? Mr. Chairman, during the past 14 years the discussion on the Prime Minister’s vote has always been one of the most interesting discussions. But never before have we witnessed a more pathetic performance than that which we had from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and Party to-day. I now want to sit down in order to see whether the hon. the Leader has any further contribution to make to this debate.

When my time expired, I was saying that the attitude of the Government was that UNO had no jurisdiction whatever in respect of South West Africa. If that is so, is it then a wrong quotation where Mr. Leif Egeland is reported to have said the following—

Is it correct, or incorrect, that he stated that on behalf of South Africa at the final meeting of the League of Nations? In the judgment of 1950 we had a judgment which said that we were under no obligation to enter into a trusteeship agreement in respect of South West Africa. It also said that the United Nations was not the heir in law of the League of Nations, and that we should continue to submit reports concerning our administration of South West Africa and that the United Nations was a proper body to which these reports should be submitted. It seems to me that judgment conceded virtually everything we wanted, except the power to annex without further discussions at the United Nations. Here we are in a position, some 12 years later, where it does not seem as though our position has improved as the result of all the efforts of the hon. the Minister and the very fine efforts of certain of our representatives from time to time at that place, other than the Minister himself, whose work, I may say, we appreciate very much. But I do not believe that the position has improved or that it is as favourable to us to-day as it was at that time.

The hon. the Prime Minister has asked me what I mean by a non-party or a non-political approach in respect to this matter. What I mean is this, discussion first and action afterwards, rather than action first and then recriminations from us because of the action taken without discussion. In other words, the position is this, that I think in every country of the world attempts are made as far as possible to get a bi-partisan approach in respect of foreign policy. That has not been possible in South Africa for many years and over many subjects because of the big differences between that side and this side of the House concerning membership of the Commonwealth. I had hoped that on this issue it might be possible for us to reach the stage where there could be discussion before action was taken.

Does that differ from what I suggested and from what we have tried to do?

I think it differs in this respect, that as far as I am concerned I feel there should be discussion, and the Prime Minister must understand that if action is taken with which we disagree, he cannot rely on us for support.

Naturally, but you cannot expect us to discuss and then to follow your line and not ours.

I am not suggesting that, but the Prime Minister cannot expect that if there is discussion and we disagree, he will get support from our side of the House.

So one seeks a bilateral approach and if you cannot get it, well, that is unfortunate.

I accept that.

That is the action I took.

I accept that is the Prime Minister’s intention and I am happy about it, and I believe this side of the House is happy about it. But I do want to get it clear that the fact that there is discussion binds this side of the House in no way if we disagree with the action taken by the Government. I think that clears the various points raised between the Prime Minister and myself this afternoon.

Except that I asked you whether you think that your recriminations about the past was a good foundation on which to build this bilateral approach.

Yes, I think it was an excellent foundation, for this reason, but I think that had there been discussion before many of the actions taken by this Government had been entered upon, it is quite possible that the Government might have been persuaded to see this matter in a different light.

But one point does remain outstanding, and that is the position in respect of the legal action. The Prime Minister has once again, as he has done before, said nothing on the issue, except that he regards it as unwise in the interests of South Africa to make any statement at all. In other words, we are now in this position that the Government is fighting a case for South Africa in respect of which the people have not been informed what the possible result can be either way, or what the possible effect of the judgment can be. Always we are told that should the Prime Minister give us that information, as any client could expect from his advocate or attorney in any law suit, that we shall be endangering the position of South Africa.

But surely the client does not get that information in public so that his opponent also knows what to do.

I am not asking what the attitude of the client will be if he wins or loses, but what will it mean if he wins and what will it mean if he loses, and we do not know that at this moment from the Government. We have never been able to get it from the Government, with the result that many interpretations have been put upon what the possible result of this case may be. I do not want to suggest the various interpretations at this stage, but I can tell the hon. gentleman that he would be most distressed if he knew some of the possible interpretations that are being put on the possible result of this case. And he is in a position to clear away those doubts and difficulties by making a clear statement to the people who, I suggest, are entitled to know what the result could be for South Africa. The hon. gentleman, I fear, is going to be silent on that issue again, I believe wrongly, and I believe that he is doing an injustice to the people by the attitude he is taking up. Now that clears the main issues which I raised this afternoon concerning the relations between South Africa and states or organizations external to the country.

I want now to pass on to certain particular aspects of the policy of separate development which I believe are of national importance. In respect of that policy the Prime Minister is the person most concerned, the person who has given form to it, the surgeon who presides at the dismemberment of the Republic of South Africa into a number of independent states. He has made his first incision in the Transkei area, but quite clearly incisions will not only have to be made there but also in other parts of the country. I wonder whether the public realizes the exact extent of those incisions and I wonder whether the Prime Minister can give us any idea as to what the extent of his activities is going to be. You see, Sir, there is not only the Transkei or the Ciskei to be dealt with in the Eastern Cape. There are also steps to be taken in the north of the Cape Province near Kuruman and Taungs, near the Kalahari. There are steps to be taken in Natal in the Umzimkulu-Harding area, around Umlazi, in the Tugela Basin, in the area of the Drakensberg, and at Thaba’ Nchu in the Free State and in the Transvaal where there are large areas which will still be affected. [Time limit.]

We have experienced an exhibition to-day which we have never before experienced. One would have expected a speech from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition here in this House in which he would have stated a very clear alternative policy not only to the House but also to the country. [Interjections.] But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition revealed himself here to-day as the great questioner of the United Party. You know, Sir, my three-year-old son asks many questions throughout the day and I never become tired of replying to him because he asks intelligent questions, but this side of the House became discouraged and tired this afternoon because of that stream of questions which have no meaning. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition comes along again and asks that the hon. the Prime Minister should tell the people, and particularly the Opposition, what the result will be if the court decides against us or for us. How on earth can any person know to-day what the reaction will be?

I did not ask what the reaction would be. You understood me wrongly.

Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must put his questions more clearly. He asked what the result would be. The result will depend upon the reaction to that decision. How otherwise can there be any result?

However, I want to come to the point which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made this evening, this very ugly and dangerous insinuation, that the feeling at UNO has grown against South Africa since the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has represented us there.

That is not so.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that animosity has grown since the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been representing us there. In other words, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not wish to accept that the animosity has grown as the number of Afro-Asian states in that organization has grown. They insinuate, however, that this is the result of the action of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

What are the facts of the voting?

I say that this is a clear sign to our enemies at UN: Go on, because it is the fault of this Minister. It is merely to encourage them to be far more hostile to South Africa because it is not their fault; it is not due to their prejudice and hatred but to the inefficiency of this Minister of ours. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition realize what a dangerous thing he is saying when he insinuates something of this nature? Does he know what harm he is causing South Africa? He must be able to realize it and yet he continues with this sort of propaganda. I want to lay this at their door. If there is more hostility towards South Africa then it is not the fault of this Minister; it is not due to our policy or because of the action of the hon. the Prime Minister, but it is as a result of the action of that party on the other side, and I want to prove it. I would like to mention a few examples.

When the Minister of Foreign Affairs went to Paris in 1948 to represent South Africa, what did the party on the other side do? The Minister joined battle there particularly with Mrs. Pandit Nehru, our strongest attacker, and what did the then Leader of the United Party do? He made a speech at Randgate and he told the world that the disturbances at Durban where the Zulus attacked the Indians—and they gave the reasons why they attacked them —were the first fruits of apartheid. And what was the result? The next morning Mrs. Pandit Nehru quoted that speech of General Smuts in order to attack the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

I want to mention a second instance. I am sorry that the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) is not here. Dr. Malan rapped Nehru over the knuckles at the time because he interfered in our domestic affairs, by telling the Indians: Your only justification for being in South Africa is to make common cause with the Bantu against the White man. Dr. Malan rapped him over the knuckles and said that he should keep his nose out of South Africa’s internal affairs. One would have expected every member of the Opposition to support the Prime Minister because he did not speak on behalf of the National Party but on behalf of South Africa. But what did the Leader of the United Party in Natal do? He attacked Dr. Malan. I am pleased that the hon. member has now returned to the Chamber. For the information of the hon. member for South Coast I contend that their party is the cause of the tremendous animosity towards South Africa, and the second example that I mentioned was the action of the hon. member when Dr. Malan rapped Nehru over the knuckles because he encouraged the Indians to make common cause with the Bantu against the White man. Then he did not as an honourable citizen of the country support Dr. Malan. No, he chose sides with Nehru and he warned Dr. Malan: You must not act in that way against Nehru because then you will be looking for trouble. Is this not grist to the mill of our enemies? Is this not telling Nehru: Attack South Africa because the Prime Minister is wrong?

I want to mention a third example. When the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs was on the point of leaving last year, or the year before last, one after the other hon. members on the other side stood up and asked the Prime Minister not to allow that hon. Minister to go alone; they asked that someone should be sent with him.

And were we not right?

In other words, the man whom we sent over to defend South Africa was inefficient and incompetent.

Quite right.

He needed assistance.

The speeches which they made at the time were not in the spirit of his needing assistance. They belittled him, in advance, in the eyes of the world, and I say that was a shameful action. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition comes along again and insinuates that it has been since this hon. Minister has been representing us there that the animosity has grown. In other words, they tell UNO and our enemies there: Carry on; this animosity towards South Africa is not your fault; it is not because of your hatred of South Africa but because of the inefficiency of this Minister. What is the purpose of this action? The United Party has utilized its machinery to put the National Party out of office. That is their purpose. They have not, however, succeeded in doing this in the usual way and they are now framing other plans. They wish to put us out of office by means of a conflict from outside. That is what they want. The hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) said straightforwardly: “We see no chance of getting rid of the Nationalist Government. What South Africa needs is a jolt from outside.” That is what they want. He let the cat out of the bag. Therefore they besmirch this Government and do not hesitate to undermine us. That is why they have no scruples in inviting foreign enemies to give South Africa a jolt so that they can come into power. [Time limit.]

I was pointing out that if the policy of separate development was to be carried out, there would have to be certain large areas in the other provinces and also in other parts of the Cape which would have to be separated for the purpose held in view by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has taken the line that the areas set aside for the Natives have been theirs historically and that we have been fortunate, perhaps, in the fact that they have existed. But it does seem to me that the overwhelming majority of those who support the policy of the hon. gentleman, regard the Transkei as the testing area. I wonder whether they realize that the population of the Transkei is approximately only one-tenth of the Bantu population of South Africa, so that if the matter in respect of the Transkei can be brought to a successful conclusion they have only got one-tenth of a policy and there are the further nine-tenths which still have to be solved in the other parts of South Africa. It should be pointed out that the density of the population in the Transkei is already 82 per sq. mile, compared with 27 per sq. mile for the rest of South Africa as a whole. It should also be indicated that the population of the Bantu areas as a whole is approximately 63 per sq. mile. I know that many of the areas concerned are, or could be, profitably farmed; that they are areas which, were it not for neglect, would be fertile. That gives some idea of the very deep problem with which one is faced in regard to this matter, and it seems clear that the Prime Minister is going to have to step into the various other provinces perhaps to a far greater degree than the public realizes. I wonder whether the public realizes that in the Cape, when all the areas already indicated have been acquired, only 10 per cent of the Cape will have been set aside for Native areas? When you come to the Transvaal the figure will be 24 per cent, and in Natal it will be 35 per cent. The trouble is that the public is in the position to-day where it has little knowledge as to where those areas are to be found. In the Transvaal already there are some 84 separate Native settlements scattered in a northerly are between east and west. If this policy is to be carried out, they have to be consolidated. The Prime Minister is leaving a very large section of the country in complete uncertainty as to what is held out to them for the future, not only in the industrial sphere but the farming community as well. The question is whether our economy can afford any more strain or more uncertainty than we have already had to put up with in the past. It is no longer fashionable in Government circles to speak of no more development in the established areas and limiting the development to the borders of the reserves, as was the case in the past. It is no longer fashionable because they find out that the voters supporting them do not like it and they are finding it a very tricky problem to disperse industries to the borders of the reserves and at the same time keep the areas in which there are declining mines and failing industries happy and supporting the Government.

Let us take one example. What is the future of a little town like Wakkerstroom, a town with a wonderful water supply, near the sources of about five rivers, the population of which in the last ten years has fallen by approximately one-third, an area in which industrial land is available at about R2 per morgen. Here you have an area that is not within 30 miles of a Native reserve, the limit apparently accepted at the moment for the establishment of border industries. What sort of attitude will be taken up by the Government in order practically to deal with the problem of that kind when vast sums have to be spent for the development of industries both on the borders of the reserves and inside the reserves themselves, to carry anything like the population envisaged by the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister made it perfectly clear that he is prepared to stand rock-fast by his policy in the face of external pressure. I presume that means that he will stand rock-fast also in the face of internal pressure, no matter how much the economy of the country has to be bent and broken to carry out that policy. But what are the effects already? There is uncertainty in the industrial areas and also in the agricultural areas. There are many areas where the farming community are unwilling to make permanent improvements because the Prime Minister is quite incapable of defining the boundaries of those future Native areas. I wonder whether that has anything to do with the fact that in the Transvaal the building plans have fallen from over R50,000,000 in 1959 to a mere R32,000,000 last year? Such estimates are incalculable, but it is quite clear that they must be playing a part. You find yourself with manufacturers all over the country who have no certainty that what is outside the reserves to-day will be outside the reserves to-morrow. What certainty have they that a border industry to-day will be a border industry to-morrow? The boundaries of these areas have not yet been defined. Despite our pressure on the Minister concerned and the Prime Minister, we have as yet had no clear indication of what the position is. How do the farmers stand in areas like Louis Trichardt, Tzaneen, Nelspruit, Zeerust, Lichtenburg, Pietersburg and the borders of Rustenburg, where nearly 500,000 acres will have to be bought? In the Cape the farming community has incentives because of the Orange River Scheme, but you may find that because of the tremendous labour force required that scheme may result in far more economic integration than we have at present. In fact, welcome as that scheme is, we may find that it itself is another factor rendering it difficult for the Government, if not impossible, to carry out this scheme. If there is uncertainty in the Transvaal, there is also uncertainty in the Cape and in Natal. In regard to Natal, we find that no less than 35 per cent of that province will be under Native control when the areas are finally indicated. That is, of the 33,000 odd square miles, some 12,500 square miles will be under the control of the Native population. What one is faced with there is 113 separate units covering over 3,000,000 morgen of land. It includes Native areas, White areas, Crown land, game reserves, all grouped together cheek by jowl, and it will take great trouble to sort it out. What we want to know also is what is the future of the Tugela Valley, perhaps potentially South Africa’s richest industrial area, if it could get a proper scheme of development. [Time limit.]

I will be pleased if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will give me his attention for a few moments. He asked a series of questions which have often been asked in connection with what he calls the boundaries for the future. He knows very well that this is a matter of a process which will take place over a period of time. He also knows that process can be accelerated and hastened and facilitated when we also have authorities there such as we now have in the Transkei, and that with the co-operation of those authorities we will be able to effect consolidation in this regard very much more easily. However, I want to put this question to him very clearly. Sir, I object to the custom by which a member is always prevented from listening when one wishes to discuss something with him. With a view to the questions which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has asked, I want to ask him whether he wishes to suggest that he is of opinion that the amount of land which will eventually be needed for the Bantu people is too small? From his questions I deduce that this is what he contends. I also want to ask him whether the objection which they raised at their congress when they broke with the Progressives is one which they have now dropped and whether they now agree with the Progressives once again? In other words, must we continue to comply with all the requirements of the 1936 Act? Is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition prepared to reply to this question? We must know where we stand with the Opposition in connection with this question because there is something else which emanates from the policy propounded by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Yeoville which disturbs me. They advocate a strong middle-class, a land-owning class of Bantu who must own land in the White areas. The Leader of the Opposition must tell us very clearly: In the light of the objection which they lodged at their Bloemfontein Congress, that not one further inch of land should be purchased to give effect to the 1936 Act …

That was not all.

Yes, I know about the tail which they added to it, but that was only a bluff; the Progressives cut off that tail. With a view to that standpoint which they adopted, that not one further inch of land should be purchased to comply with the provisions of the 1936 Act, they now state that they wish to bring a land-owning middle-class Bantu into being who must own land in the White areas. We must have clarity. They do not wish to buy one more inch of land to give effect to the provisions of the 1936 Act but they wish to bring a strong, land-owning middle-class of Bantu into being in the heart of the largest industrial area in South Africa. These are things which the United Party, and in particular, the hon. Leader of the Opposition, has to reply to, because when one listens to their back-benchers, there are so many policies that one does not know where they stand. I hope that while this question is under discussion and while the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has asked all those questions in which he makes out that amount of land is too small, he will give a clear reply because the questions which he asked are again going to be used at UN to prove that we are committing an injustice toward the Bantu. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must give us clarity in regard to these two matters before this debate ends. Then we will also know where he stands. We have every right to ask this because while he has expressed the most severe criticism in respect of these Bantu homelands, on the other hand he must put his own policy and the only policy which has as yet been put is that which I have just mentioned. They object to the implementation of the 1936 Act but at the same time they wish to bring a strong, land-owning Bantu class into being in the heart of the White industrial areas.

At 10.25 p.m. the Deputy-Chairman stated that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave asked to sit again.

House to resume in Committee on 12 April.

I move as an unopposed motion—

be discharged and the Bills withdrawn.

I second.

Agreed to.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

That Orders of the Day Nos. XXII to XXIV, XXVI and XXVIII to XXX for to-day, viz.:

and Orders of the Day Nos. I and II for Friday, 13 April, viz.:

be discharged.

I second.

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask for the privilege of the second half-hour. Last night we had passed over to certain aspects of the policy of separate development which we regarded as being of national importance and worthy of the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister. I had indicated that the Prime Minister, in his capacity as surgeon presiding at the dismemberment of the Republic, should define the areas for us on which he intended to operate with greater accuracy and that he should also indicate to us the boundaries of the areas to be affected, that is the boundaries of the future Bantustans. I point out, Sir, too, that the Transkei involved only about one-tenth of the Native population and therefore only one-tenth of the policy, and that nine-tenths were still to be implemented. I also indicated that while the area of the Cape which would be affected would be only about 10 per cent, that of the Transvaal would be about 24 per cent and that of Natal about 35 per cent and I touched on the difficulties of consolidating the various areas involved. I pointed out that in the Transvaal there were 84 separate units, and 113 in Natal. I indicated that for these very reasons there was tremendous uncertainty in both agricultural and industrial spheres, more particularly in the areas with undeveloped potentials such as the Tugela Valley in Natal. I was promptly taken to task by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg), who does not seem to be here this afternoon, who wanted to know whether I was implying that the areas set aside were too small because the population density was so high and who wanted to know whether the United Party was for or against the further purchase of land for the Native population. He knows as well as I do what the position is and that is that it depends on the purpose for which the land is to be bought. But while this party stands by the undertakings given at the time of the 1936 legislation, we are so opposed to the creation of independent Bantustans and the dismemberment of the Republic that we are not prepared to support the purchase of land for that purpose. He said nothing to dispel the many uncertainties in which Government policy is still shrouded, uncertainties which in our opinion are having a serious effect on the economy of the country at the present time.

It was for that reason that I wanted to raise with the hon. the Prime Minister how he viewed the future of the Tugela Basin under the authority of an independent Zulu state—the basin of a river with a mean annual run-off twice that of the Vaal River at the Vaal Dam. It would be unwise to ignore the possibility that such a Bantu Authority might give priority to the employment of its own people should development take place there, either with South African money or money raised, as envisaged by the hon. the Minister of Finance in reply to the Budget, from external sources. These matters may be dismissed as hypothetical but an answer to them must be sought and an answer must be given if uncertainty is to be avoided, because the hon. the Prime Minister has made it clear that he is serious in the dismemberment operations with which he is engaged, and nobody would have foreseen ten years ago the extent of the growth of African nationalism or the growth of virility in the emergent African states. Sir, I have indicated that the consolidation is a serious matter creating uncertainty in the Transvaal and in Natal, perhaps more than in any other province, and therefor perhaps the remarks of a businessman in the Cape as to the difficulties in this province, which is to be the least affected, may be indicative of the concern which must be felt in the other provinces. Here we have a speech from the President of the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce only last week—

Then he goes on to outline Government policy and he says—

Then he says—

Sir, these are the uncertainties which are worrying the business world, and the question is what the Prime Minister is going to do about them. Then in an article in South African Industry and Trade in this very month they speak of the lack of confidence and the vital necessity for the development of our economy, and they say that can only be obtained by putting the policy into effect and by giving it in detail with all the relevant facts of cost. “Giving it in detail with all the relevant facts of cost.” May I underline that statement as one of the biggest causes of uncertainty and one of the issues which we have raised time and time again with the Prime Minister without getting any satisfaction at all. They go on to say—

Sir, I know what the reply of the hon. the Prime Minister will be. He will say there is no complete security, that there is no infallible stability in the world to-day …

Is that not true?

… But how many of the difficulties of the President of the Chamber of Commerce mentioned in this article are not being created by the hon. the Prime Minister himself? I think that is the point that we are up against. Where in the world do you have to ask questions such as those of the following type: What White entrepreneurs will be allowed into the reserves to help in their development and which will not? Will the Bantustans be ceded a share of the customs revenue of the Republic, like the Protectorates, if we continue to enjoy a complete customs union? Will Bantu industries in the reserves be free to import White technicians and skilled artisans, if they need them, from outside South Africa if necessary? Will Native workers in the Bantustans be free to organize into trade unions? More important still, will Native workers in the border industries be allowed to form trade unions? Will goods, produced perhaps under privileged conditions in the reserves or on the borders, undermine the markets of our established industries? Sir, let us take another query which arises. Will job reservation be applied in border industries? Will job reservation be applied in industries in the reserves or will it not, and what is the effect going to be?

You asked those questions before the establishment of the Republic and nothing happened.

You see, Sir, the businessman has to make his forecasts; he has to consider what his profits are going to be, and when he does not know what the position is, it is extremely difficult for him to estimate for the future; and in dealing with his profits, one of his big problems is taxation. One wonders in what direction the Government’s policy is going to lie in the respect of taxation in the future. There is no doubt at all that millions will be involved in developing the reserves and in developing border industries. We have already had a very large additional sum this year to be devoted to Defence. We know that in a country like Swaziland, for instance, £80,000,000, invested in the last 20 years, has only given employment to about 15,000 males in mining, timber and sugar. Our problem is to give employment to at least 50,000 men each year inside the reserves in non-agricultural industry alone. That is now accepted as a conservative estimate. It is estimated that will cost approximately R2,000 per head. On the borders of the reserves it would seem, if the plan is to be carried out, that we have to absorb 28,000 Natives annually for 10 years. That is not my figure; that is the figure of Dr. S. P. du Toit Viljoen, now Chairman of the Special Committee dealing with border industries. This is how he put it a few weeks ago—

Now, Sir, 50,000 Natives a year inside the reserves, 28,000 Natives a year outside the reserves. Just what investment potential is left for the rest of South Africa, when the South African taxpayer is responsible very largely for his contribution to the development of border industries and of the reserves? I think one has to ask in which direction is the emphasis of Government spending in the future going to be—Bantustans, Defence, Orange River schemes, Education, Social Welfare? This year Defence is taking the lion’s share and it will have to take it for some years to come unless the money which is being spent at the present time is going to be entirely wasted. We know that the hon. the Prime Minister has admitted to plans for the development of the Bantu areas, of which he has only touched on the fringe so far; we know also that he has indicated in the past that apartheid would have advanced adequately if after 50 years approximately equal proportions of Whites and Bantu have been reached in the European territory. I think we are entitled to know from the Prime Minister something which we have never been able to get out of him before, and that is his estimate of the progress that is being made towards that target. I think we want to know his estimate of the future rates of absorption of the population in Bantu areas. We also want a more detailed estimate of the costs involved. He has differed from the estimates given in the various reports; he has given his own estimates, and we still do not know where we are. I think when people are called upon to pay out an extra R40,000,000 for Defence, they have the right to know what sort of future it is that they are expected to defend.

We know that there is going to be competition for spending in the future between Defence, between development, between the Government’s big plans, and the Orange River scheme. Sir, if you look at what has been happening in Australia, a country with much less in the way of natural resources than this country, you find that they are at least 25 years ahead of South Africa in both science and industry.

There is no United Party there.

There is no National Government there either. They make oil tankers of 18,000 or 19,000 tons; they make 10,000-ton cargo vessels and passenger liners, 2,500-ton destroyers. We make tugs, minesweepers and fishing boats, if we are lucky. They produce jet fighters and jet bombers, diesel electric locomotives, cars, trucks, radar network, television receivers and transmitters, satellite tracking stations. Sir, where do we find the manpower to produce things of this kind in South Africa? We just have not got the trained men available, and tragically so many of our trained men have emigrated as a result of the policies of this Government; and what is more dramatic still is that we are not producing sufficient of the men and women to satisfy even our modest target.

How many children have you?

Not enough money is being spent on education and technical services to meet these difficulties. You are faced with the position that there is a shortage in agricultural technical services, veterinary services, and in almost every Government Department, and you are faced with a small White population which is responsible almost entirely for the defence of this country, for providing virtually all the administrative personnel of this country and all the trained and technical people. We know that the development of the Native reserves was underspent by about R5,000,000 last year, but I have a very shrewd guess that it is due to the fact that the hon. the Minister was short of trained people and technical services. We know that the Minister of Transport could not spend the money voted to him on capital expenditure last year and admitted that it was due to a shortage of engineers.

He is going to get Japanese ones now.

He is going to learn from the Japanese ones now.

What about it? Are you against it?

Sir, listen to these childish interjections which are indicative once more of the fact that they realize that their Government has failed in this sphere, has failed completely in this sphere. We had a motion from a Government member only a week or so ago drawing attention to the shortage of technical people in South Africa, but he limited it too much because he did not make provision for the question of administrative people; he did not deal with the difficulties we have in other spheres. Sir, this is going to be one of the greatest problems with which we shall be faced, because the rate of development of our standard of living has not kept pace with the rate of development of standards of living in other Western countries, and the result is that not only are we unable to attract men from overseas, but they are attracting away some of our best brains in South Africa and we are not getting them back again.

Then, Sir, you have the claims of social security. We have not even got a national pension scheme, and the taxpayer is being faced with a stiffer and stiffer hill to climb every year. What are the answers of the hon. the Prime Minister in his scheme for development in respect of those matters?

May I sum it up? I have asked him for a clearer exposition in respect of the development of the Bantu areas, particularly in Natal and the Transvaal. I have asked him for a more detailed estimate of the rate of absorption capacity of those Bantu areas; I have asked him for his latest assessment of the rate of progress towards the target of equal proportions of Black and White living in White areas by the end of this century. I want to know something about the rate of development of border industries and the possibility of their absorbing the number of Native work-seekers annually which was envisaged in his scheme. I want to know what is being done to combat the depopulation of the platteland, with the lack of attention of development in underdeveloped areas away from the reserves.

What about the Orange River scheme?

The hon. member speaks of the Orange River scheme. I would hate to disillusion him, but he knows what the total population is that is involved in new farming areas; he knows probably how much work that will give and he knows that will nowhere near meet the requirements of South Africa’s growing job-seekers annually. Or has he not studied the scheme?

Sir, I have asked the Prime Minister to give serious thought to the question of manpower and how that is going to affect the development which he envisages, particularly the crippling shortage of skilled workers. I pointed to the uncertainties which it is creating and in view of all these difficulties I wonder whether I can ask the Prime Minister or urge him to take a less rigid approach to this problem in South Africa. Sir, wisdom is simple; folly keeps a groove, and with the vast problems with which we are faced in South Africa it is more than possible that no one system will offer a solution. It is more than possible that we will have to seek an answer to our race problems that combines the most constructive elements of self-administration and co-administration. I would say that our problem was to try to reconcile steadfastness with change, unity with variety and realism with high idealism. But where do we get with the hon. gentleman? He has recently been having a conference with the representatives of the Territorial Authority of the Transkei over their new constitution. I pointed out before in this House the danger that along the road which he envisages for them he will find that these developing areas will fall within the purview of Article 73 (e) of the Charter of the United Nations. I have had a reply from the Prime Minister which seems to indicate that he was taken by surprise, and it seemed to me that he had not seriously considered the issue. It seemed to me to my amazement that the Government had not seriously considered the issue and that they did not really know what the position was in that regard. What was most interesting was the reaction of the Minister of Finance when he replied to a debate a little later in this Session when he seemed to have second thoughts on the issue and said it would need reconsideration. I think what we should inquire is whether this matter was considered when the constitutional talks were held. I think we should know whether it was considered and taken into account and whether the new constitutional proposals were examined against that background. Must we understand that the Government approved these proposals which are now to be placed before the Territorial Authority; must we understand that it is satisfied that development on that road will not involve this particular article of the United Nations Charter? I think that anyone who has studied that particular constitution will be struck by the extreme vagueness of the provisions providing for the compensation of the present White inhabitants of the reserves. At no time so far have we had a satisfactory answer from the hon. the Prime Minister on that issue. The most that we had was an interjection from the Minister of Transport that they would be compensated, and that is about what their constitution says, that in certain circumstances they will be compensated, but that is all. We are left in a state of complete uncertainty as to the future.

Do you want it to the last rand or to the last cent?

I would like it, I think, to the last Coetzee.

Sir, that concludes the main issues connected with the policy of separate development but I would like to refer to one or two other issues of national importance which are having an effect internally.

The first of those concerns the possibility of Great Britain joining the European Common Market and our representation at those talks. We have had the reply that the diplomatic representative of the Republican Government in Brussels is a trained economist and that he is going to be assisted by another economist on his staff. But, Sir, there is no indication of the direction in which the Government’s thoughts are moving. Are they still obsessed with the idea that we might get associate membership? Is the idea to move in that direction with all its difficulties, or are they seeking separate treaties and a separate consideration for certain of our articles which will be covered by that agreement? I think the hon. gentleman could do much to relieve the uncertainty and worry of many of our businessmen and industrialists if he could give us an idea of the direction in which his mind is working on that issue.

There is one other issue which I feel I should raise at this juncture and that is the issue of Radio South Africa. We heard complaints before in this House about the policies being followed by that Corporation. We have had replies which we have regarded as entirely unsatisfactory from the Minister who is connected with that issue. Now we have seen reports, which we believe to be accurate, of the resignation of a large percentage of the staff engaged in that Corporation—trained and experienced men who have been with it over many years—and once again we seem to have received no satisfaction whatever. Other speakers can expand this issue, but it seems to me that a stage has been reached where we have to consider what the future of that Corporation should be in South Africa.

Incorporate it in the Transvaler.

I think one should get some idea as to what the plans of the Prime Minister are in that regard.

Then, Sir, we have two new ministerial appointments. The Minister of Finance in his memorandum indicates that the following new Votes have been included: A Minister of Indian Affairs and a Department of Community Development. I think we should have from the Prime Minister exactly what is envisaged by the creation of these two new Departments, and exactly what their functions are going to be. He has tried to tell us from time to time, most unsatisfactorily, what his plans are in respect of the Cape Coloured people, but we have had little or no idea as to what his plans are in respect of the Indian population. We now have a new Minister of Indian Affairs and I think it is incumbent upon the hon. gentleman to tell us what the functions of that Department are and what his plans are for the future development of the Indian people.

Then we hear of this Department of Community Development. “A Department of Community Development has been established for the purpose of settling fully-fledged communities in their respective areas.” What are “fully-fledged communities”? To whom does this apply? Does it apply to Europeans, to Coloureds, to Bantu, to Indians? What are “fully-fledged communities”? I think we are entitled to know.

Then a new Department of Information has been created which has taken over all information services previously provided on Vote. [Interjections.] I think that the “hear, hears” of hon. members opposite indicate how dissatisfied they were with the way information services were run in the past. I think they welcome a change, any change, rather than what they had before. But I think we are entitled to ask whether there is any hope of success from this Department while the Government continues to follow the policies it is following at the present time. I think we are entitled to ask whether there is any hope of the restoration of confidence overseas while we have statements such as we had from the Minister of Defence over the past few weeks. I think we are entitled to ask whether information services will ever do the country any good at all while Ministers continue to make the statements they do and this Government follows the policies which it has been following. I think we are entitled to ask the Prime Minitser in this regard what he hopes to achieve with this Department, and whether perhaps it would not have been best to forget about it altogether and to save the money for the people of South Africa. [Time limit.]

You have not said anything about mining yet.

Yesterday I listened attentively to every speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. We noted that last night he announced that he had come to the second point of his attack, namely the consequences of separate development and, as he called it, the dismemberment of the Republic. I was under the impression that he would continue discussing that subject this afternoon and expatiate further on it. But when towards the end of his speech this afternoon he dealt with the Common Market and Radio South Africa and the portfolios of the new Ministers, I did not know with what point of attack the Leader of the Opposition was then dealing.

However, I want to confine myself to the first statement he made yesterday, in regard to the so-called dismemberment of the Republic. There he had in mind the important policy announced during this Session by the hon. the Prime Minister in regard to self-government of the Transkei. In the past we in South Africa have performed great deeds, and mistakes were also made, but a wise Providence wove those mistakes and those great deeds into a colourful pattern which we call the history of South Africa, and from that history we derive our strength. Not only in respect of the Whites of South Africa is it of the greatest importance to us, but also in respect of the non-Whites, and for that reason I want to advance an argument this afternoon which has not been used here yet in regard to the constitutional development of the Transkei, namely the so-called historical argument, to prove that what was said by the Leader of the Opposition, namely to accuse this side of the House of being responsible for the dismemberment of the Republic, is a matter which had its origin in the dim and distant past. What is of importance is that when the challenge was issued to this Government and to the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister did not retreat in the face of that challenge but accepted it and gave heed to the course indicated to us by history. I may almost say that if there had to be partition in South Africa, it is only the implementation by this side of the House of a policy determined by our history. When in 1866 the Transkeian Territory was abandoned and it was decided not to incorporate it in the Colony, Theal, the well-known historian, in Volume V of his well-known work on the history of South Africa, exclaimed in surprise that by means of this step the then Governor and the Colonial Secretary “have thrown away a golden opportunity of pushing forward the border of the White immigrants without doing the slightest harm to the Black immigrants”. To this subjective conclusion arrived at by Theal, the well-known Prof. Walker replied in his “History of Southern Africa”—

This is what Prof. Eric Walker said in the latest edition of his well-known work, “History of Southern Africa”.

Towards the end of the chapters in which Theal dealt with the annexation of the various Transkeian Territories, he says—

But then follow these very significant words—

In despair he then exclaimed—

In other words, even after the annexation of the Transkeian Territories it never became part of the Colony as such.

The next important step in the constitutional development of this to us very important area was the putting into operation of the well-known Glen Grey Act of 1895 by Cecil John Rhodes. He called it “A Native Bill for Africa”, and in regard to the effects of this measure Walker states—

Thereupon followed the measures by General Hertzog and his Government, and on that again followed the measures applied by the present Government, viz. the well-known Bantu Authorities legislation. Therefore what I want to indicate here is that what happened in regard to this territory in the past was aimed at its eventually becoming a self-governing area. And what this Government has done was to recognize that was the trend of history and to give implementation to it Now I want to mention one further instance to prove how deeply in earlier years this impression had already taken root in the minds of our statesmen. In a very important speech made by General Smuts in 1917, which has not yet been quoted in this House, he used these significant words—

In other words, what General Smuts says here is that the Protectorates which were established set an example for future policy in the Union of South Africa. [Time limit.]

I am not going to deal with the laboured argument of the hon. member for Mayfair (Dr. Luttig), who tried to show how General Smuts supported the idea of sovereign independent Bantustans years and years ago. He might even have gone further back into history. The truth of the matter is, and those of us who lived with General Smuts know it, that the old gentleman would turn in his grave, and so would his confreres, if they realize the kind of arguments that are being adduced to-day to support this Government’s policy and the meaning that is being attached to speeches which he made in a different context and under different circumstances entirely. Indeed, Sir, I find it curious to-day, the intense enthusiasm and support for the late General Smuts which is being kindled in the breast of National Party members as we hear their speeches from time to time, how they realize how wrong they were during the General’s lifetime, and how they failed him instead of supporting him. They clothe him now with all the virtues with which he can be clothed, but they still don’t follow his creed and his policies. They still oppose his policies and they can find no good reason why they follow this wretched policy they are following to-day.

I was pleased, however, to see that after my hon. Leader sat down, he was not followed, as usual, by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) with his Nkrumah diplomacy, because that is how we have become to view his contributions to some of these debates. Sir, we feel that it is not by chance that he follows the Prime Minister. We don’t know whether the hon. the Prime Minister arranges for him to speak immediately after him so that he shall act as a foil to the Prime Minister in the speeches which he makes. It certainly is a wonderful comparison which we are able to make when we listen here in a quite objective manner to the fulminations of the hon. member of Vereeniging, many of them of very little consequence and not appertaining to the issue before us. But what we are concerned with is this that the Prime Minister’s speeches and the Leader of the Opposition’s speeches shall be read and that they should be followed by an hon. gentleman like the hon. member for Vereeniging and that the eyes of the world shall be directed at the Nationalist Party and its philosophy, not only through the words of the hon. the Prime Minister, but also through the words of the hon. member for Vereeniging. What a picture to paint to the world of the viewpoints of the Nationalist Party.

As you follow after your leader has spoken.

The hon. the Prime Minister will excuse my blushes if I modestly accept that I am quite willing to humbly take my place behind my Leader. But where does the hon. member for Vereeniging hope to stand, behind his Leader? Behind the hon. the Prime Minister? He is no blushing back bencher when it comes to putting forward his point of view.

In my limited time I should like to develop a few points and I want to come again to this question of the boundaries of the proposed Bantustans. We have tried to get some information from the Prime Minister in this regard in the past and we have failed completely. We see in the Estimates this year an amount of R2,000,000 for the acquisition of further land for the purpose of the Bantustans. It is suggested that there be 500,000 or 600,000 acres of Crown Land taken over, but that land be purchased to the extent of R2,000,000, purchased to add to the Government’s concept of future independent Bantustans. Where are the boundaries to be drawn? You see, Sir, in South Africa we hope to have, and it is the policy of this side to have, one economy— that the various people, whatever their race, whatever their station in life, whatever their social status, may contribute to the economy of South Africa, one economy, and that the Bantu in the reserves or the Bantu on the farm, the Coloured people, the Indians, the White man, will all contribute to one economy for South Africa. But when the hon. the Prime Minister comes with his proposals in regard to the Bantustans and fails to determine where the boundaries are to be set, and we get an hon. member like the hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. D. J. Potgieter) telling meetings of farmers that they should sell their land to the Native Trust …

Where do you get that story?

I hope the hon. member will get up to deny that presently and that he will say that he does not want farmers to sell their land to the Native Trust.

Will you meet me on the same platform at Vryheid?

We are in this position that continually we get information, reliable information which we test here in Parliament, of the offer of farms here and farms there and farms somewhere else, and as these farms are purchased and as negotiations proceed, so do we see vast areas becoming imbued with the idea among the White farmers that their days are numbered, that they will have to go, and the Government does nothing whatever to set their fears at rest. This is again a case of the creeping paralysis and this Government’s Kenya policy. The White people and the White farmers in those areas are expendable. This Government is doing nothing to set their fears at rest, or to show them that here in South Africa they can find their own permanent domicile, develop their farms, spend vast sums as some of them have already done, and others proposed to do so as to develop their farms without the fear that their farms are going to be taken over, not necessarily through direct negotiation, but because someone in the vicinity may be hard up for the time, perhaps not being able to pay the taxes to the Minister of Finance, finds that he has to sell a part or all of his farm, the Native Trust takes it over, and the rot has set in. The moment that first step is taken, the neighbours immediately get frightened. We. have seen it happen over and over again in South Africa. They are going to be on the edge, on the boundary. I have a boundary with a Native reserve, I have lived on that boundary all my life. I know exactly what it is to be a boundary-farm between a White area and a Native area. I know all the petty nuisances and so does the hon. member for Vryheid and other hon. members—the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) who does not live in his constituency any longer. He knows the petty annoyances and serious difficulties that those farmers have to deal with. I ask again: Where is the boundary to be drawn? If one looks at Natal, as my hon. Leader has pointed out, 25 per cent of the province is to be handed over to the Bantu. What a jig-saw puzzle of Black and White! With more than 250,000 Indians thrown in! They will be looking for a Hindustan. Of course the Coloured people are rather like the nursemaid’s baby, very small in number, and it does not matter very much what happens to them. I think that is the Government’s attitude. They do not worry about the Coloured people in Natal. The Coloured people in Natal are getting no consideration whatsoever. They are simply ignored because they only count 30,000. Now the Government says “Consolidation”. There can be no consolidation; it is absolutely impossible in the jig-saw puzzle of the various landholdings under the ownership of the various racial groups in Natal. There can be no consolidation at all except in the case of Zululand. I want the Government to tell us quite frankly where they propose to draw the boundary, particularly in the case of Zululand. Is it going to be south of the Tugela? Are they putting the Tugela basin in a Bantustan? The Tugela valley is the biggest potential industrial undeveloped area in South Africa. Where does the Government intend to draw the boundary? What is to be the relationship across the boundary when once the boundary has been established? We saw recently the case of Ganyile. Are we to have perpetual Ganyile boundary cases between the Transkei and Natal for example and the Transkei and the Cape and the Transkei and Basutoland? Or will the Transkei and Basutoland be permitted to get together and form a Bantustan of their own? Will they be allowed to join up? Let me repeat what we all know, the point of contact is the point of friction. Your boundaries are the point of friction and they have been so since 1877, since the old boundary wars here in South Africa. And the Government is going back again to create the very conditions under which those boundary wars were fought. The hon. members for King William’s Town and Albany know all about these boundary wars in their immediate past history. Those conditions are being re-created by the Government deliberately. They even go so far as to create a separate citizenship for the people who will be on the other side of the boundary. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat blamed me for having quoted from a speech made by Gen. Smuts, and the hon. member says it was made under totally different circumstances. But now I want to put it to the hon. member that although I am quite aware that in his well-known speech in 1946 before the Institute of Race Relations Gen. Smuts adopted a course which to-day we regard as having indicated the course of integration, I want to challenge the hon. member to prove where Gen. Smuts ever deviated from the basic views he expounded in the speech he made in 1917. He never deviated from them until the end of his life. Therefore I have the greatest liberty in quoting Gen. Smuts. He said—

And then he continues—

These views expounded by Gen. Smuts in 1917 are now being further implemented as the result of the practical application of the policy of this Government as announced by the Prime Minister, by a speech made by the well-known Lord Hailey, who on 23 February in London expressed himself as follows in regard to the announcement of the policy of granting self-government to the Transkei—

And then follows this important sentence—

I have therefore indicated how from the very earliest times in so far as this particular area is concerned history has indicated the course in the direction of self-government, and I have shown how it fits in with the views now expressed in the speech of Lord Hailey.

What about the policy of incorporating the Protectorates?

The hon. the Prime Minister has repeatedly expressed his opinion on that point, and surely it is not necessary for me to repeat it. I just want to advise the hon. member to read more of the speeches of the hon. the Prime Minister, and also the Leader of the Opposition. A whole number of the questions put to-day by the Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister have already repeatedly been replied to by the Prime Minister in this House. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said to-day that he shared the anxiety of the industrialists in South Africa in regard to the development of self-government for the various Bantu areas. But all the Leader of the Opposition has done was to increase the uncertainty by repeatedly putting questions the answers to which have already been given in this House. He has contributed nothing towards removing the uncertainty.

I want to give an example of that. We are now only in the initial stages of the constitutional development of the Transkei. Now the Leader of the Opposition already wants to know what is going to happen in the Tugela Basin. We still have to discuss the Transkei constitution in this House. There are quite a number of matters which still have to be arranged in that regard. But now the Leader of the Opposition wants to know what will happen one day with regard to the Tugela Basin. Much of the uncertainty which exists will be removed as soon as the relations between the Republic and the Transkei have been cleared up, which will happen in the near future. One simply cannot go faster than the Government is going now. Will not the Leader of the Opposition abide by it, knowing that many of the problems will in fact be cleared up? He again had much to say about the demarcation of the borders. That point has repeatedly been dealt with by the Prime Minister who clearly stated that it was a matter to be determined between the two states. We will be guided by the same principle when we negotiate with the other areas. But now already the Leader of the Opposition wants a blueprint for the whole of South Africa in respect of what may happen during the next 50 years. That is a very unreasonable question. As I said in the beginning, we are giving expression here to the voice of history and morally we have done the right thing, and therefore I believe that all the uncertainty and doubts which the Leader of the Opposition sought to create to-day will disappear like mist before the morning sun, and this step will prove to be the soundest step which could be taken in the interest of South Africa as a whole, particularly because it had its origin in the dim past.

Nothing the hon. member for Mayfair (Dr. Luttig) has said will convince this House or the country that Gen. Smuts in fact envisaged these separate Bantustans and the Transkei being a separate state. The hon. member took my Leader to task for ask-ink questions as to the future of the Bantustans, the position of the boundaries and their relations with the Republican Government. He says that the hon. the Prime Minister will give us the answers in due course after negotiations with the new state. But what we fear is that not only the Nationalist supporters, but the whole country will find they have bought a pig in a poke if they accept this Bantustan plan of the Prime Minister. Sir, the initial stages of the carrying out of the policy of establishing these separate states, these Bantustans, have now been reached, and a constitution has been prepared for the Transkei, and although we have not been given the terms of this constitution by the hon. the Prime Minister, the Press apparently has managed to get the details from the Recess Committee appointed by the Territorial Authority to go into the question. Now we know that not only have Government officials been assisting the Recess Committee in the preparation of this draft, but the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and also the hon. the Prime Minister have interviewed this committee, and have no doubt given them some guidance. In fact the Recess Committee in its report thanks the officials and the Government for assistance given and the patience shown. I have the full details here now of this constitution. In considering the constitution, I just want to say that it is all very well for hon. members opposite to view this matter in a detached way, as an experiment to be carried out in some foreign country. But it is impossible for me or anyone living in the Transkei, or for any White or Coloured person living in an area which may fall within the boundaries of a future Bantustan to view this matter in that detached way. Sir, the Africans through their Territorial Authority, their chiefs and their headmen, have been consulted in regard to the terms of the constitution, but the White people, the Coloured people and the Africans living outside the Government locations in the Transkei have not been consulted at all. The White people have their associations, their civic associations and their farmers’ associations, they have their municipalities, but no Minister has consulted them at all as to their position in this future independent state. We, the White people, and the Coloured people will have to accept what is agreed to by the Prime Minister and the chiefs and headmen of the Transkei. It is impossible and difficult for even educated Bantu to discuss this matter in the Transkei amongst themselves while the emergency regulations prevail. They do so with dire consequences.

Now you are talking the greatest nonsense.

The hon. member knows nothing about what is happening in the Transkei and therefore it is unfair for him to talk about the Transkei. People who are so ignorant about the position in the Transkei should not be allowed to take part in such discussions.

I know the Transkei just as well as you do.

He should make himself better acquainted with the position there before he opens his mouth. This is a matter affecting people vitally. How is the constitution going to affect the White people and the Coloureds? As far as limited control over their own affairs is concerned we have no quarrel with that. In fact, that is the policy of the United Party under our federation scheme. That was also the policy of Gen. Smuts when he led the United Party. [Interjections.] Of course it was his policy. His policy was to allow the Bantu to develop local government and Gen. Smuts stated that in no uncertain terms. In fact, Gen. Smuts’ policy was to give the Representative Council executive power; he said so before he went out of power; he was going to give them more executive power; he was going to give the former Bunga more and more control over their own affairs. This history of the policy of the United Party as related by the hon. member for Mayfair (Dr. Luttig) who started with the Glen Grey Act— was quite right. But the Glen Grey Act was not passed by the Nationalist Party. The old Bunga system was not established by the Nationalist Party. That was the policy introduced by the governments long before the Nationalist Party was thought of. Dr. Hertzog, Dr. Malan and Mr. Strydom, the other leaders of the Nationalist Party, never suggested to the country that their policy was the eventual independence of these states. The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) asked the hon. member for Mayfair, if this had always been the policy of the Nationalist Party why did Dr. Verwoerd, the present Minister, or the other leaders of the Nationalist Party want to incorporate the Protectorates in the Union? What was the good of incorporating them if you were just going to make them independent again? Obviously the intention was to bring the Protectorates in to the Union and to keep the Union as one whole. Where the policy of my party differs to-day from the policy of the Prime Minister is in this respect. [Interjections.] Of course it is the Prime Minister’s policy—it was not Dr. Malan’s policy. Our two policies differ in this respect: Although we are prepared to allow the Bantu in the reserves to develop self-government they will at all times remain an integral part of South Africa and that is why we offer them representation in this House of Parliament. We want to give them representation here because they will always remain full citizens of this country and they will always come under the sovereignty of the Union Parliament. Where we differ also is in regard to the development of the reserves. We propose practical development, Sir, and our policy is to encourage White capital and White initiative to take part in that development on a permanent basis so as to enable the area to carry a much larger proportion of its population, and incidentally to bring prosperity to all the inhabitants of the area. The more development the Whites are able to encourage the happier will the future of the Africans be. With our long and happy association with the Africans we are sure that we can proceed together along lines of co-existence to a bright future to our mutual benefit. But what are the prospects under this Government’s policy? To begin with I do not believe that there will be any appreciable industrial development. The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development himself has admitted that in no country can more than 25 per cent of the population exist on the land. That has been the experience in all countries. If that is so, to make the Transkei viable and not dependent on the Republic for its bare existence, employment must be found in secondary and tertiary industries for over 1,000,000 people and for their natural annual increase. With the assistance promised by this Government under the five-year plan and under its Development Corporation scheme, I cannot see that happening for many, many years to come. Admittedly under this Government’s plan of assistance some of the Bantu will reap benefits. They will be able to open shops and small industries. But the tempo of development will be slowed down and the masses of the people will not benefit at all. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I was tempted to rise at this stage to tell the hon. member who has just resumed his seat how little he knows about the Transkei where he evidently lives. He started off here by making a plea for the Bunga as really being an excellent system, which was not the creation of the National Party, but on which the Opposition wanted to base all their ideas for development. Now, what was the Bunga? Was the Bunga really a sort of Bantu Parliament? Was that the method by which the Bantu of the Transkei were enabled to govern themselves? Nothing of the sort. Not only was it an advisory body, although it could be developed into a controlling body if that was the intention, but its composition was such that it was largely a body controlled by the Whites. The Bunga had the Chief Native Commissioner as the chairman. It also had the Native Commissioners as members …

But it was Gen. Smuts’ plan to reform it.

No, Gen. Smuts intended to retain the Glen Grey Plan, if what the hon. member says here is true. The Bunga itself had to develop in so far as its functions were concerned. The Bunga therefore had to develop on the basis on which it was established. I repeat that the Bunga consisted of a White chairman, the Chief Native Commissioner, and in the front benches were all the Native Commissioners, and on the back benches sat the Bantu themselves. I myself attended it, and on those occasions it was very clear that it was the White administrative officials of the Department and of the Trust who exercised control. Those hon. members opposed it when we introduced development (which the hon. member now says would in fact have taken place), namely in the direction of a body controlled by the Bantu! He himself opposed it. He opposed the system of Bantu authorities. But what has the Bantu authority system done? It really brought about a stage of development which the hon. member now wants to tell me Gen. Smuts had in mind, namely by the Bantu having their own chairman there, by the Bantu becoming the exclusive members of this body and by this body, apart from advisory powers, being given certain administrative powers of control. That hon. member was even opposed to that development. I am therefore not surprised that he is opposed to the further stage of development. But what I want hon. members to understand very clearly is that this Bunga was nothing else but a mixed body in which the officials had most of the say. That was probably good enough when the Bantu were completely undeveloped at the time the Glen Grey system was established, but in this modern era it is certainly not good enough.

That is the first thing I wish to point out to the hon. member, namely that his plea for the Bunga rests on a very weak foundation. Then the hon. member further said that the information which the public has obtained thus far in regard to the so-called constitution —which, however, is not a constitution yet but a draft report—they obtained from the Recess Committee. That is quite correct, but it had to be so. Because what is happening at the moment? What is happening is that the Territorial Authority of the Transkei appointed a Recess Committee to direct a request, or rather, to work out the details and to submit them to the next meeting of the Territorial Authority, on the basis of which it could direct a request to the Republican Government for further constitutional development. In other words, what is happening at the moment is that the Recess Committee, like a Select Committee which is changed into an ordinary committee during the recess when Parliament is not sitting, is busy preparing a report for submission to its own parent body. In the process of framing the proposals which it wished to submit to its parent body, that Recess Committee consulted us. The members asked us for the assistance of our officials; we did not give them that assistance of our own accord. We gave them that assistance at the request of the Committee. The Committee also asked for an interview with the hon. the Minister and with me to obtain advice on the proposals which the members of that Committee were to submit to their own body. If this body approved of those proposals, they were then to be submitted to the Government as an official document for the first time. I advised them. For example, at their most recent meeting I advised them to have a larger percentage of elected representatives as against chiefs than that provided for in their previous draft. I therefore gave them advice which I thought was in their own interests. But this fact does not make that document of theirs mine to make public, either in Parliament or anywhere else. Moreover, this is not necessarily the final request which will be made to the Government and which will then form the basis of what I shall have to submit to Parliament. Because what they have drawn up thus far as a provisional report is a report of what they are asking the Territorial Authority to submit to this Government as a request. If the Territorial Authority accepts it just as it is, that automatically constitutes their request. On the other hand, if the Territorial Authority wishes to change it at all then that amended document will be submitted to us as the official document for the first time. For this reason I have no document at my disposal which I can reveal to Parliament or to anyone else. If the Recess Committee wishes to make its proposed report public, that is its own affair. After all it is its own report and if before submitting its report to the body which appointed it, it makes its report public in advance, then that is also its affair. However, I can well understand why the Recess Committee is doing this. It is doing it because it is consulting its own people. To the best of my knowledge the Recess Committee is consulting the Bantu of the Transkei, both within and outside of the Territory and obviously therefore the document must become public since the members themselves are engaged in mutual consultations. It is not my function to consult either the Bantu of the Transkei or those outside of the Transkei on behalf of that Committee. That is their affair because it is their report. All that I did was to advise them when they asked me for that advice. The hon. member has also levelled the accusation—or so at any rate it appears to me—that as far as the Government is concerned it has not yet consulted the Bantu either within or outside of the Territory. That has nothing to do with me.

I was speaking about the Whites.

His next point dealt with the Whites and I am coming to that now. He stated that the White people and the Coloureds had not been consulted either. He said that the Bantu in the Transkei had been consulted but not the Bantu outside of the Transkei.

I was speaking of the Bantu outside of the Government locations in the Transkei. I was not thinking of the other Bantu.

Then the reply which I have already given covers that allegation of the hon. member, and that is that it is not for me to consult them. This Recess Committee is working on its own report and it consults those whom it considers should be consulted. However, as far as my knowledge goes, now that it has reached the preliminary report stage, it has announced its intention of consulting the Bantu in its own area as well as the Bantu in the White area—whether it be in Umtata or Port Elizabeth or in Cape Town—before it submits that report to the Territorial Authority. That then is the responsibility of the Committee; it is not my responsibility.

May I ask a question? If the Territorial Authority adopts the Constitution of the Recess Committee, will the hon. the Prime Minister accept it as being the Constitution for the Transkei?

I do not intend replying to that question. I first want to see what the Territorial Authority is going to ask of us.

If they adopt it as it has now been proposed?

I do not intend answering that question because it is not my wish to interfere in the deliberations of the Territorial Authority or those of the Recess Committee. I was quite prepared to advise these people on the question which they put to me. When that body makes its request to the Government the Government will then consider the request and if on the grounds of that request the Government frames a Constitution for the Transkei for submission to this Parliament, that Constitution which it submits will then show the extent to which it is prepared to comply with that request. It is obvious that this is the only correct procedure and if hon. members think that I am going to allow myself to be tempted by their questions to depart from the correct procedure by anticipating that request and the deliberations of the Authority in some way or another, even before any request is forthcoming, then they are making a very big mistake.

The hon. member also said, however, that the Whites and the Coloureds in the Transkei were not consulted. In the first place, if the Recess Committee wished to consult the Whites living in the Bantu-controlled area—that is to say, the traders and similar people living there over a wide area—that was its affair. For that matter, there was no reason for me to consult them. Moreover, all our voters have been consulted on this policy through the medium of elections. Furthermore the Whites within the White area, including Umtata, are not affected by this situation because, judging from all the statements made, those areas will remain White areas. We have stated very clearly that future developments may affect them in the course of time. However, everyone has known for years that the Bantu policy of the Government will result in the Europeans in the Bantu areas being affected by these developments because, for the sake of White civilization generally in South Africa, we can no longer allow a continuance of the higgledy-piggledy state of affairs that we have had to deal with in the past. It was always stated clearly and in a completely candid fashion that in the process of development the Bantu areas would become Black more and more because the Bantu would obviously take over the positions amongst their own people in order to do the work which the Whites are doing there at the moment. The rest of South Africa, White South Africa, needs that White manpower so badly that there can be no doubt as to what will become of those Whites. There is a very great need of their labour, of their co-operation and of their services, no matter in which sphere they may be employed, and they will be well looked after. It was quite wrong of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) therefore to do what he did, namely, to say that what we are applying here is a Kenya policy.

We are not applying a Kenya policy in the Transkei. There is a radical difference between the manner in which the British Government has summarily left the Whites of Kenya to their fate and the way in which the Republican Government in its estimate of all that the future holds takes into account its White citizens. After all, not only has the White man in Kenya had to put up with the constant decline in the value of his assets but where he was given certain assurances regarding compensation for those assets he is uncertain to-day whether those assurances will be met and, if so, how many of them will be met. Moreover, those people will have no real say at all in the government. What is the position here? In the first place we are in the fortunate position that because of the way in which this development is taking place, the Bantu leaders of the Transkei do not express themselves as do the Black leaders in Kenya by saying that they actually want nothing to do with the Whites. We find that these Bantu say, “These Whites have been living amongst us and near us for a very long time; we need one another so much that we want to remain on the best of terms with these Whites.”

And do you believe that?

I believe it and I want to ask the hon. member for Transkeian Territories whether he does not believe it too. I want to come now to what the hon. member for South Coast has just said. He is the man who accuses us of oppressing the Bantu. He is the man who objects when we say that we do not believe in an integrated community. He trusts the Bantu. He even wants to absorb the Bantu masses into one state together with him; he wants to sit with them in one Parliament; he wants to sit with them in one Government. He will trust them under all those circumstances. However, when the Government gives them independence and accepts them as neighbours, then he looks upon them as enemies. What confidence can I have in the sincerity of the hon. member for South Coast in respect of the Bantu?

I contend, therefore, that in the first place we have to deal with this one factor that the Bantu of the Transkei wish to associate on a friendly basis with the Europeans living there. In the second place, however, unlike the United Party and the hon. member for South Coast, I accept the fact that one will not be able to maintain permanent harmonious relationships if the European in the Bantu area remains a co-controller and co-governor of the Bantu area and its people. In terms of our policy, therefore, we provide that all those Europeans, other than in the case of Kenya, will continue to exercise their rights as voters but only as citizens of the Republic. They will continue to cast their vote for this Parliament and not for the Transkeian parliament although they are living in that area.

And what will they live on?

Not off the hon. member. She will never take care of them. It is a fact, therefore, that in this way, in contrast to the Kenya policy, provision will be made for these persons to exercise the vote in respect of an area as long as their destinies and survival remain bound up and connected with that area.

The next question that is of importance is what will become of them if they have to clear out. The persons in that territory who are officials will not, as under the Kenya policy, simply be left in the lurch if either they have to resign or if they are dismissed or whatever the case may be. They all remain public servants of the Republic and will receive promotions and transfers in the service of the Republic. When their services become redundant in the Transkei, their employment within the Public Service of the Republic will be assured. We need all these people. There is therefore no uncertainty in this regard at all. In the case of farmers who still have farms within that area or in White spots, as at Umtata, the hon. member for Transkeian Territories knows very well that, just as in the past, the manner in which such land will become Bantu land has been determined. That method is one of purchase, under arbitration if need be, although this has never become necessary. They receive fair compensation. When land is bought from a farmer in a White area which is surrounded by a Bantu area, or in a released area, that land is valued in the proper way. The owner of that land is even paid a percentage above the market value. That is usually added to the price as compensation for inconvenience and loss. In other words, the farmers are also being looked after. Those people who are serving in other spheres, in professional spheres or whatever it may be, if they can no longer practise their profession there, can always return and occupy similar posts in the Republic of South Africa. As distinct from the Kenya policy, therefore, under which Britain left the Whites of that area completely in the lurch, as the process of substituting the Bantu continues, the Transkei policy —as it is called—will afford complete protection to the Whites who are remaining behind there in the meantime. In the meantime the White person retains his civil and political rights and exercises those rights in the neighbouring area throughout the whole period. He can submit his interests for safeguarding to the Republic through his representative. To maintain, as the hon. member for South Coast has done, that we are dealing with a Kenya policy, a policy of leaving in the lurch, is correct in so far as he is criticizing Britain, but is incorrect in so far as he tries to level the same criticism at the Republic.

What about Zululand?

In Zululand the process will be equally wise and equally correct. In no circumstances will we leave the White man in the lurch…. Let me rather not repeat it.

The hon. member for South Coast went on to allege that we were trying to claim General Smuts unto ourselves and that he found it interesting that we were protecting General Smuts. I am afraid he did not understand fully what members of my party meant when they referred to General Smuts. We differed and will continue to differ from General Smuts in respect of a great many things. However, in respect of certain matters concerning the colour policy General Smuts now and again said something which is in complete conformity with our approach. He did not always adhere to it. He also changed his ideas from time to time, as is customary for the United Party to do. There were times, however, when he noticed something which we can commend today and which we readily commend. Members on this side quote him, therefore, in order to hold up a mirror to the United Party so that they may see how far they have strayed away from what was once their basic ideas. We do not quote General Smuts in an attempt to claim him unto ourselves but it is an attempt to get hon. members opposite to measure their present-day ideas with the yardstick which they say they hold in such high regard.

That is what Helen Suzman says.

That hon. member and Helen Suzman were once members of the same party. I am therefore talking about their joint inheritance. The attitude which General Smuts adopted in the past forms a common background to those hon. members. They are like the human being who descended from the baboon—they subsequently developed in different directions.

The hon. member for South Coast also placed great emphasis on something which fits in with one of the principle points raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member said that they wanted to know where exactly the boundaries of the Bantu homelands would be—not only in the case of the Transkei, but in the case of any other area which may become a homeland. I shall deal with that point in a moment. Before I do that I wish to deal with one of the reasons which the hon. member for South Coast advanced. I have to do so because that reason is completely false and warped. He said the farmers, particularly the farmers of Natal, were in a miserable position. For example, provision is made in the Estimates for R2,000,000 for the acquisition of additional land. He says they want to know where the boundaries of the future Bantu homelands will be, otherwise land will continually be purchased on a loose footing adjacent to the Bantu homelands, something which disturbs the farmers greatly because nobody knows when and where he may become a boundary farmer. Had boundaries not existed already, the policy of establishing Bantu homelands would not have existed.

Even if the United Party had been in power, it would have been necessary, under the 1936 policy, to purchase land in the released areas in order to fulfil the promises. Not a penny of the amount which appears in the Estimates, and not a penny of the amount which it is intended to place on the Estimates for the purchase of land, may be used for any other purpose than the purchase of land in the released areas or, in conformity with existing legislation, as has been done all these years, to remove Black spots and to pay compensation. In other words, we are not dealing at all with the purchase of land within areas where, since 1936 when the United Party was in power, the farmers did not know to what they would be subjected. It is absolutely incorrect, therefore, to suggest that land will be sold and that the farmers should be frightened because it will be done under the policy of establishing Bantu homelands. What is happening—and I repeat this— is that every penny which is spent, is being spent in terms of the 1936 legislation, legislation for which they are responsible and for which the hon. member for South Coast is co-responsible. He knows that land is only purchased within released areas. He is therefore trying to frighten the farmers of Natal unnecessarily. I am strongly under the impression that since the hon. member for South Coast has had the fall out with the Progressive Party about the purchase of land, he is levelling charges left and right so that people will perhaps think that he had good reason for his unwise actions at that time.

What about consolidation?

I will come to that. At the moment I am dealing with the accusation—and I wish to rub it in hard—that R2,000,000 has been made available for the acquisition of additional land, but that this is to be used in order to place farmers in an uncertain position because those purchases will include purchases which they could not have foreseen until the policy of establishing Bantu homelands came into existence. I emphasize that is not the case at all. Any land with which any Member of Parliament has been concerned by trying to persuade people to make their land available had to be in a released area particularly. Members of Parliament are, therefore, only doing their duty when they persuade farmers who live in a released area to do their duty in terms of the 1936 Act. They have to exert themselves to let these sales take place, to point to the advantages which will accrue to the country, what the obligations are, and that the prices which the farmers will get are reasonable. In other words, any recommendation which is made is not an attempt, in promoting the policy of Bantu homelands, to exert unfair pressure on the farmers, which is the impression which the hon. member for South Coast is trying to create.

If the hon. member for South Coast were to say that approximately one-third of Natal will be handed over to the Bantu, that is one of those unfortunate facts which we have been talking about all these years, namely that there is such a large Bantu area in Natal. We are not creating a Bantu area there; it is there. When the hon. member causes confusion between Zululand in the broad sense, including the White and non-White areas, and Zululand in the sense that it is the area which is really claimed and occupied by the Bantu, I cannot help it if he confuses those two conceptions in order to make people suspicious. When we talk about the area of the Zulus which has to be managed by the Zulus, in other words, the area which falls under their territorial authority today, we are only dealing with the actual hereditary area of the Zulu as it exists to-day, and we know where its borders are.

That brings me to the question of consolidation which the Leader of the Opposition has asked me about. The way in which Bantu areas can be consolidated is not to join all Bantu land together, wherever it may be, by purchasing all White-owned land in between and thus obtaining a unit. As in the case of the removal of Black spots, the method is to purchase an area which already borders on to a Bantu area and to exchange it for those areas which are situated further away, as in the case of a Black spot which is again converted into a White area.

Even though it is not a released area?

Yes, but let me just finish my argument. The method is not, therefore, to deprive the White man of large sections of South Africa and to add those on to the Bantu area, but consolidation will take place by joining Bantu areas together by means of exchange and in co-operation with both White and Bantu. It has been exceedingly difficult to do that in the past because as far as the sale of areas which constituted Black spots was concerned, the Bantu have often strenuously opposed that. However, when a Bantu community wishes to have its fellow Bantu near to it and advocates the exchange amongst its own people so that suspicion and incitement are avoided, our chances are much better. If that happens, as we have already experienced, it is easy to effect consolidation. Consolidation of the Bantu areas is not a new conception; it has been taking place over the past 30 years.

To-day the hon. member for South Coast talks about the miserable position in which the border farmers live. It is true that the border farmer is faced with problems and difficulties, but when you are dealing with a Black spot or a relatively small isolated Bantu reserve, you find White farmers all along the boundary of that area. When that area is taken away and is compensated for by means of land of an equivalent value adjacent to a Bantu area, it is true that new border farmers are created, but there will be fewer of them than the number of border farmers whom we had round the previous Bantu area, an area whose borders have now disappeared because it has become White. In the long run, therefore, the problem of border farmers is not worsening on account of consolidation, but improving. Hon. members have obviously not thought about that. [Laughter.] I find it difficult to understand why the Leader of the Opposition is laughing now, but I know that in the Western Province he is not and cannot become a border farmer, and he is perhaps laughing because he is glad that he can never become one.

The Leader of the Opposition, in the beginning of his series of speeches, briefly reverted to the reply I gave last night. I do not want to go into that further, except to say that on a few occasions he misquoted me, or repeated what I am supposed to have said whilst I think that he did not repeat it correctly. I do not want to do more than just to give a few examples to clear up what I meant. I understand that he said that I had alleged that “while his Government’s policy is there, he says there is no hope whatsoever of friendship”.

No.

That is how I wrote it down. Let me just explain what I said in fact. I have not his speech available and the Leader of the Opposition put so many questions that I could not make a note of everything. What I said was this. As our policy progresses and can openly be seen for what it is, and as its effect is accepted, the atmosphere and the relations between Whites and non-Whites will change and improve. In other words, my standpoint is not that our policy will result in all hope of friendship disappearing, but just the opposite, namely that I believe that our policy will in the long run in fact lead to friendship and goodwill.

Another allegation which I understand he made is that I said the “hostility” was the same at UN in 1946 as it is to-day. I did not say that either. What I said was that I admitted that the hostility revealed to-day is much worse under the changed circumstances than it was at that time, but I allege that there was already hostility towards us in 1946 and that General Smuts returned to South Africa from UN a disillusioned man, so serious was the hostility he experienced there. I admit that thereafter it became worse, but that is due to circumstances. I still used the words “I admit it has worsened”. My standpoint was that there were other reasons for it, such as the emergence of the Afro-Asian nations and the whole atmosphere which has pervaded the world during the last ten years. Nor did the hostility become worse on the part of the Western nations towards us as the result only of our policy, but the new attitude which developed on their part was the result of the increasing eagerness of the Western nations to get the African and Asian states on their side in the face of the increasing threat of Communism, which was also not as great in 1946 as it is now. Therefore I admit the position has worsened, but not so much as the result of what we did as in consequence of the world situation.

That brings me to a few of the other points raised by the Leader of the Opposition. He says he wonders whether the public realizes to what extent we want to split up South Africa through our policy. This matter has already been discussed repeatedly. I cannot see that the public can be under any illusions as to what lies ahead. The public knows, as we all do in this House, that the Native areas are spread over the whole country. They even think that the position is worse than it is. because during the elections the United Party published maps on which larger areas were painted Black than are in fact Black.

It is the map of the Tomlinson Commission.

Oh no. During the elections I demonstrated from public platforms the difference between the United Party maps and those of the Tomlinson Commission. That is why I say that the impression the public has of the non-White areas is actually worse than the position really is, if in fact they believe the United Party. They know that it is our policy that those areas are Bantu inheritances which they can retain, except in so far as through consolidation some areas may become White and other areas have to compensate for it. Therefore the public is under no illusion. The public realizes the magnitude of the problem and the difficulties with which we are faced, difficulties which the Leader of the Opposition wanted to exploit by sowing panic and dissatisfaction amongst the people by means of his series of questions. However, the public also realizes something else, namely that there is only one alternative for a White-controlled state with Black-controlled neighbouring states, and that is a mixed state such as the United Party wants. It is when faced with that choice between these two possibilities, which both contain problems, that they choose the one, as we do, which contains the least problems. Because the Leader of the Opposition surely realizes that any reason for hatred or lack of confidence which the hon. member for South Coast may have in the Bantu will constitute just as serious a problem, or a worse one, for the Government of a mixed South Africa as it does to a White Government in respect of its non-White neighbours. I want to emphasize that in the case of a mixed Government there will be greater dangers. The United Party imagines that everything we call Bantu areas will become Bantu-controlled in terms of its policy, including Zululand. I am referring now to Bantu-Zululand. The United Party says that will also be Bantu-controlled, but it says: as local governments. However, it does not only say that it will be exclusively Bantu-controlled under local government, but adds that those Bantu-controlled areas will also send their representatives to this Parliament if it becomes a federal Parliament. In other words, in the first place all those Bantu areas, of which they say they are so afraid now, will have co-authority in the Government of a federal South Africa. Apart from that, all the Bantu living in Durban and in all the other urban areas, and whom the hon. member for South Coast surely also mistrusts if he mistrusts the tribal Natives, will be given representation in this Parliament if it becomes a federal Parliament. Then the Indians, in regard to whom he never seems very happy, will also receive representation in this Parliament, and the Coloureds will have the franchise together with the Whites on the Common Voters’ Roll and control the Cape Province in this Federal Parliament. In other words, the question the public of South Africa should have asked itself was this: Where is there less danger and more safety for the continued existence of White civilization, and in what type of country will the economy be safer so that investors will invest their money, in a country which will clearly continue to be dominated by the Whites and which will do its best to live on a good footing with its non-White neighbours but which will at least give a guarantee as to what its character will be, or will the position be safer and better for the continued existence of the Whites and for the economic progress of the country in a mixed country where the non-White groups will increasingly be able to exert pressure to obtain full control—i.e. the process we see in Kenya and the Federation and Tanganyika? Between these two possibilities there is no doubt as to what the voters chose. The election has proved that. Therefore all this scaremongering and all these attempts to undermine the strength of the Government in the eyes of the public are in vain. All this has already been done before, and the fact that the Leader of the Opposition tries to do it again will not avail him. I therefore do not intend to deal in detail with all the scaremongering in which the Leader of the Opposition indulged in regard to our colour policy. I just want to say that in so far as he alleges that businessmen feel that they are now living in uncertainty unless they can get clear demarcations of all the borders of all the potential Bantu areas, that is an exaggerated argument. Those businessmen may say so, but to me what is much more significant is the fact which hon. members are trying to laugh away, namely that the type of policy favoured by the United Party also, viz. integration, was regarded by the British Lombard Bank as fatal to investment. The reason why there has been such an increase of confidence in the future of South Africa, which is being revealed every day—every day we receive new messages from people who visited South Africa and who want to invest their money here—became evident whilst this Nationalist Government with its policy is in power. They could see the difference between the prosperous conditions here as contrasted with the deterioration in the British territories in Africa.

If there is so much confidence, why do you not abolish currency control?

The hon. member knows very well that the Opposition will then do their best to let this Government land in circumstances in which it will have to take action again, by once again encouraging the outflow of capital. This Government does not intend endangering the prosperity of South Africa. It was necessary to introduce currency control, and we see the results of it every day, not only in the increase of our reserves but in the tremendous confidence in South Africa which has developed right throughout the world as the result of the steps we took.

Abolish all controls.

Why do you want that?

Order! The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) will get an opportunity to speak.

The hon. member is disappointed because South Africa is prosperous, and he thinks that by being funny he can make the Government’s policy ridiculous in the eyes of the public, but the public does not judge by words alone. They do not judge by the hon. member’s laughter. They judge by the results and the visible confidence which exists in South Africa and of which he reads every day in his own newspapers. He tries to laugh it away, but does not succeed in doing so. All he succeeds in doing is once more to expose his own prejudice.

Therefore when the Leader of the Opposition says: “Will the Prime Minister stand rockfast by his policy if the economy creaks and bends?” then I say I shall certainly stand rockfast by my policy because I see that the economy in fact is not cracking. On the contrary, I see that our economy is busy making progress as the result of our rocklike policy. Nor am I going to reply to such nonsensicalities as the allegation that as the result of the general economic deterioration the number of building plans approved has decreased. I do not think that is a true diagnosis. The number of plans approved did in fact decrease temporarily, but there was a general downward trend last year about which we all know, and everybody can see how there is again, even in the sphere of building, a new upward tendency now. Therefore I say that it is no use criticizing and generalizing in this way with reference to a coincidental period. One should look at the picture over a longer period. When one does that, it is really a pity that the Leader of the Opposition has once again allowed himself to be used to try to belittle the new climate which has arisen in South Africa and which has been so eagerly awaited by all industrialists and business men for so long, because in that climate our economy can flourish again. It is a pity that he is trying to spoil that new climate. I believe that few people doubt that there is a new climate in South Africa to-day, although some people belittle it for political purposes.

The hon. member also asked what the future of the Tugela Basin was. I am surprised at such a question. I do not have the map of Natal before me, but surely all the development potentialities of the Tugela Basin do not lie in the Bantu area. On the contrary, as far as I can remember, the greatest development plans drawn up by various bodies in Natal in respect of the Tugela fall within the White area. In addition, appreciable areas of it are so comparatively near to the Bantu areas, if I remember correctly, that our border industries plan will be of great importance to those areas. Whilst I was still Minister of Native Affairs, I always considered that the Tugela Basin was one of the greatest assets of White Natal. I shall again study the maps, but I cannot understand at all what gives rise to the suspicion of hon. members that we will hand over the whole of the Tugela Basin to the Bantu for their own development and deprive White Natal of it.

The hon. member also asked me to give full estimates and calculations in regard to every particular of our Native policy. I am not prepared to react to that challenge, because it is nonsensical and I have already dealt with it before. I have already pointed out how, in regard to many of the developments which have taken place in this country, one would not have been able to give details and estimates of costs for a long time in advance. One can provide the great ideal, but the experience in this country and in every other country shows that the detailed development of it takes place according to the potentiality of that country. No man and no Government can anticipate the budgets for future years. If I am asked for details it would mean that I must now say beforehand what the Government will spend on specific matters in future years, and that is a nonsensical request. It has never been done in any country in the past. I have also previously pointed out that, if somebody had asked 50 years ago what the South Africa of 1960 would look like, nobody would have been able to say so in 1910. Who could at that time have visualized that there would be a Sasol and a Vanderbijl Park and an Escom? Who could then already have calculated what these undertakings would cost?

What about the estimates of the cost of the Orange River scheme?

That is another foolish question. Here one is dealing with a purely technological project which will take several years to complete and in regard to which there will be quite a number of adaptations and changes in the calculations of the cost, but this scheme is based on a broad plan according to which certain dams must be built and certain hydro-electric plants have to be erected, the cost of which can in fact be calculated on the basis of present-day prices. But that is quite different from the calculation in advance and in detail of the large-scale development of the whole country or of portions of the country, in all its diversity. What I am therefore doing now is to draw a parallel with the development of South Africa over the past 50 years and the question put to me by the Leader of the Opposition in regard to advance estimates for the whole of the development of South Africa and for every one of the Bantu areas for the next 40 years. Therefore the comparison I am making is a justifiable one, whilst the one he is relying on, as indicated by his interjection, is not justifiable.

The hon. member also made reproaches in regard to our economy by comparing it with Australia. He said: See how far ahead of us Australia is; it builds ships and television sets and it has an automobile manufacturing industry of its own, etc. But is that not ridiculous also? If I had said: “Look at South Africa and see how badly Australia compares with us; look at our gold-mining industry and our uranium industry, and see all the great development which has taken place in regard to coal, diamonds and minerals, and why has Australia nothing like that?” the Leader of the Opposition would perhaps say, “Yes, but they do not have those minerals”, and I would quite agree with him that is so and that my reproach was ridiculous. But the fact nevertheless is that if we were so bad, if we had so little initiative, if our country could not attract enough capital, all those minerals would also have remained undeveloped here. It is because the initiative and the energy of South Africa were particularly directed to the development of the real assets we have that our attention and our knowledge of engineering and our “knowhow” have been spread over a series of other undertakings than those they have in Australia. At the same time, having developed these great assets, our coal, our diamonds and our gold, through the initiative, the capital, the manpower and the technical “know-how” of our citizens, we have also in addition had a very appreciable industrial development. To belittle one’s own country in this way and to revile it for being weak and for comparing badly with other countries, and for being without initiative and for not having developed technicians, I think is terribly wrong.

But that is how the United Party is.

South Africa can boast of the achievements of its technicians. She can also boast of having had great industrial development alongside its agricultural and mining activities. She can boast of having an oil-from-coal industry which it developed as a pioneer. She can boast of Foscor, where she is providing for her own fertilizers. She can boast of so many undertakings which Australia does not have. I do not begrudge Australia boasting of her merits and undertakings and achievements; I do not want to belittle it, but neither will I allow South Africa to be belittled. I am sorry the Leader of the Opposition thinks more of Australia than of his own fatherland.

We cannot boast of having a good Opposition.

Then the Leader of the Opposition also said that South Africa does not spend enough on technical services and education and that therefore we have a lack of trained persons. Here I agree with him; I think that the education in South Africa must be adapted. There is an undoubted lack of technicians and scientists, and I do not intend trying to make out a case that we have enough of those people. We do not have enough, but no country in the world has enough. There is not a single country in the world, not even the greatest and most powerful countries, neither Russia nor France or England or Germany or the U.S.A., which has enough technicians, scientists and engineers. It is therefore our duty, just as it is the duty of each of those countries towards themselves, to devote special attention to this need. I fully agree with that.

The fact has been somewhat ridiculed here that our Railways want to learn something from the Japanese. Why ridicule it? Is the Leader of the Opposition now seeking to intimate, by the expression on his face, that he did not think it funny for us to hope to learn something from Japan in regard to Railways?

I did not say it was funny.

No, but the Leader of the Opposition referred to it in such a way that everybody around him laughed. That is why I made a note of it. Very well, then the United Party ridiculed it, not the Leader of the Opposition. In this respect they are not following his lead. He believes that it is a good thing to learn from Japan.

[Inaudible.]

If the Leader of the Opposition wants to make an issue of that also, I will discuss it when I get up to speak again. I just wanted to deal with these few matters in regard to which the Opposition attacked me. I should very much like to say something in regard to his interjection. The Japanese have the same gauge of railway line that we have. They have a very much greater population. The Railway Administration there has to transport from the stations with great speed the great number of passengers provided by this dense population, and it has succeeded in running its trains at a higher speed than ours do over reasonable distances. Other countries have not succeeded in doing so, in any case not on that gauge. All of that is of interest to us, because we have to deal with a large Bantu population which we have to transport and take away from the stations speedily. Now, is it wrong of us to go and see what they do there?

No.

Well, if everybody agress with that then I am very pleased and then I hope that the United Party will not laugh again when it is said that we are going to learn from the Japanese how to solve a problem.

Then the hon. member asked what we were doing in connection with the Orange River development and in connection with rural development.

In connection with the depopulation of the platteland.

That is what I mean. The depopulation of the platteland is taking place in various areas. One of the areas concerned is the southern Free State and another area, amongst others, is the remote part of the Northern Cape. There has also been a certain amount of depopulation possibly in the Fish and Sundays River valleys as the result of the difficulties experienced there. The Orange River scheme will go a long way towards checking the depopulation of these rural areas. It does not behove anybody to despise the Orange River scheme as something which will not nearly meet the requirements of our growing population. If the hon. member says that, as he did, it sounds as though we are thinking of the Orange River scheme as something which is only useful for new settlements for farmers. That, however, is only part of the significance of that project. The industrial consequences of that project, the industrial consequences of the acquisition of a cheap form of electricity and the provision of electricity to many towns and cities, will be of enormous importance to the development of our industries in many different places. It will certainly be of great importance to our growing population. But naturally other projects will also have to follow and naturally industries will have to be developed other than those which specifically flow from this, and they are also going to make their contribution to the full development of this country. At some time or other a second Sasol will certainly have to come into being, with the resultant expansion of the chemical industry— when and where we still do not know—but in this way many more undertakings over and above the Orange River scheme will be needed to guide the growth of South Africa in the future. It is not necessary to say therefore, because a certain important, highly important, scheme also has its limitations in taking care of the population, that for that reason it must not be undertaken, or dismiss it as something which is of lesser importance than it actually is. I think one must have confidence in the very great future of South Africa, quite apart from this enormous scheme.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has again referred to Article 73 (e) and he wants to know whether we have not been caught unawares. I want to repeat what I said immediately after the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had posed this question, namely that my legal advice, after proper inquiry by legal experts in international law, is that the Transkeian policy and, as I have again subsequently ascertained, the draft constitution of the Recess Committee, do not expose us to the danger which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition fears. My legal advice is in direct conflict therefore with the fear or the suspicion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. More than that I need not say in this regard. My legal advice differs very clearly from what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition believes. But I say again that I am very sorry that he has played into the hands of the enemies of our State by introducing this new issue.

He does so deliberately.

Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that there were certain other matters of importance that he wished to mention. The first was what South Africa would do if Britain were to join the European Economic Common Market. South Africa is watching that position very carefully. We have already taken steps to be kept fully informed of everything that goes on there. We have no obsession in this connection, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition believes. We have no obsession either with regard to associate membership or with regard to any other action. We are going to act on the facts as we find them. Like many other people I too have no doubt that South Africa will be no worse off than the other members of the Commonwealth; on the contrary, because of the character of South Africa’s exports the prospects are that on the whole South Africa will be better off, if Britain joins, than Commonwealth countries like Australia and Canada. In other words, whatever Britain might want to do for her Commonwealth members if, as has been said more than once, she acts in a certain way in her own interests, those States will be in a more dangerous situation than South Africa. South Africa may well be affected in certain respects, and the Government is seeking ways and means of meeting that situation. But I want to say perfectly clearly that we are aware of the problems which may flow from the fact that the United Kingdom joins the Common Market, just as members of the Commonwealth realize what problems that step may bring in its wake for them. We have our people there who are investigating this matter; we are watching every development. When it becomes necessary to do so we shall strengthen our representation there. We are not indifferent. We are not filled with any obsession in respect of that situation. We are reserving the right to ourselves to do what may appear to be in the best interests of South Africa as the position develops and as the outcome of that becomes clearer and clearer. Indeed as yet there is no certainty as to what Britain herself, for example, is going to do. There are certain indications but there is no certainty.

As far as Radio South Africa is concerned, I cannot, of course, share the hon. member’s obsession that there is something radically wrong with Radio South Africa. On the contrary, I think Radio South Africa is placing itself on a sound business footing, which has not always been the case in the past. Moreover, I am convinced that it will do what every radio undertaking in any country does, and that is to function as a loyal instrument serving the interests of our fatherland. Radio South Africa, as happens in every country, will make known to the country what is newsworthy, and it will refuse to submit to the attempt which has sometimes been made in the past, both abroad as well as internally, to make it a partial instrument acting against the interests of South Africa. And I do not deprecate its new policy—I support it. As far as the future of this Corporation is concerned, I believe that as an independent Corporation, as it is at the present time, with the right that the State has to make appointments and therefore to exercise basic control, which is the position under the existing Act, a great and a safe future lies ahead of it. I think with the changes which it is now introducing throughout the whole country—a new network for ultra-shortwave transmissions—it will bring to South Africa a service, in that form, which will be quite unique for a country of such vast distances. Furthermore, I believe that Radio South Africa with its Bantu services will also bring a service to the other sections of the population such as no single other power in Africa brings to its people as far as the actual daily service is concerned. I am not talking about their foreign propaganda. I believe that this institution will be of great value to the development of harmonious relations and friendship between the various racial groups in our fatherland. I therefore unambiguously express my confidence in Radio South Africa.

Then the hon. member asked certain questions in connection with the new ministerial appointments. He asked what our plans were in connection with the Department of Community Development. But, after all, the Minister of Community Development introduced legislation in connection with that Department just recently, only a few weeks ago, and on that occasion he explained the duties of the Department of Community Development in the clearest possible terms. Why does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition ask me to-day what the function of this Department is? Was he not present when that legislation was dealt with? Was he not even aware of what the Minister had said before he criticized? To summarize the position briefly, let me put it this way: As far as the Whites are concerned we do not need a Department of Community Development. The Department is not intended for that purpose therefore. We have built up our cities in the course of our history. Our towns and our cities are all closely knit communities. But we have no such thing in the case of the Coloureds and particularly in the case of the Indians. In the case of the Bantu there are separate locations for them where they are developing into communities. Because of the fact that they have been placed together in housing schemes, they are developing into communities with common interests and their own cultural life. But as yet we have nothing of the kind in the case of the Coloured and the Indian. The mere development of residential areas for Coloureds and Indians under other legislation is of great importance, but we do not want to limit ourselves to the building of houses and to the laying out of streets and the provision of electric light and sewage and then say to them, “That is the place where you are to live.” We want to build up the cultural, religious, closely knit community that we settle in those houses. We want them to grow into a unit where they will provide all the necessary services to one another so that they will have an opportunity for development. Take the Coloureds, for example. The Coloured must be given an opportunity to govern his own local community. In this case we are dealing in the main with communities in the towns and cities. It is not simply a question of creating a Bantu residential area or a Coloured residential area. The Department of Community Development is concerned with the towns and cities which are being established for Coloureds and Indians, but the object is to help them grow and to knit them into true communities, in which they themselves render all the services to their own people. That must include the management of their communities; it must include the development and the utilization of their own culture within those communities, and the building up of self-esteem. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows what the building up of a community means, in the sociological sense as well, then he will understand what we seek to achieve with the establishment of this extremely important Department in the interests of the Coloured and the Indian communities. That is also my reply then to his further question as to why we have not given more information as to what is to become of the Coloureds and the Indians. What more can I say than I have said over and over again already? I gave a full exposition as to what is to happen in the case of the Coloureds; I explained it before the Coloured Council; it has been stated here over and over again on many occasions by the Minister of Coloured Affairs. And in addition to that I said in connection with the Indian community that what happens in the case of the Coloureds will be taken as our model. Step by step—it is true that this will come later on because the Indians have not yet developed to the stage where they want to co-operate with us to establish an Advisory Council in the first place, although at the moment the signs are very favourable that we shall also get the co-operation of the Indian communities—we are going to follow the same model as in the case of the Coloureds. More than that I need not say, nor do I propose to say any more.

Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition talked about the Department of Information. He asked whether the taking over of all the information services of the various Departments was proof that the information service was poor. My reply, of course, is “No”. The original Information Division developed from what the United Party itself established. During the war years the United Party established a Division of Information, of limited scope, in order to achieve certain purposes at that time. That Division developed further during the National Party’s regime, and other Departments, such as the Department of Native Affairs, also felt a need for the dissemination of information. I myself established a division there for specific information to and concerning the Bantu. Each of these divisions did good work, but a stage was reached in the development of all those information services where the sensible thing to do was to co-ordinate those services. I personally assume the responsibility, together with my Government, who agreed 100 per cent with it, for the decision that the time had come to bring all the information services together in one Department. We then proceeded to bring together the various services (under central guidance) which had started to overlap and which can actually supplement and enrich one another. When I appointed a new Minister I certainly took advantage of the oppotunity, amongst other things, not only to give this highly essential service the full status of a Department but to obtain the full co-operation and the intensive initiative of a Minister in whom I have the fullest confidence that he will see to it that South Africa’s case is put effectively. I want to add, in reply to the question by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as to whether this will bring about a change in world opinion unless South Africa changes her policy, that we as Government are not going to change our policy so as to make it conform to what is acceptable in other States in the furtherance of their own interests. We are going to implement a policy which we believe to be in the best interests of South Africa, and we are going to do what every country does that believes in its policy, and that is to continue to state its policy so that others will understand it correctly and view it more sympathetically. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asks me whether we have any hope of achieving this aim, my reply is that not only have we hopes of succeeding but that we are already beginning to reap the fruits. It is a lengthy and a difficult process to overcome suspicion once it has been created. But the wheel is turning, not only as the result of the activities of our own Department but as the result of events which are taking place in the world itself. The occurrence in Goa, the exposure of India, the developments in Kenya and Tanganyika, and now in the Federation, and the fact that the Western world is beginning to get some idea of the pressure exerted by Communism, of the use which Communism makes of the non-White races, together with the growing realization throughout the world of the danger which the Western nations themselves are facing more and more, are making people more receptive than ever before to the information that we can furnish with regard to what we are doing. It is for that reason that the time that we chose to establish this Department of Information was the psychological moment. This is the moment when the world is more receptive to the message that we have to give. I am absolutely convinced therefore that the establishment of this Department was an extremely wise step and that South Africa will never regret the expenditure of this money.

I only have ten minutes in which to reply to the Prime Minister, and I intend to spend those ten minutes on his remarks about the reserves, but, before I get on to that, I must say that I was amazed to hear the Prime Minister misconstrue a remark made by my Leader about Australia. The Prime Minister suggested that my Leader was out to belittle this country as much as he could, and that he was ashamed of what was being done in South Africa. The Prime Minister knows very well that what my Leader was doing was to belittle the efforts of this Government and to point out that if we had an ambitious Government, like the Australian Government, or if the United Party had stayed in power in 1948, we would have been doing what they are doing in Australia to-day. Just to give one example, if we had stayed in power in 1948, the Orange River scheme would have been working now. The Prime Minister also turned a remark made by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell), and I cannot allow that to go unchallenged. The hon. member for South Coast asked the Prime Minister whether he could accept the assurance that the White man’s interest would be protected in the new independent State, and the Prime Minister then suggested—and he actually used the word “haat”—that the hon. member for South Coast hated the Bantu, and he asked how he could believe in the sincerity of our policy….

He said: “Do you trust them?” That was my reason.

The Prime Minister asked how could he believe in our policy of integration and of giving them representation in Parliament and working with them if, in fact, we did not trust the Bantu at all. The point is that, as far as the United Party is concerned, and as far as the hon. member for South Coast is concerned, we have learnt to work with the African people, and we can work together with them, as we are prepared to work with them in this House. But what the hon. member for South Coast fears, and what I fear, is this: that the Prime Minister may be handing over these areas when he does not know who will eventually control them. When the British handed over in Ghana, did they know who was going to take over? The Prime Minister of Ghana was in jail when they held those first elections. They thought that the chieftains were going to take over the Government. Did the Belgians know what was going to happen in the Congo when they handed over? Of course they did not. And what is the position now in Kenya and Rhodesia? They have learnt their lesson, and they are afraid now as to who is going to take over, and that is why they are having so much trouble with the constitutions of those countries. What the hon. member for South Coast means is this: that the Prime Minister, in giving independence to these states, does not know who is going to take them over. The people with whom he is negotiating now may not rule those states very long.

The Prime Minister also attacked me for mentioning the Bunga, and he said, because I had made a “plei-dooi vir die Bunga”, that I knew nothing about the Transkei. Sir, I made no plea for the old Bunga. I pointed out that this system of development towards self-government was started many years before the Verwoerd policy was thought of, and the Bunga system was part of it. But in 14 years I am certain that the Bunga system would have changed if the United Party had been in power, especially as Gen. Smuts had promised that the Bantu in those areas would be given more power. The Prime Minister now wants to pretend that if the United Party had remained in power, the Bunga system would not have altered one bit, and that we would still have had White magistrates as district chairmen.

The Prime Minister then said that there was a radical difference between his policy with regard to the Europeans in the Transkei and that of the British Government in Kenya. I want to ask him what that radical difference is. Sir, I must go by this constitution which I mentioned just now, because when the Prime Minister was taxed on this question a few weeks ago he said: “Ek sal volledig vir die Blankes sorg”, and I am surprised to hear the hon. the Prime Minister say that he will not necessarily accept this constitution if the Transkeian Territorial Authority accepts these recommendations.

I said that I did not express an opinion.

The hon. the Prime Minister has not given the assurance that he will accept this, and I am surprised because the hon. the Prime Minister himself admits that they asked him for his advice in drawing up this document, and the hon. the Prime Minister will know that the Secretary for Bantu Administration and Development was with the committee right up to the end when this document was drafted, and I am positive that both the Minister of Bantu Administration and the Prime Minister knew what was in this document and the progress that had been made. The Prime Minister himself says that he advised them to give more elected members to the new Authority than they intended to give originally. That surprises me too, Sir, because the Prime Minister is the man who introduced the Bantu Authorities Act. That was to be the solution of the Native problem for South Africa, that was to contain the political rights the Natives would enjoy. That was the Act the Transkei refused to accept and he had to give the Transkei a separate proclamation. But the point is this that in terms of that Act, the Prime Minister would give the ordinary Africans no elective rights at all, and now he has changed completely and tells the Territorial Authority that they must give them more elected members as opposed to chiefs and headmen.

Sir, I should like to know something more from the hon. the Prime Minister about this Clause 68 which affects the position of the Europeans. Surely the hon. the Prime Minister must have discussed the interests of the Europeans with the Recess Committee. It would be scandalous if the hon. the Prime Minister had not discussed the position of the Europeans in this new state with the Recess Committee. All we see in the recommended constitution is—

That is a nice general statement “given facilities to realize their assets”—

Who is going to decide whether they are justified to receive compensation? Is the hon. the Prime Minister going to decide, or the new independent government? I want to point out to the hon. the Prime Minister that the majority of the White people in the Transkei are not engaged in industry, they are men of commerce. The hon. the Prime Minister says that he is behaving better than the British Government, because he is looking after the civil servants; they will be taken back into the Union. We are not worried about the position of the civil servants. We know that they will be protected by this Government. They remain republican citizens and officials. We are worried about what is going to happen to the commercial men. The hon. the Prime Minister knows that the farms have been sold around Umtata and that there are very few industrialists. The hon. the Prime Minister said that the White man will continue to make his living there by giving services. But under the policy of this Government, the Bantu Development Corporation is going to be allowed now to finance commercial institutions in the urban areas there, and in terms of the constitution I see that the urban areas are going to be zoned for different racial occupation, and the Africans will be encouraged to start their own commercial businesses in those zoned areas. Now, Sir, the White trader does not mind fair competition and the White trader won’t mind one bit if the hon. the Prime Minister does to them what he did in respect of the farmers. If he values their properties on a fair basis, on the same basis as the farmers, taking into account their incomes, and if he pays them out on the same basis, they won’t mind at all selling their businesses to Bantu businessmen, and if the Corporation would say “We will only finance the taking over of existing trading stations ”, nobody would mind. But what we fear is this artificial competition. These established European businesses may go under because of the assistance which is going to be given to Bantu traders to start artificial competition. That is what we are complaining about. Sir, the traders are not birds of passage. They did not buy their trading stations and their stands in the villages because they expected the Government would do something which would increase the value of their property, as lots of others did in getting options over land when they knew the Native Trust was going to buy. They did not do anything like that. The traders settled there, encouraged by the Government to do so, and they have been there for generations. The Prime Minister is now throwing them to the wolves, because if the new Independent Parliament is allowed to control licences and give any business the right, and assistance, to start in competition with established businesses on an unfair basis, these established businesses will go under. But it is not only the businesses I am worried about. [Time limit.]

The hon. member has just asked: How did Britain know who would take over in Ghana, and how did Belgium know who would take over in the Congo? And then he further asks: How does the hon. the Prime Minister know who will be at the head of affairs in the Transkei? Now I just want to ask the hon. member this: In terms of the Federation Plan of the United Party, how will he know who will be at the head of the non-White components of their Federation? Whom will he put in this Parliament to represent the Black man in their Federation? Then the hon. member for South Coast asked again where the borders of the Bantu homelands are? We can put the same question to them. The hon. the Prime Minister has clearly indicated that the borders are there. But where are the borders of the Black components of their Bantu homelands?

But I want to come back to the allegation that the Prime Minister is deserting the White people in the Transkei in the same way that the British Government is deserting the Whites in Kenya. Let me say immediately that allegation is devoid of all truth. It is a malicious allegation aimed at creating unnecessary unrest and ill-feeling between the White man and the Black man, in the hope that the Transkei plan will fail. The circumstances under which the Whites settled themselves in Kenya and in the Transkei especially differ very widely. In Kenya settlers from South Africa and from Britain settled and acquired properties, particularly after 1905, well knowing that Kenya had been declared to be a Protectorate of Britain. Secondly, they knew that the British Government had bought the interests of the British Imperial East Africa Company, and thirdly (and this is the most important), they knew that the British Government had in 1902 provided conditions for the expropriation of land for the benefit of the Whites, particularly in the Highlands of Kenya. I have here the “Kenya Yearbook”, in which we read the following—

But thereafter, in 1922, the Devonshire White Paper confirmed the position of the White man in the Highlands, and in 1932 the Carter Committee again reaffirmed it. In this “Yearbook” we read that—

That was further confirmed by the fact that after the 1918 War the British Government established special schemes for the settlement of ex-soldiers. The White man did not go to Kenya on a loose footing. The White man in Kenya accepted it as his fatherland to such an extent that on three occasions he fought for that fatherland, in 1916 against the Germans (under the late General Smuts), in 1940 against the Italians, and we all know about the heroic deeds performed there in the battle against the Mau Mau. It is a fact that the White man went to Kenya under certain conditions, and that the Whites, particularly in the Highlands, started building up and developing the country from the bottom to become a prosperous community, and a large proportion of them were officials in the service of the British Government. There is no doubt at all that the whole course of history was the establishment of a permanent home for the Whites in Kenya by the British Government, and it is only fair that the promotor, viz. Britain, should protect and ensure their possessions and their future. But alas, what is the situation? The Whites are looking for security in vain. On the contrary, the butcher Kenyatta was set free and he will sit in the Government of Kenya. In the third place, the value of their properties was destroyed almost completely, and in certain cases their properties are already being handed over to the Black man, and there is a large-scale exodus of Whites from Kenya, accompanied by tremendous personal losses. And the officials in Kenya are being left to the mercy of a Black Government, of which Kenyatta is a member. Apart from that, it has already been mentioned here that the Lombard Bank is now abandoning Kenya and Africa, and it says that it is doing so to save millions of pounds before the British Government completes its catastrophic policy in Africa. There is not the least doubt that the approximately 62,000 Whites in Kenya have been left in the lurch, and furthermore, that the franchise they enjoyed and which was something of value to them is now of no value at all.

In regard to the Transkei, there are 13,922 Whites there, and they went there to settle in an area which was established by legislation as Black man’s country. In the second place they went there exclusively to render services which the Bantu was not able to render, and for no other reason. No White farms, with the exception of a few at Umtata, could be acquired or developed, and only 26 small towns, perhaps with the exception of Umtata and Butterworth, which are a little larger, were established for the sole purpose of providing accommodation for the officials, the professional people and the traders in the Transkei. Even the 637 trading stations were granted on Bantu land, and the traders knew that this was not White land. Therefore the number of Whites in the Transkei remained small, and the total income tax paid by Whites in the year 1959-60 was only R540,000, because the White community could not develop to the full. What is the position to-day as compared with Kenya? There is no exodus of Whites from the Transkei. Even the hon. member for Transkeian Territories is quite prepared to stay there and to continue holding stock sales. The assurance was given unequivocally this afternoon, and also on previous occasions, that the interests of the Whites will not be neglected, and this afternoon the hon. the Prime Minister added a further point to it, namely that the Whites who will gradually leave that area to come back to the larger South Africa will have splendid opportunities for settling themselves also as the result of the Orange River scheme and all the other developments taking place there.

But I want to say that I also attach tremendous importance to the statement made by Kaiser Matanzima some time ago, and which is now incorporated in this document which has been signed. I will tell hon. members why I attach so much importance to it. It seems to me that we in South Africa are in the fortunate position, as compared with the rest of Africa, of having a responsible and reliable Bantu population with which to negotiate. That perhaps emanates from the way in which the Bantu has been treated by the White man in past years. Furthermore, to my mind the possibility is not excluded that as the result of the greater development which is imminent the value of properties and trading stations in the Transkei may perhaps rise. The position of the officials has been guaranteed by the Prime Minister. They remain in the service of the Republic and retain all the privileges they enjoy to-day, and they even have the choice of remaining there or not. And, further, the vote held by the White man in the Transkei to-day retains the same value in the Republic. There is a tremendous difference between the position in Kenya and in the Transkei. In regard to the historical background, one cannot even make a comparison, and although the future of the White man in Kenya is comparatively dark, the future of the White man in the Transkei is assured. The accusation of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) in regard to the “Kenyasation” of the Transkei is not only false but it is a malicious accusation which ignores the facts in regard to the Transkei and in regard to Kenya. Other than in the rest of Africa we are evidently dealing with a responsible and reliable Bantu population in South Africa, and therefore we shall also in future be able to make such arrangements with them that we can live as good neighbours. The hon. member for South Coast evidently does not believe that one can trust a Black man. When the Prime Minister said so this afternoon he laughed in his face. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories may want to deride it, but the fact remains that the hon. member for South Coast showed very clearly this afternoon that when we on this side of the House try to safeguard the position of the White man and at the same time try to gain the confidence of the Black man, and tell him that we trust him, he undermines that confidence. [Time limit.]

In passing, I just want to refer to something which was said by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) and then, with his approval, I will go on to what was said by the hon. the Prime Minister in the few minutes at my disposal. The hon. member asked where, in terms of the policy of the United Party, the borders of our Bantu homelands are. Those borders of our Bantu homelands are the borders of South Africa, because under us those areas will never be independent, but will remain part of South Africa, an integral part of South Africa.

I should, however, like to refer once more to what was said by the hon. the Prime Minister, and particularly to the effects of his policy. I want to honour him for the fact that since he became Minister he has steadfastly stood by this policy of Bantustans and the splitting up of South Africa. He said from the beginning that was his policy and that he would implement it if possible. Mr. Chairman, you know what clever ruses the National Party has to resort to from time to time to get past that, what equivocal replies had to be given, how at first it was “total segregration”, how it was “separate areas”, and then again it was nothing else but the old segregation policy, how the new policy now being followed was not a “practical policy,”, how it was “domination”, and how later it was again described as “sovereignty”, and now it is separate national development for the Bantu groups in their own area. But what worried me about the replies given by the Prime Minister to-day is that he can be so naive, a man of his standing, the Prime Minister of South Africa, to give us such a nonsensical reply when we say that in his negotiations with the Natives he pushed aside the Whites, and that he forgot all about the rights of the Whites in his negotiations with the Bantu. He says: We will make provision, e.g. that the Whites of Umtata can cast their votes here in the White area! Where does he get that from? Surely they are going to be independent areas, areas which will decide themselves what those White people will be able to do or not be able to do. It is not for the Prime Minister or for us, or for this House, to say what they will or will not do. I see that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, who is not here at the moment, realizes one thing in regard to the Transkei (I mention it just in passing), and that is that one of the first consequences of the Prime Minister’s policy for the Transkei will be the joining up of the Transkei territory with Basutoland. He sees that coming. And what does he say outside? He says: Do not worry about it, we will surmount it, we will establish a neutral area! How nonsensical—to use the words of the hon. the Prime Minister! Does he not know our history? Does he not know that we have already tried to apply such a policy of having neutral areas in South Africa? Does he not know that we cannot keep human beings away from each other?

Where was it tried?

The hon. the Prime Minister to-day went further with his explanation. When he was asked where the borders are, where he will determine the borders of this area, he said: How can you expect me at this stage to say that? But he went further, and that is what is more important. He said that the future would teach us what would be claimed by them.

Where did I say that the future would teach us that?

He spoke about Zululand and he said that the future would show what Zululand would demand, what would be demanded by them, in other words, what is Zululand by inheritance. Now I will tell the hon. the Prime Minister what Zululand is by inheritance.

You are completely distorting it.

I have already told the Prime Minister this before. Years ago when he was Minister of Native Affairs and when he discussed his Bantu policy for the first time, I asked him in regard to Natal: What about Babanango, what about Eshowe, what about Ngotshe, what about Mahlabatini, what about Empangeni, what about Hlabisa, what about Vryheid? All those are the “inherited” Zululand.

It is not; it was, but it is not.

Take, e.g., Vryheid. That only became White man’s territory after the fight between Zebepu and Dinizulu, which led to the establishment of the Vryheid Republic, the New Republic. You cannot teach me the history of that area. I now ask: What about those areas? If those areas are eventually owned by the Zulu, by the inhabitants of Zululand, by the free Zululand, if they demand that “inherited” Zululand, we will land in trouble.

I have said what it is now.

I ask this in all seriousness and the hon. the Prime Minister can reply to me. But I want to go further, because closely connected to this “inherited” Zululand is the history of the Whites. Inside this “inherited” area of Zululand lies what we know as Kwa Matewane, and Moordkoppie, part of the history and of the blood of the Whites. What will happen to that? What will the descendants do of the Greylings who lie there, your forefathers? Will you allow it to be given back? Will you tolerate Hlomo Amabutu being given back to the Zulus? Will you patiently allow the inheritance of your fathers, their bones, many of which still lie there bleaching in the sun, be given away in terms of the policy of your Prime Minister? I put this question for example to a Greyling. It is also your forefathers who lie there.

You are not impressing me at all.

And also the Nels. I wonder whether he knows where the graves of his forefathers lie there? What will happen to that? I ask that of the Prime Minister in all respect. That is Zulu territory by inheritance. There lies, e.g., the Emakosini of the Zulu, there lie the graves of their kings, and they will demand it of us. My question to the Prime Minister is: What is he going to do to protect that inheritance of the White people, if this policy of his is implemented in South Africa?

In terms of your policy, the whole of South Africa will be handed over to the Natives.

Then let the Chief Whip get up and tell me. No, Sir, these matters are not so easy and it is time that hon. members should not shout us down when we try to explain to the people what the dangers are which are inherent in this type of policy. Let hon. members now admit to the people outside that these possibilities exist, namely that the inheritances of the fathers will also fall in that area, this Zululand by inheritance, to use the Prime Minister’s words.

You are completely misrepresenting what I said.

If I have misunderstood the hon. the Prime Minister, will he then be so good as to get up and to explain it?

There was a slight altercation between the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and the Leader of the Opposition will not get away with it so easily. During the course of the debate he sneeringly referred to the hon. the Minister of Transport who is sending a mission to Japan, and when he mentioned it in that sneering manner his supporters laughed, and at that stage I asked him: Why not? He then reacted and said “Just listen to that naive question”, and then I asked him twice whether he was against it, but he just stood and laughed. But when the Prime Minister pushed him into a corner he crawled back and said that they were also in favour of it. The hon. member’s trouble is that he speaks without thinking. Now, before I get under the skin of the hon. member for South Coast, I want to …

What language!

It is good Afrikaans, but in anticipation and as a favour I would like to give the hon. member a little fat to rub into his skin. I want to thank him for giving me the opportunity during this debate to expose the game he and his party and his cohorts (trawante) are playing in Natal.

On a point of order, Sir, the word “cohort” has been ruled to be unparliamentary and “trawante” is “cohorts”.

I want to ask the hon. member not to waste my time. The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) has warned the hon. the Leader of the Opposition against the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, but I want to warn him against the danger in his own bosom. That hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) is par excellence a kicker-out of leaders. In September of the year in which they got rid of Mr. Strauss as their leader, he moved a motion of full confidence in him, and just a few months later, whilst he was still sitting in the aircraft, they kicked him out, under the leadership of the hon. member for South Coast. In Bloemfontein, when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition voted with the Progressive Party in connection with purchase of land, the hon. member for South Coast saw an opportunity to kick out not only the Progressive Party but also the Leader of the Opposition. But then the Leader of the Opposition was clever enough to vote against it. In that way he retained his position and to-day he is still Leader of the Opposition. I want to warn him about the hon. member for South Coast.

The hon. member for South Coast accuses me of holding meetings in my constituency to persuade the farmers to sell their land to the Trust. Now I want to ask him this: Mention one meeting I convened where I advised the farmers to sell their land. Mention just one. The hon. member cannot do so and therefore I can do nothing else but say that he told and untruth here. He says these things which he cannot prove. I challenge him to get on to the same platform with me in Vryheid and to allege there that I held meetings to advise the farmers to sell their land. Why does he tell these untruths here? But, Mr. Chairman, that was their policy. I attended a meeting when the late Dr. Douglas Smith and the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) came to Helpmekaar and tried to persuade the farmers to sell all their land in that area. It was their policy to purchase that whole White area. They left there with their tails between their legs.

But let me sketch the background of this whole campaign. It was during the regime of the United Party—and at that time the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) represented Vryheid—that they jumped over the natural border, the Mvuyana, to purchase the farms Tradouw, Purim and Strydpoort. It was during their regime that they crossed that natural border, and what is happening now? Now he is running up and down all over that area. At Coronation he stated that the hon. the Minister and I wanted to purchase all that land up to Vryheid.

Who said that?

The hon. member for Hillbrow said so.

It is many years since I last held a meeting at Coronation.

The unfortunate part is that when the hon. member comes there to sow evil he does not speak from a public platform where people can settle accounts with him, but he stays in the background and causes trouble without having the courage to hold a meeting and to make those allegations. In 1959 a prominent member of the United Party, Commandant Piet Taljaard, who was their candidate in the Provincial election, suggested at Nqutu that the whole area from Scheeper’s Nek along the Sandspruit right up to where it joins the White Umfulosi should be sold to the Bantu. And then this hon. member grasped at that suggestion and went round about the people and told them that I intended selling that area to the Government.

That is not true.

Why did he not come to the second meeting held at Calverts? He sowed this evil, but did not have the courage to come there. When I saw what area the United Party supporters wanted to sell, I asked that a representative meeting should be convened because I could not accept that decision. A representative meeting was then convened at Calverts. What happened then? Then the hon. Senator Friend came along and suggested that not one single inch more land should be purchased in Natal, contrary to an Act they passed. I pointed out to them the foolishness of this. Where was the compensating land to come from if we had to clear up the Black spots? How must the Bantu homelands be rounded off? Then the resolution was changed. And now they are again busy fomenting trouble in Natal by telling the people that we want to sell the whole of Vryheid to the Bantu. I say that is scandalous behaviour. I want to warn the hon. member for South Coast. He is playing this game, but he should be careful of the cohorts he is using. He should be careful of his advisers, because they are giving him the wrong advice. He should not think that he will harm me and the Government. They tried it once, and last year they received a beating such as they have never before had in Vryheid, and they will receive an even greater beating as the result of these slanderous stories they are telling there.

The hon. member for South Coast does not have the courage to visit those northern parts because the people there will settle accounts with him. I merely say that this is a scandalous policy of the leader of that party in Natal. Natal has many problems, and he realizes that. He should rather put his shoulder to the wheel and think soberly about these matters, and we must all co-operate in order to solve those tremendous problems satisfactorily. But he serves no good purpose by fomenting trouble amongst the White people there. He says that we are following a Kenya policy. I ask him to tell those immigrants from Kenya who want to come here, and who particularly want to come to Natal: Do not come here because a Kenya policy is being followed here! But the hon. member reminds me of a whirlwind. He delights most of all in blowing across a yard full of rubble and dirt, which he sucks up and then like Jan F. Cilliers’ pig deposits with a sigh of joy in a place which is always swept clean. That does not redound to his honour. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I think that the hon. member will forgive me if I do not follow him in the spleenventing which we have just had from him. I think that the hon. member will also forgive me if I tell him that with my knowledge of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) I am certain that he would not allow the hon. member to advertise himself by appearing on the same platform with him. If that hon. member wishes to hold meetings, he must convene his own meetings. If he cannot obtain sufficient publicity, he must not try to make use of the hon. member for South Coast to assemble people to listen to the spleen-venting that we have had here from him this afternoon. I do not wish to pursue this point any further; I just want to say that what he described here as being good Afrikaans is usually classed as kitchen Afrikaans.

I want to come back rather to what the hon. the Prime Minister said in connection with compensation to European persons who are in the Transkei to-day, when he said that the farmers in the Transkei would receive fair compensation for their land and that land had already been purchased; that the White people living in the Transkei would have and retain the franchise in the White areas; that the public servants there would be permitted to return to the rest of White South Africa; and where he said later that all the Whites in the Transkei would be taken care of and that they would not be dealt with as Great Britain dealt with the Europeans in Kenya. However, Mr. Chairman, there is something which the hon. the Prime Minister forgets and which hon. members on the other side forget. When White people went to Kenya, it was a foreign territory. The people who are in the Transkei to-day went to live there because it was part of South Africa, their homeland. It was not a foreign territory.

When was the Transkei annexed?

The Transkei is part of South Africa and it will only become a foreign country when the hon. the Prime Minister has his way. [Interjections.] And then the hon. the Prime Minister said …

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, when the hon. the Prime Minister was speaking we were not permitted to make interjections and now hon. members on the other side are all interjecting together.

Order!

Sannie can look after herself; she is a man.

What that hon. member apparently means is that I have the courage of a man and that means more courage than he possesses. I want to revert to what the hon. the Prime Minister said. He spoke about the Transkei and he told us how safe it was there for the White man. When we spoke about what was going to happen in the rest of South Africa, he said that the arguments that there was unrest amongst the people living in the other areas where independent states may also be set up in the future were inflated arguments. That is the difficulty with this Government. They promise things, they create uncertainty, and then they do not wish to face up to the difficulty. I have here a cutting from the Transvaler in which the following is stated—

But one of these days there would be a solution.

What is the date of that intimation?

The date is 6 December 1961. That was precisely four months ago. As I said, Mr. Chairman, this Government makes promises. They promise these things and they talk about the creation of Bantu homelands and then they do not wish to face up to the difficulties.

The hon. the Prime Minister said to-day that the boundaries of the Transkei were clear. I am not sure whether the hon. the Prime Minister actually knows what is going on there. I find the following in the Burger of 2 February of this year—in case my hon. friends say that four months is a long time—

They go on to say—

This is a quotation from the Burger, the Nationalist Party paper, and the hon. the Prime Minister must not complain because he spoke about inflated arguments. I want to remind him that in October 1959, Mr. de Wet Nel, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, stated at the Free State Nationalist Congress: “Give me two years and I will show you a new South Africa.” That was three-and-a-half years ago. Now he speaks about the next five years and then he will show us a new South Africa. In the meantime, however, the hon. the Prime Minister speaks about inflated arguments when we tell him that the farmers of South Africa are perturbed about what is going to happen to their land. The hon. the Prime Minister spoke about the franchise which the people will have in the Bantu homelands and I then asked him what these people were going to live on. His reply was: Certainly not off her. That is quite correct, but he did not tell us what they were going to live on. Then he said that the argument that the farmers were worried was an inflated argument. However, I have proof here in regard to resolutions which have been adopted on various occasions in this connection by the South African Agricultural Union. At the Congress of the South African Agricultural Union on 30 April 1961, held in Sea Point, they introduced the following motion inter alia—

I have numbers of these resolutions which were adopted at congresses.

Where is concern expressed there?

Where is the concern? It appears to me that the hon. the Prime Minister still does not know it—

Then they go on to say how much is to be bought.

Within the released area.

It reads as follows—

[Time limit.]

The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) asked me what my forefather would have said had he known what was happening to-day. I sat here and listened to the hon. member for Hillbrow. He is a real modern Dingaan. I will tell you why I say that, Sir. Mr. Chairman, I will tell you why I say he is a real modern Dingaan. My direct forebear, Abraham Karel Greyling, who was there, went there in a decent and honourable way in order to negotiate as far as land was concerned. And Dingaan stabbed him in the back—he stabbed the White man in the back. And that hon. member belongs to a party to-day which is stabbing the White man in the back just as Dingaan stabbed him in the back in a different way. That is why I am calling that hon. member a Dingaan.

A Steenkamp is also lying there.

We have nothing to do with that at the moment. Leave their bones alone, let them rest. Do not unearth them to-day for political gain.

The hon. member is talking about fragmentation. We have now come to operation fragmentation. They are engaged on operation fragmentation to-day. I wish to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this: Do you agree that your policy also envisages the establishment of exclusive Bantu areas; that which is historically a Bantu area you wish to retain as a Bantu area. Is that correct?

He does not know; he has to ask Marais Steyn.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has a peculiar characteristic. He only puts questions but he does not reply to anything. Can you just say “yes” or “no”? Do you admit that according to your policy you wish to retain those Bantu which are historically Bantu areas as Bantu areas?

He is zipped. You are wasting your time.

I know I am wasting my time. If that is the case I accept it because they have said that recognized Bantu areas have to remain Bantu areas in terms of their policy and those areas must be governed and managed by those Bantu as far as possible and as far as it will be competent for them to do so in terms of their policy. But over and above that they wish to bring those Bantu into this Parliament together with the White man on a federal basis. I wish to ask the same question which the hon. the Prime Minister has asked but I doubt whether the Prime Minister will get a reply. However. I wish to make this point: You. therefore, wish to retain that which we are retaining, but you wish to go a step further. You also wish to share that which belongs to the White man in his own area with the Bantu. You therefore wish to go much further than we wish to go. That hon. member for Hillbrow is very concerned about the White man’s interests today: we are now turning South Africa into a Kenya; we are applying the Kenya policy to the White man in the Transkei! Does the hon. member not realize where their policy is leading us to? Does he not listen when the Prime Minister talks? Did the hon. the Prime Minister not explain clearly what the difference was between the actions of the British Government towards Kenya and the actions which the Republican Government contemplate here?

Did you not listen to my speech as well?

I listened to the hon. member and I am surprised at the attitude which he adopts. I simply cannot believe it. I wish to ask you this question Where will we find ourselves if we accept the policy of the United Party, a policy which provides for the retention of the Bantu areas and a policy which provides for the Bantu to be governed together with the White man within the White man's area? [Interjections.] Do you mean to tell me that is not your policy? Do you allege that is not your policy? Is their policy not to share the government jointly under the whole federation plan which they advocate?

However, Mr. Chairman, we are in a difficult position, because we form part of a pattern which has become difficult throughout the world and because, as I said yesterday, we are faced with a whole world which wish to attack us on a number of fronts. And the Opposition plays a role in that whole campaign of attacking us on as many fronts as possible. Fortunately—and I say it is very fortunate— we are as prepared as we are to meet this crisis in which we find ourselves. I wish to mention five fronts on which we have prepared ourselves. Let me mention the first one and as I said yesterday as far as that one is concerned, I wish to give the credit to our Prime Minister. He deserves the credit for having cut this knot by giving definite shape to our policy of separate development. Hon. members opposite may laugh at the Transkeian policy. You may ridicule it; you may wish to draw a veil over it; you may wish to raise dust; you may try to sow suspicion; you may try to erect fences to confuse the people outside; you may try to present yourselves as the so-called champions of the White man’s interests in the Transkei, but that will not avail you at all. You will never, never succeed in putting an end to this revolutionary process which has started with this statement in regard to the Transkei. That knot has been cut. In the future development of this country the Transkei will be our valuable ally. We have also cut a second knot and I am grateful for that. We have two English-speaking members in this Cabinet. Yes, laugh about that! But there is a deep significance to that. After this constitutional knot had been cut through two English-speaking members entered the Cabinet as the symbol of the further progress which had to take place and which has taken place once the Prime Minister had cut this constitutional knot.

Wait till you have had Frankie a little longer!

We would not have been able to meet this crisis in which South Africa, as part of Africa, found itself, had we not cut the knot and established White unity within our own ranks. There is also a third knot which we have cut. While I am enumerating everything we have done, the United Party must please think what our position would have been had they been in power. Do you know. Mr. Chairman, that we would have been in the same position as Kenya and Rhodesia. We would not have had any say in regard to our own constitutional development. We would have been in the same position as our northern neighbouring states. Because did the Opposition not oppose every step we took? We have also cut another knot …

What about the Statute of Westminster?

You do not know anything about the Statute of Westminster. [Time limit.]

When my time expired a moment ago I was engaged in reading from this article—

Here I have another report which says—

In yesterday’s newspaper we get the following—

Then they continue and say Mr. M. C. van Rooyen was sent to Pretoria to determine the position because farmers found themselves in this impossible situation.

Then the hon. the Prime Minister talks about exaggerated arguments when resolution after resolution is passed by the agricultural unions in this regard. He talks about exaggerated arguments when the Secretary of Lands is sending circulars to people in Zululand and Natal, proposing that 200,000 Bantu from seven reserves should be removed to what is now White man’s land.

I want to ask them what they think about the position. In what world does the Prime Minister live? What interest can he have in the farmers of South Africa if he says things like that, and when he talks about exaggerated arguments? The fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister says it will only be purchased in the released areas, and he says that consolidation will not amount to buying out, but that there will be a consolidation of the existing Bantu areas. He says that, as a result, there will be no more released farms, because no more farms will border on those areas. But where does the Prime Minister get that from? Because the more consolidation there is. the longer the borders and the greater the number of bordering farms. A Standard II child should be able to work that out. The fact of the matter is that, when the Prime Minister says that, and when he says that it is an exaggerated argument that the farmers are worried, then I want to ask him what guarantee the farmers have who are living in those areas to-day, where another 1,000,000 morgen will have to be sold in the Transvaal and 600,000 acres in Natal and 950,000 in the Cape Province…. [Interjections.]

Who’s Act is it?

Then I want to ask the Prime Minister, seeing that he is talking about the consolidation of those areas and of the displacement of so many Bantu and White people, what development can there be, and whether those farmers are not all going through a period of stagnation to-day.

Why do the farmers vote for the Government?

The farmers in Natal do not vote for the Government. [Laughter.] Had the farmers of South Africa realized where they were being led during the last election, they would not have voted for the Government. When we told them during the last election that there would be independent Bantu areas, one Nationalist after another shouted that it was not true.

What about Aliwal?

In 1953, as quoted here by the hon. member for Kensington, the Prime Minister said independence would be granted in 100 or 200 years’ time and in 1959 he spoke of the distant future and in 1961 he still spoke of the distant future, but only a few months later he announced that independence would be granted soon. Today he says me must wait for it in peace and the farmers must be satisfied and the traders in those areas must be satisfied. And what does he say he will give them? He will give them the vote in the White area. What makes the National Party think that the people, whether White or Black, are interested solely in the vote? Surely there is much more in life than only the vote. Does the Prime Minister think that if he gives them the vote in the Transkei, however poor they may be, that they will be satisfied? The Prime Minister says we of the United Party believe in a mixed state, but the Nationalists believe in a White Government and Black neighbouring states with whom we will be on a friendly footing. Where will that White state be? Is it not a fact that there will still be twice as many Bantu as Whites in that so-called White state? The Prime Minister also tells us how much better he is treating the people in the Transkei, which will be the first independent state, than Britain is treating the Whites in Kenya. But when we ask him exactly what his plans are and to tell us where the borders of the Black independent states will be and to tell us immediately so that the farmers and the traders may know what to do and so that we may know what the future pattern will be, he refuses to reply. And do you know why he refuses to reply? The Nationalist Party is afraid that the people will have realized the extent of the chaos which existed in this country under this Government by the time the next election takes place. They are also afraid that the people will realize and know exactly what is going to happen and how Black this country will become and how many White people will be displaced and how many Black people will be removed from where they are living to-day. The Prime Minister should not get up here and tell us with a holy smile on his face that he intends looking after the White people in the Transkei. The truth of the matter is that “the White man in the Transkei is expendable”, but he is simply not interested in them. The truth of the matter is that on account of his own policy, the Prime Minister has been forced by the outside world and by circumstances beyond his control to follow a policy which will result in the fragmentation of South Africa, our beloved fatherland; because of him, South Africa is alone in the world to-day. Not only will it result in the fragmentation of our beloved fatherland, but it will also cause suffering to our people, to our farmers and to the people who are today in a state of stagnation and who simply does not know what will happen in the country. If the Prime Minister wants to do South Africa a service, he should demarcate the borders clearly for us to-day and tell us where those territories will be and when he intends declaring them independent and what he intends doing with the White man in those territories.

When the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) was lecturing us and putting up the fight which she did a moment ago I noticed how jealously the Leader of the United Party looked at her; he was jealous to see a woman who could put up such a fight. The hon. member who tried so hard to hold her own gave us an anthology of the resolutions which were passed in connection with the land which has to be purchased. I wish to ask her this definite question Does the United Party still stand by the 1936 Act and the agreement which stipulates how much land must be purchased? That is the first question. I want to know whether the United Party still stands by the Act which was unanimously passed by them in 1936 because that Act lays down how much land must still be purchased in order to carry out the policy of establishing Bantu homelands. I wish to know whether the United Party still subscribes to that Act. The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) made a peculiar admission to-day. He said that South Africa was the boundary of the Bantu homelands. In other words they are departing from the 1936 Act and they will purchase the land which that Act provides for and they will not give political rights to the Bantu in those areas alone; they will turn the whole of South Africa into Bantu homelands.

And to-day all the farmers are afraid!

The hon. member for Hillbrow, who fled from Vryheid, must tell us whether the United Party still supports the 1936 provision. Why do they try to make the voters and the agricultural unions believe that we will be buying more land? Why do they get up in this House and, with tears in their eyes, talk about our beloved fatherland when we are simply carrying out the 1936 Act? Surely that is not being politically honest. The hon. member for Drakensberg told us that the Secretary for Lands had directed a certain circular to the agricultural union of Natal. Why does she not give the true facts to the House? In 1960 the Minister of Lands addressed the congress of the Zululand Public Bodies and told them that 600,000 morgen still had to be purchased in order to give effect to the 1936 Act. He invited them to put suggestions forward. He told them that there was still so much Crown Land in Natal which could be cut up into settlements, etc., but Natal still had to provide so much land and he told them that he was giving them the opportunity, as responsible people and people who had the interests of that area at heart, to put forward suggestions. The United Party tried to attach a political meaning to this friendly invitation issued by the Minister. The hon. member for South Coast is not present at the moment but I wish to point out that as a result of that invitation a meeting was called in April 1961 which the hon. member for South Coast attended together with Senator Pretorius, and where a committee was appointed—the Land Tenure Committee—with Mr. Rautenbach as chairman and Mr. Pretorius and Mr. Bertram ex officio because he is chairman of the Zululand Public Bodies. I wish to appeal to the United Party and the hon. member for South Coast in heaven’s name to start to act responsibly towards South Africa, responsibly towards the Whites as well as towards the non-Whites. Because, what did these hon. members do at that meeting? What did they recommend to the Land Tenure Committee? The hon. member for South Coast, who consistently wants to invite the non-Whites to come and join us here in Parliament and to join us in governing South Africa under their federation plan, suggested to the Land Tenure Committee that it should sow fear, distrust and enmity between the Whites and the non-Whites if they tried to determine in a friendly spirit which portions should be consolidated. What did he do? He suggested that Mr. Rautenbach should, on behalf of the Land Tenure Committee, submit a plan to the Zululand Public Bodies in which it should be suggested that certain strips and portions of the Bantu area should be cut off so as to create a four-mile wide corridor from Matubatuba as far as Durban and to tell the people that in future that corridor will have to be patrolled with the necessary weapons because there will be enmity and war if this plan is carried out. That was the suggestion which that hon. member made. I find this in the Sunday Tribune of 24 December—

The interesting thing is that committee does not know who suggested that nor does the Zululand Public Bodies know, and the information had to be extracted with a corkscrew that it did not emanate from the hon. member for Zululand but from the hon. member for South Coast. Why? Because the hon. member for South Coast tried to get those people to convey a recommendation to the Natal Agricultural Union with the sole object of trying to wreck the whole idea of establishing Bantu homelands. That was not all, however, but the object was also to sow distrust and enmity among the Bantu. They submitted this memorandum to the Natal Agricultural Union on 26 September 1961 and the Land Tenure Committee and the Zululand Public Bodies wanted to know on whose behalf they were submitting it. The hon. member for South Coast was the person who did it. Does he and the United Party think that they are making a contribution towards the creation of the right human relationship if they come into this House and pretend the one day to be opposing the Government as the so-called oppressors of the Bantu and say the next day: We do not trust the Bantu; they are a crowd of dishonest people against whom we have to arm ourselves and establish safeguarding corridors. I have never as yet come across more irresponsible action than that towards South Africa. Do you know what those hon. members remind me of, Sir? You have already watched rugby matches at Newlands with me and when the Springboks kick the ball clearly over the posts a certain section of the crowd jeer at them and when the All Blacks score a try they are cheered. These hon. members of the United Party remind me of the skollies who can see no good in South Africa. [Time limit.]

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to refer to this side of the House as skollies?

Did the hon. member say that?

I said quite clearly they reminded me of the skollies there.

That is not parliamentary language.

I did not say the United Party were skollies.

They only think like them.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

On a point of order, the hon. member did not say they were skollies.

No, he said the Opposition reminded him of skollies. Is that right?

I repeat I said very clearly that the actions of hon. members reminded me of the actions of the skollies there.

I wish to have your ruling, Sir. Is the hon. member not obliged to withdraw that?

I have said that the hon. member for Germiston (District) could continue.

In that case may I say that the behaviour of the hon. member also reminds me of skollies? May I say that I am sorry to have to use such language but if it has been ruled that language is parliamentary … [Interjections.]

Order! I should like to consider the matter. I appealed to the hon. member for Wakkerstroom to withdraw it. He did not do so and I did not rule that it was unparliamentary, but he sees what has happened.

I withdraw it.

I ask the hon. member to withdraw it.

I have withdrawn it.

In that case I also withdraw what I said.

I would like immediately to come to the point raised by the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins), whether the U.P. stands by the promise contained in the 1936 Act. I would like to say quite frankly that in accordance with the resolution passed by the Union Congress of the United Party, the U.P. stands four-square by the promise in regard to the acquisition of land contained in the 1936 Act which was an Act passed by the U.P. despite the objections of the Nationalists at that time. I am very glad they stand by it now, but the U.P. stands four-square for the acquisition of the land in terms of the 1936 Act. This is what our resolution says—

Nobody will deny that the provisions of the 1936 Act, are dealing with that land—it is implicit in the Act and in the Act which was passed at the same time, the Representation of Natives Act, which was repealed by this Government, lay down that South Africa was going to be governed by the representatives of the various race groups but was to be maintained as an integral whole. The second clause of the resolution says this—

1. (2) Expresses its entire opposition to the acquisition and alienation of more land for the Government’s avowed purpose of giving it to Bantu tribes which under the Bantustan policy of the Government are to form independent, sovereign states, whether such land is to-day Crown land or in private ownership; and
2. (3) Calls upon the Prime Minister forthwith to define the boundaries of the proposed new independent Bantu states for the information of South Africa.

That resolution is perfectly clear in its terms. The objection is to the principle which I am not allowed to discuss now, I understand, but perhaps I can refer to it, i.e. the principle of the creation of these independent states.

Did you vote for that motion?

I was not present.

So you would have voted against it, too!

Whether I voted for it or not is beside the point. The point is that the resolution was carried and the important fact by which I stand four-square is that the U.P. will maintain the provisions of the 1936 Act, and I hope that we will have no further arguments about that matter.

What we must realize in this country is this, that what we are all seeking is a method of government which will ensure that the various groups, White and Black and the Coloured people, will be able to live in peace in South Africa and that it will be a permanent home for all the people of South Africa. What is in dispute is the method of achieving it. I do not propose to deal in this regard with splinter parties. I want to deal with the position of the Government party and the party to which I have honour to belong. Let me say at once that the first cardinal point of difference between the two parties is that the U.P. stands for the maintenance of the present boundaries of South Africa and for the government of the Republic of South Africa by the people of South Africa; that we are utterly opposed to the creation of independent Bantu states. It is true that it may take some time, but we are utterly opposed to it and believe that it would be tremendously dangerous. I want to deal with that in some detail and to show how it affects the Transvaal in particular before I go on to other points.

We know that at present only one such territory is being proclaimed, the Transkei. It is a consolidated area and there is of course the suggestion of further consolidation. That has been said on several occasions, but the area as it stands is a consolidated area. So far as the Transvaal is concerned, we are not in that happy position and if one looks at the very valuable maps which form part of the report of the Tomlinson Commission, one will see the immense difficulty which this policy of the Government holds in store for the future of the Transvaal if they can ever reach the stage to which they are rapidly advancing. The position is that there are a large number of areas in the Transvaal, something like 84, but of those, certain areas are very big. There is the Olifants-Steelpoort-Blyderivier area, which is 1.4 million morgen and which stretches from the centre of the Transvaal right to the border of the Kruger National Park. It lies right athwart the centre of the eastern half of the Transvaal. [Interjection.] All the maps are the same, but this particular one is Map No. 6. Then you come to the Letaba-Shingwedyi area, which is 1.3 million morgen. The next biggest area is No. 5 on the map, the Bochum-Potgietersrust area, .8 million morgen, and then the next largest is No. 8 on the map, the Rustenburg-Pilanesberg area, which is .7 million morgen. It should be borne in mind that although these are only four of the reserves in the Transvaal —and I concede that the others are very much smaller—these four reserves together spread right from the eastern boundary, the Kruger Park, to the western border, and in the centre there are two other areas, one of which is the Hammanskraal area and the other the area at Premier Mine. Those areas stretch almost unbroken to the western border of the Transvaal, where they come very close to the Bechuanaland border. The two areas I mentioned first are in the north and they lie one to the north-east and the other to the north-west of Pietersburg, which is being developed as an industrial area. One has only to look at this map to realize the utter impossibility in the event of an attack on the Transvaal of defending it if these areas, either in their present form or in a greater consolidated form, have been turned into independent Bantu states lying right across the heart of the Transvaal.

Mr. Chairman, when business was suspended I was dealing with the reserves in the Transvaal and the effect of Government policy on that area. I would like to point out that approximately 20 per cent of the total area of the Transvaal is or will become Native area. In fact, the area may be slightly over that figure. Apart from the territories to which I have referred, it is a fact that in terms of the policy of the last President of the South African Republic, President Kruger, there is a very large number of small areas which in terms of the law do not exceed 3,000 morgen in extent. Those small areas are spread throughout the Transvaal. It is very important that there should be clarity in regard to the future of those areas from every point of view. I should like to submit to the hon. the Prime Minister that a very definite responsibility rests on him to bring clarity to this whole confused picture. I want to tell the Prime Minister that not only are statements which he makes in this House denied on platforms by some of his colleagues in the Cabinet, but my experience has been that hon. members on the other side apparently do not know what the hon. the Prime Minister’s policy is because very often they are simply not prepared to stand by that policy on public platforms. [Interjections.] Sir. all I am pleading for is this. Hon. members will get an opportunity of replying. I hope they will allow me to state my case. The point which I wish to put is this that there is immense confusion. I do believe that as far as we are concerned we want clarity. I repeat we are all in this country. We have to solve this problem and on the successful solution of this problem the future of the White people of this country depends. It is of equal interest to us on this side of the House as it is to hon. members on the other side. We can only do this effectively if there is complete clarity as to what it is for which the different parties stand. [Interjections.] I do appeal to hon. members to give the hon. the Prime Minister an opportunity of hearing what I am saying so that he can reply to it. It will only be an act of courtesy to him if not to me. I want to plead with the Prime Minister to clarify a number of issues. I have pointed out the number of very great difficulties with which the Transvaal is faced if what is my conception of the Nationalist Party is carried out.

The National Party.

All right, the National Party if members prefer that. If the policy of this Government is carried out you will have a band of areas right across the centre of the Transvaal which will become independent. Two of those were not included in the proposed consolidation in terms of Map No. 63 of the Tomlinson Commission’s report. However, we were told by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration that as far as the Hammanskraal areas was concerned, it was not the policy of the Government to act upon the recommendation of the Tomlinson Commission and that would remain a permanent Native area. I presume that also applies to the Premier Mine area, but that is not so important. Whatever the position is, there is a band across the centre of the Transvaal. There are problems in the eastern and the western corners of the Transvaal, and, of course, there are very great problems in the north. What is of the greatest urgency and importance, Sir, is that the people of the Transvaal should know exactly what the policy of the Government is. Which of these areas are to be permanent? Let me say at once that there are many areas where a point cuts right into them and where it will probably be desirable that they should be taken over, but which of those areas are to be taken over? Because in many of these areas we are dealing with land which is comparatively of little value—land which can only be used for grazing purposes. However, in other areas we are dealing with land which is either irrigation land already or where the possibilities for irrigation exist. That land is the most valuable land in the whole of this country. I think the hon. the Prime Minister owes it to the country to make his own position clear. He should make it clear that if it is the policy of the Nationalist Party to consolidate, how that consolidation is to be carried out; to what extent it will be carried out. And if it is not to be carried out, then the country is entitled to know that is no longer the policy of the Government.

[Inaudible.]

I defy the hon. the Chief Whip to get up and to tell us what the policy of the Government is in regard to consolidation. He cannot do it. Sir. There is only one man in this country who can tell us that and that is the hon. the Prime Minister. My plea to him is to take the country into his confidence and to deal with this matter this evening.

But it is not only that, Sir; clarity is wanted and it is wanted urgently, in regard to the policy regarding industries on the borders of the reserves in relation to the urban areas. Here I would like to say that I am very glad indeed that there have been declarations by hon. Ministers in recent times in which they have said that the prosperity of the established areas will be maintained. I am appealing to the hon. the Prime Minister to make it perfectly clear this evening that will be done. It is again in the highest interests of the Transvaal that we should know where we stand. There are towns which, without further industrialization, must die. And I submit that it is the duty of the Prime Minister to put the question in relation to those areas beyond any doubt. Then those will be matters which we will not have to debate any further in this House. Then there is the question of the pace of development of these areas. I think an explanation in that regard is owing to this House. I think it is necessary. I would like to say that perhaps we have not as much time as we think in regard to these grave problems which face us. I would say to the hon. the Prime Minister that I believe it is a matter of urgency that he should deal with these matters.

Then, Sir, we have the question of the political rights. I wish to point out that the Prime Minister has adopted a completely new policy as far as the Nationalist Party is concerned. I want to quote from Hansard of 1951, col. 6820. The speaker I am quoting is the hon. the late Prime Minister. Dr. Malan. He said this—

There is no dispute from this side of the House in regard to that. There may be disputes as to what should be the type of political rights which they should be given. But there is no doubt whatsoever as to the granting of a measure of self-government. The hon. the Prime Minister went on and he said this—

The hon. the Prime Minister has quite clearly departed from that policy. It will help us, Sir, if he would confirm that; then it will not be necessary for us to argue about it. It will assist us if he confirmed that he no longer stood by that declaration of Dr. Malan’s and that there has been a fundamental change in the policy of the Nationalist Party as far as those political rights were concerned.

What party?

I cannot help it if hon, members do not know the old name of their party. I am quite prepared to call it the National Party, but I want to ask the hon. member not to take up my time. I am dealing with matters of the most urgent importance and I believe it is discourteous to interject when I am addressing myself directly to the hon. the Prime Minister.

Mr. Chairman. I make this appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister. I believe that if he would make a clear declaration of policy on these points, if he would make a declaration which leaves no doubt, he would be clarifying the political atmosphere in this country. If it is his policy that these territories can become independent he should in all seriousness consider the dangers of such a policy and consider whether it would not be very much better to adopt the policy of this side of the House in terms of which policy we believe that there must be local self-government to a large extent. [Time limit.]

I wish to deal briefly with what the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) said a moment ago. He said—

The Act of 1936 provides unequivocally and subject to no conditions—and I emphasize that no conditions will be attached to it—that in addition to the scheduled areas as provided for by the 1913 legislation under which we hold the Native reserves, 7,250,000 morgen of additional land have to be acquired for the Bantu. That is called the “quota”. Certain areas have been designated where this quota has to be purchased. Those areas are called released areas. The 1936 Act does not lay down any provisions. The underlying idea was that the Bantu should have their homeland there and that they should be given political rights there. The hon. member for Germiston (District) quoted the late Dr. Malan a moment ago. I wish to quote what the late General Smuts said in this connection. He said the following—

In other words, different in two senses, Mr. Chairman. Not only should there not be one House or legislative institution but there should be another government or another institution.

Where did he plead for separate states?

If it says “separate institutions” you cannot do otherwise but take it that there should be “separate states”. I quoted it a moment ago. If the hon. member does not understand it I suggest that he reads it himself. The hon. member for Germiston (District) tells us to-day that they are “foursquare” behind it. In support of his statement that they are “four-square” behind that legislation, he quotes the resolution passed by the United Party at the Bloemfontein congress but where they added this little tailpiece—“as an integral part of South Africa”. My submission is that not at any time did General Smuts or General Hertzog or Dr. Malan or any of our previous leaders who were present on that occasion, ask that it should be “an integral part of South Africa”. As a matter of fact as long ago as 1913, General Hertzog said, when they were arguing in this House about the scheduled areas, that he foresaw that they would have to have self-government and independence in those areas.

Quote it.

It has already been quoted three or four times in this House. I cannot help it if the hon. member does not know that. It was only last year that the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) quoted it. He quoted chapter and verse. Dr. Malan also said it, as appears from the quotation which the hon. member for Germiston (District) read a moment ago. The hon. member tries to suggest to-day that we are advocating a different policy from that of Dr. Malan. Had we developed stage by stage, as Dr. Malan says there, surely there should at least have been a guardian under whom that stage-by-stage development should have taken place. That is all that Dr. Malan is saying there. He says nothing more. I am sure he did not envisage that we should be able to keep them in a subordinate position for all time. That was never his intention. He did say, however, that they should develop step by step and that as long as that development was taking place it had to take place under the guardianship of the White man. I think it is a poor effort on the part of the hon. member for Germiston (District) to try to sit on two stools. The same thing will happen to him which always happens to the United Party. They are continually trying to sit on two stools but they miss both. On the face of it they wish to have the benefits which the 1936 legislation offers; they want to try to follow the suggestions put forward by General Smuts and General Hertzog. But ultimately they come forward with the little tailpiece that it should be an “integral part of South Africa”. Their objective is the same as that of the Progressive Party, namely that the whole of South Africa must be Black. That is the only reason why it should be “an integral part” of the whole of South Africa.

I now wish to deal with the provisions regarding the boundaries. The hon. member for Germiston (District) referred to the map in the Tomlinson Commission Report. I think the hon. member was in the Other Place at the time. But he will remember that a White Paper was issued as a result of this report. The Tomlinson Commission advocated a bloc formation in their report. They did not actually advocate it; it was really only a suggestion on their part. A White Paper was issued by the hon. the Prime Minister who was then Minister of Native Affairs in respect of that suggested bloc formation. Paragraph 20 of that White Paper rejects that so-called bloc formation idea contained in the Tomlinson report as being impracticable. What is envisaged to-day? I can do no better than to refer to what the Prime Minister said as recently as two weeks ago in this House in that connection. He said this—

He then continues—

He says there must be borders. There are borders to-day.

Where?

Mr. Chairman, every tribal authority in the Bantu area has borders. Those borders have been defined by proclamation. The borders of every regional authority have been defined by notice in the Government Gazette. Every territorial authority has had its borders announced in the Government Gazette. In the case of the territorial authority of the Transkei as well, if that hon. member does not know it, the borders have been defined according to a Government Gazette. The territorial authority is receiving greater power to-day. [Interjections.] You asked: “Where are they?” You did not ask where they will be; you asked where they are and I am replying to that question. These borders exist to-day; they are there as proclaimed in Government Gazettes. Hon. members now ask where they will be. Very well, the Prime Minister has already said that there will be a measure of exchange. In future those borders will be changed; that is true but that will take place by way of exchange, as the Prime Minister has said. Hon. members can read that in col. 87 of the speech he made on 23 January. I do not wish to repeat his speech.

The next point raised was in connection with political rights. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories said that the Prime Minister should at least have discussed the rights of the White people this afternoon. I wish to emphasize immediately that Bantu authorities have never as yet had any jurisdiction over any White person. The rights of the White people, therefore, fall under the jurisdiction of the White Republic; under the Government of the White Republic and under it alone. That is the only authority which has jurisdiction over them. [Time limit.]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am absolutely stunned; I did not know that they had lost their fighting spirit to that extent. It seems to me that the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) is so surprised that they won the election that he forgot to jump up.

During the last few hours we have been discussing the problem of our race relations here in South Africa. As far as I am concerned, the tragedy of the whole matter is the contributions which we get from the opposite benches, even the contribution of a dear old member like the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). He asked a question to which I wish to reply. He asked that we should once and for all give a clear reply to the question of whether these Bantu homelands will ever be able to develop into complete independence. My reply is “yes”. I trust he understands that now. Does the hon. member understand that? If he understands it he must promise me that he will not ask that question again during this Session. If the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) is not satisfied he may repeat that question to the hon. the Prime Minister. I wish to assure him, however, that the Prime Minister will give him exactly the same answer as I have just given. But in that case he too must promise me that he will not again ask that question for the following five years.

Mr. Chairman, what I cannot understand and what I find so strange on the part of these people who present themselves as the alternative Government, is the frivolous and censorious attitude which they adopt when we are trying to solve a problem, a problem which, humanly speaking, can really not be solved. Let me put it this way: In my opinion this separate development which we are trying here in South Africa is the greatest experiment in human relationships which has ever been undertaken in the history of the world. Here we are in South Africa to-day; we did not bring about this position; we did not find it like this; it has just developed. We are faced with the greatest problem in human relations which has ever existed in the history of any part of the world. That problem of human relations would in any case have been the most difficult problem even if there were no interference from the world outside, even if we did not have UNO. even if we did not have an undermining English-language Press, even if we did not have a hopeless Opposition. Even if we did not have any of those things the problem of human relations which we have here in South Africa would have been the most difficult problem which any part of the world has had to contend with. We are here, a small nation, faced with the problem of race intermingling, with the problem of human relations in a large degree, a problem which faces other countries only in a small degree. In reality all the racial problems which other countries have are present here in the Republic of South Africa. What is that problem as it has revealed itself? It is a problem which arises where you have different groups, where you have various groups together in one country, where you have Whites, where you have Bantu, where you have Blacks, where you have Asiatics and we have the whole crowd here in the Republic of South Africa. How can we solve that problem? How can you get away from discrimination? That is the problem which faces every country where there are mixed groups together. Wherever you have these groups together on the Continent of Africa or in any part of the world, you find discrimination against a certain group. In Africa, during the colonial period, there was discrimination against the coloured races, against the Asiatic races, against the Indians, against the Coloureds and against the Black nations. The problem to-day is this: How can you abolish discrimination against the non-White races without replacing that with discrimination against the White races? That is our problem here in the Republic of South Africa. That is the problem in the whole of Africa. As I have said we are conducting an experiment here, an experiment which holds out the only solution. In our experiment we are trying to abolish discrimination against the non-Whites without that resulting in discrimination against the Whites. Every other solution which has been tried on the Continent of Africa has failed. Wherever they have abolished discrimination against the Black man it has been substituted by discrimination against the White man. That was the case in Ghana; that was the case in Nigeria; and that is the case in Tanganyika and in Kenya. And that is what is happening in Rhodesia, in Nyasaland, and which is on the point of happening in Southern Rhodesia. How can you abolish discrimination against the Black man without that being substituted by discrimination against the White man? In the rest of Africa the pattern which the British Government wanted to enforce, the pattern which the Belgian Government applies to the Congo, has led to it that discrimination against the Black man has been substituted by discrimination against the White man. I challenge hon. members opposite to name any country on the Continent of Africa where that was not the pattern which developed under the policy of “partnership”, under the policy which they call White leadership with justice. Throughout the Continent of Africa where they tried to apply any other policy than the policy of separate development that has been the position. Discrimination against the Black man was abolished; good and well, but you found a new conception of discrimination, namely discrimination against the White man in its place. I say, therefore, that we are conducting the biggest experiment in human relationships here in South Africa that has ever been conducted in the history of the world. And we are beginning to succeed, or at least, the possibilities are there that we will succeed. We can do away with discrimination against the Black man without replacing it by discrimination against the White man. Not only discrimination, but as the hon. the Minister of Information says, discrimination which will ultimately lead to the extermination of the White man. That policy is the policy of separate development. That is not the policy of the present Prime Minister; that is the traditional policy of South Africa. That is the policy which developed in this country even during the days of Gen. Louis Botha. He was the person who said: Those areas must be Black and those areas must be White. I do not contend that he or Gen. Smuts or Gen. Hertzog had in mind in those days that there would be totally independent Black states here at the southernmost tip of Africa. It was not possible for them to foresee the developments which we have had in recent years in Africa. A person with the foresight and insight of the present Prime Minister realized that because of the strange influences which were operating in Africa, influences over which we had no control, the only possible way in which discrimination against the Black man could be abolished without that being replaced by discrimination against the White man, was to give the Black man the opportunity of developing total independence here in Southern Africa. That is the experiment which we are conducting to-day. Heaven knows, Mr. Chairman, that experiment will still cause us a great deal of difficulty. It will still give us a great deal of trouble. It will still cause us a great deal of sorrow. It will demand tremendous sacrifices, but that does not frighten me. What does frighten me is the fact that hon. members opposite, amongst whom there are sensible people, are making no positive contribution to solve the problem which confronts us to-day. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) referred in his speech to the immense confusion which seems to exist in regard to the Government’s policy and plans particularly in regard to the boundaries of the proposed independent states. That statement was criticized by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) when he was questioned on that aspect by way of interjection and in his speech. The hon. member for Heilbron referred to the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister delivered in January of this year in this House. That speech of the Prime Minister made it clear that the intention was that there would be no change in the boundaries of the existing Native areas but that any change which had to be made would be made by negotiation, or as a result of negotiation after the independent states had been created. We have had it from a number of speakers opposite this evening, that the boundaries of the existing areas are laid down and defined at the present time. The criticism is that there is confusion. There is no doubt that there is that confusion, not only in the minds of the ordinary people but in the Cabinet circle itself. If one considers, together with the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement, the fact that at the present time there is in existence a departmental committee appointed by the hon. the Minister of Lands which amongst other things is considering the abolition of five Native reserves in Zululand and the provision of compensatory land for those reserves, a committee which is also considering the alteration of the boundaries of six other Native reserves in Zululand and the provision of compensatory land for that, and when one bears in mind, together with those facts, the fact that there is inadequate Crown land both to fulfil the requirements of the 1936 legislation and to provide compensatory land for the proposed reserves which are to be abolished, then the inference is clear that the present White-owned land will have to be given up in order that this shuffling of land ownership can be put into effect. On that basis alone, Sir, we are justified in saying that when you have ministerial heads of various Departments at variance on this issue of land-ownership and boundaries in Zululand, confusion not only exists among the people, but also in the highest circles of the Government. I have said on an earlier occasion that I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister had an overall plan or concept in regard to land-ownership in Natal, and I would challenge him at this moment to deny that is the situation. Let him give us clarity once and for all. Let the hon. the Prime Minister stand up and say that there is no plan in existence at the present time governing this situation of land-ownership related to the creation of Bantustans in Natal and Zululand. Then only can we have some clarity on the issue. The matter does not end there, the confusion does not end there, because shortly before the recess I asked certain information from the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration in regard to the removal of Black spots in Natal and Zululand, and the hon. the Minister was good enough to give a comprehensive reply as to what the number of those spots were, what the extent those spots are, and the magisterial district where those spots were situated. It is interesting that when one compares the hon. the Minister’s reply with the information given in the letter sent to various agricultural bodies by the Secretary for Lands, we find that the Secretary for Lands says that certain Bantu reserves, six in number, are to be abolished and that compensatory land is to be made available, and when one identifies those reserves on a convenient map which shows you the Black and the White areas, you find that the reserves that are going to be abolished are Black spots, but they are not referred to by the hon. the Minister of Lands in reply to my questions. There is no reference whatever to the magisterial districts where those Black spots are situated. So we have the Department of Lands indicating that these Black spots are to be removed and we have the hon. Minister of Native Affairs making no mention of these particular Black spots when he is asked which spots are going to be removed in Zululand. I think I am justified in saying on this evidence that confusion exists in Government circles in regard to what is to take place in Natal, and the inference to be drawn from that is that the master mind alone, the hon. the Prime Minister alone, knows what is proposed, but that the details of that are not so well known by his honourable colleagues.

The hon. member for Wakkerstroom was unwise enough to mention in his speech certain activities of the Zululand Public Bodies Land Tenure Committee, and he attempted to castigate the hon. member for South Coast by saying that as a result of a request from the Minister of Lands that evidence be given in regard to the future of Crown Land in Zululand, the hon. member for South Coast tried to make political capital out of it. He was unwise enough to rely on newspaper cuttings, because if he knew the facts he would realize that only two bodies have tried to make political capital out of this, namely the Progressive Party and the hon. member for Wakkerstroom. Because, Mr. Chairman, the Nationalist-controlled bodies in Zululand almost to a man have supported the recommendations of the Land Tenure Committee in every regard, and those recommendations were designed to one end only and that was to circumscribe the creation of Bantu states in Zululand. It is quite clear that Nationalist opinion in Zululand, and in any other area which is likely to be affected by these schemes, is as unhappy about the situation as we are.

That is why we got an increased number of votes there.

You did not have an increase in the number of votes in Zululand apart from importations. It was mentioned earlier that this had always been the policy of the party opposite and that this concept of the creation of independent Bantu states was no new innovation. During the last general election, Sir, four paid organizers were introduced by the Nationalist Party into my constituency and every one of those paid organizers attended at least one of my meetings, and every single one denied it as a pack of lies when I alleged that the hon. the Prime Minister intended to create independent Bantu states in the near future. It was categorically denied on every occasion that was the policy of the Nationalist Party. As the hon. member for Wakkerstroom well knows Nationalist opinion in Zululand and in Natal in general is as afraid of these schemes as anybody else, and had they known the facts at the time of the last general election, many of those results would have been different. [Time limit.]

The Opposition is continually insisting upon a reply in connection with the boundaries of the Bantu areas. I wish to ask them this question: If the Government should declare to-morrow morning that all the released areas will immediately be purchased with the object of consolidation and in order to comply with the requirements of the 1936 legislation, what will hon. gentlemen opposite say? Do you see, Sir, they do not reply. They get up and attack us and say they want to know where the borders will be. I ask them this Supposing the Government were to proclaim tomorrow morning that all the released areas will immediately be purchased in order to comply with the 1936 Act, what attitude will the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) adopt in that case?

Do not talk nonsense.

Do you see, Sir, I knew they wanted us to say immediately where the boundaries would be, but if the boundaries are drawn there as envisaged in the 1936 Act, when the released areas were declared, they refuse to accept them. They are not prepared to say that they will welcome it. Do you see, Sir, the honesty of the United Party has collapsed completely.

If the hon. member would sit down, we will reply.

I trust you will reply and not again try to evade the issue. The hon. member who has just interrupted me called in assistance yesterday when I stated that it was their policy to allow Bantu to own land in the very heart of White South Africa.

In the proclaimed Native areas.

Oh no. I have the Bible here, the mouthpiece of the United Party, not an ordinary newspaper. Referring to the second stage of their policy, namely the question of political rights, it says this—

And that middle-class must own property in the very heart of South Africa, in the Johannesburg areas.

They occupy it to-day, do they not?

The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) wishes to deny that is the policy, but there you have the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) admitting and welcoming it, Sir. I find nothing wrong with that, but I do want some hon. members opposite to deny it. They should acknowledge paternity. On the last occasion when I said it formed part of their policy, there was a chorus of protest, but I have their policy here. This is not what back-benchers have said, but it appears under the beautiful photograph of the Leader of the Opposition and also that of the hon. member for Yeoville—I wish I looked like that; I would have gone off to Hollywood immediately. Why do hon. gentlemen not admit once and for all that this question of land ownership and the question of the boundaries have them cornered? However, hon. gentlemen do not accept it when the Prime Minister and the Minister of Bantu Administration and others tell them time and time again that the question of the boundaries can only be solved as the process of consolidation develops and that process of consolidation will be expedited when, for example, other bodies with authority are established, bodies which can assist, as the Transkeian Territory and others will develop later on. In that case the process can easily go on. Why are those hon. gentlemen in such a hurry that the Government should tell them this evening where the boundaries will be, whereas they are not prepared to answer when I ask them whether they will be satisfied if the Government announces to-morrow that all the released areas will be purchased? I think the time has arrived for hon. gentlemen opposite to state their attitude clearly and that they do not claim unto themselves the right to criticize the policy of the Government, because they have no alternative policy, and because they are not clear in their own minds, and because their sole object is to put a spoke in our wheels. They know very well that we are progressing under this policy in spite of their opposition. The policy we are following to-day is a policy which will ultimately—and here I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee)—lead to it that we will get away from discrimination. The policy of the United Party, however, is aimed at immortalizing discrimination, otherwise they should state that their declared policy is an ideal policy, as perfect as it can be, provided you accept that the White man is only a temporary sojourner in South Africa. The policy of the National Party, however, is based on the fact that the White man will remain here as long as this earth is inhabited. The United Party’s policy of concessions is based on the idea that everything is of a temporary nature. The control, proportional representation, the federal system will all be temporary until such time as the majority group has so much power in its hand that it will be able to exterminate everybody else and wipe them off the face of the earth. In that case the policy of the United Party will, of course, be the ideal policy if you accept that at some time in the future there will be a wholesale extermination of the White man at the southern tip of Africa. If that is the policy they wish to follow as against the policy of the National Party, they should not be surprised if the people of South Africa, whenever they have an opportunity of voicing their opinion on this matter, continue to push the United Party further and further into the background. They will do that because the United Party refuses to take a stand, and because they are powerless to take a stand, and because they wish to thwart every effort. Time and again they rely on the pressure which the world outside is bringing to bear on us, international pressure, and that is something which will be recorded in the annals of history for all time to come, to the discredit of the present Opposition.

We have been arguing in this Committee now for hours and hours on the boundaries of Bantustans and the boundaries of the race federation scheme offered by the official Opposition and I must say that I have listened to this debate now with a sense of complete unreality because neither of these two solutions offered anything that is going to suggest a stable future for this country. I must say right away that on this question of the boundaries of Bantustans I have yet to read of a case of a White farmer who has been expropriated in order to fulfil the 1936 Land Act who has had to complain about the price he has received for his land, and I don’t share the fears of the official Opposition that the Government is going to encroach to any extent upon land other than that which was set aside under the Land Acts of 1913 and 1936. I do not see this Government as a Government which is likely to make farmers or any other White people suffer in order to try and fulfil its obligations to the Bantu people. I do not share that fear. I think, Sir, that the Opposition’s plan is based on the correct premises and that is that South Africa is a multi-racial country. To me that is a premise which has to be accepted by anybody who faces the situation with any reality, but of course the consequences of the acceptance of South Africa as a multiracial country is a different matter, and there I differ profoundly from the official Opposition. But I am going to leave that to one side. I want to come back to a point made by the hon. the Prime Minister in the course of his speech on these independent Bantustans. Sir, the Prime Minister has repeatedly refused to accept the fact that South Africa is a multiracial country. This basic premise is not accepted by the hon. the Prime Minister and his party, and because of that the hon. the Prime Minister has decided that since he realizes that it is not possible to deny for any length of time the legitimate political aspirations of any race, Black, Coloured or Indian, he must look for an alternative solution that does not accept the multi-racial character of South Africa. In other words, he is not prepared to make allowances for people of different colour to exercise their rights in a multiracial South Africa. So he has come up with this quid pro quo. I am not going to deal with the Coloured solution or the Indian solution. Those are two separate solutions altogether. But we have been discussing this issue of the separate Bantustans and the hon. the Prime Minister has come up with this solution, in respect of which he gave us details two years ago in this House, and we will certainly see the beginning of the implementation of the system of an independent Bantustan. A Recess Committee was appointed and a constitution has been drawn up for the Transkei. This now is his quid pro quo: Not recognizing the basic premise of the multi-racial character of South Africa, he is now offering full sovereign political rights in the Transkei to start with, and later in other areas, in exchange for the deprivation of all political rights or all permanent rights in what he calls the White Republic of South Africa.

They have never had such rights.

Of course they have enjoyed rights to a limited extent, but they are increasingly losing those rights. But now I want to challenge the hon. the Prime Minister on one thing that he said in the course of this debate. Talking about the Whites in Umtata and in the Transkei generally, he said that he had no fears about the future of those people, that he was sure that they would be secure living in the independent sovereign area of the Transkei. He said that he had had discussions with the leaders of the African people who formed the Recess Committee during the recent adjournment of Parliament and he was sure from what they told him that they wished to live in peace and harmony with the Whites of the Transkei who have lived there for many years, and he reassured this House, and in particular members of the Opposition who had expressed their doubts about this, that this would be so, that even if the Bantu in those areas were given full independent rights, they would treat the Whites in those areas fairly and they would not in any way encroach on either their rights or on their person. Now I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister: Why is he prepared to put so much trust in the Bantu of the Transkei who will outnumber the Whites in that area by a ratio far exceeding the outweighing of numbers in the so-called White South Africa—why does he trust the one and a half million Africans in the Transkei in relation to the Whites there, and he will not extend the same trust to the Africans in the so-called White Republic? Why not? The disparity is certainly not as unfavourable as in the Transkei, and most important of all, the Africans living in the urban areas of South Africa are by far the most advanced Africans in the whole of the Republic. Sir, they are people who are educated, they are the people with initiative and drive, as is usually the case with people who become urbanized, and they are the people who have most adapted themselves to Western civilization and to the attainment of some form of Western culture. This is where the whole argument of the hon. the Prime Minister can be challenged. His fear always has been that if he extends even limited rights—I hope hon. members will listen carefully now, because I am discussing this logically and without any political bias—if the hon. the Prime Minister is not prepared to concede even limited rights to the Africans who are the most developed and the most advanced of the African people and who are living in the urban areas of the so-called White Republic of South Africa because he fears that this will lead to the complete undermining of the whole of the White civilization and the end of the White man in the White Republic of South Africa, why does he not entertain that fear when he hands complete sovereign independence to the Africans living in an independent Transkeian Territory? Why has he no fear about how they will react, what powers they will take unto themselves and how they will treat the White man who is in a very small minority, living in that area? I think the hon. the Prime Minister must reply to this, because his whole theory is challengeable by virtue of what he said earlier this afternoon, and I hope that the hon. the Prime Minister will give us a reply to this question because I believe it to be of fundamental importance. He knows that I do not agree with his theory of independent Bantustans. I believe that rights must be advanced within the whole of South Africa to people who have reached a certain stage of development, and I am not frightened, Sir, that when people have reached a certain stage of civilization they must necessarily when they get some power, behave like savages. I believe that is not the case. I believe that South Africa could very well go forward and offer sufficiently wide concessions, sensible concessions to the non-Whites in this country to re-establish us as one of the democratic countries in the world, a reputation which we do not enjoy to-dayand which is one of the main reasons why we have experienced such great difficulties at UNO over the past few years.

I think one can entirely ignore the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), because I do not think even the United Party will nibble on the bait that she held out here.

I rise really to reply to a few arguments advanced by the hon. Leader of the Opposition and also by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) and some of the other members. It has been said that the policy of the National Party Government is to blame for the hostile attitude adopted by UNO towards South Africa from the beginning. The hon. the Prime Minister has already replied to that, but I want to quote a few passages just to indicate that it was in fact the segregation policy of the United Party which constantly got us into trouble with the United Nations. I want to quote from a document which was tabled in this House in the year 1947 and which contains a report of a debate at the United Nations in November 1946. On that occasion India’s delegate, Sir Maharadja Singh, made the charge against South Africa that we were following a policy of segregation or apartheid here, and quite an issue was made out of this. According to the report this delegate said—

It must be remembered that at that time the United Party was still in power—

That was under the policy of the United Party. The report goes on to say—

That goes to show that it is not only the National Party Government’s policy of apartheid which brought us into disfavour with the outside world, but also the United Party’s segregation policy. I want to add that the late Gen. Smuts replied to this charge and his defence was not that South Africa would start abolishing the policy of segregation; that was not his defence. He did not consider that for a moment. He made a long speech on this matter, and the report says—

It will be seen that the late Gen. Smuts defended this segregation policy, and I want to ask hon. members on the other side whether they think for a single moment that the late Gen. Smuts would have departed from the policy of segregation for South Africa as the result of pressure from UNO.

Why then did you say in South West in 1950 that we were in favour of equality? You were telling fibs then.

This is not the first time that hon. member has talked nonsense. I want to ask what right members on the other side have to say that it is the apartheid policy of the National Party Government which has brought our country into disfavour in the outside world. What I have quoted shows that the hostility on the part of UNO came into being during the very period that the United Party was in power, and that was in November 1946 when UNO had just been established.

But I want to reply really to another very important point that the hon. Leader of the Opposition made in this debate. He said that South Africa would be compelled in terms of article 73 of the Charter to submit reports to UNO in respect of the Transkei and other territories which may become independent later on. In this connection I want to advance and prove three propositions. In the first place I submit that Chapter XI only relates to colonies; secondly I want to make the submission that the Transkei is not a colony as visualized there, and thirdly I want to make the submission that in any event members of UNO could decide themselves whether or not they wished to submit reports in terms of Article 73.

Let me first of all read out the definition of “colony” for the edification of hon. members on the other side; they will then understand it better, and for this purpose I quote the definition in the latest issue of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica. I should like the hon. member for Germiston-District in particular to listen carefully to what is stated here—

It then goes on to enlarge upon it and to define it as follows—

Who talked about colonies?

I shall reply to that in a moment, but first of all I should like it to be clearly understood what a colony is—

That is the definition of a “colony”. This matter was gone into very carefully at the discussion in San Francisco, because when that article was framed the countries wanted to make sure that the correct description was given for the purposes of the Charter of the United Nations, and I refer particularly to the Fourth Committee of which the late Gen. Smuts was the President and where the late Gen. Smuts, on the 20th June, 1945, set out his idea of the territories which, are included under Article 73. I do not want to read out the whole passage. The British delegate too made a very good speech in this regard.

Why did Gen. Smuts agree to submit reports about South West Africa under Article 73?

The question of mandated territories fall under Chapter XII and not under Chapter XI.

He agreed to submit reports under Article 73.

Yes, because he believed that South West Africa could be regarded as a colony and not as a mandated territory. That was his desire. But in any event various delegates expressed their opinion with regard to this matter, and in the Minutes of the Fourth Committee (Document 712 of the 31st May, 1945) there is a fine summary of what the delegates actually said—

Then it goes on to say—

Mr. Chairman, no matter how the hon. member for Middelland (Mr. P. S. van der Merwe) and all other members opposite may argue about our position at UNO during the years 1946-8, they all have to admit that when we, the United Party, represented South Africa there during those years, we had friends who were prepared to stand by us.

That was also the position with Portugal but she has no friends there to-day.

Portugal was never in the positon in which we were …

That makes matters worse for you.

The hon. the Minister of Information shall have to do much better than this type of interjection, if he wants to influence people overseas. No matter what he says, he will have to admit that never before has South Africa stood so alone at UNO as she does to-day, and never has she received the criticism she is receiving to-day,—and that too from her friends. I should like that hon. Minister to get up and tell the House what he is doing about it and how many people he has already influenced. Mr. Chairman, the position is simply this, that whether or not Gen. Smuts supported the policy of segregation, his policies were never as unacceptable to Australia, to Great Britain, Canada or New Zealand as this Government’s policies are unacceptable. I am sure that had the United Party with its policies been in power, South Africa would never have been put out of the Commonwealth.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) said that she had to listen to a very unrealistic debate. To-day, however, it is clear, Mr. Chairman, after yesterday’s elections, that to most voters her ideas of what is real and what is unreal, are not theirs. The people outside are interested in the questions which are being raised and discussed here today; they are interested in where the boundaries of the new Bantu States are going to be. She said that she accepted that the Government was not going to buy land beyond the boundaries which were decided upon in 1936. That was what I understood her to say. I notice that she nods with her head meaning that what I am saying is true. But nobody else accepts that.

Why not?

Because you have already bought land extending beyond the released areas. The hon. member for Heilbron, Sir, is the chairman of the Native Affairs Commission and as such he ought to know what has happened. He ought to know that the farms around Umtata were not part of the released or scheduled areas?

They fell within the quota.

I admit that they fell within the quota which was laid down in 1936. What I want to point out, however, is that the hon. member for Houghton said that she did not believe that the Government would buy outside the released areas. What we are worried about, Sir, is where the hon. the Prime Minister is going to buy. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member should be allowed to make his own speech.

The hon. member for Heilbron said that the boundaries were fixed. Where were they fixed?

By the Act of 1936.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort does not know what he is talking about. The hon. member for Heilbron was talking about the boundaries of the Transkei and these were not defined by the Act of 1936. I have already asked the hon. the Minister for Bantu Administration and Development and I have asked the Prime Minister what land they were going to buy in the Transkei but nobody answered me. I should now like to put that question to the hon. member for Heilbron. He said that the boundaries were fixed. I have here the constitution for the Transkei. I admit that the Prime Minister said that he did not necessarily have to adopt this constitution, but in terms of this constitution, the Transkeian Territorial Authority is going to take over the whole of the Transkei except the district of Mount Currie. Mount Currie was given the assurance by the Prime Minister and by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development that the European areas in those districts would not fall under the Transkei. I want to ask the hon. member for Heilbron, however, what about Port St. Johns? The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development gave the assurance that area would not be taken over. The Secretary for Bantu Administration and Development wrote them a letter telling them that they would not fall witin the Transkei. But according to this constitution, Port St. Johns is not excluded? I have already asked many times in this House what is going to happen to the White area of Port St. Johns.

You are wrong.

Read the original constitution.

But I have the whole constitution here, and there is nothing here to indicate that the White area of Port St. Johns is going to be excluded. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) said that this was the biggest experiment this country had ever embarked upon.

I said the world!

Yes, he said that this was the biggest experiment the world had ever embarked upon. If, however, this was the policy of Louis Botha, Gen. Smuts, Gen. Hertzog and all the other previous leaders, why is it then all of a sudden an experiment? Surely if this has been the decided policy of all those leaders over the last 50 years, as the hon. member for Heilbron said, how can it then be an experiment now?

Do not be silly!

The hon. member for Heilbron also said that the Europeans need not have any fears in the Transkei because the new independent government of the Transkei will have no jurisdiction over them. I was, however, not complaining about the jurisdiction, but I was worried about whether and how they were going to be compensated for the material losses which they fear they are going to suffer. We know that they will not fall under the jurisdiction of the new New Transkeian government. The Prime Minister gave them that assurance. So we know that. But it is obvious from the remarks of the hon. member for Heilbron that the Government members have no concept of what is worrying the White and the Coloured people not only in the Transkei but in all those areas where they feel that they might fall under Bantustan states. The last time I spoke, I was dealing with the position of the professional man and other people occupied in commerce but not necessarily owners of businesses. The Prime Minister said that they were different from the people in Kenya because they could come to South Africa and continue to practise their professions here, or get other jobs here. What I, however, want to know is what is going to happen to their properties? What is going to happen to their residences? I have asked this question often before but nobody wants to answer me. Perhaps the hon. the Minister of Information will now give me the information. Are those areas going to be exempted from the operation of the Group Areas Act? The Prime Minister has told us clearly that all the villages, and Umtata, are eventually going to go Black. But now I want to ask this, namely how are they going to go Black when Africans cannot buy properties from Whites? The areas are, admittedly, going to be zoned—they are going to zone certain areas for occupation by certain races. But who is going to buy the properties of the Whites if the Africans cannot do so in terms of the Group Areas Act? Once the zoning has taken place, who is going to buy those properties? The Prime Minister must realize that the White people do not fear that they will not be allowed to trade. We appreciate that they will be allowed to trade and that no law will be passed to force us out of the area. All that we accept. We fear, however, that pressure will be brought to bear upon the Whites forcing them out. It is useless telling a doctor that he can come and practise in Cape Town, or telling an attorney that he can go and practise in East London. The question is what is to happen to the properties they occupy in Umtata, Butter-worth, or any other town? [Time limit.]

I am pleased that you are giving me the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to deal further with the matter with which I was dealing a moment ago. When my time expired I was pointing out that there was a thorough discussion at San Francisco of the territories affected by Chapter XI. Thereafter, the interpretation of this Chapter was raised repeatedly in the General Assembly of the United Nations. One such occasion was the 27th sitting of the General Assembly when the British delegate made it very clear that the territories referred to in Chapter XI only included colonial territories. The Transkei and other Bantu homelands in South Africa are at the present time still part of metropolitan South Africa and as long as they remain part of South Africa they cannot be considered to be independent territories. As long as they are still part of South Africa it is not necessary to report on them because they are not included under what are considered to be “colonial territories”. When they achieve full independence one day it will of course not be necessary to report on them because then they will be completely independent states. If hon. members note the heading of Chapter XI they will see the following, “Declaration Affecting Non-Self-Governing Territories”. This heading is placed there for a specific purpose. In its original form it was “General Policy”. At that time it was felt in San Francisco that countries having colonial territories should not be compelled to submit reports in terms of Article 73. Therefore the heading was framed in such a way that it dealt with a “declaration concerning non-selfgoverning territories”. In other words, member countries could declare voluntarily whether they wanted to bring their particular colonial territories within the scope of Article 73. There have been many writers on international law who have written about this but I want to refer particularly to one whom I consider to be the greatest authority in this connection, namely, Professor Hans Kelsen, Professor of Political Science at the University of California. On page 555 of his book “The Law of the United Nations” he discusses this particular matter in full. He says, inter alia—

After having discussed this question in detail, he arrives at the following conclusion—

That is his eventual conclusion therefore. In pursuance of the heading to Chapter XI, the question also arose as to whether member countries were compelled to submit reports and this matter was fully discussed and dealt with by various writers on international law. Professor Kelsen expresses a very clear opinion in this regard in his book from which I have already quoted. He refers to a resolution which was adopted at the 64th meeting of the General Assembly, discusses it, and arrives at the following conclusion—

In other words, member countries were left to decide voluntarily on the question as to whether they would submit reports in terms of Article 73 of the Charter or not.

Do you maintain that it was a free choice which was given to member countries as to whether they would submit reports or not?

I want to put it in this way, that Chapter XI did not constitute any contractual obligation on the part of members but simply required a declaration, and that the writers on international law, the most important of whom I have just quoted, interpreted it to mean that there was no contractual obligation upon members to submit such reports.

If that is so, why then the request to Britain in connection with Southern Rhodesia?

This request to Britain takes place under pressure by the Afro-Asian countries. The fact that Britain did not previously submit reports in respect of Southern Rhodesia in fact proves the correctness of Kelsen’s standpoint. The position is that Britain as well as other countries agreed voluntarily to submit reports on certain non-selfgoverning territories in terms of Article 73. In this way more than 60 non-self-governing territories were brought within the jurisdiction of Article 73. I have here with me the latest report of the “Committee on Information for Non-Self-Governing Territories”, from which you will see that Britain, inter alia, voluntarily undertook to submit reports in respect of certain non-self-governing colonies to UNO but not in respect of Southern Rhodesia.

But surely not in respect of Southern Rhodesia?

I shall be pleased if the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) as well as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will stop making wild allegations in respect of our Bantu homelands by suggesting that these homelands, which will in the future become independent territories, will cause South Africa to be faced with the problem of submitting reports on them to UNO. In doing so they are rendering no service to South Africa or to their own party. They should rather have refrained from making those remarks.

Mr. Chairman, out of all the welter of confusion which the Government is creating about its Bantustan policy, only one thing emerges clearly—they do not know the meaning of the word “independence”. Right throughout this debate we have had assurances that the Government will protect the interests of the White people in the Transkei. But how can the Government give an assurance that it will protect the interests of the Whites in an independent Transkei? The moment they interfere to protect those interests, they deny the independence of the Transkei. They cannot have it both ways! As an example of the confused thinking one finds among members on the other side, I would refer to a challenging statement which was made by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee). He said that one of the major problems to-day in Africa was to end discrimination against Black people without substituting for it discrimination against White people. We are now told that the main purpose of the Transkeian experiment—it is not a policy any more, but is now an experiment—is to end discrimination against the Black people there. But what steps are being taken to prevent discrimination against the White people of the Transkei? If it is truly independent, the Government will be powerless, unless it is willing to destroy the very definition of independence thereby reducing its entire policy to hollowness. I think we have had a remarkable revelation of how half-baked the Bantustan policy of the hon. the Prime Minister is. I cannot yet call it a policy of the Nationalist Party, because I can confirm from personal experience that the rank and file of the Nationalist Party do not accept it as their policy. I was recently in Aliwal North in connection with a by-election there, and a prominent Nationalist then asked me why I was attacking this policy knowing that the hon. the Prime Minister was not mad? He would never do a thing like it. I told him that I could prove from Hansard that he had stated it. To that he replied by saying that the Prime Minister was a clever man and that he was speaking for foreign ears.

And what was the result of the by-election?

Where people do not believe the policy of their own Party, you can expect any result! We have, however, achieved one thing; there can no longer be denials behind the back of the hon. the Prime Minister that the policy of the Nationalist Party is one of independence for Bantustans. We have at least had this confession, however reluctant, that the Prime Minister will be forced to do to the White community of the Transkei exactly what he is accusing other metropolitan countries of doing to Whites in colonies which are in the process of being emancipated in Africa.

I want to react to another theorem propounded by the hon. the Prime Minister because it interests me very much. I think it was yesterday that the hon. the Prime Minister made the point that as the Transkeian experiment developed, it would have the effect of changing the image of South Africa throughout the world. If that were to happen, none would be so gratified as we on this side of the House would be. I mean it. But I should like to add that the world will not judge this Government, or this country as long as it has this Government, according to the position which will obtain in one of the tribal areas of South Africa. On the contrary, it will also judge South Africa, as we have constantly warned, according to the fate of those millions of Bantu who never will have any direct material or economic contact with the reserves, i.e. the Natives outside those reserves. I wonder whether the hon. the Prime Minister would not consider, while experimenting with the Transkei, also making a simple experiment outside the Transkei, i.e. to reduce the harshness, the implacability, the indefensibility and the injustice of the many discriminatory measures which he has made to apply to the Natives living in the so-called White areas.

Did you say “injustice”?

Yes, most decidedly, and I say it with all the emphasis at my disposal.

You are committing sabotage.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “sabotage”.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman.

I can mention many examples, Sir. My only trouble is that I do not want to criticize legislation which has already been adopted by this House. There is one example, however, of discrimination which although it was enforced by legislation, is entirely a matter of administration. I am referring to the discrimination which is made possible under Section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act, or the “job reservation section” as it is generally known. Section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act did not reserve one single job for one single person. It, however, permits the Minister of Labour to do that after certain formalities have been completed. I want to criticize and condemn the administration of that section by the various Ministers of Labour since that section existed.

Order! I do not think the hon. member is entitled to criticize that because the exemptions are also provided for under the Act.

I do not want to speak about the exemptions, Sir. I want to speak about the administration of the Act, and the various ministerial actions in applying the principle of job reservation. I want us to consider the administrative attempts made by the various Ministers to apply this principle of job reservation. The very first determination was over-hasty and abortive. It led to court cases which were lost. Eventually, when the Minister succeeded in escaping his difficulties, he was compelled to grant more exemptions than was originally intended. This shows what an impossible situation the Minister had been landed in. Then there followed determination No. 2 which dealt with the removal of night soil in Durban. He went to great lengths to preserve this work, even in respect of non-European areas, for Whites. I will not make any further comment upon this. A third determination was the preservation of 50 operations in the engineering industry for Whites resulting in the protection of only 90 people in the whole of that mighty industry. The next determination applied to traffic police and fire brigade services in Cape Town, effecting exactly 14 people in the whole of South Africa. Another determination reserved the work of passenger lift attendants in Johannesburg, Bloemfontein and Pretoria for Whites. Determination No. 6 reserved all skilled and many semi-skilled jobs in the building industry in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State for Whites. Determination No. 7 endeavoured to protect 148 people in the refrigeration and stove industry. Then, having apparently learnt from past experience, determination No. 8 was made and this was no longer a simple reservation, but a complex formula aiming at the retention of the status quo in that industry, i.e. a reservation based on percentages. But while it sought to protect Whites and Coloureds in theory, in practice it was an unnecessary piece of red tape because it gave no White man a job, it cost no Coloured man his job, and did not affect any Bantu in the slightest. Determinations Nos. 9 to 11 affected transport drivers in various fields. Finally in the place of what would have been determination No. 12 if the Minister had his way, came a very interesting report from the Industrial Tribunal to the effect that the displacement of Whites by non-Whites in the clothing industry had not been substantiated and that it would, therefore, not be necessary to conduct a further investigation at that stage. By finding this, the Tribunal disproved so many of the arguments which have been advanced in favour of job reservation. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I purposely waited a long time in order to listen to the debate which was started by members of the Opposition on the constitutional development plan for the Transkei, in order to ascertain what sense of responsibility they would display after they had read the report of the Recess Committee which was published in the Press. I think I am right in saying that in this connection the Opposition has displayed the most pitiful sense of irresponsibility that I have ever seen. I say that with reference to their reaction and that of their Press to the publication of the report of the Recess Committee of the Transkeian Territorial Authority. My time is limited so I will only refer to that reaction in brief. In this connection I wish to refer to the speeches of the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) and that of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman), and that of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) who also referred to the discrimination which will be practised against the Whites once the Transkei becomes an independent state. Mr. Chairman, if there is an answer to these points —points which they regard as being the most contentious—that answer can be found in the report of the Recess Committee and in statements made by responsible Bantu leaders in the Transkei. They can ask the Government what its attitude is in respect of this or that matter, but the people who they wish to frighten will be living in the Bantu state and the question, therefore, is what attitude will the Bantu government of that state adopt towards the White people who live there, towards the question of the boundaries, towards the consolidation of areas, and towards all the other things with which the Opposition wish to make the South African nation’s hair stand on end. Let us scrutinize a few of these things closer. I maintain that the spirit which the Opposition has revealed in respect of these things, is one of frustration. The Opposition and their Press were very frustrated when they read the report of the Recess Committee of the Transkei Territorial Authority. They thought it would provide them with ammunition, but it was actually a great disappointment to them, more so because the Transkeian Recess Committee has come forward with many good constructive suggestions. In doing that they have adopted a very sensible attitude. However, the main reason why the Opposition and their Press feel frustrated is the fact that the Recess Committee has shown that they accept separate development in principle and not the conception of a multi-racial government as advocated by the Opposition and their Press. The silence which the Opposition Press has observed in its leading articles and in its comments on the Transkeian constitution, and the imperfect reports on the report of the Recess Committee all indicate frustration and sorrow, also on the part of the Press. The basic approach of the Opposition—and that is where they are making a big mistake—is that this Government is treating the Bantu of the Transkei in the same way as the British Government have treated those in Kenya where threats, ultimatums and forced coalition compelled the people of Kenya to take certain steps. Nothing like that has happened here. Earlier this afternoon already the Prime Minister pointed out that the initiative in this matter was taken by the Bantu leaders in the Transkei. They consulted the Government and the Government put its view and advised them. For the very reason that the initiative in this matter was taken by the Bantu in the Transkei it is better to consider the attitude which the Bantu in the Transkei is adopting towards this matter with which the Opposition is trying to frighten the public. Let us look a little deeper into some of these matters. Firstly, it should be noted that the report concerned was unanimously adopted. That is important because it was reported in detail in the Press. I also wish to point out that report was signed by those chiefs and others in respect of whom, before the meeting of the Recess Committee, the Opposition Press recklessly wrote that they would submit different constitutions. The fact that this report was unanimously accepted is not appreciated within the ranks of the Opposition. They have no kind word to say about the sense of responsibility which the Bantu leaders of the Transkei have displayed. On the contrary they come here with insinuations with the object of sowing suspicion within the ranks of the Bantu and to give them ideas how to rebel against the White man. I want to give another example. I referred to the fact a moment ago that it was done voluntarily, and not as a result of an ultimatum issued to them and not as a result of forcing coalition upon them and not as a result of vetos and things like that, as was the case in all the schemes which were applied to the north of us. [Interjections.] I think that hon. member has already spoken on ten occasions. This is the first time that I am taking part in this debate and immediately I sit down he can get up again. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) reproached us and said we were practising the policy which Britain practised in Kenya. It is ironical, of course, that a super Britisher like Mr. Douglas Mitchell should refer to British methods in a deprecatory manner. I wish to tell him, however, that the Prime Minister has already given sufficient proof that we will not follow the policy which was followed in Kenya as far as the property of the White people is concerned, nor will we follow the methods which were followed in Kenya in respect of the drafting of a constitution, such as vetos and ultimatums.

Do not run away from the British policy.

I am not running away from anything, not even from the promise to stand on my head and to wave my legs about. [Laughter.] Sir, land and boundaries are two of the things which have been mentioned. What is the reply to that? Not the reply which we have given, because we have given that a hundred times but the obstinacy and stubbornness of the Opposition prevent them from accepting it. But what is the reply given by the Recess Committee? The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) referred to it here. The entire report was published in the Press. He knows that the reply of the Recess Committee to this bogey of land and boundaries is that they accept the boundaries of the Transkeian territory as they exist to-day and as they have been proclaimed, and if only the hon. member studies that proclamation carefully he will realize what they are. The hon. member will realize that he has already been answered and that an area like Port St. Johns is excluded.

Where do you get that?

I will read it to you.

As far as the towns in the White spots are concerned, the towns inside the Transkei, those which the Recess Committee call “White islands” in their report, hon. members need not pay attention to what we have said, but they can read what the Recess Committee itself has said, namely that they accept that those towns will gradually become Black and that they guarantee that adequate compensation will be paid. But what did the most responsible person say about this? I quote from the Cape Argus of 26 January, when Captain Keiser Matanzima said the following—

Of course it did not help—

Yes, Kenyatta also said that.

The hon. member has a Kenyatta mentality. But what we are doing is not to take gaolbirds out of gaol and to place them in the Transkeian parliament. [Time limit.]

There is a matter I would like to bring to the notice of the hon. the Prime Minister and I am very grateful to have the opportunity to do so at this stage. Throughout the hours this debate has lasted, there has been extensive talk about the independence of the Transkei, the degree of independence that this new state will have, the number of White people concerned there and how their rights will be protected, and about the boundaries of that future state, but not a word was mentioned about the people whom I represent in that area, because the Transkei forms part of the Outeniqua constituency and there happen to be about 14,000 Coloured people living in that area. The Coloured people in that territory have been concerned about their position over the years, even before this Government came into power in 1948, because there seems to have been the idea always that the Bantu in the Transkei will have some form of local government which will possibly in future be extended and in many respects the Coloured people in the Transkei resorted under the same legislation as the Bantu, which they naturally resented because they have never become integrated with the Bantu population there. On 7 February I raised this matter in a debate and since then we have not heard a word except a short comment by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) who followed me in that debate, in which he said—

What authority there is for this statement I do not know. It is also very vague. Apart from that, there was comment on the speech I made in this House by Mr. Tom Swartz at Umtata, the Government’s nominated member on the Union Council for Coloured Affairs and the chairman of that body, to the effect that I was more or less talking nonsense in having raised the matter.

Quite correct.

When I have finished, we will see who is correct. This servile, bowing and scraping man, appointed by the Government, has no standing there, I can assure you, Sir. He does not know what is happening there and he is completely wrong. The position there is that in spite of what this gentleman said, the problem of the Coloured people in the Transkei is a very real one. These people have no association as far as the future form of government is concerned with the Bantu people. They have traditionally the same way of life, the same culture, the same language and the same religion as the White people. They are living there in fear and uncertainty which has become quite acute over the last few years, as I will prove. These people live in settlements scattered over the Transkei, such as Rietvlei, Enzikeni, Upper Roza, Lusikisiki and other places, or in the larger towns. Many of them are traders. They form part of the 600 odd traders mentioned here. They are descendants, to a large extent, of the soldiers who fought with the White man to civilize that country. I mentioned here what Chief Matanzima said to a prominent leader of the Coloured people in the Transkei and I did not mention it because I wished to engender racialism between the Bantu and the Coloured people. I used the expression before in regard to the Bantu and the Coloured people that oil and water do not mix. On the other hand, if some of the Bantu chiefs in the Transkei are talking about the Coloureds having to leave the Transkei, I do not blame them for it because naturally they would like to see their population increase and their people from outside the territory brought in there into the places now occupied by the Coloured people. But the fact remains that those people are there and that they have no future there. Over the last year or so we have had a great deal of unrest, particularly in Pondoland. The Coloured people refused to take part in the unrest and the demonstrations and rioting against the White authority. I can assure you, Sir, that I have had representations from responsible people there. I have been in the area since, and I speak with the utmost conviction and sincerity when I say that already the more primitive type of Bantu in the Transkei is threatening those people. They are uncertain and in danger of their lives, and they are being told: We are going to become independent and then we will deal with you because you stand by the White man and refuse to stand by us. Now, I want it clearly understood that I do not say these things for the newspapers or anyone else to distort it and to say that I am engendering racialism between the Coloureds and the Bantu there, but the fact remains that as the White Government of South Africa we are responsible for those people. They are not as fortunate as the White people who are, generally speaking, in a better economic position than they are. They cannot help themselves and it is for the Government of South Africa, which they recognize as their Government, to assist them and it is time now for them to be told where they must go or what will happen to them. The Prime Minister, in dealing with the political rights of the White people who will live in that territory after it gains its independence, gave the House the assurance that they will be able to exercise their political rights as before, in the Republic. The Coloured people’s political rights have been limited as they are to-day, but we would like to know whether that applies also to the Coloureds who will be living in that territory after it becomes independent.

How many of these Coloured people are there?

He has already told you.

I think I said there were about 14,000, approximately as many as the White people there. I wish to appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister in the interest of those people, who, although they are Coloured, are as good South Africans as anyone else. On their behalf and on behalf of all my constituents in general, I can give the assurance that these people can be relied upon to do their duty to the country in a time of crisis. But after having gauged the feelings and having visited the area myself towards the end of last year, I can say it would be appreciated by my constituents there if the Prime Minister would make a clear statement as to their position. There are many thousands of people concerned. Many of them are on the land, where they were settled after their forbears were discharged from the Cape Corps in the Kaffir Wars. They will have to be uprooted there and re-settled elsewhere, and it is hard for any person to go to some strange area. There are other people who have business rights there, or who are in business, and they will also have to be uprooted and re-settled somewhere else, and fine a niche in the economy of the country somewhere else. I wish to appeal to the Prime Minister during the course of this debate to make a statement and to give some assurance to those people that the Government will accept responsibility for them, because after all they were not in a position to have any say whatever as to whether that territory will become an independent Bantu territory or not. They were not consulted in any way. I do not wish to make any recriminations, but this is a serious matter and I can assure the Prime Minister that those people will appreciate it if the Prime Minister could be able to tell us what the intentions of the Government are with regard to them, whether they will have to stay there or whether they will have to be re-settled elsewhere. Perhaps the recently announced Orange-Fish River scheme could be used to re-settle them if they are to be moved. [Time limit.]

Before my time expired, I was dealing with the statement made by Matanzima even before the report of the Recess Committee appeared in the Press, the statement in which he referred to the so-called unrest which existed amongst the White people in connection with their property in the Transkei. I should like to read this out because I think it is very important, it ought to reassure everybody and because it is so strikingly in agreement with what they recommend in their report—

When I read out things like this, the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) chatters to another hon. member and refuses to listen. [Interjections.] When you talk to them, Sir, they do not listen, but afterwards they say exactly what they want to. That does not hurt me in the least. I am only drawing attention to their behaviour. We have many definite statements by the Bantu themselves, statements in which they express their appreciation of the missionary work which the various churches have done in the Transkei and that they always wish to maintain Western civilization in the future. But not a word is said about that by the Opposition. That makes no impression upon them. When you read that report, Sir, you see that they have a very clear realization of the inter-dependence of the Bantu in the Transkeian territory and the Republic. We have that in many respects; there are many respects in which the two areas are dependent upon each other. Without it having been forced upon them, they themselves said in their report that those things which were common to them and the Republic should rest with the Republic such things as foreign affairs, defence, railways, national road, etc. Does the fact that they wish to leave those things, even internal security etc. in the hands of the Republic not reveal real confidence on the part of the Transkeian Bantu in the White man of the Republic? But the Opposition does not say a word about that. They do not even accept those assurances on the part of the Bantu. The fact that the Bantu is prepared to entrust his own future in respect of those matters to the Republic, based on his experience with the White man in the past, is indicative of the boundless confidence which the Bantu has in the White man. But the Opposition does not say a word about that. They will probably deny that those intentions are sincere. The confidence which they have revealed in the Government should be stimulated and what is the Opposition doing to that confidence? They belittle it and trample it in the mud and do exactly the opposite. They instigate and incite them against the White man in all sorts of ways.

Order! The hon. member must not use the word “incite”.

Then I will say “instigate”, Sir. I say that the Bantu of the Transkei has revealed a far greater sense of responsibility and greater confidence in the White man of the Republic than the Opposition has. The Recess Committee of the Bantu has revealed greater confidence in the Republic of the future, apart from the Republic of to-day, than the Opposition has. They have revealed greater confidence in the White state which has brought them where they are to-day than the Bantu in the Northern states revealed in those governments. These are assurances which come from the Bantu in the Transkei. They do not come from our Government, but from the Bantu. Does that not carry weight with the Opposition? Why does it not carry weight with them? Whose words ought to carry a great deal of weight with the White man in these days, both in the Transkei and outside? Naturally the words of the Bantu in the Transkei, because with whose words are the White people in Kenya being frightened to-day. With the words of Kenyatta, and in his own area Kenyatta is to-day the counterpart of Matanzima here, namely the leader of his area, but there is, of course, a big difference between the two. There you have former gaolbirds and people who are prepared to commit the same misdeeds which they committed in the past, whereas we have exactly the opposite here. That is why I resent it when the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) refer to both Matanzima and Kenyatta in the same breath. On account of the work done by the Recess Committee, the Bantu have displayed a very great sense of responsibility and that is why the Government will assist them in the future. However, it seems to me that we will have to prepare ourselves to get nothing from the Opposition, the alternative government, but the most despicable destructive opposition, no co-operation whatsoever. I deprecate it when the Opposition instigates the Whites against the Government, but I think it is unforgiveable and extremely reckless when the Opposition does what it has been doing recently namely to instigate the Bantu of the Transkei against the Government and against the good intentions which it has displayed so far. I think that is extremely reckless. If the Opposition is powerless to come into power on the strength of its own internal policy they should not sink to the low level of instigating the Bantu of the Transkei against the Government.

Order! The hon. member must not use the words “incite” and “instigate”. He must withdraw those.

I thank you for your ruling, Sir, but I have only used the word “incite” once and I withdrew it. After that I used the word “instigate”.

The hon.the Deputy Minister must not say that the Opposition is instigating the non-Whites against the Government.

In that case, wherever I have used the word “instigate” I replace it by saying that they stir up the non-Whites in the Transkei against the Whites and I trust a word is left in the English language with which to convey that conception.

The hon. the Deputy Minister should not use the words “stir up” either, because the idea is wrong. [Time limit.]

What interested me most about the speech of the Deputy Minister is that while we are calling this Government to account he tries to hide behind the good intentions of the Bantu in the Transkei. We are not attacking the Bantu in the Transkei. Why should he defend them? We are asking what steps this Government can take and what guarantees they can give for the security of minority groups, Whites and Coloureds, in the Transkei. I would like to help the hon. the Prime Minister and also the Deputy Minister by giving them the example of the 1936 Act for which the United Party Government was responsible. If we had a United Party Government in power there would not have been any difficulty, because under the 1936 Act we undertook to buy certain land from Whites and to hand it over to the Bantu. But we did not want any of those Whites to feel insecure, so in that Act we gave a firm undertaking that they would be paid the basic value of their farms, plus a certain percentage on their capital for every year they owned that farm, plus up to 20 per cent compensation for any inconvenience they suffered. What could be fairer? Instead of having a political diatribe from the hon. the Deputy Minister, why does he not give a similar guarantee to the White people of the Transkei, and the problem would be solved?

The Prime Minister has given it already.

The Prime Minister gave a vague undertaking, that he would look after those people, but there was nothing concrete. We get it from everywhere that the Transkei will become independent and that the Government will lose all control over the situation. What we want is a definite, logical and firm undertaking from the Government as to how these people will be protected, giving details. That is the only way in which those people can be given security. [Interjections.]

I want to draw the Prime Minister’s attention to the manner in which the Minister of Labour is taking the initiative in effecting Job Reservation. Nothing can happen in regard to job reservation except on the initiative of the Minister, and I want to point out how he is creating harsh injustice and uncertainty in the industrial life of South Africa. I have given many examples to show that what the Minister is doing under this measure is unnecessary and silly, as in the case of the night-soil workers in Durban. It is ineffective, as it was in the clothing industry, where he gave mass exemptions. It is negligible; for although it is cruel to the individual, its impact upon the economic life of South Africa is negligible, as in the case of the unfortunate traffic officers in Cape Town. It is doubly ineffective from the point of view of the Government itself. I can remember sitting in this House and hearing the philosophy of apartheid expounded by Government members, and one of the corner-stones of that philosophy was that never must the White man be the servant of or subservient to a Black man; he should not render services to the Black man. But what is happening in terms of the reservation of the jobs of lift attendants in Johannesburg? In buildings where Black men used to take White women up in the lift rendering a service to them, to-day White girls have to take Black men up in the lifts and render service to them. [Interjections.] From the point of view of the Government, it is utterly ineffective and it is irritating. It creates uncertainty. People want to invest money in South Africa, but can they calculate the risks if they are subject to Government interference to this extent? Worst of all, the Minister’s actions can create rigidity in our future labour pattern in this country, which may be most unfortunate. We know that we will have more non-Whites doing semi-skilled and skilled jobs in South Africa in the next five years, even more in the next ten years and more still in the next twenty years. The Viljoen Commission reported on that and gave us figures. They said that if immigration is not increased by the year 2000 —and with this Minister in charge it will be much sooner—there will be 329,000 artisans in industry of whom only 161,000 will be Whites. More than half the artisans employed in South Africa will be non-Whites, if we are to develop. At present the figures are that there are 147,633 artisans, of whom the Whites are 129,855, the vast majority. But if we are to develop and give a living to our people we will have to employ more non-White artisans by the year 2000 in less than 40 years’ time. The Viljoen Commission also pointed out that while Whites could provide the workers in 41 per cent of all tertiary services, i.e. the distributive, domestic and professional services, by the year 2000 they expected that the Whites would be able to provide only 25 per cent of these services. In addition to that we have to remember that with the greater rationalization in industry, jobs are being broken up. Skilled jobs are being divided into the unskilled elements for each job, and as the result of that we will find more and more unskilled and semi-skilled people doing jobs which are being done by skilled people to-day. There will be more jobs of the type which we are now beginning to give to Bantu and other non-Whites, and as we develop the proportion of those jobs will increase, yet we want to give to a particular Minister the power to restrain such a necessary and natural development for the continued economic advance of South Africa.

What has that to do with the Prime Minister’s Vote?

May I explain. The Prime Minister is the architect of apartheid in so far as it has ever been a policy. For twelve years apartheid was a slogan, an empty word used as a cloak for repression and for negative action towards the non-Whites. [Interjections.] I give the hon. the Prime Minister credit that he for the first time—it is true, as someone said, under pressure from outside and from inside his own ranks—gave some content to the meaning of apartheid as a policy.

That is not so.

Must I argue with the hon. member for Ventersdorp? I have the facts on my side and I am not worried about the outcome of the argument. Sir, I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister. I have taken job reservation as one example where administrative action can do injustice to the people of South Africa, which is not justified. I appeal to him, if he has such confidence that the development of the Transkei will help to creat a new image, then let him stimulate that process by also removing other instances of unnecessary and unjustifiable discrimination between people, for no other reason but that they are of different origin from the people whom the Prime Minister represents.