Yesterday the International Amateur Athletic Federation took a decision in Stockholm according to which South Africa’s participation and membership were suspended for two years. We in South Africa are, of course, very disappointed at this decision, because a certain amount of opportunity for young South Africa to compete at international level is being lost.

It is the fault of the United Party members.

But, Sir, it is at least necessary on this occasion for us to dwell on the causes that have led to this decision. I feel, in point of fact, that an important cause of this decision taken against South Africa must be placed squarely on the United Party’s shoulders. [Interjections.] On 14th April, 1967, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said the following, and I quote—

To that the Prime Minister put the following question—

To that Sir De Villiers Graaff again replied—

Those hon. members of the other side of the House cannot deny that South Africa’s "social convention” was to practise sport separately. In this connection there was a large measure of agreement between the United Party and the National Party. Now I should like to hear the hon. members’ commentary, and perhaps that of their chief spokesman in this field, on an article which appeared to-day, on 1st September, in the Argus. Here it is stated—

I ask the Opposition whether they agree with what the Argus said here. The hon. member for Yeoville must speak louder; I cannot hear what he is saying. Does the hon. member agree with what the Argus had to say here?

Do you agree with Die Hoofstad?

Does the hon. member agree that the problem here is that there is discrimination on the basis of race and not on the basis of ability?

That is the problem.

Does the hon. member agree that it is not only the Nationalists’ problem?

Do you agree?

I agree. The question which hon. members must answer is whether they would in any way eliminate this problem if they were to come into power. What is their reply, is it yes or no? [interjections.] The hon. member for Durban (Point) must speak louder. I cannot quite hear whether he said “yes” or “no”.

The junior quiz kid.

It is interesting that on this question, about which there was so great a silence on the part of the Opposition, they are actually split from top to bottom, as was the case with the Mitchell affair.

Let us speak for a moment about certain principles at the root of this soccer match in Swaziland. The standpoint that was adopted by one of the main speakers of the United Party, the hon. member for Johannesburg (North), was reported in the Star of 21st July, 1969. The newspaper stated that Mr. Marais had said the folowing, and I quote—

The caption of this article was: “Marais says yes to the match.” Last night the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) carried on here for a whole ten minutes at a stretch in order to show that he had not arranged the match. It makes no difference who arranged it, what is most important is his attitude. What was his attitude to this match? What they now say, whatever the position may be, and whether the hon. member arranged the match or not, make no difference. The fact remains, however, that the hon. member approved that multi-racial match heart and soul. The hon. member cannot deny it. I now want to quote from a report which appeared on 18th August, 1969, in the Rand Daily Mail. It appeared after the Government’s decision had become known. It reads as follows—

He said, however, that he was saying it as a sportsman and not as a politician. It seems to me as if the hon. member has a split personality. Why I should like to hear the comments of hon. members on that side of the House, is this [Interjections.]

On 18th August, 1969, the Star reported the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) as follows—

In other words, the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) is now telling us that he is in favour of a multi-racial sports team. I should like to hear what the hon. member for Yeoville says about that. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to request hon. members to give the speaker an opportunity to make his speech.

All these things prove that when pressure is exerted on South Africa, the United Party vanishes like mist before the sun. They cannot stand up to any pressure. By this sports question it is clearly proved that the United Party can never be trusted with the future of white South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, we have spent a lot of time during this Vote mulling over the past. We had a long historical account last night from the hon. the Minister about the D’Oliveira affair, not all of it strictly accurate, I might say. We also heard a good deal about the Arthur Ashe affair as well as the matter now again raised by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central), namely the multiracial soccer match in Swaziland. I do not think any of these matters are really relevant. It is all past history and it does not really matter anymore whether D’Oliveira was selected or not selected on political grounds. The Arthur Ashe blunder has also disappeared into the past.

What does matter is the future of South Africa’s activity in international sport. I think we should spend the short time at our disposal here this afternoon taking a long cool look at what we are likely to be confronted with in the future. The unfortunate thing is of course nothingness. The final blow came to-day when we read that the International Amateur Athletic Federation had expelled South Africa for a period of two years from practically everything. We are out of practically everything on the international sporting scene. We are out of the Olympic Games, the Davis Cup, international athletics, soccer, table tennis, and practically every other sport. International matches against members of the Commonwealth are going to be a thing of the past. For those gentlemen who are going to hotfoot it up to the Transvaal on Saturday week for the fourth and final test I want to say the best of South African luck to them. It will probably be the final international rugby match that they are going to watch for a very long time indeed.

Is that what you wish for?

No, it is not what I wish for but it is a fact. It is certainly what I have warned this House about year after year. Long ago I told this House that if it persisted in its racial attitude we are going to spend the rest of our days playing sport against each other, in our little racial groups naturally, and playing inter-provincial matches where hon. members can rush around yelling “Vrystaat”. That is about the only pleasure they are going to get out of sport in the future. This gives no pleasure at all. What causes a great deal of dismay, however, is the defiant attitude of the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation. When he talked about tourism he said that we are not going to alter our way of life at all in order to attract any tourists to South Africa. I presume that he takes exactly the same attitude about sport. South Africa is not going to alter her attitude at all in order to remain in the international sporting field. Well, the Choice is ours. We can certainly choose to do that. But then we must stop bluffing ourselves that the only reason why we are no longer in international sporting circles is, firstly, that the communists have pushed us out and, secondly, that wild-eyed demonstrators in Britain have organized against South Africa. This is just not the truth. The truth of the matter is that right across the political spectrum of the world, from the communist countries to the capitalist countries there is an abhorrence of South Africa’s racial policy. If we continue in this way, we are simply not going to enjoy any of the advantages of international sport at all.

The hon. the Minister is very naive. He has made some very naïve statements. For instance, when the British Government changed from the Labour Party to the Tory Party, he actually said that he thought the cricket tour could now go on. He gave an interview on the telephone from Lourenço Marques and said that he was very hopeful that now the tour against the MCC could go on. I have never heard of anything so naïve in my life. The hon. the Minister should get out and do a bit of travelling. He should see the strength of the feeling against South Africa’s racialism, particularly when it comes to sport. He made another very naïve statement. He said—

If that is what the hon. the Minister believes, he does not know what he is talking about. The feeling against South Africa’s racial policy in sport is on the increase all the time. It is not going to diminish. South Africa will have to make a choice. She is either going to have to change her famous way of life …

Why was the Rhodesian soccer team, which is a mixed team, suspended for two years from the International Soccer Federation?

The hon. the Minister knows that that is a constitutional issue affecting the recognition of the Rhodesian Government. What is the use of dragging in this red herring of U.D.I. in the sporting field? It has nothing to do with the issue. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he is utterly naïve if he believes that this feeling is going to disappear. South Africa is going to have to change. That is the only solution that is going to improve our position in international sport. It is no good just leaving it to the sporting administrators, as the Official Opposition proposes. The lead has to be taken by the people at the top. Official policy has to set the lead. The Government and the Official Opposition have to set the lead. It is only if we decide that we will abandon our racialistic policy and go in for multi-racial sport that we are going to have any chance whatever to be readmitted to the world circles.

What does the United Party say about that?

If anyone can understand what their policy is, he can certainly tell it to the House. I want to say that providing non-Whites in South Africa with superior facilities for sport is also not going to help. I think we must realize that. We can build Olympic-size swimming baths for non-Whites. We can have non-white Games as we have had recently at Soweto, which the hon. the Minister said was attended by, I think, 4,500 competitors and 60,000 spectators. If the hon. the Minister thinks that in this way he is going to re-establish us in the eyes of the international sporting world, he is quite wrong, because all this does is to emphasize the fact that inside South Africa we are not prepared to play against our own non-white sportsmen. That is all this does. There is therefore only one message one can read and that is that we do have to have multi-racial sport inside South Africa. I am not speaking of two teams chosen to play against each other across the border, or two teams chosen here to play against international teams overseas. None of that is going to help us. The world has moved very fast on the question of race. I do not believe that South Africans who are insulated against the feelings of the world on this score, realize what a tremendously potent and emotive force the whole issue of race has become. If we are going to enjoy international matches, the hon. the Minister must get away from the sort of naïve thinking he displays in his interviews when he says that cricket tours will be resumed, that we are going to have fine sporting relations with England now that the Heath Government has replaced that of Mr. Wilson and that other countries are going to change their minds about having sporting events with South Africa. That is just not going to happen at all.

I want to raise one other matter with the hon. the Minister. Is he going to do something about the confusion which has now arisen regarding sport between non-white people? I am thinking of sport between Coloured people and Indian people or between Africans and Coloured people. At the moment these sporting bodies are in a tremendous state of confusion because all of a sudden the Group Areas Act has intervened.

You are talking nonsense.

I am not talking nonsense. That is the favourite phrase of the hon. the Minister of Community Development. He is always issuing challenges and then quickly changing his portfolio before he has to face up to the consequences of his challenges.

I am telling you that you are talking nonsense.

I shall give the hon. the Minister a batch of cuttings which will show him what has been happening in the case of soccer matches between Coloured people and Indian people. These matches have always been played in the traditional South African fashion, and the police have now intervened in these matches.

There was not a single request for a permit at any of my offices.

But the police intervened nevertheless. Whether permits have been asked for or not, it is apparently a new way of life and we now do not allow Coloured people to play against Indian people. [Time expired].

Mr. Chairman, I was proposing to ask the hon. the Minister to tell us about the recent developments in regard to athletics; but now the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) has made the strangest attack on this side of the House. He seeks to place the blame for the latest development on the United Party. I should be very glad to know from the hon. the Minister whether that in fact reflects the view of the Government. I want to say that this is a most reckless reaction on the part of the Government to a situation which we all regret very much. I am speaking of our expulsion, or rather our suspension for two years, from all athletic activities. It astonishes me exceedingly that a Government speaker can react in this way. I had not proposed to go into this matter in any detail, but it has now become necessary for me to point out just where the Government has let us down in regard to this whole question. Before I do Iso, I again want to stress that the Government has been more concerned, during the whole debate as the last speaker on the Government side has shown, to attack the United Party than to tell us what they have been doing this last year and more to maintain our existing sporting links and what they propose to do to maintain those links we have now, and indeed to re-establish those that have been broken. I should like to tell hon. members opposite, if they do not remember, that our Ambassador in London has said that it is the intention of this Government to re-establish those links which we have lost. We have heard signally little in this debate from the hon. the Minister or from any other Government member as to what they have been doing to prevent this sort of thing which has now happenned, and what they propose to do in the future.

Because many hon. members opposite, led by the hon. the Minister, have been more concerned with attempts to score politically from the United Party, I propose to remind them of a few things. The hon. the Minister got up earlier in the debate to answer me and then immediately attempted to establish that the United Party stood for mixed sport. Our attitude in regard to sport is well known. [Interjections]. I should like to say, before hon. members opposite loose their coolness completely, that this Government has in fact been running the country for 22 years, and during that time they have stood for a great deal of mixed sport. I shall give them some examples. They are quite prepared to see a mixed white and non-white team compete together, as a team, at the Olympics; it has indicated that it is quite prepared to see a mixed white and non-white team represent South Africa overseas in tennis; this Government is quite prepared to see a white and non-white team visit this country to play us. If these are not examples of mixed sport, then I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us what are. [Interjections]. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) gave other examples of what was happening under this Government. In the circumstances, one would have thought they would have decided on a more profitable line in this debate. [Interjections]. I am sorry my time is too limited.

I want to say that we regret very much South Africa’s suspension from the International Athletics Federation. This will have the effect of excluding us from participation in all types of athletics for two years This is a grievous blow. It seems as if the executive committee of the Federation has decided to bring its position into line with that adopted by the Olympics Committee. You will remember, Sir, that in May, 1970, we were suspended by the I.O.C. by 35 votes to 28. This suspension was illegal in terms of its constitution. I mention these things so that hon. members opposite may come to an appreciation of what we are really facing and retain cooler heads in order to deal with the situation. South Africa applied in fact with every requirement of the constitution of the I.O.C. The executive committee of the Athletics Federation itself proposed to suspend us from participation in athletic events at the Olympic Games and certain other championships. The congress, however, accepted an amendment moved by Kenya to the effect that South Africa be excluded from participation in games with any one of the members of the Federation. It is this proposal which effectively excludes us from all international competition. We know the proposal of the executive committee was adopted unanimously. But what was the position with the proposal of Kenya? Does the Minister know whether Kenya’s amendment was also carried unanimously? As a matter of fact, I cannot believe it was, in view of the voting on the I.O.C. resolution in May. There the voting was 35 in favour of our expulsion and 28 against. The Government has said that is proposes to get us back into sport wherever possible and it is for the Government to turn this small minority into a majority. Of course, it gets much more difficult every time we have to re-establish relationships. Certain of these 35 votes against us at the I.O.C. are of course out and out enemies and hence we cannot do anything about those. But at the same time there are amongst the votes in favour of our expulsion, votes which are marginal. In the olden days we were not excluded because we had a majority on our side. It is the task of the Government so to conduct its affairs that we retain our friends in these bodies and where possible win back those who have been misled into voting against us. But in this regard the Government has a sorry record and it is in this respect that the Government must take part of the blame. For them to come and attack the United Party, while we are not handling these matters although we have indicated a line which, had it been followed, would certainly have reduced the hurricane which is blowing up against us …

What line? I beg you: Please tell us, what line?

You have heard that stated by the Leader of the Opposition and by other spokesmen right throughout the election campaign. We were on political platforms to answer these questions throughout the election. We shall give them that lead again and again and all hon. members have to do is to follow that line. The present climate, as the hon. member for Houghton said, is undoubtedly a very difficult climate and with every blunder the Government makes, it becomes more difficult. What we need, is great skill, the sort of skill the Opposition have displayed [Interjections.]

What skill? Tell me please.

Let me ask the hon. the Minister categorically, has the Government had talks with our athletics people before to-day in regard to keeping us in these bodies who are now kicking us out? Has the Government had such talks with our athletics people and, if so, what transpired at those talks? Furthermore, does the Government propose to have talks with our athletics people with a view to keeping us in international athletics? If the Government will only direct its mind to this sort of problem and do so well in advance instead of, after the horse has bolted and the door has been closed, coming with irresponsible attacks upon the Opposition. If the Government acts timeously there may possibly be a hope of retrieving what there is still to retrieve in our sporting relations.

Let me reply, first of all, shortly to the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down. I too read with interest what happened at the International Athletics Federation. The position is that the expulsion of South Africa was not even on the agenda. No notice whatsoever was given that the question of South Africa’s continued participation was coming up. [Interjections.] Wait a minute. Let me put it to hon. members. The hon. member asked me whether I spoke to our athletics people beforehand. Well. I have had many discussions and my Department has had many discussions with them.

Have you spoken to them too?

Yes, I have spoken to them.

That is why things went wrong. [Interjections.]

The position is that our delegates were not aware when they went to the conference that there was such a resolution to be put forward. I am not prepared to listen to hon. members opposite for information about the athletics body. I shall go to the right source, as I have always done— in this case to our athletics people when they come back.

To the hon. member for Houghton, I want to say what I have said to her before: We understand her point of view, which is that we should have multi-racialism in this country. When whe talks of sport, she means multi-racial sport. Does she think that there will be a change in the attitude towards South Africa from overseas if the United Party which also says it is against multi-racial sport, gets into power?

Not much.

The hon. member told me I was naïve, but let me tell her that she is the one who is naïve, very naïve. I say that we can have multi-racial sport in South Africa, we can open our clubs to all the non-white races in the country but these things will not satisfy the Anti-Apartheid Movement. In fact, they said so in so many words. [Interjections.] The hon. member said I was naïve. Well, I am now telling her exactly how naïve she is. The Secretary of the A.A.M, said it was not really interested in these things although they were issues. There is only one issue which they demand—one man, one vote, which means complete political control by the black man in this country. That is their ultimate objective. The hon. member had this illustrated to her in Durban. I remember many years ago, when she formed the Progressive Party, one of the first questons one of the non-Whites asked her was whether she believed in a qualified vote. To that she said “Yes”. Upon that a number of the non-Whites packed up their bags and left the meeting. They left your Progressive Party meeting in Durban when a person asked you whether you believed in a qualified vote. It was a non-white representative who asked you that question. That happened years ago, but what I am telling here is the truth. [Interjections.]

Now I want to come back to the hon. members who spoke in this debate. I want to say to the hon. member for Bethlehem that I am pleased to advise him that the Cabinet more than a fortnight ago decided in principle that we were going to make what we call a South African sports merit award to the national sports bodies in South Africa. There is to be a silver award and a bronze award, and the details will be announced in due course. But the idea is to encourage our South African people here in our own country to achieve heights in the various sports and the sports bodies themselves will be the people who will say who should get those awards. That is what the Government has decided to do. I also appreciated his remarks about the State President’s award. I have always said, and I think hon. members opposite have agreed, that the State President’s award has been a great success in South Africa. It has created a feeling of goodwill amongst all sections of sport. It has brought them together and they are proud of their achievements, even though it is not one of their members. When Karen Muir got the State President’s award, other sports bodies like the athletics body were very proud because she got it. The spirit that has been engendered is very good.

Now I want to come to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). Last night the hon. member asked me a question and I got up to answer the question and he told me to sit down. [Interjection.] I will read exactly what the hon. member said. He said—

No, he did not.

Of course the hon. the Minister said that he was a batsman and we have it on record.

I then got up. [Interjections.] You keep quiet now, the same as you told me to keep quiet.

That is a no-ball.

May I ask you a question?

I then tried to interject and the hon. member said—

In the same speech the hon. member asked me another question—

But now he says I kept quiet. This is the performance of the hon. member. The point is that the hon. member’s exhibition in this Committee is a scream. [Interjections.] But I cannot get angry with that hon. member, and do you know why, Sir? Just as the Sunday Times is the best agent for the Nationalist Party, as long as the United Party has members like the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) in their ranks the National Party will stay in power. [Interjections.] Now, I know the hon. member is an authority on everything. I know he told me I know nothing about cricket. I do not know much about it and I know he is an authority on cricket. I know a little bit about rugby, but I am sure he knows very much more about rugby. He could even tell the selectors how to pick the South African side. But the trouble with the hon. member is that when he gets up he not only feels that he knows everything, but he says nothing about everything. The hon. member issued a great challenge to me. He said that I did not know what I was talking about, that I did not know anything about cricket; who was I to say that D’Oliveira was a batsman. He said that that statement was made by a journalist, not by the chairman of the selection committee. When I said that that statement was made by the chairman of the selection committee, he said, “Oh no, you cannot produce such a statement to me because it was never made”. [Interjection.] Sir, the hon. member must read his Hansard. He is now trying conveniently to get away from what he said.

I think you had better bring in your reserve.

I have been at this game too long to be put off by the hon. member for Hillbrow.

You will get a medal for that.

Sir, the hon. member was obviously referring to a statement made in the Morning Post which said this—

That statement was made not by a sports writer, but by Mr. Insole, the chairman of the selection committee, but the hon. member said that that was not so; that I was deceiving the committee; that I was saying that that statement was made not by Mr. Insole but by a columnist in a newspaper.

He should apologize.

Where did that report appear?

This report appeared in the Post. I will give the hon. member all the cuttings; I said so last night and he doubted my word. But I want to read out to the hon. member some other statements made by Mr. Insole—

Do you accept that statement?

D’Oliveira had not been picked then. Sir, the hon. member is trying to wriggle out. He said that I had no knowledge of cricket and that I was talking nonsense. I am now proving that he is talking nonsense and that what he said here was in fact said by Mr. Insole and not by a newspaper reporter.

I also said that you impugned their integrity.

Sir, we will deal with that in a minute. I am now sticking to the statement in which the hon. member made a fool of himself. Sir, I could go on quoting—

This was not said by me; I said at the time that this was what Mr. Insole, had said, but the hon. member in his speech said who was I to say this; what knowledge did I have of cricket. I said that I did not have a knowledge of cricket but that Mr. Insole, the chairman of the selection committee, had, and what did he say? He said—

I did not say that; Mr. Insole said that. I put it to the hon. member that when he doubts the word of a Minister who tries to give an explanation, he should be sure of his facts. He should not doubt my word in this House and say that he thinks I am not correct when it is a fact. I can give him all the proof needed. In fact I was surprised that the hon. member even doubted the situation. That is the situation and it may not appeal to the hon. member for East London (City), but he was not here when the hon. member made these accusations against me.

Oh yes, I was!

Well, does the hon. member agree with my version or does he agree with his?

No, I agree fully with his version.

Then he must be the only man in the Committee that does agree with him.

I want to refer to the hon. member for Pinelands who asked me some questions which I said I will answer in due course. First of all, I would like to say to him I do appreciate the remarks he made about the late Mr. Jan Botha, the Secretary for Sport, and his complimentary remarks about Mr. Beyers Hoek who is taking his place. I would like to say to him, and I know he agrees with me, that the basis of the Department of Sport is the dedication of the people in the Department, and it goes from the top down to the bottom. In that regard I want to say Jan Botha set a wonderful example in his dedication to sport. I appreciate the hon. member’s remarks and I am sure the Department itself will appreciate it.

He also asked me whether the hon. the Prime Minister would renew his invitation to have the Canada Cup tournament in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister said, and I can supply the hon. members with the quotations, that there would be no problem as far as the Government is concerned if the organizers, the P.G.A. (the Professional Golfers’ Association) organized and arranged for the matches to be played in South Africa. 68 nations take part and the hon. the Prime Minister said that as far as he was concerned and as far as the Government was concerned, there would be no difficulty. There would be no difficulty with the teams or visas whatsoever. That still stands. The hon. member asked whether the Prime Minister had renewed his invitation but what the hon. the Prime Minister said to the P.G.A. stands. The Government does not organize this tour, but the Government has already given its approval if it is arranged. I want to ask the hon. member for Pinelands whether that statement made by the Government does not fall in line with the statement the Government has made about giving Mr. Ashe a visa to represent America in the Davis Cup. In that case the hon. members on that side of the House asked us: “How could you do this? How can you say a person can come in on a visa whereas you say the next minute he cannot come in any more, like you did with Ashe.” The two cases are entirely different. There we had a team representing America, but when he wanted to come into South Africa to play in the South African championships, he had a political motive. He said that he had a political motive.

He did not have a political motive.

But that is the truth. I did not say it. Mr. Ashe said he was coming to South Africa in order to put a crack in the racist wall of South Africa, the most bigoted country in the world.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister a question. If Mr. Ashe had been completely outside politics and if he was a pure sportsman and had asked to come, would he have been allowed to enter the country?

I want to tell the hon. member that this is not a hypothetical question. This is a specific question because we have made it quite clear in the statement. We said Mr. Ashe is aware of the way we play our tennis and the way we hold our championships in South Africa. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) took me to task because I said it was a white tennis championship. Of course it is and Mr. Ashe was aware of it. He was aware of the accepted practice in South Africa, but he wanted to challenge South Africa. He wanted to strike a blow, as he said, against the racist wall in South Africa. This was quite a different matter, because Arthur Ashe wanted to come here as an individual and not as a member of the American Davis Cup team. We told him that we will not allow him to come to South Africa because he knew the accepted practice in South Africa. He also indicated that he did not only want to play tennis, but politics. We do not feel like hon. members on the other side of the House. We do not panic as they do. We do not have the jitters. We are sorry to see some of the things that are happening. But we know what the ultimate object is. They want to take the control of South Africa out of the hands of our people. It has been stated time and time again.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) was very anxious to get back into FIFA. He thought this might be a multi-racial match accepted by FIFA, but what did the secretary of FIFA say? He said the only way we will get into FIFA is if we have multi-racial soccer in South Africa. That is what he said and the hon. member knows it. I do not know why the hon. member wants to bluff us politically here.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Can the hon. the Minister please tell us now whether he knows who tried to arrange the football match in Swaziland?

Yes, I will come to that. I have not forgotten the hon. member. He is on my list. I also want to say that I admire the Cricket Council’s fight against the political pressure before the last proposed tour to Britain. I even mentioned that in my statement. I said that they have stood up to the pressure admirably. But in their last statement they said that this would be the last tour of a team from South Africa unless we have multi-racial cricket in South Africa. There will be no more tours unless we change the pattern in South Africa. I want to put it to the hon. member for Pinelands, who talked about the athletic body, they were very vague. They said that unless we accepted the pattern, or something to that effect, that we knew what was required of us in South Africa. I believe the hon. member for Houghton is quite realistic. She realizes that the demand on South Africa is for multiracial sport. Instead of the two parties in the House standing together on this issue, the hon. members of the Opposition try to make a little cheap political capital. Many of the hon. members opposite know it. Let us take the effort made by FASA to get away with something. It cut no ice with FIFA. I can read hon. members exactly what they said. Of course we can get back into the Olympic Games. We can, if we crawl on our bellies and allow multi-racial sport in South Africa.

It is not crawling on our bellies. It is just behaving in a normal and civilized manner.

The hon. member for Houghton is very naïve. She does not know what the consequences of what she preaches, are. The whole idea is that this country will be controlled by a black dictatorship.

That is nonsense.

No, it is not. Surely the hon. member knows that it is so. I know that hon. members on the other side know it.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Does the hon. the Minister seriously suggest that this is the position in the case of international rugby?

The South African Rugby Board has not tried any nonsense like FASA tried by playing a white rugby team against a black South African rugby team in Lesotho. They have not tried anything like that.

What about Loskop?

The hon. member for Hillbrow has put his foot into this matter completely. One could have said that it is only the hon. member for Johannesburg (North). He is just an individual. But the hon. member for Hillbrow is the chairman of the United Party on the Witwatersrand. He said the most terrible thing had happened because this Government refused to allow that game in Swaziland. Did he, or did he not? The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) is quite right. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) said that this was in the nature of a multi-racial pattern for Lourenço Marques. He said it. [Interjections.] Well, the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) mentioned it.

I want to deal with the hon. member for Pinelands. The hon. member also raised the matter of the Rapportryerskorps and the allowance of R220. I want to tell the hon. member that at no stage did I ever regard the Rapportryerfs as anything but a cultural movement. [Interjections.] I wonder if hon. members will just keep quiet so that the hon. member can hear. I said that I never regarded the Rapportryers other than a cultural movement. I have never regarded them as a branch of the National Party. I have never regarded them as anything but a cultural movement, the same as the Rotary Club, the Round Table and many of the bodies that come to my Department for assistance. [Interjections.] No, this was not done directly through my Department. It was done through the Federation for Youth and Sport. I want to give hon. members an idea of just what has been done. These are adventure courses for young people. The Northern Transvaal Adventure Association was given a grant by us to run an adventure course in the Northern Transvaal. The Ficksburg Adventure Association, the Christiana Adventure Association, the Federation for Youth and Sport, under which this Rapportryers adventure project was undertaken, the Tafelberg Adventure Association, the Boy Scouts, the Voortrekkers and the Youth Church Organization all received grants from the Department. I spoke to my Department.

May I put a question? Was the Prime Minister wrong when he called the Rapportryers a “stutorganisasie van die Nasionale Party”?

No, I asked the Prime Minister about it. I went to the trouble to ask him what he meant by a “stutorganiisasie” of the National Party. He said that it is a cultural organization that basically believes in the policy of the National Party. [Interjections.] It is amazing to me, because this was an adventure course for youngsters.

What do you mean by adventure?

They go on hikes, etc. The hon. member is falling down on her sports policy. It was open to all the schools of the Western Cape. There was no exclusiveness about it. There were English-speaking schools, which I presume is what the hon. member wanted to know, as well as Afrikaans-speaking schools. They were not dominated by the Rapportryers. The circular about it was sent to schools. It was not a closed selection of people nor was it just for the National Party.

But you must be a supporter of the Nationalist Party to be accepted in the Rapportryens.

No. Let me make the position clear. The Jeugbond would never have received any money from us and has never appeared on any of our estimates. I should like to say to the hon. member that the amount involved here was R220, out of the total budget of R319,000.

It is the principle.

If you do not have to be a member of the Nationalist Party to belong to the Rapportryers, what will the hon. member say then?

But is was stated publicly.

No, it was not.

I used the word “supporter” and that can include a voter.

No, the hon. member did not say “supporter”. He may correct himself now, but he did not say “supporter”.

Mr. Chairman …

Order! The hon. member cannot make a statement now.

Sir, there are many supporters of the United Party who are members of Round Table, and I have not said that I am not going to give them any money. There are also supporters of the United Party who are members of Rotary and Lions International. I have allocated this money because I thought that it was for the good of the youth of South Africa.

There are Nats in those organizations too.

Sir, give me a chance now. Every two minutes hon. members interrupt me. The hon. member must sit down for a while. I shall answer him in a minute. I have only a minute ago sat down for the hon. member for Pinelands and now the hon. member jumps up again. One thing that worries me about that side of the House is that they are prepared to support an overseas organization like Rotary. They are prepared to support a Round Table organization or Lions International, but as soon as an organization seems to have an Afrikaans basis, they object to it.

No, a Nationalist Party basis.

For the benefit of young members in their party, I want to point out that I can quote from speeches made in this House by members on that side, where they objected to banks because those banks were started in South Africa. They did not mind the Bank of Greece or the Bank of Athens. They did not even mind the Bank of Brussels, but as soon as there was an Afrikaans bank, they came down on it. [Interjections], They must be very careful about this matter of principle. Sir, I wanted to say to the hon. member for. Pinelands that I regard him in quite a different category as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). He will remember that a little while ago he criticized me very harshly. Sir, do you remember what he said during a Press interview? He said: “If the administrators of different sports wish to get together in conference, the Government should keep out. It is intolerable to hear Mr. Waring say that no such conference is acceptable. Who does he think he is, our sports dictator?” I replied to him in the Press and denied that I had said that sports administrators could not get together in conference. They can get together whenever they want to. I even said that I would be very happy to hear their views, but they did not want that. That was not the suggestion that was made. The suggestion was that it should be a summit conference with the Prime Minister. I gave quotations to prove that that was the case. The hon. member saw the interview I gave to the Cape Times or the Cape Argus. That interview was printed and the hon. member never replied to me. Do you know why he did not reply? He knew then that the demand was for a summit conference with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Sport. Then he says that I am a sports dictator! Let him ask any of the sports bodies whether I have dictated to them. I have had dealings with them and we have talked matters over. We have sorted matters out, but it is only the United Party which brings in this argument of dictatorships, Nazism and so on.

Now I want to come to the hon. member for Johannesburg (North). I thought he took quite a beating from the hon. member for Pretoria (Central).

No, he did not.

It is only the United Party Whip over there who does not think so. I think everybody else does. I am sorry that the hon. member for Yeoville is not here, because he likes to hear these quotations. This statement was made in the Other Place by Senator Du Toit, a United Party Senator. He talked about administrators who may not handle affairs in regard to sport in South Africa in the traditional and conventional way. This is what he said—

Let us see what the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) said. He said that he was not interested in my attempt to put a smoke screen over the Committee. He said too that it was not him but the Highlands Park people who got the invitation from Swaziland. But he is the president of FASA. His own words were: “The Swaziland Government asked Highlands Park to arrange a match.” He knew what it was. It was a match between white and black South African soccer players. And what did he do? The hon. Leader of the Opposition once said in this House: “Sport has become an extension of foreign affairs”. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) also made a speech more or less on those lines. But what did he do? Remember he is the president of FASA. Do you think he got in touch with Foreigh Affairs in regard to the matter? Oh no! [Interjections]. Of course he knows. He has had experience in this House for quite some time. Did he get in touch with the Department of Sport in regard to the position? Oh no. Not him. Do hon. members know what that hon. member did? He ran to the English newspapers, to the Rand Daily Mail. And do you know why? Because he felt that he had something with which he could embarrass the Government. That is all.

He did not arrange the game.

There we have the member for Durban (Point) trying to get his party out of trouble. Why did the hon. member play politics with it? I want to read what the hon. member said to the paper about the political issue. The article is headed “Act now, says M.P.” The hon. member is reported to have said—

But listen to this. I read again—

And this is the man who is the great sporting administrator. He does not play politics. Not him. What did he say further?—

That was said by the United Party spokesman on sport, Mr. Dave Marais. That is the game this hon. member is playing. I therefore say to hon. members on that side of the House that you do not play politics with sport when it is Foreign Affairs. We are in the same boat.

Why interfere in a Swaziland affair?

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout must know that their policy as well as ours stand condemned by and are unacceptable to international sporting bodies. We are in the same boat. So why does that hon. member want to make a little bit of political capital out of this?

If you are in my boat, I will jump overboard.

I do not feel I want to spend any more time on tile hon. member for Johannesburg (North). As it is, he comes out of this issue very badly. His only hope is that his party will stick to him.

We know what language has been used by hon. members on the other side. For instance, they accused us of being an incompetent Government …

Hear, hear!

… with an incompetent Minister …

Hear, hear!

… that we have let South Africa down …

Hear, hear!

We let them down in regard to the match in Swaziland. Let them say hear, hear! We let them down about D’Oliveira.

Hear, hear!

The hon. member for Pinelands wanted to know whom I thought I was. He said I was “our sports dictator”. Well, this side of the House says we are not prepared to hand over foreign affairs policies to sports administrators, and that includes the hon. member for Johannesburg (North). With all the “hear, hear” we have had from hon. members opposite, let me now issue a challenge to them. My Vote is now going to be put. Hon. members do not have any confidence in this Government and its sports policy; they consider it to be hopeless. Let them then vote against it.

Can we have a free vote?

Yes, a free vote. We invite a free vote. Therefore, call a division and vote against it. What does the hon. member for Durban (Point) have to say about that?

You know you have already got your salary under Tourism. That is why you now challenge us.

No, Mr. Chairman, that does not cut any ice. If the Opposition says it has no confidence in the sport policy of this Government, let it call for a division and vote against this appropriation. As a matter of fact, I challenge them to do it.

Vote put and agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Revenue Vote No. 21.—“Indian Affairs”, R26,428,000:

We have now had in existence for some years in South Africa, since as a matter of fact 1st September, 1968, an Indian Council upon which the Government has so far put all the emphasis so far as the development and advancement of the Indian people of South Africa are concerned. The council meets for short periods about three times a year. According to the information available to us, this council seems to have progressed no further than being a pressure group and something in the nature of a talking shop. When this council was foreshadowed by the late Dr. Verwoerd, it was painted on a large canvas and depicted as an important body to be elected by the Indian people with wide powers in both the legislative and executive fields. But what has happened since the time this body came into being? It is still a nominated body with virtually no powers and functions of any kind.

That is not correct.

… no real powers and functions of any kind, apart from being a pressure group. Apart from the personal influence of some of its members, persons who are prominent citizens in their own right and who derive their influence more by virtue of their own personality than by virtue of their membership of this body—apart from this, this body seems to be no more than a pressure group. Last year when the Minister’s Vote was under discussion, he was asked a number of questions about his intentions with this council. I have read through the debate of that time and found that the Committee was told very little then about what the Minister’s intentions were. Accordingly it is necessary that we ask the Minister a number of questions once more, partly because he gave us so little information last year and partly because there has not been, as far as I can ascertain, a report from his Department since its inception in 1962 or thereabouts. Surely, this is an astonishing state of affairs.

Here we have a Department for which we have to vote something like R26 million, a Department which has been operating for well nigh on 10 years and yet we have never had a report from it. Consequently I should like the hon. the Minister to take us into his confidence to-day about his short-term intentions with this council. When, for instance, are real powers to be transferred to it? What are the powers which the Minister intends transferring to it? In an interview to the Press last year, he said it was intended that this council should operate under powers delegated by this Parliament, or words to that effect. Well, what are these powers the Minister intends delegating to this council? And when will such powers be delegated?

Furthermore, when is this council to become an elected body, because I take it it is the Minister’s intentions to make of it an elected body. What factors are preventing it being an elected body at the present time? According to Dr. Verwoerd’s plans, the development of the Indian community would run parallel to that of the Coloured people. Well, the Coloureds have already had their first election, an election which, incidentally, proved disastrous to the Government. Nevertheless the Coloureds have had their election already.

Are the Indian community also to have an election? If so, what are the Minister’s plans in this connection? Has a Voters’ Roll been drawn up already? As a matter of fact, has any step at all been taken towards the registration of persons to be operative on that Voters’ Roll? If we are to have an elected council, with some sort of power, where is the seat of that council to be? What progress has been made towards the acquisition of land and premises for the establishment of a real headquarters and a council chamber for this council? Where are its administrative offices to be? What planning has the hon. the Minister done in this regard? There is the question of staff. The Coloured Council has staff which, as we understand it, is to be an embryo for a future Coloured Civil Service. Is there such staff for the Indian Council? If so, where and what? If no, what are the hon. Minister’s plans in this regard? What steps has he taken to establish an Indian staff similar to that which is presently operating for the Coloured community. In short, we want to know precisely what are the functions of the Indian Council at present and what is envisaged in the short term.

That brings me to the next important issue which could be stated in this way. How does the hon. the Minister see the Indian community in relation to members of this House? We as Members of Parliament, as I see it, are shouldered with the responsibility to attend to the affairs of all those who live in our constituency, all those who have an interest in our constituency or anybody who approaches one, whether he has anything to do with one’s constituency or not. It is the function, as I see it, of a member of this House, to take up with any Department anything which anybody who is a citizen of South Africa brings to us.

Does the hon. the Minister see the function of the members of this House in that light, or does he envisage a change with the advent of the Indian Council? The reason I ask is because there have been instances in respect of the Coloured community in the case of inquiries about pensions and matters of that kind, where it has been suggested to the Coloured person concerned that his inquiry ought not to be directed to a member of this House, but should be directed to the Coloured Council to take up the matter for him. As I see it, that is a derogation of the status and functions of a member of this sovereign Parliament, and I should like to hear the hon. the Minister’s views as to that position as related to the Indian community of South Africa.

This underlines really the importance of the hon. the Minister giving some information to the House as to his planning for the development and its position in South Africa of the Indian Council in the short term, because whatever functions are delegated to that body are important when one considers its relationship with the functioning of this House and of its members. I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to a recent survey which was undertaken by a department of the Natal University of the Indian community on the East Rand in the Transvaal. I hope the Minister has had this publication drawn to his attention. It was commissioned by the Benoni Town Council and I would commend it to the hon. the Minister for his study. It is a most revealing document and I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that he consider himself commissioning surveys of this kind before he is called upon to give advice to other Departments in regard to the proclamation of group areas and planning.

That brings me to the next stage, which is what part precisely does the hon. the Minister play when it comes to the planning and the establishment of group areas in respect of the Indian community. I know that often when these issues are raised, one is told that that is the function of the Department of Planning before the group areas are declared or it is the function of the Department of Community Development after group areas are declared. But this question of land occupation is one of the primary factors affecting the welfare of the Indian community. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Zululand had a long list of questions here which he put to the hon. the Minister in connection with the future of the South African Indian Council. On most of those questions I would have been able to reply to him myself, but because my time is short I shall rather leave the replies to the hon. the Minister.

Sir, education is regarded by the Indians as the key to their children’s future, but at the same time it is also seen as the central plan or core of community development. As a result of the intense interest of the Indians in general in the education of their children, rapid progress is being made in all the branches of education, i.e. the academic, the technical and the vocational. The chairman of the Executive Committee of the S.A. Indian Council, to which the hon. member has just referred, on a recent occasion described the education programme for Indians in the following terms—

Those are words of appreciation expressed by a leader of the Indians towards the Department of Indian Affairs and the Department of Indian Education, particularly in respect of the practical and the realistic way in which the syllabuses for the Indians adapt to the needs of the Indian population and, what is more, to the future demands on the Indian population to contribute their share to the development of the country. By the way, Sir, I just want to say here that in the same speech this speaker, inter alia, said—

The speaker was referring here, of course, to the take-over of Indian education in Natal on 1st April, 1966. Sir, it is truly a eulogy on the excellent work of the Department of Indian Education. These are words which the United Party would, of course, not like to hear. One need only call to mind the opposition this party offered in 1965 when the Government came along with legislation in connection with the take-over of primary and secondary Indian education, at specific times in Natal, the Transvaal and the Cape, by the Department of Indian Affairs. We remember how the United Party and its Press carried on. We still remember very well how the United Party predicted that the level of education would drop and that education in general would deteriorate. I still remember very well how the hon. member for South Coast accused the Government of mere politicking in connection with this matter. This recognition and praise from an Indian leader, to which I have just referred, does not, of course, fit into the denigration scheme of the United Party.

The Indians are thankful for differentiated education in the academic, technical, technological and vocational fields. They would like to have their children trained in various fields. The Indians themselves are beginning to realize that their children cannot all enter commerce or business, and that they must also choose a variety of other professions. Sir, before 1961 Indians directed their efforts mainly at business and trade. They had virtually a monopoly, as we know, particularly in certain retail branches, and this very definitely brought about a serious unbalance in the economy of the Indians. The Indian appropriated the right to control commerce, but the policy of the Government was, and still is, to bring it home to the Indians that in the economy they must diversify, and also seek a livelihood in other fields. Sir, as a result of the Government’s positive policy, South Africa’s Indian community are to a certain extent exchanging their commercial predilections for industrial development. Under the border industry scheme the Government made benefits available to Indians for the purpose of starting industries in certain areas where the sources of Indian labour are particularly extensive. Four such areas were allocated under this scheme, i.e. in the vicinity of Pietermaritzburg, Verulam, Stanger and Tongaat. A large number of new Indian industrial undertakings have already begun, undertakings which are already at this stage supplying work to a very large number of Indians. These endeavours of the Indian business men to seek new investment points for the spending of their capital have already yielded exceptionally good results. About 626 industrial undertakings have already emerged, and between the years 1958 and 1968 South African Indians invested R30 million in light industries. According to calculation, this amount ought to be increased to R50 million in 1977. The undertakings in which they are particularly interested are garages, the manufacturing of furniture and foodstuffs, printing works, dressmaking, plastic and leather work, metal processing, bakeries, etc. These are already being controlled by the Indians in the aforementioned areas. The Government is therefore giving the Indian business men an opportunity to develop their economic potential under protection.

In the few minutes I still have at my disposal I want to thank the Minister and the Department of Indian Affairs for the positive reaction there was to a request I made to the Department last year. It was in connection with the monthly magazine of the Department of Indian Affairs, Fiat Lux. I asked at the time that Afrikaans articles should also appear in this monthly magazine. In the latest issue, that of August, several articles appeared in Afrikaans. I want this to be developed, and I want even more articles in Afrikaans to be included. It is known, to hon. members as well, that the Indians, of Natal in particular, do not have much of an opportunity to read or hear Afrikaans. I believe that this magazine is circulated fairly widely in Indian schools, particularly in high schools. Therefore Indian pupils there are now getting the chance to read Afrikaans. I should just like to thank the Department for that, and I want to ask that they should concentrate on having more articles in Afrikaans included. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I always find it very difficult to speak on this Vote, because the functions of the Minister are not very well defined as far as Indian affairs are concerned. He appears to be a sort of liaison or a link, and this time a present one, between different Departments. One never knows what responsibilities he is prepared to accept as far as the Indian community is concerned. After all, the matters which really concern the Indians seem to fall under the Departments of Planning and of Community Development. I want to know whether the hon. the Minister at least takes on the responsibility for intervening on behalf of the Indian community where he feels that his colleagues have perhaps acted in such a way that it could bring considerable hardship to the Indian community. I do not know what liaison or what links the hon. the Minister manages to maintain with the community itself, but I am quite sure that he has not received the representations which I have been receiving. They are from Indians who are about to be moved from various towns in Natal and in the Transvaal. These Indians are from communities like Rustenburg and Fordsburg and all of them feel that they are going to suffer heavy financial loss because of the fact that they have to move out from the areas where they have lived for many years because of the proclamation of group areas. I do not know whether he gets any of these representations but I certainly do. I would like to ask whether I could pass some of these representations on to the hon. the Minister. Will he then be prepared to take up the cause of the people whose portfolio he handles in name, if nothing else. I understand, for instance, that at the present stage there are Indians who are living in a state of complete insecurity in Fordsburg. It is true that they have known for some time that they are going to have to move, but apparently they have now been told that the move is imminent. They are of course to be moved to Lenasia, while the Fordsburg area is to become one large Oriental bazaar which has to serve all the Indian traders who were formerly scattered throughout the city district of Johannesburg.

I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that he ought to visit Lenasia if he has not been there recently. I do not know how long it is since he has visited Lenasia; perhaps he would care to tell me. He will find that there are conditions developing at Lenasia which I think are alarming. Certain parts of Lenasia are definitely becoming slum areas. I am now talking about the poorer sections of Lenasia. This is of course a community where rich and poor, although segregated to some extent from the point of view of selected parts where they can build or occupy houses, are nevertheless concentrated in one area, at Lenasia. The conditions where people are living in sub-economic houses under the lease scheme are really very bad indeed. I believe that at present there are about 20,000 Indians at Lenasia. Ultimately at least anotheR15,000 will be moved there unless it is the intention of the Department of Planning to declare another Indian group area in the vicinity of Johannesburg, but about this I have not yet heard anything. I know that this area is now the responsibility of the Johannesburg Municipality, but I nevertheless think that it is the responsibility of the hon. the Minister as well to visit this area and to take Steps to see that proper facilities are provided for the people who have had to move. I am quite prepared to admit that many of them came from slum areas, but I think that slum clearance can be done on the spot without moving people 20 miles out of the city. One does not move people from a slum area to another area and allow that area to become a slum also. Surely the idea is to improve their living conditions. I want to ask the hon. the Minister when he last visited this area, whether he takes the trouble to talk to the people who live there and what personal responsibility he assumes for the lives of these people.

During the previous Vote of the hon. the Minister I asked him a question to which I did not get a reply. My question was about mixed sport which concerns Indians considerably. They are very concerned about the question of mixed sport between Coloured and Indian teams. The hon. the Minister of Community Development says that the Government has no policy in regard to this matter. This may well be so, but policy or no policy these matches have been stopped. The Police have actually put a stop to matches in Natal. As far as one area in Durban is concerned the municipality has actually withdrawn a permit relating to a particular soccer club at which mixed soccer matches were played between Indian and Coloured people. The inference is that pressure was brought to bear on the municipal officials from above. Certainly the Police have themselves stepped in and have forbidden the playing of matches between these two different communities. When one starts interfering with the few recreational facilities that these people enjoy, I really think that this is going very far indeed. I hope the hon. the Minister is going to investigate the matter and see if he can do something to prevent further interference with sport between Coloured and Indian people. It is something they feel very strongly about indeed.

I also want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has seen a recent article in a newspaper about the Gillitts Valley community. It stated that 2,000 Indian farmers are shortly to be evicted from Gillitts Valley near Durban because the intention is apparently to declare it a Coloured area. According to this newspaper article it appears that 15 years ago the expulsion of this community was narrowly avoided. There were then, 400 farmers and not 2,000, as there are to-day. Apparently they have become small market gardeners. The threat of eviction is now again upon them and a Group Areas Board is holding a formal investigation. Again I want to ask this hon. Minister precisely where he comes into the picture. At which stage is he consulted, if at all, before the lives of these Indian people are disrupted by group area proclamations. I wonder if the hon. the Minister can give us some idea of where exactly his responsibilities begin and where they end.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to what the hon. member for Houghton said in regard to Lenasia. I know that the hon. member is a regular visitor to Lenasia, and I hope that she is not trying this afternoon to make unnecessary political capital out of this matter here. Lenasia is in my constituency. I was there quite recently and summed up the situation very carefully as I was driving through. I want to say that I reject any reflection which is made by any person in this House or outside to the effect that Lenasia is degenerating into a slum area. That is an absolute distortion of the facts. There is only one area in Lenasia, the area with the semi-detached houses where the latrines have not yet been entirely replaced, which has shown any tendency in this direction. But that is not the fault of the authorities. The cause of this is the way of life of those people. One can make any facilities available for those people, and you experience the greatest difficulty and annoyance in persuading those people to make use of them. But it is in an area where the lowest income group of the Indians are living. If only the hon. member would rise to her feet here this afternoon and also tell this House and the world about the wonderful facilities and residences which have been made available for the Indians in Lenasia! I want to say here to-day, without any fears or without being ashamed, that I think there are dwellings in Lenasia in which Indians are living which are as good as one could wish to have in any white residential area in Johannesburg. But the impression is now being created here that Lenasia is rapidly degenerating into a slum area. I want to reject that reflection completely. It is not so.

But what has happened in Lenasia now? Lenasia is a developing township. Show me any developing white township, in the initial stages of its development, which can boast of immediately having, from the very outset, all facilities at its disposal. I am also a member of the Resettlement Board. We are building those houses there. The development and the establishment of the infrastructure in Lenasia is proceeding as rapidly as in any other developing white township. This I say to-day without any fear of contradiction. We are now tarring the streets and pavements are being constructed.

One tarred road.

I can show the hon. member white residential areas where there is not one single tarred road. But what is wrong with those roads? There are towns in the rural areas of the Cape and the Transvaal where there is not one single tarred road. There is nothing wrong with the other roads. They are in a proper condition. The sidewalks are level. There are lights, and all the other facilities necessary to administer that town properly. If things are not as they should be there, if unhygienic conditions are prevailing in Lenasia, she must not blame this Minister and this Government for that. She must blame the United Party City Council of Johannesburg. They are the people who have to supervise the provision on health services in Lenasia. That is what the hon. member has to say, but has she ever taken the trouble to go and look at the other Indian residential areas which have been established in this country? There is one at present under construction in Benoni. The hon. member will find the same conditions there as well, because it is still in an early stage of development. On the other hand, the hon. member can go and take a look at Chatsworth, where considerable progress has already been made with the development. In respect of all the facilities which the hon. member was complaining about, a very advanced stage of development has already been reached. The hon. member can also go to Ladium. There all the roads have been tarred. I predict that we will within a few years find the same conditions in Lenasia. I want to point out that I am in very close contact with those people. There is at the moment a tremendously long waiting list of Indians who are living in slum conditions, to which the hon. member also referred. Such areas are Fordsburg and Page View in Johannesburg. Those people are only too eager to move to Lenasia to go and live in the ideal conditions there. The hon. member also stated that we are settling these people 20 miles outside the city. Let us be realistic now and let us be practical. Where else in Johannesburg should we have settled them?

Where they were.

Where was that? Sir, this is typical of these people. The hon. member is now saying that we should have resettled the Indians where they were living. They were living in the area of Fordsburg. The hon. member for Houghton will agree with me that land in Fordsburg is among the most expensive in Johannesburg. How can we settle a community in an area such as Fordsburg and then afford them all the facilities which go hand in hand with that? We must then give them schools; we must give them playgrounds; and we must also give them proper accommodation. Take, for example, an area such as Page View. How can we resettle the Indian community in Page View? The hon. member knows that it is an area which covers approximately 38 acres. Must we now resettle the entire community there, and then give that community schools and other facilities which a community must have?

You can still find an area which is not 20 miles out of town.

Where else could we have done this? The hon. member knows herself that in Johannesburg there was no other area where we could have resettled these people. Must we resettle them adjoining a white area? Does the hon. member for example want us to resettle the Indians in the developing northern areas of Johannesburg? Must we resettle them there? The settlement of Indians in Lenasia was tackled after much judicious consideration. What has been established there? The people have not been left there in isolation Proper train facilities have been made available for them there.

Have you seen the train facilities?

Sir, I know what I am talking about. Proper train facilities, have been made available for those people. Proper road communications and proper bus services have been made available for those people from their residential areas to the city centre.

That is not true.

Sir, it is a fact. I know what I am talking about. I deal with these matters every day. If those facilities are not what they should be, the blame must not be laid at the door of this Government. That blame must be laid at the door of the local authority which has to ensure that the necessary facilities are established for those people. We, as the Government, have seen to it that there is a regular train service and other transport facilities for these people from Lenasia to Johannesburg and back. That is a fact. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Langlaagte has dealt with matters mainly concerning his constituency and the area surrounding Johannesburg. I wish to return to and associate myself with the remarks made by my colleague, the hon. member for Zululand, when he suggested that the time has come for the hon. the Minister to authorize the issue of a report of the Department of Indian Affairs. In joining forces with my hon. colleague I wish to point out to the hon. the Minister that Indian education has now been under the control of the State since 1966 and that the Vote in respect of Indian education is now passed by Parliament. As far as I am aware, this is the only department of education of the different races, in respect of which there is no report to Parliament on the activities of this particular section of the department. I believe that the time is overdue that Parliament should have an account of the stewardship of the Department of Indian Affairs in regard to Indian education.

I want firstly to deal with one of the aspects concerning the Indian Council which arose out of a reply to a question I put to the hon. the Minister in the short session of Parliament earlier this year. I asked the hon. the Minister whether he had received any representations from the Indian Council. I received a reply which is recorded in Hansard to the effect that since 1968 the Indian Council had addressed ten particular representations to the Minister. The hon. the Minister was courteous enough to give me details of the outcome concerning those particular recommendations. I was told that out of the ten, two plus a portion of one, had been regarded in a favourable light. One plus a portion of a second recommendation, had been rejected and there were six matters pending. Now, eight months have passed and I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is in a position to give this Committee further information regarding the development of the matters that were pending eight months ago. We in Parliament vote funds for the functioning of this Indian Council. I believe that we have a right to be informed of the decisions and activities of the Council.

Some of the matters that were pending in February are matters of vital importance to the Indian community. Two of the representations that were made, directly concern the future of the Grey Street area in Durban. This is a matter of great importance to Indian businessmen. It is also of importance, I believe, to the future planning of the city of Durban. Another recommendation dealt with public amenities for Indian areas and the suggestion that loans and grants should be made available to local authorities. Anyone who has visited some of the townships will realize the paucity of amenities in so far as Indians are concerned.

Another of the representations dealt with the lifting of restrictions on Bantu domestic servants in Indian group areas. Here too I know that this has caused a great deal of heart burning and inconvenience to many responsible well-to-do Indian people who wish to employ Bantu servants for domestic purposes. Secondly I would like to know whether the hon. the Minister is aware that there is intimidation taking place among members of the Indian community. Four months ago I was approached by a responsible Indian, a leader in his particular sphere in the Indian community. He told me that he had been visited by a plain clothes member of the Police Force and asked: “What is it that you wish to raise with Mr. Lawrence Wood, the member of Parliament for Berea?” I believe this to be a shocking statement and a shocking position. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give some assurance that this matter will be looked into.

Nazis.

Order! Will the hon. member please withdraw the word “Nazi”.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw.

Thirdly, I want to deal with another matter. Earlier in this session the hon. member for Durban (Central) tabled a question to the hon. the Minister, which was headed “Permission for Staff Members of Indian University in respect of political activities”. The hon. member for Durban (Central) asked the hon. the Minister whether permission had been granted to members of the staff of the Indian university in Durban to be members of political parties, to hold office in branches of political parties, to offer themselves as candidates for political parties and to use staff facilities of the university. The Minister’s reply was an unequivocal “No”. Let me draw the Minister’s attention to section 17 of the Public Service Act where specific reference is made to a public servant who becomes a member of any political organization or takes an active part in political matters. According to my information, a registrar of the Indian University College was chairman of the Nationalist Party branch and an aspirant Nationalist Party candidate, but was unsuccessful. Thereupon he became the agent for the successful nominee and was present at the count during the election. But in reply to this question the Minister said that no permission had been granted to him to do that. So I should like to hear the Minister’s comment in this connection.

And what action he has taken.

Yes.

Just like the Hitlerites.

Now I should like to refer to the presidential address at the 44th annual conference of the S.A. Indian Teachers’ Association. Mr. R. S. Naidoo made certain remarks in that address. His first reference concerns research into the social consequences of resettlement with particular relevance to education. Can the hon. the Minister tell us whether research is to be undertaken into these particular aspects? A second section of this report reads as follows—

He continued and expressed a certain amount of disappointment at the change of status from, as he put it, “provincial professional workers” to “public servants”. He listed eight disadvantages. Hals the Minister’s Department considered these disadvantages and has any solution been advanced to overcome them?

I should now like to refer to Indian education. According to the Estimates R19.17 million from Revenue Account and R9.15 million from Loan Account are being appropriated for Indian education. This totals more than R28 million, an increase of R2.7 million over the previous year. As far as I am aware, the total enrolment of Indian students runs to approximately 160,000 including vocational training, teacher training and the university college enrolments. I notice that an amount of R836,000 has been allocated to teacher training. This is a reasonably generous amount and should be able to overcome, I hope, some of the frustrations and tensions to which reference has been made in the report of a responsible official to the teachers’ association. Finally, can the Minister tell us when it is expected that double sessions will be done away with in Indian education?

At the outset I just want to say that the Department of Indian Affairs has, since the beginning of the year, had a new Secretary in the person of Mr. Prinsloo, and I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate him on his appointment. I trust that he will have many years of prosperous and beneficial service and that we, not only we as Whites, but also the Indians, will be able to make extensive use of his activities there. Then, too, in the same breath, a vote of thanks from us to Mr. Van der Merwe, the previous Secretary, who has retired. We trust that he will thoroughly enjoy his rest.

It is very interesting to listen to hon. members of the Opposition; interesting when one is listening to a person such as the hon. member for Zululand and in fact amusing when one is listening to a person such as the hon. member for Berea. This is particularly the case when they are trying in this House to take a critical look at the policy of the National Party, particularly in respect of the way in which our Government is handling the contact situation between Whites and non-Whites, and in this particular case the way in which it is handling the contact situation between the Whites and the Indians. I must say that it appears as if the hon. member for Berea did not really take thorough cognisance of Fiat Lux, the monthly publication of the Department of Indian Affairs, in which many particulars in respect of the matters he touched upon to-day appear. Then he tried here and there to be something of a James Bond in respect of certain matters which I do not think are of such a serious nature as the hon. member tried to indicate.

Nevertheless I do want to say that I listened to the hon. member for Zululand during the censure debate and I must inform him that I found his arguments and his mode of debating very interesting, and also very good, coming from the Opposition side. I must also tell him that since the Opposition is boasting about the fact that they have recaptured certain seats, it is a fact that a younger generation in South Africa will probably for a while longer take a critical look at and listen to the arguments of the United Party on the solution to our so-called race and population problems, and I must say that in a certain sense it stimulates one. But when one listens to the mode of debating of the hon. members of the Opposition it is clear to me that there are two principles, two kinds of systems, on the basis of which they argue when they are discussing these matters. On the one hand they cannot escape from that essential characteristic of theirs that they are basically progressive, in view of the Progressive Party of to-day, and they cannot escape from that. Particularly when they adopt a standpoint against the National Party, it is with that voice that they conduct their debates and it is in fact with that voice that they want to address the ouside world. But when they argue about or converse with the specific non-White group itself, in this case the Indians, then it is the other essential characteristic of the United Party which comes to the fore, i.e. the old British Imperialistic principles which form a fundamental part of their political system, such as “equal rights for all civilized people”. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Zululand can reply to my arguments at a later stage.

Should we make a taperecording?

You can if you want to. But it is astounding how the United Party simply negates those voices in the Indian community which proclaim that they are proud of their Indian origins, who are proud of their identity as a cultural group, the voices of those Indians who in modern society, also in the South African set-up, within the South African community, proclaim that they want to retain their own identity. They pretend that those people do not exist. I now want to mention as an example what Mr. A. M. Rajab stated in a speech. I am quoting from a report in The Graphic of 1st May, 1970, in which a summary of what he said appears—

Then the report goes on to say—

These arguments of his, this standpoint of his, were replied to, quite probably by the editor of the newspaper in question, in a front page article—“a front page comment”—in which the person who wrote the article—and I take it that he was an Indian himself—made it clear that he did not agree with this standpoint. It was not very clear to me why, and I think that Mr. Rajab himself can reply to those arguments. What is of importance to me is that the United Party will not be able to comply either with the demands of those people among the Indian community who adopt a different standpoint to that of Mr. Rajab. What is also of importance to me at this stage is that the United Party are coming to the Whites with this ambiguity in their system, where they, together with the so-called liberal-progressives, adopt a certain standpoint in respect of the racial situation in South Africa, and when they go to the more conservative parts, such as Klipriver for example, which I visited last week, come forward with a standpoint which is completely different. But I do not want to discuss this now. We can at a later stage go into the previous arguments raised by the hon. member for Zululand. But what is of importance is this: What is the reaction of the Indian community to the policy of the United Party? I am just going to consider the speeches made here in 1946 by the late General Smuts in the Second-Reading debate on the Asiatic Land Tenure and Representation of Indians Act, in which he furnished his views. I think it is very interesting for a present day student to be able to read that speech again. Although he arrived at the conclusion that the Indians should have three representatives in this Parliament, as well as two senators, one who would be elected by the Indians themselves and one who would be appointed, the present policy of the United Party is that the Indians should be represented by two M.P.’s and one White senator. The United Party has therefore amended its policy in respect of the Indians, but what I find surprising is that they have in fact, between 1946 and to-day, a period of more than 20 years, not done what they insinuated to the Indians at the time, i.e. that since these things would be accumulative they would gradually have obtained a greater say in the control of the country. [Time ex-expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the non. member for Rissik was unfortunately interrupted while he was dealing with his last argument. Therefore, I think we can deal with that some other time. I do however want to talk to him about the two principles upon which, he said, the Opposition argues. I want to say to him that although I entirely disagree with the two principles which he enumerates, we on this side of the House look upon the Indians as South Africans. We see them as part of the multi-community state we have in South Africa. As has been pointed out by my hon. friend from Zululand, we believe that we represent those people in this House. We are not like hon. members on that side of the House who say that they only represent the white voters in South Africa. It is because of that that we can come to this House and argue and debate here on behalf of the Indian people. We have their interests at heart whereas the members on that side of the House can only speak for the sake of making a noise.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Koedoespoort, who tried to make a case that Indian education was succeeding. He also tried to paint a very rosy picture of what was going on in Indian education. I have a different picture to paint. This picture I want to paint shows that 50 per cent of the Indian pupils fail the advanced level of the Senior Certificate. Is that a wonderful achievement in Indian education?

Fifteen per cent?.

No, 50 per cent of them or in other words half of them fail the Senior Certificate at the advanced level, compared with a 15 per cent failure rate amongst white children. Here I have a report which says that the poor facilities for the Indian pupils at schools and at home are basic causes of the alarming failure rate. It goes on to criticize library facilities which exist at Indian schools and which it describes as chaotic. It links this with the poor results in English in these examinations. This report goes on to deplore the tragedy of a “too rigid” matriculation system, outdated methods of study and teaching and poor relations between parents, teachers and pupils. It points to insecurity in the Indian community as the basic factor. This report is one which was submitted by Dr. S. R. Maharas, who is a senior lecturer in the faculty of education at the University College for Indians at Salisbury Island in Durban. I think this is the answer to. the hon. member for Koedoespoort who said that the Indians’ education is progressing well.

I have a particular subject which I want to discuss with the hon. the Minister to-day. We have heard from the hon. the Minister of Community Development and others that it is time that the Indians diversify and that they go out and do other things. This afternoon we have heard from the hon. member for Houghton about one particular section of the Indian community, when she mentioned something which I had intended mentioning to the hon. the Minister. That is the plight of the 2,000 Indian farmers in the Gillitts Valley. Hair of that valley is in my constituency and the other half is in the Pinetown constituency and we find that the sword of Damocles, namely that they are going to be removed from their farmlands, is hanging over the 2,000 Indian farmers. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will use his influence to see that alternative farmlands are made available for these Indian people. This is a point which I have raised over and over in this House, but so far I have done it without any success. However, I hope to continue pressing this matter with the hon. the Minister until we do have success.

I want to say that these 2,000 Indians in the Gillitts Valley are not the only ones who find themselves in this position. A similar situation is developing at Cliffdale, half-way between Durban and Pietermaritzburg. There some 6,000 acres are presently occupied and productively farmed by Indians who at the moment do not know whether they can stay there or whether they must move. In fact, some of the landowners have been refused permits by the hon. the Minister of Planning to occupy their own land. I hope that the hon. the Minister will consider that as well.

We have the same situation at Willow Fountain, from where eight Indian farmers have already been removed from 360 acres without alternative farmland being made available to them. We have had the announcement with regard to the New Hanover-Albert Falls complex where something like 500 Indian people are going to be removed from their lands. These people have been farming, but they have to move because this area has been declared a white area. As far as I know no alternative farmland has been made available to any of these Indians. This is the crux of the matter I want to discuss with the hon. the Minister.

We find that in the past 20 years Indian farmers have been removed from 12,000 hectar of land which they owned and farmed productively. This represents 30,000 acres. Where are those Indian people to-day? They are forced to go back to the cities. They are being forced to live in townships like Chatsworth and are being taken off the land and out of farm production. I think that this is a sad thing, not only from the point of view of the Indians themselves, but also from the point of view of the white communities as well. Durban and Pietermaritzburg would today starve for fresh vegetables and fruit if it was not for the Indian farmers in that area. Even the Mayor of Durban was constrained to remark that Durban was fortunate indeed to enjoy the fresh produce grown by the Indians. What is their future? I believe this is the Minister that should be concerned with their future. I think he is concerned with their future and I hope he will use his influence with the other Ministers in the Cabinet to see that land is set aside for the Indian farmers so that they can continue in this line and not, as was said by the hon. the Minister of Community Development that they should all sit on shop counters.

While we are talking about this, what is the truth about the suggested Indostan? Last year this question was put to the hon. the Minister. He then denied that there was any truth in it and that it was merely a report from Sabra. Since then we have seen another thing happening. We have had an election since then. During that election the hon. the Minister of Information addressed a public meeting at Empangeni. In his address there he said that he was in favour of the establishment of such an Indostan and that it will possibly be on the North Coast of Natal. Here is the hon. the Minister’s opportunity. The hon. the Minister of Information is a senior member of the Government. He is not just any monkey on that side, but a Minister and a senior member on the other side. Surely he therefore speaks with some authority.

He is in the Prime Minister’s stakes.

As the hon. member says, he is one of those who is in the Prime Minister’s stakes. He must therefore be a very senior member of the Cabinet. Is the hon. the Minister in favour of the establishment of such an Indostan? This can solve my particular problem, which I feel is an important problem. We have had statements recently from influential members of the Indian community, including the head of the Indian Cane Growers’ Association, warning Indian farmers that they must be prepared to diversify and to plan other things because it was quite apparent that no land is going to be made available for them. I want to ask this hon. Minister to-day in all sincerity to use his influence to assist these Indian people so that they can stay on the land and produce food. He should not only see that land is made available to them, but he must also see that they receive assistance with their farming operations. I know that they are able to get money from the Land Bank, but our Agricultural Credit Act applies only to white farmers. I wonder if the hon. the Minister will, through his department, make available funds for the assistance of Indian farmers. Will he also investigate something for which I have pleaded before, namely the possible establishment of a faculty of agriculture where young Indians can be trained not only in farming for themselves but as managers, etc? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Zululand referred to the Indian Council. He asked whether it was merely a pressure group or a talking shop. My attitude towards the Indian Council is that it is a body which my department consults. The Indian Council has consulted me. I have on various occasions attended the council meetings. I have obtained the minutes of their meetings regularly and I know exactly what takes place at these meetings. Although I appreciate that they have no executive power, only purely consultative, I do feel that they have through me, as a Minister, at least an avenue by way of which they can submit their case. The hon. member for Berea mentioned various questions they put to me and the answers I have given. I might point out to the hon. member for Zululand that I have personally arranged meetings of deputations from the Indian Council with a number of Ministers. Every Minister was very willing to speak to them and to hear what they had to say. I remember offhand, for instance, that they talked to the Minister of Labour about apprenticeship difficulties. They talked to the Minister of Community Development about a housing scheme. In every way, therefore, the opportunity for consultation with the Government is available to them. I have gone out of my way to see that that avenue is there and that it is an effective one.

The hon. member also asked me how many meetings the Indian Council has per year. I think it must have been the hon. member for Berea. The Indian Council meets every three months. But there is an executive committee of the Indian Council which meets at least once a month. The meetings are attended by officials of my department. The reports come through to the secretary of the department. If there is any matter in which he thinks I should intervene, he does not hesitate to ask me to do so.

The hon. member for Zululand also asked me about the functions of this council. The functions are laid down in the Act. They consult us. They have no executive power. Should the Government in its wisdom and in its time decide, as was indicated by Dr. Verwoerd, that they should have executive powers, that there should be a partly elected body, the Government will have to come to this House and introduce such legislation.

Have you no plans in that regard?

No. The Government will draw up the plans and then convey them to this House through a measure which will be submitted, and hon. members will have full opportunity to discuss the matter in the form of a Bill which will be introduced.

In what way are you thinking?

I am giving the facts. I am telling the hon. member what the position is. As far as the Government is concerned, that is the way it intends to handle the Indian question and the Indian Council.

Are there no plans at all?

The Government has its own plans and it will carry them out on the lines that I have indicated to the hon. member for Zululand, whatever the hon. member for Transkei wants to know.

Are you not prepared to tell Parliament?

No, I am not prepared to tell Parliament until such time as a Bill is introduced in this House, either giving executive powers to the Indian Council, or making it a partly elected body. Then it will be done through this House.

Are there any plans?

Hon. members must be patient, to wait and see, because the government of this country is not in their hands. It is in the hands of the party on this side of the House. The sooner hon. members realize that, the better for them. They can make as much noise as they like, but the government is in our hands and we shall govern as we think, not as the Opposition thinks.

So you are not thinking at all.

I am not like the hon. member. We do think.

What are you thinking?

That is my business, not yours.

That is a nice way to treat Parliament!

No, that is the way I am treating you. The hon. member will have full opportunity of discussing these matters when this Government decide to introduce legislation in this regard.

What do you think the Vote is for—to let our children decide?

Sir, I must judge the hon. member by the manner in which he interrupts the debate. As far as the question of the hon. member for Zululand is concerned, I should like to say that matters such as delimitation and the compilation of voters’ rolls will only be undertaken after the Government has introduced a Bill to give elective powers to the Indians. That is how it will be done. Hon. members can protest as much as they like, but that is the way this Government will handle Indian Affairs. As far as the functions of the Council are concerned, I told the hon. member that they were purely advisory and consultative. They have no executive powers whatsoever. These functions were all laid down by this Parliament.

The hon. member also spoke about the socio-economic survey on the East Rand. The hon. member asked whether I or my Department had read the results of that survey. He probably knows that this survey was conducted very recently. We only received these results yesterday. I think he will agree that it is unreasonable to expect this Department and myself to comment on a report of such a nature which was received only during the last 24 hours.

The hon. member asked about the staff of the Indian Council. There is a principal Indian clerk who acts as secretary to the council. The Department has 383 Indians in various posts. This will be the embryo of the Indian Public Service when further powers are delegated by this Parliament to the Indian Council. At present these Indians fall under the Department, but they are the embryo from which a public service will be established for the Indian Council when this Parliament delegates such powers to it.

The hon. member also spoke about a report of the Department. All I can tell him is that the Department is compiling reports for the period 1968-’69 and 1969-’70. It is my intention, in due course, to place those reports on the Table of the House.

The hon. member asked me about the seat of the council. The Minister decides where the seat of the council is to be. Up till now I have felt that it should be in Durban. I see no reason why it should be changed. I regard Durban as the seat of the Indian community and therefore also the seat of the Indian Council.

The hon. member for Houghton referred to Lenasia. The hon. member for Langlaagte, who has a far better knowledge of the details about Lenasia than I do, replied to her.

Just go and see for yourself.

Yes, I know of the troubles at Lenasia. One of the big troubles is that in the process of moving the Indian community, people who were not even able to afford a sub-economic dwelling unit, had to be housed. They were so poor and at such a low economic level …

That is sad reflection on our society.

Oh, but it was very much worse in the old days. The hon. member will remember how she opposed the removal of the Western Areas. If the hon. member goes and sees the changes that have taken place and compares the slum conditions that existed in Sophiatown and those areas with the present residential areas for the Bantu, she will agree that they are far better than they ever were in those days.

You go and ask the people which they prefer.

It is no good asking the people. I have an idea that it was the hon. member or a previous Minister in the United Party Government who congratulated the Nationalist Party …

Not me.

No, I do not expect that from the hon. member. I remember that this ex-Minister who opposed the removal of the Western Areas congratulated the Minister and the Government on the tremendous development that has taken place in native housing in Soweto.

The hon. member also asked me about the role my Department plays in the demarcation of group areas. My Department makes representations to the Group Areas Board on the basis of any removal scheme that is contemplated. It makes representations whether it is the Grey Street complex or Park Rynie that is involved. I do not say for one moment that those representations are accepted by the Group Areas Board. Nevertheless, the Department and myself as the Minister have access to the Minister concerned, namely the Minister of Planning for Group Areas and in regard to housing, the Minister of Community Development.

The hon. member for Berea asked about the matters that have been referred to me by the Indian Council. The first one he mentioned was the Grey Street complex. He knows that this matter is being investigated by the Group Areas Board. A report will no doubt in due course be submitted to the hon. the Minister of Planning and the Government itself. The matter will be considered in the light of the recommendations of the Minister of Planning. It will be done at Cabinet level and the matter will therefore have the full consideration of the Cabinet. The hon. member mentioned public amenities in the Indian group areas. This matter was raised with the hon. the Minister of Community Development with the idea of his Department financing some of these amenities which were beyond the financial resources of the local authority.

The hon. member also mentioned the matter of Bantu servants for Indian families. This and other matters which the Indian Council raised with me, have been taken up. I advised them quite recently that that matter was definitely being handled by me. I told them that I had made representations and that I expected to give them a answer in due course. The hon. member spoke about intimidation in that an Indian had come to him and told him that he was threatened by a plain clothes policeman. I know nothing about it and have never heard of it. It is something which I deprecate.

You heard about it this afternoon.

I say, I deprecate intimidation.

Will you have it investigated?

If the hon. member produces an affidavit I will hand it to the Minister responsible who will have it investigated. But I will not do so simply on the strength of a speech in this House. I will only do it on a sworn affidavit. He talked about research in respect of education. This is continually being done by the Department and the Education Planning section. I think if the hon. member looks at the amount to be spent on Indian education by the Central Government, it far exceeds what was spent in the old days by the provincial authorities.

He spoke about the status of teachers. There has been no change in the status of teachers. We gave them that assurance right from the beginning that when the Central Government took over, there would be no change in the status of the Indian teachers. Although he referred to a speech by the President of the S.A. Indian Teachers’ Association in which he referred to certain problems, all I can tell him is that the Department immediately got into touch with Mr. Naidoo and asked him whether he would come to them to discuss the matters he had raised in his presidential address, not with any idea of intimidation but with the idea of working with the Indian community and seeing how one could overcome certain difficulties he mentioned.

The hon. member for Berea also spoke about political participation by members of the University College staff. The Extension of University Education Act of 1959 provides for this, and nothing in this Act prohibits the incumbent of a post to partake in politics. The incumbents of State posts are however governed by section 17 of the Public Service Act and in this respect all procedures in connection with misconduct apply. In this regard I have had no reason whatsoever to act against any incumbent of a State post at the University College.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) talked about the farmers in Gillits Valley. The Indian Council has spoken to me and has referred to the position not only of this particular Valley but the fact that other farmers in other areas also face eviction. This body has asked me to approach the authorities to ensure that the displaced Indian farmer is given land on which he can continue his activity as a farmer. All I can say to him is that my representations were not just thrown back at me. The matter is definitely being handled by the authorities. It is still proceeding. I think that covers the matters raised. If there are any matters which I have not covered, I will try to do so if hon. members bring them to my notice.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will say something about mixed sport between Indians and Coloureds.

Yes, I will. The position is quite definite. There was no attempt on the Government’s part to prohibit a match between Indians and Coloureds, or between Indians and Bantu. All that is required is that a permit should be obtained by the non-White team that is going into, say, the Indian group area from a Bantu group area.

Why?

That is the law. A permit has to be applied for, but I can tell the hon. member that the Minister of Community Development who controls this, told his Department that such a permit could be given automatically. It is not a matter which is to be delayed or anything like that; it is automatic, and we accept the situation that these groups of non-Whites will play in teams against one another. [Interjection.] Yes, in the South African Games we had Indian teams playing against Coloured teams. They themselves had picked teams of these ethnic groups. We also had Coloured teams playing Bantu teams.

You mean, multi-racial sport?

No White teams played against them. That is the policy of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North). In that way these matches were encouraged. I think eleven teams participated in the South African non-White Games.

Will you liaise with the Minister of Police in this regard?

The Minister of Police will take no action whatsoever. [Interjections.] It was brought to the attention of the Minister of Community Development immediately and it is only a matter of getting a permit. They should have got a permit and I am sorry they did not. That would have avoided all the publicity and the trouble. I think that I have replied to all the points that have been raised.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 22.—“Foreign Affairs,” R8,250,000:

Mr. Chairman, I shall be grateful if you will grant me the privilege of the half-hour. There are few developments which we follow with so much interest as our relations with countries in Africa. The outstanding example of good relations remains those between Malawi and us. Seeing that the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs recently paid a visit to Malawi and had a very good reception there, I wonder if the time has not arrived for us to invite the President of Malawi on an official visit to South Africa. I should like to submit this proposal to the hon. the Minister and I hope that it will be done. Recently, when one of the members on the Government side was on an official visit in Malawi, he described President Banda as the Solomon of Africa. Sir, this is high praise, and whether one wants to go so far or not, one thing is certain: every country is entitled to promote its interests to the best of its ability and we are not surprised that President Banda deems it in the best interests of Malawi to have a good relationship with South Africa.

But, Sir, he goes further. He believes, as a matter of positive policy, that communication between people of different kinds is the best means of breaking down prejudices and unreasonable attitudes towards colour, and he propagates this wherever he goes. I want to agree with him completely. The fact of the matter is that the presence of one black diplomat in South Africa has already had a remarkable effect in the country; it has broken down quite a number of unnecessary walls and it started creating new attitudes and a new realism among our people. Consequently, I think it may rightly be said that, in so far as the Government has moved outwards, in the sense in which the word is used, it must be attributed to a very large extent to President Banda’s own outward movement in respect of South Africa. I think the people of South Africa appreciate the attitude of the President of Malawi, and therefore I think it will be fitting if he be invited to visit our country.

It is also clear to me that President Banda is very busy trying to persuade other African states that it will be better for everybody if they seek communication with South Africa. I noticed, for example, in the case of Madagascar, which was initially very strongly opposed to contact with South Africa, that after the President of Madagascar had paid a visit to the President of Malawi, he announced that Madagascar would change its attitude towards South Africa and that he would follow the example of Malawi in respect of South Africa. Since growing contact has developed between Madagascar and us in recent times, I hope that! soon it will also lead to the same good political relations as we have with Malawi. In any case, Mr. Chairman, the Malagasy Republic is of tremendous strategic importance to South: Africa. Therefore it seems absolutely essential to me that we conclude concrete and friendly relations with this island as soon as possible. The hon. the Minister will recall that we have already pleaded for this several times here, and I hope that the Government has progressed in this direction.

I must say that I cannot understand the hon. the Minister’s attitude in connection with Botswana. In the case of Botswana, which is an important neighbouring state of South Africa, I understand that at least about 30 countries are already represented there. When Botswana established relations with Russia on a non-residential basis, the hon. the Minister made a statement at Potchefstroom. He said that “the friendly relations which Mauritius and Botswana have established with Russia are a set-back to South Africa, and should merely inspire us to work harder at strengthening our bonds of friendship with these two neighbouring states”. We know that Peking is sending its very best diplomats to Africa. We also know that to-day there are influential people in political positions in Botswana who are very hostile towards South Africa. Some of them are pro-Soviet. For all these reasons, we are of the opinion that reciprocal accredited representatives are essential.

In our opinion, diplomatic representation is not merely a matter of contact between one government and another; it goes much further than that. It is something which penetrates to the ordinary levels of the population. If we in South Africa want to seek security, co-operation and eventually a common market between our sister states in South Africa and ourselves, we must now start creating friendly relations between people and people. As a first step, we need reciprocal residential representation.

In the case of Botswana we are at the moment also involved in a border question. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we on this side of the House did not feel very happy about the way in which the Government approached this matter. If a border dispute should arise at the Caprivi strip where Botswana is seeking a passage to Zambia, and especially since South-West Africa is involved in the matter it may lead to a further appeal to the World Court, which may perhaps have troublesome consequences for South Africa. I do not want to go into the details of the matter. One of the other hon. members on our side of the House will deal with it later. I merely want to add that we on this side of the House realize that the border of the Caprivi, especially in view of the activities of terrorists, is vitally important to South Africa. But so much the more do we believe that this is a matter in which we should employ all our diplomatic skill so that we may co-operate with Botswana rather than create ill-feeling, and in order to try to obtain joint control with them over a passage to the North. Thus is a matter which can best be handled by quiet diplomacy.

I should also like to impress upon the hon. the Minister that we should take a special initiative to come to an understanding with Zambia. Zambia is playing a key role in African affairs to-day. Lusaka is becoming increasingly important—this very month an important conference of African states is being held there. I want to concede to the hon. the Minister that this is not an easy matter. There are certain attitudes in Zambia against South Africa which make it very difficult to come to an agreement. This I must readily concede. But it is also clear to me that a man such as President Kaunda is labouring under very great misunderstandings about South Africa. It should be possible for any Government, including this one, to approach him and remove those misunderstandings. I am quite convinced that if we do not make a breakthrough in respect of Zambia, we will not obtain peace and quiet in Southern Africa easily.

The moment we move away from the position immediately surrounding us, we find that matters no longer seem as favourable for us as we should like them to be. Since we last debated foreign affairs, it does not seem to me that much has happened which can create the expectation that we are on the road to overcoming the confrontation between us and the rest of the world. On the contrary, everything indicates that the climate ils becoming more unfavourable for us. I will concede that we seem to have made progress in certain sectors of foreign politics, but in other cases we are far removed from progress, the difficulties are increasing, the climate is becoming more unfavourable for us and anti-South African feeling is increasing rather than decreasing. This morning again we received the depressing news in connection with our suspension from international athletics. I fear that with the rise of the new generation which one finds in the world to-day, a generation which is different and much more radical than that which experienced the Second World War, we must perhaps expect that the road ahead will be increasingly fraught with problems for us. For example, it is upsetting for me to see the tremendous proportions being assumed by the pressure on Britain not to supply arms to South Africa. That pressure does not come from only one quarter, but from everywhere, from the Commonwealth, Africa, the U.N., and an appeal has even been made to the Security Council.

Some of our oldest allies have expressed themselves very strongly against the supply of arms to South Africa. An icy cold wind is blowing against South Africa to-day from countries such as Australia and especially Canada. The question is already being asked openly whether the new British Government, in these circumstances and in the light of the tremendous opposition to the supply of arms to South Africa, will not perhaps eventually be forced to change its attitude. As it is, we must in any case not over-estimate the intentions of the new British Government. For example, we must take note of the fact that when Sir Alec Douglas-Home made his announcement about arms to South Africa, it was accompanied by a whole series of reservations. I have the official text here. He said:

He added—

The implication is being made by the new British Government that there is “internal repression” here. Furthermore, if one takes note of what the Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Lord Lothian, said in the House of Lords in Britain in the same connection, it becomes clear what the real feeling there is. He said:

As far as the supply of arms by Britain under the new Government is concerned, we should therefore not over-estimate the position. According to press reports, it seems that even the French are reconsidering their attitude. If this should happen, it would indeed be a very serious turn of events, especially in the light of the increasing presence of Russia along the coasts of South Africa and of Africa. I do not want to place the blame on the shoulders of the hon. the Minister, but I do want to tell him that we had serious misgivings about the way in which he hurried to London at the time and for several days, as it were, sat on the threshhold (op die drumpel gesit) of Sir Alec Douglas-Home before the new British Government was even properly established in office. The hon. the Minister may have had good reasons for doing this …

Surely it is scandalous to say that he lay on his threshhold.

The hon. member does not understand the idiom. It is a very ordinary Afrikaans idiom. But in any case, I want to say this. If I want to say this, I will not allow myself to be dictated to by the hon. member there. “Scandalous” or not, I am speaking now, and I am saying what I think is necessary. The hon. the Minister may have had very good reasons, because we are not informed about his motivation for every step he takes, we do not have a standing committee for Foreign Affairs here which can investigate such matters. He may in fact have had good reasons, but the impression was created here in South Africa that his visit at that psychological moment, at the particular time when it took place, was made at an unfavourable moment. He created the impression that we were over-eager and that he, focussed the attention of everybody unnecessarily strongly on us and the question of arms at what was psychologically quite the wrong moment. In any case, I think it must have made an unfavourable impression on the French. We felt that, if ever a matter should have been handled unobtrusively and by means of quiet diplomacy at that psychological moment, when a new Government had taken over, it was the arms question and the Simonstown agreement. If the impression gained by the country that the hon. the Minister had acted wrongly there was a mistaken one, I hope he will rectify the position here this afternoon. In any case, I should be glad if the hon. the Minister could give the country an indication of his own expectations in respect of the supply of arms to us by Britain and France.

At the U.N. they are getting at us from a new angle. As hon. members know, the Security Council has now requested the World Court to express its opinion on the legal implications in respect of South Africa’s control over South-West Africa. The request was that that opinion should be given within a few months. We on this side take if for granted that the Government should leave no stone unturned in order to submit a reasoned South African standpoint to the Court. This is in any case what we would have done had we been in power. We should like to know in detail from the hon. the Minister what machinery he has put into operation in order to look after South Africa’s interests there. If he is in a position to do so, we should be glad if he could inform us how seriously he regards the implications of this case for South Africa. The indications are that the whole big question of South Africa’s control over South-West Africa is involved. Although it will be an advisory opinion, we hope that its force will not be under-estimated. This is the first time that the Security Council has approached the World Court about South-West Africa. We must accept that they will regard the opinion which the court may express as being as authoritative as a decision. After all, it remains the same court and its considered opinion will be regarded as a decision. Therefore, because of the importance of this, we hope that all possible machinery will be put into operation to state South Africa’s attitude there.

Time does not allow me to talk about the Government’s general policy in regard to South-West, but I do want to make a point in this connection. As I see the matter, the Government’s attitude in respect of the South-West question is that all the initiative must be left to other authorities such as the U.N., the Security Council and the African States. The Government only acts by way of reaction. Its attitude is one of waiting upon events and reacting upon events. I wonder whether the Government should not take the initiative in this matter for a change, because it is extremely important for the Republic’s peace and security that we resolve the question of South-West Africa as soon as it is humanly possible.

The Government has based its standpoint on two principles. The one is an acknowledgement of what it calls the “international status of South-West”. The second principle is that there should be self-determination for the peoples and groups in South-West Africa. When we consider these two standpoints, we find that there is actually no difference in principle between the basis on which the U.N. and the main Western powers are standing, and the principles on which the Government bases its standpoint. The U.N. and all the Western countries adopt the basis of self-determination for non-self-governing territories. Indeed, this is one of the first articles in the U.N. Charter. It is also included in the Covenant, and the main Western countries base their attitude on this principle. In President Nixon’s recent statement of his new approach to foreign policy, he also endorsed this principle strongly. There is in fact a difference, because the Government has a different attitude as far as the application of this principle is concerned, but what is important, is that the basic principle is the same.

It seems to me that if the Government believes in what it says, it should take the initiative. On that basis it should initiate a dialogue with interested states about the question of implementation, in oher words, how the principle of self-determination should be applied. It would then be their credibility which is put to the test, their willingness to observe and apply their principles. I do not have the least doubt that able government in South Africa can offer the peoples of South-West Africa an order which, if they had to vote on the matter, would cause them to decide to remain associated with us in the Republic. However, I think it is high time that we should consider taking the initiative. We should not only do what the Government is doing, namely to react to events.

Let us make no mistake, Sir, South-West Africa is our main problem, and it will remain our main problem. The matter is already on the agenda of the Security Council. It is printed there in red letters. It is the one matter on which there is greater unanimity against us in overseas countries than on any other question. Mr. Nixon recently went so far as to warn American businessmen not to invest in South-West Africa. He said that if they did in fact invest there, he would not recognise their investments there. I must say that as long as the South-West Africa problem remain unchanged, it will be difficult for the Republic to reach a position of normality with the rest of the world, whatever internal adjustments we may make. Whether we like it or not, it is a fact that, as they view the matter, we have a combination of apartheid and colonialism here. For this reason, I think the Government should take action in the interests of South Africa. It should move in the direction of a solution of the South-West Africa problem and display greater initiative in this connection. The Government knows that generally speaking we on the Opposition side, are not in favour of a bi-partisan attitude. The reason is quite obvious. We make no secret of it. We are not in favour of a bi-partisan attitude for the simple reason that the Government is associated with the policy of apartheid, which has created an extremely unfavourable image of South Africa. In the interests of South Africa we on this side, as the alternative government, do not want that albatross around our necks. That is why we are here. And I think we are serving South Africa. We would be doing South Africa a disservice if we, as the alternative government of South Africa, were to hang that albatross around our necks. However, the Government and the hon. the Minister know that as far as the question of South-West Africa is concerned, we have always given our support where possible. As long as the Government does not place Parliament before impossible choices without our having been consulted, there should be no reason why there need be any division on this question here in this House or in South Africa. If there were to be division, it would most definitely not be the fault of the Opposition. So much as far as the South-West Africa question is concerned.

Whatever rays of light the hon. the Minister may see—and I have already said that has been progress in certain sectors and in others not—he is the man who, more than any other member in this House, should be aware of the dangers of the confrontation in which South Africa finds itself. For this reason I think that the hon. the Minister is the man who, more than anyone else on that side, must openly state the hard reality of the situation to the country. I am sorry to say —and I am saying this in all amity—that I think too little political influencing emanates from him within the country itself. One too infrequently hears him speaking about the connection between internal politics and foreign policy and about the essential adjustments which will have to be made in the country itself if we want to survive the storms threatening us. He will pardon me for saying this. Our impression is that the hon. Minister with the knowledge which he has, is not playing his part in helping to bring about those essential changes and formations of opinion among his own people and in South Africa. One of the fundamental problems we have to contend with to-day, is that leading political leaders in the Western countries believe that the white man has no chance of maintaining his position of dominance. Is is on the basis of this that they believe that it will not suit them to co-operate with a white authoriy which they regard as temporary. It is inter alia because of this that there is a kind of negative attitude in respect of arms. The hon. the Minister has in the outside world repeatedly stated his policy as being one of moving away from discrimination and one of “political equality” for all people and all groups in South Africa. I shall not quote it again. We have it on black and white. It is already six years since the hon. the Minister made that speech at the U.N. It will not help merely to state repeatedly what his government stands for. The time has arrived for him to report how he is implementing it, and that he is in fact implementing it. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred to the role I was allegedly not playing in the ranks of my party, but if he thinks that I shall bring the National Party closer to him and his party, I can give him the assurance that he is very wide of the mark.

The hon. member indicated that in his opinion the time had arrived for inviting the President of Malawi for an official visit, but the hon. member, who has made a study of foreign affairs, ought to know that invitations to heads of state and heads of governments are not matters which ought to be discussed in a Parliament. He would be well-advised to leave this very important matter—and it is important—to the good judgment of the Government.

I do not think that it is necessary for me to state once again the Government’s attitude in regard to the exchange of diplomats in the case of our three non-white neighbouring states. The hon. member referred to the case of Botswana. In this case I must inform the Committee that our Government was in fact duly informed by the President of Botswana in regard to the establishment of diplomatic relations between him and Russia, and that we were given the assurance that it would not be a case of a residential basis. As regards the so-called border dispute with Botswana, as the hon. member put it, this is a matter which is being handled with great tact and in regard to which I shall perhaps say more after I have heard what hon. members opposite have to say about it.

I agree with the hon. member that Zambia is a very important state. He made a special appeal to us to try to improve our relations with Zambia. I can give him the assurance that this is a matter which is receiving the Government’s attention and mine. Furthermore, this is a very delicate matter, and it is not possible for me to take the House into my confidence and to inform it as to what we propose doing in this regard and what we have already done. I may in fact announce that recently, for instance, a Zambian Minister travelled through South Africa, from Lesotho to Swaziland, and that he had lunch at a hotel in the Free State, in the Republic of South Africa. Recently we were approached by the Zambian Government in regard to the construction of the proposed road to the south. We were requested by them to grant them permission to fly over our territory when making aerial surveys. The reaction of the South African Government was immediate: Let us know when this will take place and what distinguishing marks the aircraft will have, and we shall have no objection whatever against it. Therefore, hon. members should not be under the misapprehension that there is no contact whatever between South Africa and Zambia.

The hon. member referred to the question of the purchase of arms and the lifting of the arms embargo against South Africa. He requested that I discuss these matters, but to my mind such a discussion could not serve any good purpose. In fact, it could only harm the matter if we in this House were to indulge in discussions and speculation on this delicate matter. I have also been accused of allegedly paying too many visits to Whitehall in Great Britain. The hon. member has procured some light from Lord Kennet, a Labour member of the British House of Lords, who wrote a letter to this effect in the London Times. [Interjection.] But your thinking is the same as his, and in this regard I want to read out a statement which was issued by my Department and which did appear in the local Press. It reads as follows—

And I have the clippings with me here—

These are the facts, Mr. Chairman.

Towards the end of my speech I shall make a statement in regard to South-West Africa, but I must at this stage just refer to the hon. member’s statement that in respect of South-West Africa our standpoint is close to that taken by the U.N. Of course, the U.N.’s standpoint is that we should not be in South-West Africa at all; that our presence there is illegitimate and, in effect, that there should be no dialogue with us except in regard to the handing over of the administration of that territory.

It may be conducive to the debate if at this stage I furnished a general survey and then, at a later stage, dealt with the remaining points raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Ever since I have been Minister of Foreign Affairs, the debates in this House have generally been of high standard. Generally speaking I as the Minister of Foreign Affairs have not had any reason to complain about the Opposition’s attitude and conduct in this regard. Their conduct has been such that it ought to be clear to everybody outside and inside South Africa that in general outline we are of one mind in respect of South Africa’s important problems abroad. Generally speaking the Opposition has resisted the temptation of dragging foreign affairs into debats where they did not belong. For instance, over the past seven years they have never made it necessary for me to take part in any debate on a motion of no confidence or of censure or even any general Budget debate. I want to express my appreciation for this responsible conduct on the part of the Opposition, and I also want to express my gratitude towards members on this side of the House. I hope that this will also be the case in the future. After all is said and done, Parliament is pre-eminently the place where we can prove to the world that we stand united in the face of onslaughts from abroad, the place where we may pre-eminently show a united front towards the outside world. It is necessary for any country in the world to show a united front towards the outside world, and it is particularly necessary for us to do so, in view of the extraordinary circumstances in which we find ourselves.

But apart from other benefits, this conduct in Parliament is also being welcomed by South Africa’s representatives abroad and by the Department of Foreign Affairs, and they find it helpful that generally speaking we are unanimous in our views on international affairs. These South Africans are waging the striggle for South Africa, for our fatherland, in the front line. It is a very formidable struggle, and they are waging it with great distinction. For that reason it is essential that we do not thwart them, but that we encourage them and strengthen their hands.

In saying that generally speaking the Opposition has conducted itself in a responsible manner in this respect. I want to qualify it, particularly in one respect in which they have not always acted judiciously, i.e. in respect of the accusations to the effect that South Africa is so tremendously isolated.

But before I deal with that, there are a few other matters I want to dispose of. In recent times a great deal has been said, also in this House, about our young people. Hon. members may ask me what this has to do with foreign affairs. In my opinion it has a great deal to do with foreign affairs, as I shall point out. All over the world to-day there is concern about the present generation of young people. However, let me say at once that I believe in our young people, that I have confidence in them and that I have no doubts whatever about their good intentions and their patriotism. If they do not always come up to the high expectations which we have for them, the fault should perhaps be sought with ourselves, the older generation. In view of this I want to make a plea that all of us should make a special effort to encourage our young people to take an interest in South Africa’s position in the world. Everybody must realize that in the long run any nation which refuses to take any notice of its neighbours or of the rest of the world, cannot survive. This holds good for any nation, and it does not matter how great or how small and how mighty or how insignificant it is. In particular this also holds good for us in South Africa.

It is necessary for all of us, and this includes our young people as well, to be conversant all the time with the dangers which are threatening us and the forces and elements which are seeking to destroy the existing order in South Africa. It is also essential that all of us should continually give consideration to ways in which those onslaughts may be resisted successfully. It is very necessary for our young people, even when they are still at school, to gain knowledge of these matters, to appreciate the gravity of the problem so that they may not shrink back from the dangers and so that they must accept the challenge. Furthermore, it is necessary for them to prepare and arm themselves through study and dedication so that they may undertake this task with inspiration and with success. I am convinced that if we as chosen leaders and other leaders of various communities go to work in the correct way, we can inspire our young people to make, by these means, a constructive and significant contribution to ensuring our future.

In spite of what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said, I want to make the statement that any objective observer must admit that over the past number of years we have made a great deal of progress in respect of our international relations. Over the past ten years since Sharpeville the international climate has definitely taken a favourable turn for South Africa. To a very large extent this is attributable to the remarkable economic growth, as a result of which South Africa falls under the 12 or 15 most important international trading countries to-day.

The fact remains that in the long run the international power and influence of any state is largely determined by its economic strength. In fact, to a large extent countries are bound and knitted together by economic ties. Apart from other considerations, the strength of our economy enables us to make a considerable contribution to the development of our neighbouring states in Southern Africa, it enables us to strengthen our Defence Force and it also enables us to become more self-supporting, also as far as the defence of our country is concerned.

There are, in addition, other factors which are favouring our position in the world. I shall merely mention the growing realization of the impossibility of finding speedy solutions and instant solutions to the complicated Colour problem and race relations, even in countries where there is a small percentage of people speaking other languages or having ia different skin colouring. The closure of the Suez Canal and the construction of huge tankers, but especially the extensive activities of Russian ships in the Indian and Atlantic Oceans, have led to the growing realization of the significance of the Cape sea-route as well as the significance of our country, South Africa. I admit that as yet unanimity has not been reached in regard to the strategic significance of the Cape sea-route in this atomic age in which we are living, but nevertheless it is illuminating and significant that, according to a Press report, even Mr. William Rogers, the American Secretary of State, recently said the following in London—

To this he added that how this was to be done, was still to be decided.

Another very important factors as regards the change in the international climate, was the gaining of independence by the non-white states in Southern Africa. The fact that they have extended to us the hand of friendship, has afforded us the opportunity to prove that we are prepared to and capable of making a substantial contribution to the development of Southern Africa and the whole subcontinent. On the strength of my personal experience I want to testify here to-night that the outside world is taking due note of and is tremendously impressed by these developments. The independence of our neighbouring states, the gradual withdrawal of Britain from Southern Africa, has brought about greater responsibilities for South Africa as the most highly developed state in this subcontinent. This has also brought about greater prestige for South Africa, because of the fact that we occupy a key position here. South Africa’s contribution to the development and the economic and technical co-operation in Southern Africa will gradually have a greater impact as and when the result and fruits of our cooperation and assistance become more visible and tangible. This must inevitably happen, and is happening at the moment.

I just want to mention a few examples of the favourable factors which are influencing us. There are, of course, many more. I want to mention just one more, i.e. the success achieved by South Africa at the World Court in regard to South-West Africa. It meant an infinitely great deal to South Africa that the verdict of the International Court of Justice in 1966 had the effect that our enemies failed in their attempts at having our policy of separate development condemned by the World Court and thus having South Africa outlawed. Of course, the struggle in regard to South-West Africa is, as the hon. member indicated, far from being at an end, but in that regard I want to say something later on.

I am basing my statement that the climate in the international sphere has become more favourable for South Africa, on, inter alia, numerous discussions which I myself and also members of the Cabinet are continuously holding with authoritative persons abroad and also with such persons as are regularly visiting South Africa. The public is not always aware of these distinguished visitors who come from many parts of the world. Incidentally, a few weeks ago we received a goodwill mission from South Korea. A few days ago a goodwill mission form Cambodia arrived here, and they visited South Africa and three of our neighbouring states. It stands to reason that the Government welcomes these visits. Approximately two weeks ago we received here another important mission from a neighbouring state, which had important talks with beneficial consequences for South Africa, and in regard to which more particulars will be furnished in due course. The truth of my statement is also evident from various public statements by leaders in various parts of the country. For instance, I am thinking of the growing realization and recognition that solutions to our complicated relations problem cannot be forced upon us from outside, but that we ourselves have to find and work out the solution. This was, inter alia, the tenor of the policy statements made by President Nixon and his Secretary of State. I want to read out to hon. members what President Nixon said in January of this year—

It is indeed encouraging that so much realism is emanating from the President of the United States. I also want to remind hon. members of the exercising of their veto right by Great Britain and the United States earlier this year, i.e., the veto of the resolution in the Security Council in regard to the use of violence against Rhodesia and the extension of economic sanctions to South Africa and to Portugal. As regards co-operation in Southern Africa, and, in fact, in Africa as a whole, President Nixon also said the following in January—

As South Africa is the most highly developed state in Africa, this statement may be regarded as an encouragement of our African policy. Sir, may I also remind you of the various illuminating and encouraging statements made by leaders in Africa. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has already referred to the statements made by Dr. Banda. Dr. Banda has repeatedly made strong pleas for a greater measure of realism in Africa, for co-operation by African states with the Republic of South Africa. In strong language he condemned the prejudice and hatred which are being harboured against South Africa by many people. Recently he did so on the B.B.C. television in London on two occasions. He did this at a banquet in honour of our Prime Minister during his visit to London. Recently he did so again on repeated occasions in the Malawi Parliament. It stands to reason that we are appreciative of the goodwill, realizm, courage and leadership being displayed by this farsighted African leader. But Dr. Banda is not the only African leader to advocate and practise friendly co-operation with South Africa. The same attitude is being adopted by the Governments of our three non-white neighbouring states. Several leaders of Madagascar and Mauritius have also come out in favour of closer co-operation with South Africa, whereas these two neighbouring states in the Indian Ocean have already sent several missions to South Africa and have received similar missions from the Republic. The consequences of the talks we held there on these occasions, were particularly satisfactory and will manifest themselves later on. In fact, as was done by Dr. Banda, President Suriname of the Malagasy Republic and also the Mauritian Minister of Foreign Affairs, recently stated in public that they were not opposed to the sale arms for defence purposes by Britain to South Africa. One can only hope that the Western Powers will take cognisance of the voice of Southern Africa in this regard. Irrefutable proof to the effect that we are making progress, can be found in the records of the U.N., which hon. members can look up in our own Library. If hon. members do so, they will see that there is a group of more than half-a-dozen African states which are consistently refusing at the U.N. to promise their support to extravagant, extremist and unrealistic resolutions, which are regularly being introduced at the U.N. against South Africa. This is a small group of African states which do not want to play along any more.

But the most obvious example of the changed climate abroad towards South Africa, is the successful visits of our Prime Minister and his party to two neighbouring states and four European states. What was a particularly great achievement, was the historic visit to Malawi. This was the first occasion on which a South African Prime Minister was a welcome guest of the head of state and head of government of an independent African state. It is also an achievement that it was possible for him to meet the prominent political leaders of several European states in person, to discuss matters with them and to exchange ideas with them. It is perhaps an even greater achievement that in these times of demonstrations and violence, the visit to the African states as well as Europe took place in an atmosphere of peace and calm, without any unpleasant occurrences and without any incidents which may have embarrassed our Prime Minister and his party or the host countries.

May I refer in this regard to a question which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout recently put to me. He asked a question in regard to the number of international organizations to which South Africa belonged. I think that hon. member and many others were astonished when they heard the reply. They were astonished at hearing how many there were. We belong to no fewer than 38 inter-government organizations, whereas the 100 mark can be exceeded if a less strict interpretation were attached to the concept “international organizations”.

The Opposition and the English-language Press are fond of referring to South Africa’s isolation and of blaming the National Government’s policy for it. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said this by implication in the course of the no-confidence debate. The hon. member for Hillbrow blamed us for the fact that large majorities were voting against us at the U.N. However, it is true that many other States do sometimes vote in the minority. The mighty United States and Great Britain recently found themselves in such a minority in the Security Council that they were obliged to exercise their right of veto. Their opposition did not accuse them of becoming isolated. The hon. member for Hillbrow also boasted of the fact that in the days of General Smuts the South American States were solidly behind South Africa. He has a short memory. On 8th December, 1946, there was in the General Assembly a two-thirds majority in favour of a resolution on the treatment of Indians in South Africa; and at that stage there were virtually no, or very few, Afro-Asian states which were members of the U.N. At that time already there was a two-thirds majority against South Africa concerning the treatment of the Indians in the days of General Smuts. Since the establishment of the U.N. 25 years ago, South Africa has continually, to an increasing extent, been the target of vicious attacks. This feud dates back to the days when the word “apartheid” did as yet not have the same political tenor which it gained later on. In fact, it was five years later, i.e. in 1951, that the term “apartheid” appeared in documents of the U.N. for the first time.

If there is one thing I am not keen to do, then it is to unleash an apartheid debate here. We should see the struggle against South Africa in its true perspective. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout reminded us of the hostility to our country. Let me give you the assurance, Sir—and I think you will agree with me—that this feud would in any case have grown in vehemence, even if a National Party had never come into power in South Africa. No party in South Africa which exerts itself for upholding the position and influence of the Whites in South Africa and their way of life, would ever have escaped these attacks. They would have had as slight a chance of escaping those attacks as did the Rhodesians or Portuguese. They would have had as slight a chance of escaping them as the British, French, Belgians and Dutch in the East had of doing so. There are forces in the world which have and will leave no stone unturned in order to eradicate the influence of the white man in Southern Africa. It is these same forces which insisted on the precipitate evacuation of Africa by the former colonial powers. I am not saying this because I am a champion of colonialism. On the contrary; we are all vehemently opposed to it. We in the Government are continually on our guard, even against the semblance of neo-colonialism in our relations with our neighbouring states.

The vicious attacks against South Africa constitute only one facet of a much greater struggle, a struggle for existence, i.e. the cold war between the communist countries and the West. This struggle is being waged on many fronts, a matter into which I need not go now. One of these is in the sphere of colour, race relations, or the so-called race problem. In this regard South Africa’s policy is being exploited with great ingenuity by the communists. A striking example of this is the worldwide row which has been and is still being kicked up about the supply of arms to South Africa. There is much more at stake than the right and the interests of the non-Whites in South Africa, or merely the strategic significance of the Cape sea-route. The communists are very well aware that South Africa as a Western power and the most highly developed state in Africa, is a loyal and valuable ally to the West in its struggle against communism. For that reason they and their fellow-travellers have caused many to believe that they are striving after bringing “apartheid” to an end, and that they are fighting against race discrimination on humanitarian and moral grounds. But there is indeed much more to their ultimate object, and this is the destruction of the Western outlook on life and world domination through Marxism.

It is not only we on this side of the House who are adopting this attitude. In this regard I want to read out an interesting quotation which I came across recently. It reads as follows—

This is not a quotation taken from a speech made by our hon. Prime Minister or by a member of his Government; nor is it a quotation taken from a speech made by the hon. member for Durban (Point) or the hon. member for South Coast; it is a quotation taken from an article written by a very well-known and influential British journalist and political observer, Perigrene Worsthorne, in the Sunday Telegraph of London on 26th July, 1970. The views held by this political observer agree to a very large extent with what we on this side of the House believe and what we have been emphasizing for years. The strategy employed by the communists and their minions is to try to isolate South Africa. They are making no secret of this. They have been saying this time and again and openly at the U.N. Only at the beginning of this year a spokesman for Russia spelled this out in no uncertain terms in a committee at the U.N.: South Africa must be isolated in every walk of life. And, as is commonly known, their actions are not confined to the U.N. either. In a few spheres these isolation attempts were crowned with a measure of success. For instance, we were forced out of certain agencies at the U.N. In the sphere of sport, too, our enemies have achieved a measure of success, although South Africa is at the moment, to the delight of everybody, the scene of one of the greatest sports events in the world, i.e. the clash between the All Blacks and the Springboks, and now everybody is crossing fingers for the fourth test. But generally speaking we have succeeded in averting the attempts at isolating us, in strengthening our ties with the outside world and even in extending those ties, and consequently there are new developments in this sphere all the time, developments which will be made known in due course. Those who are sneeringly referring to South Africa’s isolation and even creating the impression that they are taking a delight in it, are definitely on the wrong track. They find themselves in the company of the enemies of South Africa. Sir, they are playing into the hands of South Africa’s enemies, the communists and their minions. They are playing into the hands of the hostile Press and the news media of the world, which are known for their Leftist leanings. Let me admit at once that I accept that it is not true that in the case of the Opposition this is being done deliberately. I am not imputing mala fides to the Opposition, but their actions are nevertheless prejudicial to and not in the interests of the country when they refer to South Africa’s growing isolation with such satisfaction. This also holds good for those people who are attributing South Africa’s problems in the world to our colour policy. Those people are definitely not in good company. We have come a difficult and long way since Sharpeville, but we can look back in gratitude, for we have made remarkable progress under difficult circumstances. The breakthrough started under the capable leadership of Dr. Verwoerd. Our present Prime Minister has carried on this work. He has given new recognition to it. Through his actions he has been making important contributions to this day, and I believe that he possesses exceptional qualities which will enable him to go on making his contributions. Incidentally, these tours of our Prime Minister abroad, on which I was privileged to accompany him, proved indisputably that the hon. the Prime Minister and Mrs. Vorster are the best ambassadorial couple that South Africa has ever had, and this is saying a great deal, for South Africa has produced excellent diplomats and fortunately we still have a first-class foreign service, and this applies to our ambassadors, their staff and also additional staff. The Opposition is not keen to admit that we have made progress. They are closing their eyes to our success. Let me remind the doubting Thomases that many influential persons and observers in many parts of the world are saying favourable things about this progress. Let me remind hon. members that the Russians are concerned about the progress which we are making in Africa. I just want to give you one example, Sir.

Recently—I think it was last year—a Canadian professor and expert read a paper in South Africa on “South Africa’s External Economic Relations”. I want to tell you, Sir, what this professor, Margaret Doxey, said about South Africa’s foreign relations. I just want to read two sentences taken from this paper—

But this is not all. I shall read on—

This is an unexpected compliment which we received from Canada. I do not want to mention more examples; I could read out more. Let me say instead that in view of the dangerous world in which we are living, and the evil forces which are being enlisted against South Africa, it is not unreasonable to expect all of us, on both sides of this House, to put national interests before party political gain. In particular we should guard against buttering up South Africa’s enemies with hackneyed references to South Africa’s isolation, which in actual fact is confined to certain countries and a few spheres which are not vital to South Africa.

†Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to-day to review the long, almost endless, stream of resolutions adopted by the various United Nations bodies and organs in connection with South-West Africa. I propose to deal briefly with only two aspects which have been in the news recently. The first is the request by the Security Council to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion. I should like to make a statement in order to inform hon. members where we stand in regard to this matter.

In resolution No. 284 of the 29th July, 1970, the Security Council of the United Nations decided to request the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on the following question: What are the legal consequences for States of the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia notwithstanding Security Council Resolution No. 276 of 1970? The Secretary-General of the United Nations conveyed the request to the Court on 29th July. On the 5th August the Registrar of the Court informed member States of the United Nations, including South Africa, of the request and invited them to submit written statements to the Court not later than the 23rd September, 1970.

An advisory opinion differs from a judgement of the Court in contentious proceedings in that the former is strictly advisory in character and has no binding force, whereas the latter binds the parties. The fact that in 1967 South Africa withdrew its consent to the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction is not relevant here since the question of the Court’s jurisdiction over States is not applicable to advisory opinions.

The Government has, in the circumstances, decided to make a written submission to the Court. The following legal team will represent the Government in this matter: Adv. E. M. Grosskopf, S.C., of the Cape Town Bar, who will be the leader of the team; Adv. J. D. Viall, Law Adviser of the Department of Foreign Affairs; Adv. R. F. Botha, M.P., of the Pretoria Bar, in a part-time capacity; Adv. H. J. O. van Heerden, of the Bloemfontein Bar; and Prof. M. Wiegers, a legal expert of the University of South Africa.

Advocates Grosskopf, Botha and van Heerden were members of the legal team concerned with the previous South-West Africa case. Mr. D. P. de Villiers who led that team, will also be consulted with regard to the present matter. As on the previous occasion, the team will be assisted by the Department of Foreign Affairs.

According to a press report which appeared in Die Beeld on the 23rd of this month, Mr. Justice Theo van Wyk has also been instructed by the Government to work on South Africa’s case. This report is completely unfounded and must be ascribed to speculation.

In as much as the time limit set by the President of the Court for the submission of written statements was considered inadequate for the proper preparation of South Africa’s statement, the Registrar of the Court was asked for an extension until the 31st January next year. We have just been informed officially that extension has been granted until the 19th November, 1970.

Mr. Chairman, seeing that the Court has been asked for an advisory opinion, hon. members will realize that it would not be in our interests to discuss the matter at this stage.

The second part of my statement relates to terrorism.

Promped by a reckless majority, the United Nations set out on its dangerous and slippery course three to four years ago. In essence the instigators of this move, under the guise of concern for the political rights and welfare of the non-white peoples of South-West Africa, launched a move to aid from outside a campaign of terrorism and sabotage against South-West Africa and South Africa. As far back as 1968, in a letter to the Secretary-General, I warned that the United Nations had started on a road unbecoming for a peace organization. In this process, terrorists who direct their activities indiscriminately against all population groups, including women and children, were being hailed as “freedom fighters”; measures taken to safeguard and protect the civilian population were being decried as violations of the rule of law. If we were to accede to the demand to release criminals who in addition to contravening certain legislative measures for the maintenance of law and order, had committed ordinary crimes of violence, such as attempted murder, arson, armed robbery, etc., the rule of law would have been flouted, not upheld.

Every year fresh attempts are being made to embroil the United Nations and its specialized agencies even further in these planned efforts to undermine established order, law and security. These efforts were in the first instance directed through the so-called Committee on Colonialism, I want to add immediately that all members of that Committee were not party to its reckless endeavours.

In the decade which has passed since its establishment, the Committee on Colonialism has set up an unenviable record of financial extravagance and political irresponsibility. The fact that the United Nations has never stood lower in public estimation that it does to-day, may certainly be attributed in part to the activities of this body which avails itself of every opportunity to sow hatred and discord among the peoples of Southern Africa. Almost every year the slender resources of the United Nations are required to finance expensive junkets to Africa by the Committee or some of its sub-committees, primarily for the purpose of obtaining so-called “testimony” on conditions in Southern Africa from members of terrorist movements. The views of these terrorists then provide the basis of further inflamatory resolutions by the Committee which, although challenged by a handful of States including South Africa, are invariably rubber-stamped by the General Assembly itself.

The Committee on Colonialism is naturally in the vanguard of those who call for the United Nations to render material assistance to the terrorists operating against the peoples of South-West Africa, Rhodesia and the Portuguese Territories. As part of its campaign in this regard, the Committee has, since 1967, attempted also to enlist the support of the Specialized Agencies for the terrorists. The Agencies are, of course, technical rather than political bodies and many have resisted the pressure put on them to enter the political arena. They have stated, quite rightly, that activities such as those proposed by the Sepcial Committee are contrary both to their articles of association with the United Nations and to their own constitutions.

But the pressure continues unabated. Only last week, for example, the Special Committee adopted another resolution calling upon the Agencies to “render all possible moral and material assistance” to the terrorists.

In particular, they are being asked to work out with the active co-operation of the OAU, and through it with the liberation movements, concrete programmes for assisting peoples of Rhodesia, Namibia (U.N. name for South-West Africa) and Portuguese Territories, including in particular populations in liberated areas of these territories.

This was adopted over the negative votes of the United Kingdom and the United States with Italy and Norway abstaining. As was the case in previous years, this resolution will be incorporated in the Special Committee’s report to the forthcoming General Assembly session and, having regard to the malaise which has overtaken the Assembly, will no doubt be approved by the latter when it comes to consider the Committee’s report.

As the 25th anniversary of the United Nations is being commemorated this year, it is appropriate to recall that the United Nations was founded in the hope that world peace would take the place of armed aggression, that peaceful and fruitful co-operation would replace discord and friction and that the rule of law would internationally be restored to an honourable position. Instead there has been frustration in U.N. ranks over the intractability of the problems of the world and the apparent lack of progress made by the organization in grappling with them.

It is difficult to avoid the impression that many of the serious problems confronting the U.N. to-day are of its own making.

From what I have just said about the organization’s attitude towards terrorism, it would seem that the U.N. will continue to be used by the majority to attack the integrity of member States by, inter alia, directing hostile propaganda at them in the hope of subverting their citizens. Instead of harmony, friction will increase and the time will come when these very methods will be turned also against those who to-day use them for their own selfish purposes.

We refuse to become party to these machinations. Where funds are made available for illegal purposes, we shall withhold a proportionate share from our annual contribution as we have done in the past. We shall not contribute a single sent towards these wild ventures, be they directed against us or against other States. Nor is South Africa prepared to expose the peoples committed to its care to terrorist aggression. We shall continue to apply all our endeavours towards providing security, prosperity and happiness for all our peoples.

Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout participated in the debate, he tried of course to paint as black a picture as possible. In fact, he not only literally, but also figuratively painted so black a picture that I noticed that the hon. member for Yeoville fell asleep for a long spell. I think the hon. the Minister has given us a striking elucidation to-day of the success which has been achieved over the past decade in our foreign relations. In fact, I think the past year in particular has been a remarkable year; in any event one of the most remarkable years since 1964 when the late Gen. Smuts was confronted at the United Nations Organization by the enemies of South Africa over our traditional policy of segregation. This is undoubtedly so. This year we have made further break-throughs. Not only did we achieve the distinction this year or having received sundry high-ranking visitors to South Africa from almost every Westernized European country, but we also had visitors from South America, the East and African states, and we are even on the point of receiving high-ranking visitors from the United States here. I think that this is a prelude to our subsequently being able to receive the leaders of West European countries and other friendly states in South Africa. Then, too, there was the tour of the hon. the Prime Minister and Mrs. Vorster, together with his Minister of Foreign Affairs, which was for us an important break-through in our foreign relations. We can only hope that this direct contact with leaders of the Western World will be continued. In this connection I also want to pay particular tribute to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as well as the Secretary of this department, Mr. Brand Fourie, and his able officials for the preparatory work and finishing touches which made of these overseas visits such a success.

I think that if we want to apply a criterion for the improvement of our foreign relations, then we must not only take note of the friendly states, but also of the fact that our most acrimonious enemies overseas are, virtually as an act of despair, now beginning to think of possible violent measures to adopt against South Africa. The hon. the Minister has already referred to the United Nations which made an appeal to its agencies to support terroristic activities against South Africa. In Britain as well a motion has been moved by the Labour Party Congress, which will shortly be dealt with, to the effect that the terrorists should be given material support.

There is an entirely new phenomenon, and for us in South Africa it is a very important one. This phenomenon is that in the forefront of the instigators abroad are to be found Whites and non-Whites who are South African expatriotes. They left this country because they could not propagate their destructive ideologies of communism in South Africa further and who therefore sought refuge in overseas countries to try to play that roe there and incite racial disturbances in those countries. In this connection one must address a warning to a country such as Britain in which virtually all the refugees from South Africa have gathered to continue their underground methods against South Africa. In a country such as America as well South African non-Whites and Whites are in the forefront of campaigns to mar the good relations between America and South Africa. As far as Britain is concerned, there was only yesterday a report to the effect that the British Race Relations Council, whose organization is crammed with South African refugees, decided to donate a quite considerable amount to the Black Power movement in Britain, a movement which is similarly crammed with South African expatriots, people who left this country. Even in America those who are taking the lead in the Black Panther movement, persons such as Eldridge Cleaver and Bobby Seales, are supported primarily by South African non-Whites and Whites who are fomenting racial tension there. So profound is their influence in America, for example, that the American Negro is nowadays no longer proud to call himself a Negro, but is to an increasing extent referring to himself as an “Afro-American”. The hon. member for Yeoville will recall that when he and I, on a certain occasion, addressed a meeting at the John Hopkins University in Baltimore, it was South African Bantu who took the lead in fomenting race hate. In Chicago we witnessed a demonstration, and once again it was South African Bantu who took the lead in stirring up riots in that country. That is why one should like those countries, America and Britain, to be aware of the fact that when they experience difficulty in the field of race problems, South African expatriots are playing a major role there. Then one also notes that in Western countries such as Belgium, Holland and particularly Sweden, it is once again South African Bantu who are in the forefront of the disturbances one finds there.

One must ask oneself why we have recently achieved so much success in our foreign relations. An important reason is precisely because separate development has developed in such a way that even our greatest critics are beginning to recognize its merits. It has developed in such a way that it is clear that it is the only practical solution under African circumstances. It has developed as the only policy in terms of which Whites, blacks and Coloureds in South Africa can each realize their highest aspirations. This is the only policy in terms of which every group, regardless of its colour and its numbers, can attain true freedom, which is the right of every human being.

In his speech the hon. the Minister referred to the role which the youth can play in our foreign relations. It is often said that the national youth of to-day in South Africa is frustrated because they no longer have elevated goals and guiding lines before them to which they can aspire. The emotional edials, such as the Republic, have now been attained and now they do not know what to do with themselves. It is said that there are no more territories for them to conquer. I want to point out to the youth, together wih the hon. the Minister, that it is precisely the sphere of foreign relations to-day which constitutes great challenges which can inspire us anew and activate us so that we can co-operate to improve the foreign relations of our country. It can present us with a dramatic vision which can once again inspire the youth to a new triumph in South Africa. This is a new territory to which we can bear, in an energetic and vigorous manner, a philosophy of life which can bring true peace, not only to South Africa, but to the rest of the world. I say this is a sphere in which the youth can with dedication realize itself, in which those new visions for South Africa can be created. I want to make an appeal to-day to universities, colleges and schools to establish, to an increasing extent, study groups which will concentrate on our foreign relations. There is a new challenge for us here, to which we must reply.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say at once that the two statements which the hon. the Minister made about South-West Africa and about terrorism, have our full support. I am especially pleased that the Government will do everything in its power to state the best South African standpoint in connection with the South-West Africa case. When he started his speech, he created the impression that we wanted him to help us against his own party. I do not think it is necessary to question the loyalty of anyone here. I can say to the hon. the Minister that we on this side most definitely do not question his loyalty to his party in the least. I do not think we can use him against his own party. That was not my point at all. My point was that because he is Minister of Foreign Affairs, he ought to be more conscious of foreign affairs. The Minister of Foreign Affairs could have been somebody else and not necessarily H. Muller, but because he is Minister of Foreign Affairs, he should be conscious of the tremendous problems South Africa has. Therefore, we think the Minister should play a much bigger role and would render South Africa a much greater service if he were to state the problems and apply a greater urgency to his side in connection with the adjustments which must be made in South Africa in order to overcome our difficulties.

I am indeed a full member of the Cabinet.

The Minister himself intimated in his speech that for the past seven years he had not participated in certain debates. He said we had not made it necessary for him to do so. I think that he, with his knowledge, ought to play a much more active role in the solving of our problems at home, in view of the terrible difficulties which are facing us abroad. I must say that in a certain sense we have a problem with the Minister. In his dissertation he stated the bright side. It is there, and I do not want to deny it, but it has struck me over the years that whenever the Minister speaks in this House about foreign affairs, we always hear about the breakthroughs. We are told that things are going well and are improving all the time. The effect this has is to reassure people. They think they may simply continue as they are. They believe that everything will turn out fine. All I want to say is that we should beware of that attitude.

I am constantly warning against set-backs.

No, the hon. the Minister should have another look at his speech. He will notice that the whole tenor of his speech was that everything was going well and improving. The hon. the Minister has been saying this for years. Let us differ if we must, but I want to say to the hon. the Minister that all the indications to-day seem to be that the climate is becoming more difficult for us, and not easier. If the Minister were to say that we were wrong, this would nevertheless remain our opinion.

You are wrong.

No, this simply means that we have different opinions about this. The Minister made on remark in respect of which I hope he was not being serious. He said there were members on this side of the House who spoke “with satisfaction” about our isolation. Who are they? Can he mention one example to me? The fact of the matter is that we are speaking about this with concern and not with satisfaction. It is our duty to do so. Of course, we are still a member of many organizations, but to-day again we were pushed out of one organization. We know what tactics are being used against us, and when one sees those tactics succeeding, one asks oneself: Is it correct that someone in the Minister’s position speaks reassuringly in Parliament, instead of doing just the opposite and that is to call the people to action, as the position is much more difficult in fact than the hon. the Minister is stating it to be? When I say the tactics are succeeding, I am referring to the fact that this morning again we had to read about our exclusion from international athletics. Let hon. members live in a fool’s paradise if they want to do so. We on this side are not prepared to do that. In the interests of South Africa, we rather want to face up to the facts and difficulties. When the Minister concluded, however, he indicated very large difficulties for South Africa. His general tone, however, was one of too much optimism. He was too defensive. He objected to my remark in connection with his visit to Britain. I think the hon. the Minister did not followed me with close attention. I was speaking about the impression which had been created in South Africa; the Minister was not here at the time. His own Press created the impression that he had hurried to London in order to negotiate arms sales with the new British Government.

That is not true.

The hon. the Minister has given his explanation and I am satisfied with it. I was merely referring to the impressions which had been created. According to the hon. the Minister he had gone to visit his children. He said this in public as well. Very well, he is entitled to do that. However, I think a diplomat should be able to anticipate reaction. I still think it would have been better for the hon. the Minister if he could have avoided going to London at that moment.

He said they did not have the same basis of principle as the U.N. in regard to South-West Africa. Of course this is true. I referred to the principle of self-determination. That principle is accepted by the U.N. It is likewise accepted by the Western countries and this Government. Therefore, apart from their opinion of South-Africa’s control over South-West Africa, there is a basis of agreement in principle in the world as a whole about non-selfgoverning territories such as South-West Africa. My point was that on the basis of that agreement in principle, there was a point from which South Africa could take the initiative. The hon. the Minister also resented me for the point, I had made in connection with an invitation to Dr. Banda. The hon. the Minister need not read us a lecture on what we should do in this Parliament. We have pointed out to the hon. the Minister a few times that we do not have the privilege which every other important Parliament in the world has, i.e. a standing committee on foreign affairs. Every modern constitution has this. I have already proposed this to the hon. the Minister. Delicate matters can be discussed in such a standing committee. There the Opposition can pit its opinion against that of the Government. But time and again the hon. the Minister refuses this without his providing a good reason. He wants no part of that. Therefore, we on this side of the House will express our opinion frankly in this House. If the hon. the Minister wants us to discuss certain matters behind the scenes, or in a more informal atmosphere, he must create a standing committee for foreign affairs, as is the position in every important Parliament in the world. If he does not do this, we have no option but to discuss these matters openly in this Parliament.

Does Britain also have that?

No. Britain has no such committee, but the most important countries in Europe do in fact have such committees. Britain, however, has traditions which make provision for this, ones which we have not taken over in our Parliament.

I should like to mention a few other matters as well. One tends to forget that we are concerned with a Budget, and before we proceed, I want to put a few questions to the hon. the Minister. I notice there is an increase of approximately R1,300,000 on the Foreign Affairs Vote this year. We have no objection to that. I merely want to know what the main reason for that is. In addition, I notice that our foreign offices in Athens, Beirut and Montevideo show a decrease in expenditure, while the others show reasonably large increases in expenditure. I should like to know whether there is a curtailment of services in this regard and, if so, why? Under Miscellaenous Expenses, there is an item “Honorary Representatives: Office Allowances”. Altogether there are 31 such representatives. The total expenditure is an average of R240 per office. I shall be pleased to hear whether all these people are honorary consuls who are citizens of those countries. Where we have only one representative and he is an honorary representative, I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister would also tell me whether in his opinion we have established diplomatic relations, in the sense in which this is recognized, with such a country? Then I notice an amount of R848,000 for assistance to and co-operation with foreign countries. This is exactly double the amount which was voted in this regard last year.

The hon. the Minister knows our point of view in this respect. We are not objecting to it; in principle we are in favour of assistance to friendly countries which need it. However, we cannot form a judgment on the details. Therefore, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will give us a detailed statement in connection with this amount, how it is being spent, which countries are involved, on what projects it is being spent and whether any conditions are attached to it. Then I also notice that there is a tremendous increase in expenditure in respect of representation in Brazil, R43,600. I should like to know whether any particular significance should be attached to that. [Time expired.]

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.