Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Bill read a First Time.

I have exercised the discretion conferred on me by Standing Order No. 1 (Private Bills) and have permitted the Bill, while retaining the form of a private measure, to be proceeded with as a public Bill.

On 10th August the hon. the Leader of the Opposition demanded the resignation of the hon. the Minister of Transport, in the following words—

He said the credibility of the hon. the Minister must be doubted. At the beginning of the debate on this Vote, he was invited by the hon. the Prime Minister to prove the so-called incredibility of the hon. the Minister of Transport, but up to now he has remained silent. He tried to steer the debate in another direction. Eventually, at his wit’s end, he pushed in the poor hon. member for South Coast to try to justify his demand for the Minister’s resignation. He did not have the courage, this brave man who took part in the war, to try to justify it himself. The hon. member for South Coast has now tried to rectify this matter; he referred to speeches I had made in the Other Place and tried to make out that I had misinterpreted him in the Other Place.

Let us examine for a moment what happened in the Other Place. The main speaker of the United Party in the Other Place, read out this certificate which appears in the report of the General Manager of the Railways and which was signed by the Chief Civil Engineer of the Railways and in which he stated under the heading “Certificate respecting permanent way works and buildings” that the railways were in a good condition for the traffic they had to carry. He then elaborated on that and said: “We cannot accept it, because this line about which the hon. member for South Coast spoke, is not safe.” Sir, the hon. member for South Coast said he would go there and show our civil engineers, or whatever engineers, where the places were which were not safe. But he was not sincere in this. As far as he was concerned, the point at issue was not the safety of the railways, because he went there and was invited by the hon. the Minister to take an engineer with him, but he did not avail himself of that invitation. What did he do? He took Press photographers with him. Let us look at what the Press representatives who went with him, said about this. He took representatives of the Sunday Tribune with him and the Sunday Tribune of 9th August said this—

And then in italics—

Sir, this is the point at issue in this regard. These are not our contentions; this is what was said by the Press photographers he himself took along with him. The report continues—

In other words, this newspaper interpreted him as the Minister and we had interpreted him. i.e. that he told the world that the Bantu could not accept the responsibility to do this work. He said this, while the hon. members for Hillbrow and Durban (Point) and all the other members on that side are saying that more use should be made of Bantu labour; that the Bantu should be used in skilled, semiskilled and unskilled work, but the hon. member for South Coast said “No”. The Press report continues—

Surely we were entitled to interpret him as we did. But I proceed. The Sunday Tribune was not the only paper that said this; what did the Sunday Times say in regard to this matter?

Is it your mouthpiece now?

The Sunday Times said—

And then they said—

Now the hon. member for South Coast says I offended him in the Other Place. What happened in the Other Place? This hon. member for South Coast specially went to that railway line, took his photographers and Pressmen along with him, and had enlargements made of the photographs which he gave to the hon. Senators Redi Louw, Eaton and Rail. He briefed them to try to hide behind this dissension, this ambiguous talk, this divided talk in the Other Place. In this way they had to create the impression that as far as he was concerned the safety of the Railways was the point at issue. Surely the safety of the Railways was not the point at issue as far as he was concerned, because if it were any responsible member in this House would have availed himself of the first opportunity to bring the safety of the Railway pointedly to the attention of the engineers concerned and the system manager of the Railways. He did not do so.

How do you know that?

He said here very emphatically and I quote:

After all he went there himself. Why did the hon. member not pick up the telephone and tell the hon. the Minister that he was going to the South Coast line? It would have cost him nothing extra. He could just as easily have picked up the telephone and called the Minister as he did when he told the Sunday Tribune to send their reporter and their photographers. He could have asked the hon. the Minister to send engineers along with him so that he could point things out to them. This was not done. In his heart of hearts he was certain that those railways were safe enough. He merely used that to try to hide this dissension in their party. At the Third Reading he again said that he would show us these things, but he did not do so. What are the facts now? If one analyses this speech which this hon. member made, one will see that he referred four times to the Bantu employed there. Not once did he ask whether they had been trained for that job, the only thing he said was that they did not have the sense of responsibility for that job. This is the point at issue and nothing else. In all four these phrases he said that the Bantu did not have the responsibility to fulfil this duty. What did he do then? He went to the railway line and took a whole series of photographs of which I want to show a few to hon. members. Let their own dog bite them now. Here is a photo in which the hon. member appears and one reads, “A seventy-four-year-old hand pulls out the dog spike.” I want to tell the hon. member that this dog spike is a nail in the coffin of the United Party. Then there is the other photograph that was published. However, what is the ugly side of the matter in this regard? When they saw that they were getting into difficulties, they tried to spread a new story to the effect that we had allegedly gone to repair that railway line in all haste and had quickly sent gangs there to repair the line. Then they went to take photographs at a place 23 miles from that place, a place where contracts had already been drawn up for the reparation of the line and where reparation work had already been started. This they then used to try to deceive the electorate by maintaining that the place where the railway line was supposedly unsafe, had been repaired on a Sunday. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to deal with newspaper reports, but with Hansard and what I said; I am not dealing with what anybody else may have thought I said, what they wrote about and what they commented on in newspapers. My speech of five minutes took up less than 1½ columns in Hansard. But as I said yesterday the hon. the Minister of Transport rushed in to take a short cut without reading my Hansard. He stood up immediately I sat down. He did that because he thought it was a heaven sent opportunity to turn the whole matter into a political issue and to get away from the safety of the people using that railway line. He knew perfectly well what he was doing. I want to draw attention to what followed immediately after that. In Hansard, column 1119, I drew attention to the fact that I was dealing with that particular line. I said: “I am talking about that line.” In the next column I requested the hon. the Minister to read my Hansard. I then said: “I was speaking of the patrolment on that line.” Incidentally, the hon. the Minister said that these patrolmen had been patrolling that line for 20 years. A week later, in reply to a written question, the hon. the Deputy Minister gave me a written reply which made a monkey of the Minister by saying that there are no patrolmen.

I have the reply here.

That is not what I read somewhere in a newspaper, but a written reply I received to a question asked by me.

Let me go on. In connection with this matter of patrolmen, the hon. the Minister at the top of column 1121, said the following about me: “He attacked me for employing Natives to do that particular job.” The hon. the Minister knew what I was talking about. He referred to “that particular job” and not any job as a patrolman or a ganger on any railway line in South Africa. The Minister knows the English language better than that. In his speech yesterday afternoon he tried to put this one across, but how utterly ridiculous and futile can he be? If I say that hon. members opposite, white men, cannot form a Cabinet capable of governing South Africa, does that then mean that no white men could form a Cabinet to govern South Africa? Can I take it from the particular to the general? I want to repeat that I was dealing with a particular railway line between Durban and Port Shepstone. I said so. I said I was dealing with Bantu employed as gangers. I also dealt with the way the foreman ganger takes the gangs to the railway line where the work has to be done. I referred to those Natives on that job throughout the whole of my five-minute speech and I defy the hon. the Minister or anybody else to show me where the word “policy” was mentioned or where I went from the particular to the general. It was a particular reference to a particular place with a particular group of Bantu doing a particular job. That is all I have to prove.

There is, however, more to it than that. I was challenged over the matter of the photos. The hon. the Deputy Minister said just now that there was photos taken, as he did the other day, 25 miles away from the place I demarcated. I do not understand the hon. the Deputy Minister. What does he want? Does he want me to say that that merely proves that there were a lot of other places where there were bad sleepers on the line? It is all that that proves. He need not worry. I have here another dozen photos taken at different places where I was not present. I am prepared to give these to the press. They were taken on that same line. One of them shows the place where the derailment took place 10 days ago. Why do we not hear anything about the derailment? It is all very well, but here is a photo of the derailment taken by a press man. In reply to my five-minute speech the Minister, both during the Second Reading debate and in the Other Place, stood waving his arms and shouting about what a bad fellow I was and insulted me. He also called on the press to bear witness to it. When the press went along to take a photo of the derailment a railwayman with an outstretched hand told them to “go to hell, or I will throw you in jail if you come here”. Why does the hon. the Minister not want the press to take photos? When the representatives of the Natal Mercury went to take a photo at another place, why did the railwaymen not allow them to take photos? Mr. Chairman, if the Minister is so happy about his line, why did he not welcome the press photographers to come along and take those photographs? I have another dozen photographs here. We will have them published. It is not for me to say more than I did in my five minute speech, namely that there were rotten sleepers. There were places where the dog spikes were not holding. Whatever the Deputy Minister may say about it, with all his bully beef talk; I defy him to take a dog spike and pull it up with his bare hands like I did Verbosity will not get the Deputy Minister past that dog spike. So, Sir, here are these photographs. I say again: If the hon. the Minister had been honest at the Third Reading two days after my five minute speech, he would have come clean and said “Look here, I made a mistake. I realize the hon. member was talking about a place he believed to be unsafe on the railway, because he claims there are bad sleepers. I will send an official with him.” But instead of that, the two days up to the Third Reading went past. The Saturday morning came. I left to go on my own private domestic business to Durban, when the one newspaper that had taken the trouble then to read my Hansard, came to me and said “Will you meet our photographer in Durban with a reporter and take him down to show him those sleepers?” I did that, and those four photographs that appeared in the Sunday Tribune were the photographs where I was present. I took the photographer there and said that that was where I wanted to show the Minister’s official where I believed the railway was unsafe, because those sleepers and dog spikes were wrong. That is the only photographs I had anything to do with. I repeat that, as far as I know, that was the only newspaperman, and certainly the only one who came to me and said “I have read your Hansard. You are quite right. You have been dealing throughout with a specific railway line in a specific area with specific people whom you have described. There can be no question of a general policy here. Will you take us and show us those sleepers?” The Minister was completely ignoring all public safety and all questions as to whether the line and the travelling public were safe, but he wanted to play politics here and it has backfired on him. I defy him and his press to get past what I have said in my five minute speech. That is what I stand on, not what may have been read in any other printed article whatsoever or any journal of any kind at all. There is my Hansard, and I stand on that. I again accuse the Minister of playing politics instead of attending to the safety of the travelling public. For that reason he should be fired as Minister of Transport.

I think the United Party Whips should tell the hon. member to stop talking now. The more he talks, the more he embarrasses his party and the more he places himself in difficulties.

I want to deal with a few of the charges that he made now again. First of all, he said that he was dealing with a particular railway line and he objected to Bantu doing the patrol work on that line.

No, I did not.

He said “that line”, the line from Port Shepstone to the South Coast.

I said “those Bantu”.

He complained of those Bantu doing that particular job on that line.

That is right.

In other words, he has apparently no objection to Bantu doing similar work on all the other railway lines in Natal. Is that correct?

That is being childish.

The hon. member is concerned about the safety of the South Coast railway line. He said “those Bantu doing that particular job on that line” had not yet reached the stage where they can carry the responsibility. Am I quoting him correctly?

That is right.

But he had no objection to Bantu doing similar work on the main line in Natal. [Interjections.]

Do not put words in my mouth.

I am not putting words in the hon. member’s mouth.

Yes, you are.

No.

That is a very old trick.

But the hon. member has just agreed with what I said. How can I put words in his mouth? The hon. member’s five-minute speech was quite plain. He objected to those Bantu doing that particular job on that particular railway line.

That is right.

Apparently neither he nor his Leader have any objection to those Bantu doing that job on any other railway line in Natal.

He never said so.

Surely, that is the only conclusion one can arrive at, unless people are absolutely stupid and do not want to think for themselves. Sir, I want to show how the hon. member is now resorting to half truths in an attempt to bolster up a very bad case. First of all, what he has said to-day means that the engineers in Durban who are responsible for the maintenance and the safety of that line are deliberately lying and misleading me and the public and Parliament when they say that that line is perfectly safe. Is that what the hon. member meant? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition still has to speak. I am still waiting for him.

That is not the only alternative and you know it.

There is only one alternative. The hon. member for South Coast says that the line is unsafe and that he has taken further photographs. In other words, the engineers responsible for the safety and the maintenance of that line are deliberately lying. They are misleading me and they are misleading the public.

That is not the only alternative.

On 13th August the engineers of Natal sent the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a telegram. This is what they said …

You had better not say more about that.

I am going to say a great deal about this. If the hon. member wants to deny this, I challenge him to do so. The telegram reads as follows—

That is from the engineers.

What do they know about …

That hon. member had better remain quiet. The hon. member for South Coast says that on 13th August I said that Bantu are not employed as patrolmen. This is again a half truth. Why does the hon. member resort to half truths to bolster up a very weak case? This is a question the hon. member asked me (Hansard, Col. 1719)—

The reply was as follows—

That is what was read out. The reply continued—

Does he know what indunas are? They are Bantu.

I read that myself last time.

The reply continues—

Those Bantu indunas are doing the patrol work. The reply continues—

I gave the hon. member a list of the Bantu who are at present employed, and the dates on which they entered the service. He did not ask me for the names of the Bantu who were employed 20 years ago. I could have given him that. He wanted to know the names of the Bantu employed at present and I gave those names to him. How dare hon. members try to create the impression and mislead this House that I have told an untruth, as their Leader has done? I think it is absolutely shameful. Then the hon. member spoke about the derailment which occurred ten days ago. I was really shocked and amazed that the hon. member should wander so far from the truth as to use a derailment caused by a landslide after excessive rains, as evidence that the line was in a bad condition. Now I challenge him. I am prepared to send an engineer with him again. This is the second invitation I am extending to him. I shall send the engineer with him to see whether that derailment was caused as a result of the bad condition of that line.

Why did you threaten the photographer who wanted to take a photograph?

I did not threaten that photographer away. It was my railway official. He is so fed up with the hon. member and with his press photographers that I do not blame him at all for adopting that attitude.

[Inaudible.]

I gave no instructions to any railwayman not to allow photographers, but they are so sick and fed up of the hon. member’s allegations, which are completely unfounded and do not have a tittle of evidence to support them. And the Press is together with the hon. member trying to mislead the public. In the circumstances I do not blame them in the least for adopting that attitude, to chase photographers away. [Interjections.] The hon. member was there on Sunday once more trying to get more evidence. [Interjections.]

Order!

Here is the telex I received yesterday—

You see, Mr. Chairman, what the hon. member is prepared to resort to. Now I am finished with that hon. member and am waiting for the Leader of the Opposition to prove the charges he made in the Press report.

What are the implications of your remark “Do you see what the hon. member is prepared to resort to?”.

Resorting to untruths to try and bolster up a weak case. That is what I have been explaining to the hon. member.

Where did I resort to an untruth? I challenge that.

The hon. member has been resorting to untruths in regard to …

I say that is a flagrant falsehood on your part.

… the safety of that line. He has resorted to the most blatant untruths. And I charge him with that. I am waiting for the hon. Leader of the Opposition to prove his charges. [Time expired.]

Before I come to the case of the hon. the Minister of Transport, I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister how dissatisfied I am with his defence of the hon. the Minister of Health in so far as the lawsuit connected with Marendaz is concerned. It seems to me that the indefensibility of the position became more apparent the longer the hon. the Prime Minister spoke.

More gossip.

Order!

He asked us to believe that the hon. gentleman was not a director of the company despite his actions from time to time indicating that he was associated with that company. He asked us to believe these things after this matter has been in abeyance for some three months while during that time the whole thing could have been explained so simply by the hon. Minister himself getting up and stating that he was never a director of that company. If he will do that, we shall accept it and the whole thing is finished. What was all this long defence about? It seems to me that the whole situation is now so complicated that the Minister’s credibility is more at issue than ever before— unless he gets up here and tells us himself that he was not a director of that company at any time and that he was not responsible for the statements which led to the laying of the charge.

Now I come to the complaints the hon. the Minister of Transport has about railway matters. His complaint seems to be against a statement I made, a statement which was reported in the Argus. I think we ought to get the facts straight, first of all of what I said. Let me read what I said—

That is what I said. I made reference to this question of resignation because, as hon. members will know, there was at that time a demand in the Government Press that Mr. Mitchell be stripped of his various offices. Why did I make this statement? In the debate in this House on the 5th and 7th August, certain speeches were made by the hon. member for South Coast. Although I was not present during the debate, I read the hon. member’s Hansard and consequently was aware of the contents of the speeches. On Monday, photographs and the report from the Press were shown to me in respect of that particular line Mr. Mitchell referred to. I was asked to comment but before I did so. I got in touch with Mr. Mitchell and was informed by him that the photographs bore out what he had said in Parliament. I also received an indication from him that repair work was being done on the line that Monday. Now, Sir, if there was repair work being done on that line then it means that Mr. Mitchell’s case is proved, quite apart from the photographs. [Interjections.] What now is the gravamen of my charge against the Minister? It is that in the light of Mr. Mitchell’s disclosures, the Minister’s political credibility must be doubted and that he was prepared to play politics when issues affecting the safety of railway users was under discussion. There is also an interesting news item in that report in the Argus. That news item is to the effect that after studying the newspaper report and the photographs in the Sunday Tribune, the Minister had ordered an immediate inspection of the line. Is that correct?

I am going to reply to you.

What is so interesting is that the hon. the Minister had been warned by the hon. member for South Coast of the state of that line the previous week. He stated then that he was satisfied the line was safe. He did not send a man down immediately to inspect it. Oh no, it was only after seeing the photographs that he ordered an immediate inspection by a railway engineer to report to him whether the photographs reflected accurately the state of the track. So the conclusion is obvious that those photographs meant something to that hon. Minister too. They made him realize that he might have been wrong about that line they made him realize that an inquiry had to be made. But on the Friday before those photographs appeared, while he had accepted full responsibility for the safety of the line, then he was not worried about the safety of the line. Then he was happy to play politics, to try to show that there was a difference in the United Party on labour policy. You see, Sir, he was trying to establish that the hon. member for South Coast could not support United Party policy. Sir, he was putting up an extremely poor show in trying to put that case over. To the hon. the Minister the interjections that were made by the hon. member for South Coast in the course of the Minister’s speech meant nothing at all. When in his Third Reading speech the hon. member for South Coast said that he loyally and 100 per cent supported the policy of the United Party, that meant nothing to the hon. the Minister. No, he is going to try to put his own interpretation on words which may have been unfortunately expressed by the hon. member … [Interjections.] regardless of what the hon. member said at the third reading. At the third reading the hon. member says categorically: “I am 100 per cent behind the policy of the United Party.”.

What else could he say?

That meant nothing to the hon. gentleman, especially at Columns 1274 and 1276—

May I ask a question? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has referred to certain expressions of the hon. member for South Coast and he has labelled them “unfortunate”. Will he tell us to which words he was referring when he used those words?

I do not propose to try to analyse the speech of the hon. member for South Coast. The Prime Minister can do that for himself. The hon. member for South Coast has already done it.

I am talking about your words.

I am quite happy. The Prime Minister can use my words. The position is perfectly simple. The hon. the Prime Minister, apparently, and the hon. the Minister of Transport are trying to place a construction on that speech which the hon. member for South Coast believes it is not capable of. Now, it is possible that those words may have been ambiguous, but as far as the hon. member is concerned he put the position straight at the first opportunity and as an honourable man he came to this House and said that he supported the policy of his party 100 per cent. But what has happened? Hon. members opposite are not prepared to accept that and they are going to try to exploit this situation. [Time expired.]

I am sure the hon. member would like to conclude his speech.

I am very grateful to the hon. the Prime Minister. Then what happened? The hon. the Minister and his Deputy went off to the Other Place, and what do we find there? We find in Columns 523, 526 and 527 the hon. the Minister speaking in the Other Place, and what does he say at the top of Column 527? Speaking of the hon. member for South Coast, the Minister himself had made a mistake as to which engineer had been responsible for the inspection; he said that Mr. Mitchell did not innocently make a mistake; he made a deliberate mistake and said that it was his policy. Sir, where did he say that it was his policy? Why is the hon. the Minister now making himself guilty of an untruth? Then, Sir, we find another extraordinary situation. At column 523 of Hansard of the Other Place the Minister is asked directly whether any repair work had been done. He replied—

This was on the Tuesday—

No repair work or maintenance work according to this Minister was done on that line since Friday. But the hon. the Deputy Minister said at column 658, if the hon. the Minister will refer to it. that at one of the points mentioned by Mr. Mitchell, “On Monday, 10th August, an induna put in a few dog spikes at that 57½ mile point.”

That is ordinary maintenance work. [Interjections.]

You see, Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister is now contradicting his own Minister. He says that this is ordinary maintenance work; the Minister said that no maintenance or repair work had been done. Sir, I want to take this a little further, because when the Minister was queried on the question of sending down an engineer to look into the matter, what did he say? He said—

No, Sir, the point was to play politics with what the hon. member for South Coast had said in this House. I believe that the hon. member for South Coast was telling the truth. I believe that that line was as described by him, with rotten sleepers and loose dog spikes and fittings in certain places, and I believe that there was work done on that line before the Tuesday when the hon. the Minister gave us the assurance in the Other Place that it had not been done.

But what was unfortunate about his speech?

Sir, if you look at columns 775 and 778 of the Senate Hansard, what do you find? You find that there was a message from Mr. Mitchell to the effect that “there are scores of new dog spikes already driven into the sleepers where my photos were taken. Old sleepers are being torn up at my No. 2 place and replaced by new sleepers.” That was on Monday the 10th August.

Who said so?

The hon. member for South Coast said so. In addition, Sir, we have Mr. Van Coller, the gentleman who was first a welder and then an engineer, and in respect of whom the Deputy Minister cannot find the papers to show that he worked on the Railways although he seems to have them himself. He reports as to the work that was being inserted at that time. Then we have a Mr. Woolf, himself a qualified engineer, who has a white miner working for him, also reporting work on that line on Monday the 10th.

At 6 o’clock in the morning.

But of course there is work on the line on Mondays; they always work on the line every day.

And that is not maintenance work?

It is ordinary maintenance work.

But the Minister said that there is no maintenance work.

I said that there was always the ordinary maintenance work.

Where did you say that?

Sir, this is what makes it so difficult to deal with this hon. gentleman.

Where did the ballast truck come from?

In column 523 of the Senate Hansard, the hon. Senator wanted to know whether any repair work or any maintenance work had been, done on that line since that Friday. The hon. the Minister’s answer was “no”.

That particular section has not been mentioned yet.

Now, what did we have? We have had an allegation by a public-spirited member of this House that the sleepers and the dog spikes were in his opinion in a state which made the line unsafe. He does not pretend to be an expert; nor do I, but we do expect a serious view in regard to that matter to be taken by the hon. the Minister and we do expect that proper action should be taken by him. What does the Minister do? He brushes the matter aside and all he tries to do is to try and prove that Mr. Mitchell does not support the United Party policy. I will tell hon. members what will be the result of this debate. I will be very grateful for this. The first thing which is going to come out is that Mr. Mitchell is supporting the United Party policy wholeheartedly in all its aspects. The second thing which is going to come out, whether that line is safe or unsafe, is that the hon. the Minister was prepared to play politics with the situation instead of getting down to look into the matter. Then we have a telegram from the engineers which interested me very much. When I received it, I wrote to the General Manager of the Railways, thanking him for passing on the telegram to me and asking him to whom I should acknowledge it. I was rather keen to know who these people were. I was also very keen to see whether their evidence was going to be mentioned by the hon. the Minister or not. I have always understood that it is a principle of our political life that no civil servant should be dragged into disputes of this kind. As I have suspected, the hon. the Minister dragged them in and the statement was read out by the engineers. I want to ask him a further question. If those engineers had said that the line was unsafe and that the hon. the Minister was bluffing us, would he have read it out?

Yes.

The hon. the Minister says “yes, he will”. Does the hon. the Minister think it right that engineers should be involved in a controversy between politicians? Does he think they should be involved, because he is starting a new principle in public life. When we have disputes over the efficiency of any department, we are going to have the evidence of the individual and they will not be penalized for saying that the Government is wrong and they are right. As I see the situation, I was perfectly justified in saying what I did. It seemed to me …

It took you a long time to say it.

My view of this matter is that it seems to me that it is Mr. Schoeman who should resign from his party instead of Mr. Mitchell from his. Another reason is now becoming obvious why it is Mr. Schoeman who should resign and and not Mr. Mitchell. Another reason making the Minister’s resignation obvious is that it is perfectly clear that his labour policy does not coincide with that of the Government. He set out to establish that there is a difference between the United Party policy and the policy of the hon. member for South Coast. If anything has become obvious during this last debate, it is that the labour policy of that hon. Minister and the policy of the Government as had been enunciated by the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday, are completely at variance. I want to say here that that hon. Minister is not the pink-cheeked innocent the hon. the Prime Minister thinks he is.

Mr. Chairman, we waited a long time for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to reply. After we have been prodding him for hours and hours he managed at last to get to his feet, but I have never seen a more pathetic performance by any leader of a party in my long career in this House. [Interjections.] I hope the hon. member will show me the gentlemanly courtesy of listening to me now. I only have ten minutes at my disposal. Let us give a resumé of events as the hon. member has sketched it. The hon. member for South Coast raised this matter for the first time on Wednesday when he spoke about the Bantu who do not have the responsibility to do the patrol work on that line. That was on the Wednesday. When I tackled the hon. member about the matter in my reply, he tried to justify his exhibition on Wednesday by talking about the safety of the line on Friday. That was on the 7th August. On the next day, Saturday, he went to the South Coast with a lot of Press photographers. The Leader of the Opposition said that photographs of the line appeared in newspapers on the Monday morning. As far as I can recollect, no photographs concerning this matter appeared in the newspapers in Cape Town on Monday at all.

I said the Sunday Tribune.

I did not see the Sunday Tribune on that Monday morning. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that he then phoned the hon. member for South Coast, who confirmed that that line was unsafe. That is what it amounts to. Then the Leader of the Opposition immediately, without controlling his facts and without taking the trouble to see whether he could substantiate his allegations, gave an interview to the Argus, which he read here, in which he called upon me to resign. Now he is trying to justify that. I am amazed that he should have the impertinence to try to justify one of the greatest stupidities he has ever been guilty of. What I want to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition concerns a telegram I received from the engineering staff. It was quite unsolicited and I was as surprised as the hon. Leader of the Opposition was to receive this telegram. He also received a copy. No pressure was brought to bear on the engineering staff; they sent this telegram to me and to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition quite unsolicited. This is the telegram I read out a few minutes ago. The Leader of the Opposition must now say whether he maintains that the engineers who are responsible for the safety and maintenance of that line are telling deliberate untruths and are deceiving the public? He owes it to them to say how he feels about the matter. He says I draw the officials into politics. I did not do that. This telegram was unsolicited. If they sent a telegram to say that Mr. Mitchell was quite correct, I would have read it out in the House too. I am not afraid to stand by my standpoint. Hon. members know that. I have never run away from a standpoint I have adopted in regard to any matter.

Except your labour policy.

I will not reply to that hon. member. It is not worthwhile. I want to know from the Leader of the Opposition if he, in the light of his statement that I am playing politics with the safety of that railway line, accuses the engineers who are responsible for the safety and maintenance of that railway line that they are deliberately misleading, that they are perpetrating a fraud, that they are lying to me, the House, and the public? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition says? What I say is that the hon. Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for South Coast and the Press who are supporting him, perpetrated a deliberate fraud in regard to those four photographs. They took photographs in connection with ordinary maintenance of that line, in some instances 45 miles away from the place in question.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, can the hon. the Minister say that the hon. member for South Coast perpetrated a deliberate fraud?

The hon. the Minister must withdraw that.

Very well, I withdraw that in regard to the hon. member for South Coast but I cannot withdraw it in regard to the newspapers.

You called them in as a witness.

I did not call them in as a witness. That hon. member is always barking up the wrong tree. He reminds me of a “brakkie wat, as ’n groot hond blaf, altyd saamblaf”. I am speaking about these particular newspapers and I say that they perpetrated a deliberate fraud in publishing photographs not only of the spot where the hon. member took out that spike, but photographs of the line up to 40 miles away where railwaymen were off-loading ballast, busy with ordinary maintenance duties on the railway line, duties that are continually performed there.

There were four photographs in the Sunday Tribune of the particular spot.

The photographs of the ballast being unloaded was at Illovo, miles and miles away from the spot the hon. member spoke about. He knows that. He said he was not responsible for that. But why did he then take the photographers with him? The fact remains that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is trying to protect that hon. member. The least one expects from a Leader of the Opposition is to have the elementary decency to admit when he has made a mistake.

What mistake did he make?

When he accused me of playing politics with the safety of a railway line. That was a deliberate and uncalled for allegation. He should reply and apologize.

He did reply.

Did he apologize?

No, I said he did reply.

I think he should also apologize. I want to say that the Leader of the Opposition’s integrity and credibility are now at stake, not mine. The hon. Leader of the Opposition should stand up and say whether he accuses the engineers who are responsible for the maintenance, the repair and the safety of that line of deliberately lying. If he says that, I can accept it and we can deal with that matter further. But if he is not prepared to say that, if he accepts the honesty, the ability and the competence of those engineers who are responsible for that line, he must repudiate the hon. member for South Coast, and apologize. He has either one choice or the other. That is the position now before the hon. the Leader.

Mr. Chairman, when I was speaking, in my haste I did not read the letter from the General Manager of the Railways to me. When I asked to whom I acknowledged this particular telegram sent to me from the engineers, I was told that no further acknowledgement was necessary. Why are these people to be kept anonymous?

Are you suggesting this telegram is a fake?

No, Sir. I am not suggesting it is a fake.

Well, that is the innuendo.

It is not the innuendo, either. What I want to know is, why am I not allowed to know who they are?

Of course you are allowed to know their names. I will tell the hon. member now who they are.

The hon. gentleman can make his own speech.

No, I will tell you now who those engineers are. They are the engineers stationed at Durban who are responsible for the safety and the maintenance of that railway line. Is that sufficient now?

Who are they?

It is very easy to find out who they are. If you want their names, I can get them. I might say they are both English-speaking engineers, too. The one’s name is Townsend, if you care to know.

Has the Minister now finished?

Pardon?

May I now make my speech?

You may continue.

I said this hon. Minister was playing politics. Of course he was playing politics. He went down to the Other Place and spoke about Mr. Mitchell having said it was his policy.

But it is his policy.

We challenged him twice to show where Mr. Mitchell mentioned the word ‘policy’. He cannot show us. He knows it is not there. That is number one. Number two, if the hon. Minister tells us that there was no maintenance or repair work being done on that line, his own Deputy tells us that there was maintenance work being done. There are three witnesses who say there was maintenance or repair work being done on that line on that Monday. Why did the Minister give us an assurance if he was not sure? Or was he telling us an untruth? why is he so reticent on this subject?

There has been a derailment on that line. This makes this matter even more important. The hon. gentleman says it is due to a landslide, to a wash away, and things of that kind.

It is due to excessive rains, yes. Did you see the line?

I am not challenging the Minister.

Have you been there?

I have not been there to see the line. Of course I have not been there. I do not think the Minister has. I am sure he has not. He was not interested in that. What he was interested in, was trying to make a little political capital. Now what he is trying to do, is to come here and say I must call his engineers liars. Of course, I am not going to call them liars.

You are calling them liars.

I have never for one moment suggested that. But what I have suggested, is that there are degrees of safety. I say in that statement that we must have different ideas about safety. As far as I am concerned, where the public is concerned, I would like to see that safety absolute.

Do you mean that the engineers’ degree of safety is too low?

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to sit down any time the Minister wants to speak. I am not prepared to conduct a dialogue.

All that I want is for the hon. member to be specific. He says that there are degrees of safety. Does he mean that the degree maintained by the Railway engineers at Durban is a lower degree than he would suggest it should be?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister wants to know what I mean by degrees of safety. Of course there are degrees of safety. There is a speed limit on that line of 35 miles per hour.

That has always been there.

Is that one of the safest lines in South Africa?

Yes …

If that speed limit is observed, yes, but it is not the best line in South Africa and the Minister knows it. He knows that the report of his own engineers stated that many of those sleepers were nearing the end of their lives. What is more, he knows that his own engineers report that many of those sleepers have to be replaced.

But the line is still safe.

The hon. the Minister says it is still safe. If his engineers give him that assurance, I am not prepared to argue with them, but I say that this must be a very border-line case. I go further. When a case like this is brought to the notice of this Minister, one expects him to take action at once, and not try to play politics regarding a matter which concerns the safety of the public of South Africa.

Sir, I have said all I want to say on this issue. I do not propose to take it any further. I want to raise another matter with the hon. the Prime Minister. In a previous debate in this House the hon. the Prime Minister made a remark in which he accused the hon. member for Newton Park of saying that he had told a blatant lie.

Yes, I shall come to that.

I shall be glad if the hon. the Prime Minister will, because the point I want to make very clearly is that I do not believe that that is a parliamentary expression. I was given to understand that when this question was raised with Mr. Speaker on more than one occasion, the hon. the Prime Minister said that he would deal with this matter at the commencement of the debate on his Vote.

I mentioned it and said that at the appropriate time I would deal with it. If you look at my speech you will find it there.

The hon. gentleman said that he has mentioned it and that he proposed to justify it.

Yes.

Sir, so far we have heard nothing. What I want to know is: Is there one set of rules for the Prime Minister and another for the House?

There is only one set of rules for all of us and I shall deal with it.

Very well, Sir. I shall be very glad to hear the Prime Minister on this point.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member in passing referred to the hon. member for South Coast’s five-minute speech and used words to the effect that the hon. member had expressed himself unfortunately. I asked him a simple question, namely to which paragraphs or sentences he was referring when he used that expression. Of course, as is usual, I received no answer from him at all.

He did reply.

No, Sir. He did not reply. The point is that the hon. member went further. He said that as far as the hon. member for South Coast was concerned, he never laid down policy at all.

He never mentioned policy.

He never mentioned policy. That is very interesting, because not only did the hon. member for South Coast lay down policy, but he actually used the word “policy”. I shall read it from the hon. member’s Hansard speech. I shall do so immediately. The hon. member for South Coast attacked the hon. Minister and used these words (Hansard, column 1118)—

If we have a manpower shortage and we are to change our manpower policy …

There is the first use of the word “policy”. The hon. member said—

If we have a manpower shortage and we are to change our manpower policy, let us start with the Minister. I am not concerned with the people lower down. The officials can handle a job. What is wrong is the Minister and his policy at the top. There are white men available.

That is what is wrong with the Minister’s policy. He does not employ those white men that are available.

I did not say that. When you stop quoting, will you make it clear that you are not quoting any longer?

Sir, I am reading from the hon. member’s Hansard.

What you have just said is not from my Hansard.

Well, Sir, that is what I have here. I have the official copy of Hansard here. Before it was published I asked for that Hansard. This is what was given to me.

Would the hon. the Prime Minister be kind enough to read the last piece again?

Sir, I am reading from page Z.4, dated the 5th August. It is an unrevised copy of Hansard, as it was taken down.

The hon. member can find it in column 1118 of the printed Hansard.

The hon. member does not know what he said, Sir. If I may be allowed to continue, the hon. member said this …

There is just one passage the hon. Prime Minister read towards the end. May we have that again please?

Yes, I will start right from the top—

Have you got it now?

No, that’s right.

That is exactly what I have been reading. I shall continue—

I shall repeat it—

So, what did the hon. member do? He spoke twice of the policy of the hon. the Minister, and that policy was that the hon. the Minister was employing Black men where white men were available. He was not using the white men. After the hon. member had debunked the policy of this hon. Minister and told us that that policy is so wrong that we must have another Minister in order to reverse the policy of this hon. Minister, he goes on to say this—and in due course I will be very pleased to hear the hon. Leader of the Opposition’s view, even if it takes him till tomorrow to reply. I am in no hurry, and I know that as far as the hon. member is concerned. you ask him a question to-day and he replies to-morrow. I can wait for his reply. He goes on to lay down his policy, and I put it to the hon. Leader of the Opposition and to the hon. member for South Coast. He goes on to enunciate his policy as follows—

Any one, Sir. If words have any meaning at all then what the hon. member says is very clear—

In other words, you can take the best and most responsible of them, but you dare not give them this job.

The word “any” is not there.

This is what it says here—

This is no job where you can place the responsibility on the shoulders of one of our Bantu people … [Interjections.]

What does that mean? It simply means that the most responsible of them, the best of them and the most respectable of them cannot be entrusted to do that job.

The best of them in the previous paragraph which you have not read. [Interjections.]

It has nothing to do with the previous paragraph whatsoever.

Of course it has. You are taking it out of its context.

My deduction is, and I make the statement, that the hon. member for South Coast was laying down policy. I was amused hearing the hon. Leader of the Opposition saying that the hon. member for South Coast subscribed to United Party policy. But that is not the point. The point is, does the Leader of the Opposition subscribe to the policy of the hon. member for South Coast? That is the point. The hon. member was laying down policy. He said further: “That responsibility is too great”. He went on to say that if an accident occurred as a result of spread rails on that railway line, he would blame the Government. He then asked, in connection with these Bantu—

Are they watching, as a white man would be watching, the precise positions of all those sleepers? No, Sir, they are not. They have not yet reached the stage where they can carry that responsibility.

Go on! Do not stop there.

I shall go on with pleasure. The hon. member continued—

And he does that because he says the policy of the Minister is wrong.

Go on!

The hon. member said—

These Bantu.

There again it is a question of policy. He blames the Minister for adopting a policy of taking these people in.

These Bantu.

Then the hon. member went on to say, and let him wriggle out of this—

Sir, the inference is irresistible that this job is too responsible for the most respectable and responsible and for the best of our Bantu. That is the only one inference one can draw from this. But I shall leave the hon. member there. I have now read out what the hon. member for South Coast said and it will be extremely interesting if the hon. Leader of the Opposition could tell us, if he can find time before this debate ends, which of those words and sentences were unfortunately expressed by the hon. member for South Coast.

*I shall now leave this matter at that because, while I am on my feet, I want to proceed to other matters. Further to the debate we have had on the policy of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the policy of the hon. member for South Coast, I now want to deal with certain other matters of policy. But before doing so, I want to refer again, in case I perhaps forget to do so before the time for this debate expires, to a matter to which I did refer earlier on, a matter to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also referred when he started speaking. I am referring here to the decision taken by the World Council of Churches and to the strange, to put it very mildly, reaction which came from the member churches of the World Council here in South Africa. In the press statement I issued, I said that this matter could not be left at that. Nor is it, therefore, my intention to leave it at that. I made an appeal to member churches to come to their senses, and I want to afford them every opportunity in order that the members of those churches may express their views on this matter. I do not want to leave it in the hands of leaders alone, but because churches are involved here and because I have respect for all churches, I want to afford the church members, the managing bodies, the church councils of the various churches every opportunity for taking action in this regard. But I want to make the matter very clear, and as far as this is concerned, I believe that I shall also have the full co-operation of the Opposition. I am pleased that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has indicated that he will lend me his co-operation in that regard. If they do not decide to dissociate themselves from this organization, I would be neglecting my duty as the head of the Government if I did not take action against them, if I allowed more money to be collected in South Africa for transmission to that organization, if I allowed churches which are members of the World Council of Churches, and wish to remain members, to send representatives to conferences of that body, and if I failed to take action—and here I am speaking in the full realization of my responsibility— against clergymen who allow pamphlets, such as that to which I shall refer in a moment, or pamphlets with a similar tenor, to be distributed at their churches on Sundays. Last Sunday night a pamphlet was distributed in the Anglican Church at Stellenbosch. This pamphlet, under the heading “Money for Terrorists”, reads, inter alia, as follows—

I have only read part of that pamphlet, but here it states that one has to choose between, on the one hand, violence and the murder of innocent women and children which it implies, and, on the other hand, the South African way of life. They say that the South African way of life, which is not only my way of life but also that of hon. members opposite, is the greater evil, and then the implications arising from that are clear. I say that the clergyman concerned, or one of the clergymen concerned—I do not know how many there are—at that particular congregation is a person who is enjoying the temporary hospitality of South Africa; he is here on a temporary permit. His time has run out. There can be no doubt about that. I want to say this now, and I say it in the full realization of my responsibility: We have others here who have come to South Africa with the same motives, and if in the time that lies ahead hon. members see people being sent out of the country, they must know why it is being done. Then representations to the effect that they are such good Christians who are doing such good work here in South Africa, must not be made to me. I say that I have the greatest respect for any church, because I love and respect my own church. May the Good Lord save me from ever taking or having to take action against any church! This is not something one wants to do. Nor is this what is involved here, but what is in fact involved here is certain individuals with whom communism and the downfall of South Africa weigh much more heavily than does the preaching of the eternal Word of God amongst us sinners here in South Africa. I shall leave that aspect of the matter at that.

But before I proceed to the next point, I want to say that this contribution, this support given to terrorists, is not a new thing. This is not something which only took place yesterday or the day before, it is a matter which has been under discussion for a very long time. Last year already it was under discussion in the Netherlands, where a meeting was held and where Mr. Beyers Naudé of South Africa was present. He owes South Africa an explanation of what was discussed there and what his share was in regard to that discussion. And when this Dr. Blake was here a week or so ago, he was already aware of this decision that was taken. He had talks with, inter alia, the Executive Council (Moderatuur) of our Church, and he did not say a word about it to them. This is now one Christian as against another Christian. And this in spite of the fact that this aspect of the matter was raised; moreover, the gentleman concerned had the temerity to insist on two occasions that I see him, as he was terribly concerned about good relations with South Africa. Now I am very grateful, because I knew what they were engaged in doing, for having told him straight out that I did not want to see him and why I would not see him.

We are aware of what has been done and said by South Africa’s enemies over the past number of years. We are aware of the way in which a conference has just been held in Lusaka again. We are aware that this was the third conference of the so-called uncommitted countries that took place there. I do not intend to discuss the implications of that congress straight away; there will be another opportunity for doing so. But I do think that I owe it to hon. members to say that one of the reasons why the congress was held in Lusaka was this. Now, I want to say at once that there are many African states which are not associated with it and which will not or do not want to be associated with it either, but the inner circle is composed of those who are inclined towards communism, in spite of their non-alignment, which they emphasize, and they passed a certain resolution quite some time ago. The first two Secretaries-General, Trygve Lie and Dag Hammarskjôld, were Whites; I do not remember who the third one was. Then U Thant came along. They believe that the time has now arrived for a Black man to become the Secretary-General of the U.N. They have been searching assiduously; in former years already they had ambitions in this direction, and now it has been decided that Kaunda of Zambia will become the next Secretary-General of the U.N. I do not think it is necessary for me to make any comment in this regard. I can picture to myself a U.N. with Dr. Kaunda as its Secretary-General. I think the world has no illusions as to what will become of the U.N. But as far as I am concerned, it is a question of the lion which entered the mother-in-law’s tent and the son-in-law’s reaction to it; that is precisely what my reaction is.

That brings me, Sir, to relations between us here locally, us as Whites and our Black people, and between South Africa as a white state and the Black states surrounding us. Hon. members are aware that it is our policy to enter, wherever it is possible, into friendly relations with black states. We have not merely said this; we have also confirmed this in practice, and that policy will be implemented further in practice. When, shortly after I had become Prime Minister, I had the privilege to be the guest of my colleague Minister Botha at a military parade, I pointed out that we had no ambitions whatsoever of ever attacking any of the Black states, because it was contrary to our policy, because it ran counter to the course of our history to impute such ambitions to us, and because, if there are people who want to look for such motives, they in any case did not have anything which we wanted. On another occasion, at Rustenburg, I said, when Kaunda had made the absurd claim that we wanted to attack him, that he had nothing which we wanted and that the only thing we expected from him was that he should govern his country in such a manner that it was in the best interests of his own people, for if Zambia was governed well, it would be to the advantage of Southern Africa, in which we are intensely concerned.

In regard to the arms sales to South Africa by other countries—the names are not relevant here—there are those who are ill-disposed towards us and who are continually proclaiming from the rooftops that it is our intention to use those arms not only for oppressing Black people in South Africa, but also for invading and oppressing Black states. Zambia and Tanzania, for instance, were mentioned as examples. Ostensibly we shall, by means of these arms, attack and oppress the Black states. I understand that in the British House of Lords a high-born lord reportedly mentioned the rivers in which we would use submarines in order to carry out this devilish work. I want to make it clear once and for all that if this were our intention, and now I do not want to be misunderstood, to oppress Black people here in South Africa by force of arms, and if it were our intention to attack Black states situated close to us, we would not even need a tickey’s worth of gunpowder from any overseas country to be able to do so. We can manufacture all the arms for that purpose here in South Africa, and we do in fact manufacture them. For that purpose, therefore, we do not need these, but we have reached the stage where, on behalf of South Africa, I must in this Parliament tell the world now that we are not asking for arms for the purpose of attacking Black people locally or any other people locally or any other state, but we are only asking for arms because we see the communist threat unfurling before our eyes in this part of the world, and not only because we want to arm ourselves so that we may protect ourselves against the onslaughts from outside, but also because we have the interests of the free world at heart. In spite of that undertaking, the reproach is still being levelled constantly—and hon. members will be astonished to hear by what people, people who ought to be informed—that we are merely throwing up a smokescreen because we do want to use those arms for the purpose of attacking Black people and Black states in Africa. Long ago, when I was the guest of my friend here, I said that the people in our black states were the most fortunate people in the world because there was no need for them to spend a cent on armament in their Budgets and because they knew that we would not attack them and that they had nothing to fear from us. In spite of everything we said and in spite of the fact that one expects these people to know better, this has still not found acceptance in certain circles, and because I am aware of that, I want to say on behalf of this hon. House and on behalf of our country to-day that I am prepared to enter into a non-aggression pact with any Black state, irrespective of whether they are our immediate neighbours or Black states further up, such as Tanzania, Zambia and other states in Africa. I am prepared to enter into a non-aggression pact in terms of which we shall not attack them, and I hope that this story will now come to an end. I am also prepared to take the initiative in that regard.

†I am prepared to enter into a non-aggression pact with all neighbouring countries as well as with other countries in Africa. I want to make that clearly understood. Having said this and having declared myself prepared to take the initiative, I do hope that the ill-informed and scandalous stories about South Africa’s aims and objects will cease.

*It must be very clearly understood that there are two things which we in South Africa will not tolerate. The first thing we shall not tolerate, is communist domination in Southern Africa. We shall rise against it and oppose it with all the means at our disposal. We thank God that these means are not slender at the present moment. But we shall resist communist aggression with everything in our power. The second thing is that we shall fight terrorism, and to-day I want to repeat the policy standpoint of the Government. We shall fight terrorism, not only in our own country, but also in any other country in Africa where the Government requests us to do so. Let there be no doubt about that. There is another matter about which there must be no doubt either. We see how matters are building up and the resolutions being passed at the conference of the so-called uncommitted countries. We see the moral support they are receiving from churchmen, as we also witnessed again with shock in recent times. We are aware that problems in this regard will not arise tomorrow or the day after, but that, on a larger scale than has ever been the case before, these people are building up forces to be used against South Africa later on. We are aware of what is happening in that regard. Therefore, I am not saying this in order to cause hon. members to become panicky, but I am merely referring to what is being prepared for the future. A great many of their plans have miscarried, but we must take into account that these plans may succeed. If these plans are in fact carried out, I want to say here to-day with all the responsibility I can muster that, if these plans which are being laid against South Africa on such a large scale and if the proposed build-up of terrorist forces become a reality and if terrorists were to invade South Africa from certain countries with the permission of those countries, we shall resist them. If they take to flight we shall chase them, and we shall do so right into those countries from which they came. Since I spoke slowly, I hope that my words will be conveyed outside exactly as I used them here this afternoon.

I started by saying that we have a policy of seeking friendship with African states, and that we shall develop it further. However, we are not only concerned with developing relations with other African states. In time to come it will be of cardinal importance to us to preserve good relations here in South Africa. Let none of us, whether we are National Party or United Party supporters or whether we are one or two Progressive supporters, have any illusions about the fact that good race relations will be of cardinal importance to us in time to come. I think that we may very profitably devote the rest of this discussion, because this matter is of such cardinal importance, to an exchange of views on this matter. I think it is not only a good thing for me to state my views on the matter, but also a good thing for the Leader of the Opposition to state his.

I want to start with myself. With the experience I have gained over the years, I set myself the task four years ago—the day before yesterday it was four years since I assumed this office—not only of promoting those good relations, but also of bringing myself to a close account of precisely how it must be done and in terms of what policy. I am sorry that I am now going to take up hon. members’ time for a rather long while, but, in view of the importance of the subject involved here, I do not think that there is any need to apologize for doing so. As I stand here before you this afternoon, I am taking an unshakeable stand on the policy of separate development, because it is, to my mind, the only policy which is going to make it possible for South Africa’s people of various colours, languages, religious convictions, outlooks and originating from various parts of the world, to lead a peaceful existence here. I am very much aware of the fact that there is hardly any policy in the world which has been so attacked, disparaged and made to look as suspect as this very policy. I am aware of the hatred and the antipathy existing in the world in respect of this policy. With few exceptions, I do not think, without being conceited, that there is an hon. member in this House who has had more talks on this matter than I have had. I do not think there is any policy which has been more misunderstood, owing to the false propaganda made about it over a period of years, false propaganda made on purpose, not only in the outside world, but also by South African authors here from South Africa. In saying this, I do not want to suggest that we on our part have not made mistakes here and there either, for we are all human. I readily grant that. But the mistakes which we made on our part, are not responsible for one per cent of that misunderstanding which prevails in regard to this matter.

Let me make this very clear to the outside world once again, for in the main this is what I am discussing this afternoon, that when I talk about separate development, and about the philosophy on which it is founded, I must, first of all, show what it is not. Then I want to repeat, because I was very much in earnest, the first words I said when I assumed this office four years ago. I said that separate development was not the denial of human dignity, and I added to that: “Nor is it so intended.” One must be realistic and realize that there are people who unfortunately see this in separate development, but any person who sees this in separate development, sees it wrongly. I want to state further what it is not. I do not base my policy on the premise that I think I am better than another person is. Who am I? A creature of God, just as he is. Shall I presume to say that I am better than he is? For that reason I do not deny his human dignity and for that reason I do not pride myself on being better than he is. Nor do I found my policy on the fact that for the present I may perhaps be more learned than he is, for in the long run he may become just as learned as and perhaps more learned than I am. Who am I to pride myself on that? There were coloured states which already had gunpowder when my ancestors were still crawling about in holes. Why then would I pride myself on that and accept it as the basis of my policy? Nor do I rely on the fact that for the present we are richer than the coloured peoples are. Wealth is transient, and what is acquired by the one to-day, can be acquired by the other one to-morrow and can be lost by the other one. Therefore, this is not my philosophic basis.

What is fundamental to my policy, is the following: I believe that the Whites, the Afrikaners and the English-speaking people, have a right here in South Africa. They are not colonialists. They are people whose roots are here in this country legitimately. This holds good for Afrikaners and English-speaking people alike. The land which belongs to them, belongs to them legitimately, because they did not rob or steal it from anybody. I believe that they have the right to maintain themselves as white people and to preserve their identity as white people. This is their right. That right which I claim for myself, i.e. that of being a white person, I also grant to every non-white people living here, to be itself. For the sake of the record and those who are so fond of attacking us—not only me, but also that side of the House—I want to say that black people have gone to prison in South Africa. Many black people have already gone to prison, but, upon my word of honour, under this Government or any other Government here in South Africa, whoever they may have been, a black Zulu has never been imprisoned for having said: “I want to be a good Zulu.” Never has a Xhosa been imprisoned for having said: “I want to be a good Xhosa.” Never has a black man landed in trouble for having said: “I want to be myself. I want to build my nation. I want to serve it.”

Our accusers say that people have been imprisoned here in South Africa for having wanted to be themselves. This has happened in Cyprus, Malawi and even in Zambia. I am referring now to the old régime, when President Banda was imprisoned for demanding self-determination for Malawi. Here in South Africa a Bantu person has never landed in trouble for having requested and demanded self-determination for his people. On the contrary; we are in fact guiding them along the road to self-determination; we are in fact educating them into being mature enough for self-determination: we are in the process of training them and making them and their land receptive to self-determination. If hon. members or the outside world ask me when it will happen that they follow their own course, I can merely reply once again that this Parliament has passed certain legislation and that any black state is free to come to this Parliament and say that its time has arrived and that it wants to follow its own course. This Government, or whatever other Government may be in power, will deliberate and negotiate with that state. As there are dozens of matters to which consideration will have to be given, those talks will probably have to be held over very long periods. There are channels of communication and there are numerous other matters which will have to be discussed. One cannot mention all of them in the space of a speech made in the House of Assembly. But this does not affect the principle.

I want to make the principle very clear. It is that if there is a desire to hold discussions, we shall be obliged and ready to hold discussions on that matter. From the nature of the case we would rather see that these are deferred until more development has taken place in those black states so that they may be more viable for the fact that they will have to stand on their own feet. But it is by no means my intention to make it a condition that they must be viable before they have that right to approach us. This is an inalienable right which they have to exercise tomorrow if they want to do so. I hope that I have now disposed of this aspect of the matter. If there is anything which is not clear. I shall gladly reply to it. This is the road which I am indicating for the black people, because I as a white man demand for myself the right to preserve my Whiteness.

In the second place, I am pursuing this policy because it is necessary for our continued existence—and it does not matter what political party we belong to—that friction be restricted to a minimum. There has to be contact. I again want to make it very clear that there is more contact under this Government, in the right manner, than there has ever been before. This holds good for myself and all the Ministers and officials and others who are involved in the matter. We all know what friction is and what friction can do. Friction has to be restricted to a minimum.

I want to tell you, Sir, and the world outside what we envisage with every measure we take. Whether or not hon. members agree with it, whether or not it is always correct, does not matter. Whether or not it achieves its object, does not matter either. The underlying motive is honest, and that is that through that measure we should like to eliminate friction. Any measure which is merely aimed at hurting, wounding, forcing down or oppressing a person of a different skin colour, is wrong in princiole. It is wrong in principle, unambiguously wrong—and I say this here with emphasis. The philosophy underlying my policy is not only that I want to eliminate friction and that I want to preserve my own identity; I also want to create chances and opportunities for people of a different skin colour, opportunities which, this is what I believe in my heart, cannot be created under any other policy, and cannot possibly be created under any other policy.

This being so, we on this side of the House stand for the policy that the homelands should be guided towards maturity so that they may stand on their own feet; for this reason this side of the House believes in the right of self-determination for those homelands; for this reason this side of the House believes that it will be wrong in principle to bring the black man into this Parliament either directly or indirectly: for this reason this House proceeded to abolishing Indian representation in this House, representation which was made possible by that side of the House; for this reason this side of the House went all the way by also abolishing representation of Coloured people by Whites in this House. We have established alternative machinery for them; we have placed them on a road of their own. You heard me saying that I could not see the end of that road yet. I am not the only one who said that—my predecessor also said so and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has also said so on occasion.

But then it was abused by people who said that I did not have any policy, that I did not know what the policy should be and that our children would have to decide what policy would have to be pursued. I indicated the policy and said that the development had to be away from each other and not towards each other—each on his own road, whatever the end of that road may be. We are not static; everything develops as the years go by. If necessary, I shall come back to this matter again.

Whereas this is the basis of my policy— and I have tried to state this in as short a time as possible—and whereas I believe in separate residential areas, just as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says he does, and whereas the Leader of the Opposition also accepts the principle of separate Voters’ Rolls now, there are two questions which I want to put to him in the first instance. How often have I not heard him and his lieutenants saying that they will repeal the Group Areas Act in the event of their coming into power! In this regard I want to put an elementary question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: How can you have separate residential areas—something for which you say you stand —if vou do not have a Group Areas Act to establish those separate residential areas? Otherwise I do not understand it. The Leader of the Opposition attacked the Population Registration Act in season and out and cast suspicion on it. But how can he have separate Voters’ Rolls for Whites, Bantu, Coloureds and Indians if he cannot say who is a Bantu, who is an Indian, who is a Coloured person and who is a white person? If one does not classify them, how can one have separate Voters’ Rolls?

What about South-West?

South-West is a small province. There one could perhaps arrange it administratively, but can one arrange it in this complex South Africa?

We arranged it.

Oh, Sir, in the past we had the Coloureds on the common Voters’ Roll and we argued about whether they could read or write; we argued about whether or not they could sign their names. [Interjection.] We can argue this out. I say it is impossible. There will be many hon. members here who will be able to argue about it profitably, but, as I have already taken up a great deal of time, I do not want to allow myself to be tempted now into discussing this matter with hon. members.

But in all fairness I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a few questions, to which I hope he will give me replies. Since I have now stated the philosophic basis of my policy, I am not only interested in them as a politician, but also because his replies will tell me how he feels about this question of friction in the future. I adopt the attitude, as I have in fact done, that Black people will be represented here neither directly nor indirectly. The hon. the Leader says that he will give the Black people eight representatives, but they will be Whites. He will give the Indians two, and they will be Whites. He will give the Coloureds six, and they can be either Coloureds or Whites. I do not want to say anything to-day about the implications of that or what hon. members have to say about it. For the moment I am interested only in the philosophic approach of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I may not forget this either; I must argue another matter with him, i.e. nationhood. But before coming to that, I want to put this question to the hon. the Leader. If the hon. the Leader says that it is good and right that the Bantu should be represented here but that he should be represented by Whites, on what grounds does he say that? Does he say it on account of the fact that they are Black people and Indians? This is very important. They may not come here; one gives them eight representatives, and does one deny them the right to have Black or Indian representatives merely because they are Black or Indian people? It is important to know this. Secondly, it is important to me to know why one adopts an attitude like that. Does one adopt that attitude because one says that the Indians and the Bantu are too undeveloped to represent their own people here themselves? Thirdly, does one adopt the attitude of saying that one does not begrudge them representation and it is good and right that they are good, but they may not be Black or Indian people because they are too irresponsible to exercise those rights here themselves? It is important to know what the philosophic basis is. And, fourthly, does one merely say this because one first wants to soften up these people to this idea and that one is later on going to do this after all? These are the four matters of which I was thinking. I am obliged to put these questions to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as a result of the attitude adopted by him in contrast with the attitude adopted by us, i.e. that the nation to which we are referring, is the nation which is being built out of Afrikaners and English-speaking people here in South Africa. We have made a great deal of progress along that road, and I am grateful for the fact that I myself have played a role in that regard.

But while I am dealing with that point, I once again want to make a very urgent appeal to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. His defence in the debate on the motion of censure was not good enough. One of the factors which is an obstacle to our becoming a nation, composed of Afrikaners and English-speaking people, is disregard of language and language rights. Sir, one hurts a person terribly, irrespective of whether he is an Afrikaner or an English-speaking person, by disregarding his right to his language. The hon. member for South Coast will recall my saying to him on a previous occasion that if he knew about any instance where my people were hurting his people in that regard, I would take it amiss of him if he did not tell me about it; in such cases I shall take action against it, for it is absolutely and undeniably wrong. I am taking a very strong stand on that matter. I want to say this to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and to the hon. member for South Coast:

†So as not to be misunderstood let me put it this way to the hon. member for South Coast: It has happened in the past in Natal, where the United Party has the majority in the Provincial Council, that M.E.C.s have been elected who cannot speak or understand Afrikaans. It has happened that Afrikaans delegations who went to see members of the Executive Committee could not be understood by members of that Executive Committee, so I am told. Sir, that is not good enough for the year 1970. If there is any Minister on my side who is not able to speak in English to members of deputations and to understand them when they speak to him in English, then he will not remain in this Cabinet for one single moment. If there are members of the Executive Committee in the Nationalist provinces who likewise do not understand English and cannot speak English and consequently cannot receive an English-speaking deputation, I will see to it, if it is brought to my notice, that such an M.E.C. is removed because no man has the right in this country to take up that position unless he can serve the peoples of this country in both languages. There is a provincial council election in the offing, Sir, and I am told that it is possible—I am not putting it any higher than that, and I want the hon. member for South Coast to understand that very clearly—whereas three ME.C.s are not standing again that ME.C.s may be elected who do not understand or speak Afrikaans. I hope I have been wrongly informed. Not only do I hope that I have been wrongly informed, but I do hope that we will get the assurance to-day from the hon. member for South Coast, in spite of our differences over dog spikes and everything else, that that will not happen.

In what capacity?

As leader of the party in Natal.

He does not elect them.

I know he does not elect them, but surely he can call upon his people not to do so. He has a say over them; he is their leader; he is the leader of Natal.

He is the chairman of the party in Natal.

Sir, according to that hon. member the United Party has no leader in Natal, but they have a chairman, and I do hope that the chairman will call upon the electorate, who are the Provincial Council members, to remember please that there are Afrikaners and English-speaking people in Natal. He should remind them that they are taking a public office and therefore they must be able to receive Afrikaans-speaking deputations and what is more they should be able to speak back to them. That is common courtesy. I can understand the argument that older people are out. but we live in the year 1970 and young people are coming forward as members of the provincial council. I hope that the hon. member will give us that undertaking. I know he cannot bind his caucus and I do not know how much say he has over them, but surely he is the chairman and therefore I hope he will take it upon himself to do so. In doing so he will not only do himself a service, but he will also do South Africa a great service. This will contribute to the common cause of nation building and in spite of the fact that his point of view of nation building is different from mine, the fact remains he wants to build a nation and I want to build a nation. If he calls upon his people to take the Afrikaans-speaking people’s feelings into account, just as I will say to my people they must take into account the feelings of the English-speaking people in South Africa, he will serve his own cause as well as mine.

I leave it at that, because before I sit down I want to say that there is a difference in philosophical outlook between my hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, and myself. I believe in separate freedoms and I believe we are a multi-national country, while the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, whatever his protests may be, believes in one nation, a nation not only consisting of Afrikaners and English-speaking people, but also of Coloureds, Indians and Blacks. I do not want to take up unnecessarily the time of the House, but I want to quote one statement which was made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in order to illustrate my own point of view. I have other quotations which I can mention, if and when it is necessary, but I will only mention this one. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said the following on the 8th June, 1961, when we discussed the same matters in Parliament, and I quote from column 7559—

That is the hon. Leader of the Opposition’s standpoint. It differs from mine and I think we can discuss this matter.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask for the privilege of the half hour?

The speech of the hon. the Prime Minister can be divided into several parts. Firstly he dealt with foreign relations, expressing particularly our relations with non-white states developing on our borders and elsewhere in Africa. He emphasized his friendliness towards them and the fact that we have no aggressive intentions. He then went on to say that we would resist Communist aggression wherever it showed its head and terrorist infiltration wherever we were allowed to in Africa. We on this side of the House have supported that view before and have no difference on that issue. The Prime Minister went a little further to-day and said that if the forces ranged against South Africa built up in neighbouring states and we were attacked by terrorists from those states, we would resist them and if they fled would have no hesitation in pursuing them into neighbouring states. This is something we have waited for for some time and the Government can be assured of our support in this regard.

Then the hon. gentleman went on to a discussion of the policy of his side of the House in respect of race relations in South Africa. He outlined the basic philosophy underlying his policy and asked me to do the same, with the policy of this side of the House. He also set me certain questions to which he would like answers. Fortuitously I have thought of doing the same thing to him and I have a list of questions prepared for him as well. I would suggest that the most satisfactory manner of dealing with them would be for me to present my case in my way as he has presented his case in his way. The hon. the Prime Minister has made it clear that his philosophy is separate freedoms, separation, and avoidance of friction. He has made it clear that it is based on the fundamental thinking that he does not believe that different peoples of different races, of different standards of civilization and of different colours can live together in harmony within the framework of one state. That is why his party stands for separate freedoms. It breaks down, of course, when it comes to the Coloured people and the Indians. It breaks down because he cannot offer them the ultimate of separate freedom which he is offering to the tribal Bantu people.

We on this side of the House believe that it is possible for different peoples with different standards of civilization and of different colours and races to live together in harmony within the framework of one state. I think that is the difference between us. We have done so for a long time and we believe it is possible to continue doing so. While we understand the theory the big difficulty we have with the hon. the Prime Minister is the practical application of his policy in South Africa at the present time. The theory is wonderful and we have had marvellous philosophical speeches in this House in the years past. When one comes down to the hard facts of what the Government is doing to carry out its policy, one finds that the whole policy seems to be becoming more and more impracticable every day and more and more impossible of fulfilment. It is particularly for that reason that I want to raise especially two aspects with the hon. the Prime Minister about his policy as a result of statements made in the course of the discussion of the Votes. One of those statements was made by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. He said categorically that because of the philosophy underlying their policy the Government was not prepared to share its independence with the Cape Coloured people. I do not think that I am quoting the Minister incorrectly. He said “Ons wil nie ons onafhanklikheid deel met die Kleurlinge nie”. Those were the words he used on the 7th September. This seems to make it perfectly clear that so far as Nationalist Party policy is concerned, the Cape Coloured people are to have no say in determining the destiny of the State in which they live. As the hon. the Prime Minister very rightly said to-day, he has in the past outlined the position of the Cape Coloured people. He said very frankly that he cannot see the end of the road in so far as their development is concerned and that it would be left to our children to find a solution.

Not “a” solution. Why quote me wrong?

I stand corrected, if the Prime Minister wants to alter that to “find the solution”.

Not that I want to alter it. Put it as I put it.

As far as I know, it was to find “the” solution. After today’s statement from the hon. gentleman and the reinteration of his philosophy it seems perfectly clear that the hon. the Prime Minister shares the views of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. It seems quite clear that we have to rule out for all time any share in the management of this State by the Coloured people. There is no talk of a Colouredstan. It seems as if there is just a blank wall before the Cape Coloured people in so far as future development is concerned. They are to have no say in the management of the State in which they live. As yet, no machinery has been evolved for consultation between their representative council, however ineffective that council may be, and this Parliament. It seems to me that acceptance of such a position destroys the entire theory underlying the Bantu policy of the Government: unless we are to accept that the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development arrogates to himself the authority to elevate the divergent thinking of the member for Moorreesburg and the Minister of Information to the official policy of the Nationalist Party. Members will know that those two members have proclaimed that the Coloured policy of the Government will be meaningless unless they have their own territory which they could develop into a separate nation or state. I think that the time has come for the Prime Minister to clarify the position in that regard.

A second aspect of Colour policy which I wanted the hon. the Prime Minister to deal with is in respect of the new demension which the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has brought to the Government’s “verhoudingspolitiek” and which concerns the conditions under which, in terms of Government policy, independence could or would be granted to any one of the Bantustans. The hon. the Prime Minister has told us to-day that any Black state—not yet free, I take it— is at liberty to come to us at any time to initiate discussions and to say that time for freedom being granted has come. He has emphasized that those discussions may take time, and that he would prefer to see delay until they are economically viable. But he does not set that as a condition. That means that the Prime Minister is in line with the new thinking of the Minister in his emphasis on the fact that economic independence was not a prerequisite for political independence. Of course we have always known this, because no state is completely independent economically. But what has been important, is to try and determine what measure of economic viability is necessary before political independence could be granted. Quite obviously, the greater the economic viability, the greater the chance that we would have stable neighbours and good friends on our borders. The less the degree of viability, the greater the danger that our neighbours would be unstable and liable to hostile influence. The whole tenor of the Minister’s argument in which he compares the gross national income of the former British protectorates with that of the Transkei, seemed to indicate that he regards a country as lacking in viability as the Transkei at the moment, as being ready or almost ready for independence. Is that the view of the hon. the Prime Minister? One wonders whether the Minister is taking up this attitude because he is being stampeded by the new threats which the figures we are led to suppose will be revealed by the new census will pose to his policies?

Why not rather wait for them?

There is no need to wait. The Prime Minister has been making pre-election propaganda here this afternoon at some length. There is no reason why I should not demand these figures before the election and for the same reasons. There is no reason either, why the public sould not be informed of the situation before they come to cast their votes on the 8th October. Already, any impartial student of demography is forced to the conclusion that the Government’s policy is not only impracticable, but in all probability quite impossible of fulfilment. New evidence may easily make it plain, not only to the opponents of the Government, but also to its supporters, that this policy is becoming nothing more or less than a pipe dream. The fact that numbers were against the Prime Minister in the past, was bad enough. But all the evidence of recent years has been to the effect that economic development in the Bantu homelands was virtually at a standstill, that border development was providing employment in such infinitesimally small numbers to the Bantu labour force, that it could not be considered a serious factor in providing a solution. One will not be surprised to find that this significant change of emphasis, which the Minister has now accorded to the idea that these areas could be given independence without any real degree of economic viability, is in fact a desperate attempt to keen the Prime Minister’s policy alive, despite the fact that his development plans have proved such a dismal failure and that the findings of the recent Sabra conference have emphasized that even more devastatingly.

The hon. the Prime Minister said this afternoon that he wanted to see these various countries made viable and rich, “lewensvatbaar”. I think he said. Well, the Sabra conference held last month was hailed as the return to the spirit of the Tomlinson Commission. What did the conference tell? It told a tale of failure, which was underscored by the almost frantic determination of the delegates that something should be done now and done quickly. Even Die Burger has been asking for some time how the hon. the Prime Minister is going to apply his policy. Look what happened at that conference. Prof. Reynders of the University of Pretoria pointed out— and I think this is an understatement—that in the period 1970 to 1980 no fewer than 88,000 new male Bantu workers will seek employment in South Africa each year. Of them 40,700 will come from the Bantu homelands and 47,300 from the white areas. Only to stop the flow of workers from the Bantu homelands to the white areas 16,000 Bantu workers must be accommodated each year in industries near the homelands, and 25,000 in tertiary and other forms of employment. Prof. Reynders added that this can only happen if all future growth of decentralizable industries were limited to the border areas or the homelands. He complained that on the agency basis the Bantu Investment Corporation has hitherto created only 400 jobs inside the Bantu homelands. Prof. Olivier, the former Commissioner-General in Ovamboland warned that to maintain order in South Africa, we might have to face more Sharpevilles and Paarls, unless the homelands were developed faster economically. He said that we should accept the principle of spending more annually on homelands development than on Defence. Then we had Prof. Moolman of the University of South Africa. He was formerly a member of the Tomlinson Commission. He feared that the way in which the Government was developing townships in the Native areas, could only lead to old style locations with disastrous consequences. He demanded that the Government should place the emphasis on the development concept in the policy of separate development. Observers at that conference reported that the Sabra delegates were clearly worried about the total lack of planning and co-ordination of the Government in seeking to carry out its policy. No wonder that the Afrikaanse Calvinistiese Beweging expected South Africans to be shocked when the preliminary results of the 1970 census are made known. It warned what this would mean. It warned what a shock it would be to the electorate of South Africa as to the progress of separate development. This matter was not fully discussed at the Sabra conference.

The other question which must be answered before one can take Government policies seriously is what progress has been made in consolidating the homelands into integral areas which can become the bases of these independent states to which the hon. the Prime Minister is prepared to give freedom. We know to-day that only the Transkei can be regarded as a Native area, consolidated enough to be imagined as a future independent state. We want to knew from the hon. the Prime Minister whether or not it is his policy to consolidate. It it is, what progress has been made towards consolidation without doing unnecessary injustice to the people both White and non-White who will be affected. There is no doubt that if the Government wants to be foolhardy enough, it could grant independence to impoverished immature states on the borders of South Africa. By doing so, it would be creating gestering sores on the borders of the Republic. Those little states will not be content with their poverty. They will resent their citizens being used as our labour force. They will become understandably restless and impatient. South Africa is going to find itself having to compete, in order to retain their friendship, with the financial assistance which will undoubtedly be offered them by the communist states of the world and now also by the World Bank. It was reported over our radio the other day that the World Bank was seeking as much as 80 000 million dollars a year to pour into underdeveloped states. That sort of money they will be prepared to spend. That makes the R8 million we lent to Malawi for development purposes look like chicken feed. Can we compete when we are faced with things of this kind?

The Government does not seem to appreciate that in their attempts to extricate themselves from the obvious shortcomings of their policy, the emphasis on independence without economic viability will scare away any chance there is of private white capital on the agency or any other basis becoming available for development inside those territories. There have been too many examples in emergent Africa of the fate of white businesses and capital in countries that have been granted independence before they become economically viable. It even happened in Zambia with her vast resources of copper. Some of the big companies here suddenly found controlling interests expropriated by the Government of the day who are now controlling those companies. I wonder how the Prime Minister can expect private white investors to put money into the so-called homelands if there is a possibility of early freedom, even before economic viability? In the past the Government held up to us the example of the friendly relations we were succeeding in maintaining with the newly independent former Protectorates. I cannot help feeling that recent events must have caused even Government supporters to have another look at the situation. Botswana, on our northern borders, despite its economic dependence on Rhodesia and ourselves, has already indicated that it is considering the establishment of some form of diplomatic relations with Soviet Russia. It is making preparations to build a highway from the north despite our objections to that plan. Not only did it participate in the Lusaka Conference of unaligned countries, but it actually supported a resolution—I understand there was no voting—protesting against the supply by Great Britain of arms to South Africa. One cannot avoid the impression that the Government is becoming anxious about the whole theory underlying its policy. I am not surprised that the hon. the Prime Minister sought to discuss it to-day. He wants to re-inspire his people on the subject.

Do your people look to you for inspiration?

They will get it. And let me tell you something else, Sir. I believe that it has been this lack of inspiration from the hon. the Prime Minister and the falling away of enthusiasm amongst his people that caused the Minister of Bantu Administration during the debate on his Vote to warn this side of the House that we are not to have contact with the heads of the new authorities in the Bantu areas. Why does he make a statement of that kind? I wonder why, because the hon. the Prime Minister to-day pleaded for maintaining contact and for the avoidance of friction. Why is the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration so afraid that members from this side of the House will have contact with the leading Bantu in those areas and perhaps put alternative policies before them? Is the hon. gentleman afraid that he cannot defend his own policy? Is that really the reason? Is it really the policy of the Prime Minister, in view of what he said this afternoon, that the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and his officials should be the only people in this Parliament who ought to be allowed to make contact with the public representatives of these homeland governments? Sir, can I put it to the hon. the Prime Minister again? The Prime Minister will forgive me, but I do want to put this point to him.

I was just discussing the time factor.

I understand. I had the same trouble. Is it really the policy of the hon. the Prime Minister that only the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and his officials should have contact with the leaders of the governments in these homelands?

No.

The Minister did not say that.

Can I take it then that the ban which the hon. the Minister has placed on members on this side of the House having consultations …

I am not aware of any such ban.

I am delighted to hear the Prime Minister’s reaction. I hope he will bring it pertinently to the notice of the Minister of Bantu Administration, because he warned the hon. member for South Coast, inter alia, by name and other members on this side of the House not to have discussions or contact with the leaders of certain of the Bantu authorities.

He did not ban it at all.

It was a threat to me.

Perhaps he thought it might not be in the interest of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, do you know what it sounded like to me? It sounded like an old schoolmaster thinking that he was still dealing with boys in his school.

Give me the quotation.

I will give it to the hon. gentleman.

I will then take it up with you.

It is becoming glaringly apparent that the Government’s policy is totally impracticable. Is it because the hon. the Minister is so worried about the practicability of his policy that he is now coming along and suggesting that the Government has created moral obligations to the Bantu people, obligations which cannot be ignored, despite the fact that the Opposition warned those Bantu people when the original legislation came before this House, that we would not be bound by the promises of the Government? Is this also why the hon. the Minister is trying to persuade us that he has reached or is about to reach points of no return in respect of his policy and is putting such anxious queries to us as to the stage at which we believe the position becomes irreversible?

That question was mooted by the hon. member for South Coast; he put that question.

Exactly, Sir, and it was taken up by the Minister.

Naturally he had to reply to it.

The hon. gentleman is anxiously trying to create the impression that points of no return have been reached and that we cannot go back on what has already proved to be impracticable. We want to know from the hon. the Prime Minister if he too cannot see the wood for the trees and if he cannot realize that the only real progress that his Minister has made up till now consists of lists of hundreds of political and administratives posts which he has created in those homelands without any serious suggestion that there is real economic progress. Surely, Sir, he realizes that the whole pack of cards could collapse overnight if the South African economy, i.e. the economy based entirely on the white areas, is not maintained at a sufficiently high level to finance those extravagances. Surely, the hon. the Prime Minister has heeded the warnings of Professor Olivier. He himself has referred to the dangers in respect of unemployment amongst the non-Whites of South Africa. Sir, while we have all this talk, we never get down to dealing with the most important problem of the lot and that is the situation in respect of the urban Native in South Africa. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister this evening whether South Africa can afford the development of the Bantu states as economically viable units. If not, Sir, what is the alternative? Is it to give them independence while they are not viable, as indicated by the Minister, or to seek to achieve limited objectives instead of ultimate separate development?

I replied to that very question this afternoon.

Sir, I do not regard the Prime Minister’s reply as a reply to that question because he has never told me whether he believes that South Africa can afford to develop these states to viability; whether we have a sufficiently high gross national product to be able to afford it at the present time. I do not believe that we have and I believe he knows that.

Not at present, but we can do it and we want to do it.

I believe that we cannot do it, and I do not believe that the Prime Minister is being a realist when he says that. I want to ask the Prime Minister something else. Is it still his policy that the white people must make sacrifices to implement separate development? If it is, Sir, how does he visalize that an economy, making the sacrifice of dispensing in large measure with black labour, can also make the sacrifice of contributing to homeland development? Sir, I have a third question for the hon. the Prime Minister. If he considers it necessary that an adequate supply of labour should be retained in the Republic to enable the white areas to contribute to the development of the reserves, how far will the Government go to make that Bantu labour permanent near our existing industrial areas and to make it stable and content? Secondly, how far will he go to train labour to meet the demands of a highly competitive world in which the cost factor is paramount? What will he do to meet the sociological needs of the urbanized Bantu community and what will he do to give them participation in our political system? This side of the House answers those questions. The policy of this side of the House deals with those problems, and deals with them satisfactorily. Under our policy each race group will retain identity and will have a say in this Central Parliament which will control its destiny. However, the hon. the Prime Minister gets sidetracked by talk as to what a “nation” is. Then he read out this passage from Col. 7559 out of the 1961 Hansard. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we have had a pitiful exhibition on the part of the Opposition here this afternoon. From early this afternoon, when they were cornered on the Mitchell case, until now when they have been cornered again on their policy of relationships, we have been faced with the position that the United Party, through its Leader, has not tested policy against policy, but has tried by all manner of means to get out of the corner. Therefore I say that it has been a pitiful exhibition by the Opposition. Before motivating that further, I want to come back to one remark which was made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He made the remark that the hon. the Prime Minister does not inspire this side of the House and his people.

I want to say with all emphasis that our hon. Prime Minister, who made a great speech, a great address in the House this afternoon—and the people outside when they hear of it will agree with me—inspires this side of the House, and for that reason I think it was petty of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to make this sort of remark in the light of these circumstances. If we think back to all our Prime Ministers since 1910. I must say that I do not know of one Prime Minister of this country who in his first four years of office has brought such a prosperous period to all the peoples of South Africa, as this, the seventh Premier of the Republic of South Africa. He achieved this under exceptionally difficult circumstances. Name me one setback which this country has suffered in the past four years as a consequence of poor government. Against that mighty background of such a great Prime Minister I state categorically that this kind of pettiness on the part of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and that side in general, will find no support in South Africa under the present Prime Minister. That hare of theirs will not run any more. That doctrine of theirs is devoid of all truth.

We have had a striking example here this afternoon of their not trying to pit policy against policy, and for reasons which are quite obvious. Therefore they have recourse to an increasing extent to playing the man and not the ball in politics. One is sickened to the depths of one’s being to see how a Prime Minister of our country is forced into devoting an entire evening to minor and unimportant matters, matters where they play the man and not the ball, and that so many hours of his important Vote have to be spent on this. I want to accuse the Opposition, and they should be warned against this kind of thing, of continually casting doubt on our integrity. Somewhere the psalmist said that the godless roam when deceit gains the upper hand amongst the children of man. This Opposition is making it difficult politically for people to serve in public life.

I say this quite frankly. I am a man of integrity, and I try to be one always, but it is being made difficult for us to serve in public life because the Opposition is making a virtue of deceit in politics and they are trying to take it out on this side of the House. The sooner they stop this practice, the better. They meet more than their match in our Prime Minister; he is an unimpeachable man of integrity, and it is time the country saw what a pathetic Opposition this really is, which cannot pit policy against policy, and for this reason have to sink to the lowest depths to which they have now sunk.

I want to come now to the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition here a moment ago. I want to point out that he conveniently dodged all the important questions the hon. the Prime Minister had put to him. We are waiting to hear on what grounds the Bantu will be able to have only white representatives in this House and the Indians also only one white representative. Is it on the grounds of a lack of development or on the grounds of irresponsibility or on what grounds? We should like to have an answer from him. We are also still waiting for a reply to the question in regard to the Mitchell episode. He was asked: “What were those unfortunate words which the Leader of the Opposition referred to?” We should like to know what those words were. He is concerned and dare not answer. We also told the hon. the Leader of the Opposition repeatedly in the course of the discussions on the Vote of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development that we should like to know what he thinks of it when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says that he accepts the absolute multi-nationality in South Africa, while the hon. member for East London (City) says exactly the opposite, namely that he does not accept it, and also when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout agrees with the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development that we should already have granted independence to these homelands and reproaches us because Malawi and other countries have been granted independence while our homelands have not yet been granted independence.

On the other hand, the hon. member for South Coast says that we have gone too far in regard to Zululand. These standpoints are absolutely poles apart. We have asked hon. members opposite repeatedly what their standpoint is in regard to this matter, but we are waiting in vain for an answer. My prediction is that the hon. the Prime Minister will wait in vain for an answer to this cardinal question that was put to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon. I want to draw attention to the recipe the Opposition is applying. On 19th August, 1970, in Hansard, Col. 2055, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition issued the following challenge to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development—

Those were his words. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says something quite different this afternoon because he has been cornered by the Prime Minister. Now he talks of a “degree of viability” of these Bantu homelands. That is the kind of Opposition one has to deal with. Hon. members opposite are laughing about it now, but they cannot get away from this important matter by laughing it off. The Leader of the Opposition did not say “degree of viability” in the passage I quoted. The challenge he issued to the hon. the Minister and to this side of the House was quite explicit, and I would have quoted it again if only I had more time at my disposal. He did not say a “degree of viability” but he said “there is no viability for these states”. That was why he spoke of a “pipedream” on which the policy of this side of the House was allegedly based. When he was cornered this afternoon however he spoke of a “degree of viability”. Surely, one does not expect this from a Leader of the Opposition who tries to take over the Government. That is why they have failed so miserably in regard to this urgent matter.

I should also like to raise another matter. The reason why the Opposition dare not pit policy against policy and are not in a position to do so and are virtually compelled to play the man instead of dealing with principles, is to be found in the approach of the hon. the Opposition, namely that we are one nation here in South Africa. As long as they make that their approach, they will continue to fall into these traps and will be unable to extricate themselves. In substantiation of this idea of one nation from which they cannot get away —the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to it again the other day—I just want to quote what the hon. member for South Coast said to our hon. the Minister on occasion, namely that he, the member for South Coast, regards the Bantu and Whites of South Africa as “co-citizens”. We asked him whether he still agreed with that. We have not yet heard whether he denies this. The hon. Mr. Mitchell stated quite categorically—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that I am rising now. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will understand why I am doing so. Taking into account the haste with which I made my previous speech, and in fairness towards the member for Newton Park, I want to rectify the matter in regard to him, because the time for the debate will soon expire. I want to give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the assurance that I shall furnish the replies to the questions which he put to me, to-morrow. I shall reply to every question which he put to me, as is my custom in this House. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will, of course, know that he did not furnish a reply to a single question which I put to him about the philosiphic basis of his policy. I infer from what the hon. the Leader is indicating to me, that he will do so the next time he rises. I regard it as so important that I believe that if the time for the debate expires before the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has had an opportunity to do so, I want to say in anticipation from my side that my Chief Whip will be willing to extend the time for this Vote. I believe that the Chief Whip on the other side will also be prepared to do this. I think those questions are of such cardinal importance that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition owes it to this House to reply to them. It will give us lucidity and clarity.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked whether one rule applied to me and another rule to other hon. members. My reply to him across the floor of this House was “No, what applies to me, applies to every other hon. member”. Now it has come to my notice—I am not sorry that I said it; I am just sorry that I contravened the rules of this House—that by way of interjection I said to the member for Newton Park that he had told a blatant lie outside. It has been brought to my notice that this was unparliamentary. Because I should like to comply with the parliamentary rules, I should like to apologize for describing such a blatant untruth as a “lie”. If the hon. the Chief Whip on the other side thinks that I have not complied with the rules of this House, he can tell me and I shall comply with them, because I am compelled to do so. I am not sorry that I made the allegation against the hon. member. I am only sorry about the unparliamentary word which I used in this connection. It is a matter of conscience to me to say to the hon. member that he did in fact proclaim a blatant untruth outside. It will not be difficult for me to prove conclusively even to the hon. member that this is in fact the case. The issue here is who was responsible for this untruth, this lie. I am not charging that hon. member with it now. I am talking about the fact now. The issue is, who was responsible for the lie that a Land Bank loan had been granted to my son-in-law? The hon. member for Newton Park said that he had heard of that transaction as a result of a communication which the present hon. member for Kensington made to him. He said that he had asked the hon. member for Kensington whether it was true, and that the member for Kensington had given him the assurance that it was in fact correct. The hon. member said that he remembered the telephone conversation which he had had with the member for Kensington very well, because it was on nomination day, so that he naturally remember it very well. You will all remember that nomination day was on the Friday.

Wednesday?

No, nomination day was on the Friday. I am not talking about polling day, but about nomination day. Nomination day was on Friday the 13th. The hon. member said that on Friday the 13th the member for Kensington had an interview with him. After that he went to Joubertina. He spoke there that evening. He even handed in the notes of the speech which he made.

You have them.

Yes, I have them. It was after the member for Kensington had spoken to him. I have here a report of the hon. member’s speech as it appeared in the Eastern Province Herald of Saturday, 14th March, 1970, i.e. the following day. It reads as follows—

We notice in the first place that this report does not state that the hon. member said that this was what he had been told. This is what he want out of his way to tell the commission. I am now arguing …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may that hon. member say that the hon. member for Newton Park lied before the commission?

Order! Who said that? The hon. member must withdraw that remark.

I withdraw the word, Sir. The hon. member told an untruth.

The hon. the Prime Minister may proceed.

Sir, I am arguing merely for the sake of argument now, and not because I am alleging that the hon. member said that or had any reason to think so. I am arguing merely on the basis of the assumption that the hon. member in fact said that it was told to him like that. Nevertheless, nothing about this is contained in this report. As one colleague towards another, I must say that I find it noticeable that, in spite of the wide publicity which this report received, to the best of my knowledge nothing was done by that hon. member to rectify this report. If the hon. member in fact did so, he must tell me, but this report appeared in the Eastern Province Herald as coming from him.

There was an interview in the Eastern Province Herald of the 17th, which explained the whole matter. That also appeared in that report.

No, Sir, in the interview of the 17th this matter, as reported here, was not rectified. It was definitely not rectified. The hon. member was responsible for the fact that the allegation was publicized, and appeared in this form. Did his elementary fairness as one colleague towards another not induce him to go to the Eastern Province Herald and to say “I did not say this about the Prime Minister as a fact”? But I want to argue with him now …

Why did you not have it investigated?

I relied on the integrity of the hon. member. This is the mistake which I made.

You know that I issued a statement …

I shall come to the statement. Let us now carefully examine the evidence which the hon. member gave. I shall quote as follows from the report of the commissioner (translation)—

On what page is that?

It appears on page 5. I shall continue with the quotation—

I understand perfectly well. You see, look, I do not want to create the impression that the comment appearing in that report is what I made at the meeting. The report in the newspaper is the comment on the granting of the loan.

Do I understand correctly: It was a press conference that you had?

Exactly. The reporter, Mr. Oliver, asked me for my comment on the granting of this loan.

Yes, and subsequently you held a meeting at Joubertina.

That very evening. The same evening I held a meeting where I referred to that as follows.

Then the hon. member went on to say how he had referred to it. He continued by saying that the facts had been put to him over the telephone. In other words, the member’s evidence under oath was that the member for Kensington had telephoned him on the Friday. That member asked him for his comment on the Friday and he gave his comment. Do we understand each other correctly?

Yes.

That is so. Very well, the hon. member says it is so. If this is so, either that hon. member or the hon. member for Kensington gave false evidence under oath before the commissioner. There is no doubt at all. I shall prove it to you. The hon. member for Newton Park said that the conversation had taken place on the Friday and that he had gone to speak at Joubertina that Friday evening. Then the hon. member for Kensington had his turn and gave evidence about that same interview which was positively confirmed by the hon. member for Newton Park in this House again this afternoon, when he said that it had taken place on the Friday. They had a conversation and it was on the Friday. He gave his comment on that Friday. What did the hon. member for Kensington say on page 54 of the evidence? He was questioned about this matter and replied as follows—

“Him” refers to the hon. member for Newton Park.

And then the important statement—

Are you ruling out more than one telephone conversation he had with me?

Sir, the evidence is conclusive, and I checked with the advocate who led the evidence, that there was only one interview by telephone. That was, according to the hon. member for Newton Park, on the Friday, and according to the hon. member for Kensington, on the Saturday, and he went so far as to say that it had nothing to do whatsoever with the meeting of the 13th.

*Can you understand now? Is the evidence which you now want to give that you spoke to him on the Friday and the Saturday?

It was the Friday.

Did you speak to him on the Friday? He says he spoke on Friday the 13th, and now the hon. member for Kensington comes along and says there were two calls. The hon. member for Newton Park says there were two calls, but they were both on the Friday. The hon. member for Kensington says it was the Saturday morning. But what is more, the hon. member for Kensington wrote in his report “yesterday” and it appeared on the Sunday. He said he had asked him for his comment “yesterday”. Now you can understand, Sir. It is a strong word to use, but in the absence of an explanation, an untruth was told to the commissioner under oath, either by the member for Newton Park, who says it happened on the Friday—this was his oath and he repeated it here for all of us to see and for all of us to hear—or the hon. member for Kensington, who is now trying to pretend that there were more conversations than one, which for the sake of convenience the hon. member now says both took place on the Friday and which he said conclusively in his evidence had taken place on the Saturday, [lnterjections.] After the meeting? It had nothing whatsoever to do with the meeting. These are now the hon. gentlemen who throw the word “liar” freely across the floor of this House. These are the hon. gentlemen who talk freely about the credibility gap. They are the Hon. gentlemen who see their way clear to attacking other people and to questioning other people’s integrity. As far as I am concerned, Sir, I leave the two gentlemen to decide between themselves who spoke the truth under oath and, what is more, I leave them to their consciences.

The hon. the Prime Minister has now been trying to throw up a smokescreen here about this matter, a smokescreen about a commission which the hon. the Prime Minister himself appointed. He now wants to know: When did you speak to each other; you two must now settle it between yourselves; did you also speak to each other on the 14th as well? Was there more than one interview on the 13th? What happened? Sir, I shall tell the Committee what happened, because I have nothing to hide. If the hon. the Prime Minister thinks that I committed perjury, he could surely institute legal proceedings against me. He could do so with the greatest of pleasure. The hon. the Prime Minister knows himself that the 13th was nomination day, a day no-one will forget, and one that is usually also his lucky day, but not in this case. On the day of the 13th, early in the morning, the hon. member for Kensington telephoned me in Port Elizabeth and told me exactly what I told Judge Galgut before this commission.

That bit of gossip?

He asked me whether I had any comment to make about this loan to Kolver and Van der Nest (Pty.) Ltd. I then said to the hon. member for Kensington: “To-day is nomination day; give me a chance to collect my thoughts; telephone me at a later stage and I will comment on it.” The hon. the Prime Minister does not want to accept this now, but those are the true facts of the matter. Whether the hon. member told Judge Galgut that there was another interview on the 14th I do not know, but from that evidence the hon. the Prime Minister has, he could surely have seen for himself that the hon. member only asked me on this one particular day for my comments, and that was on the 13th. Sir, what did the Judge say in connection with the commission which the hon. gentleman appointed? [Interjection.] Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister wants to get right down to some straight talking to-day, and I also want to speak to him in the same vein. What did the hon. the Prime Minister say in a newspaper interview when he appointed the commission? According to Oosterlig of 16th March of this year, he said in an interview (translation)—

Of course not.

In the first place I want to challenge the hon. the Prime Minister to tell me where in that statement that I made to the Sunday Times, or in what I said at the public meeting in Joubertinia that same night, there was any suggestion that I tried to imply that corruption was involved here? The report on this interview continues by stating—

The hon. the Prime Minister says that he did this because he knew that his son-in-law does not have any shares in that company. Sir, he knows this, and yet he still appoints the commission, and I now want to put this question to the hon. the Prime Minister: If his son-in-law did, in fact, have a share in Kolver and Van der Nest, would he still have appointed the commission? In the second place, the hon. the Prime Minister knew what the facts were; he knew who Kolver and Van der Nest were. The person involved was not Mr. A. T. Kolver; it was Mr. A. T. K. Kolver. Why did the hon. the Prime Minister not have that investigated as well? Who is the Kolver and Van der Nest who obtained this loan?

What are you suggesting?

I am not suggesting anything at all. But the hon. the Prime Minister has played this same little game before. When I stood up in this House and asked what the Land Bank’s policy is, the hon. the Prime Minister asked me: “What are you insinuating?” He asked me the same thing, i.e. “What were you insinuating when you dealt with Mr. Jan Haak’s loan here in the House of Assembly?” He told me exactly the same thing, and I told him that I was not interested in insinuations. I told him that all I was looking for was to obtain clarity about the policy of the Land Bank in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister had the opportunity of having an investigation instituted into the matters relating to the Land Bank of South Africa.

I want to repeat this to-day, because the South African farmer is not yet satisfied with this situation. However, I shall come back to that matter. Here is the Judge’s report, the hon. the Prime Minister’s Judge, because it seems to me as if the advocate he appointed was not good enough for his liking. He did not brief him sufficiently, and he then thought that he would get up here to-day and try to pin Myburgh Streicher down. What is the situation? What did the Judge say at the inquiry? The terms of reference were laid down by the hon. the Prime Minister. What did the Judge say? I should like to refer to page 2 of the Judge’s report. I quote:

Order! Before the hon. member continues, what did the hon. member mean by saying that it was the Prime Minister’s Judge?

Mr. Chairman, if I said that, I apologize immediately. I say that it is a commission …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order …

Order! Let the hon. member first explain what he meant by that.

What I meant by that is that that hon. gentleman appointed the judicial commission. When I spoke of the advocate, I was speaking of the advocate that led his Department’s evidence. And of him I said that he had not been briefed properly.

Mr. Chairman, on a point or order, the hon. member did not only say “the Prime Minister’s Judge”, but he also said that the Prime Minister had not briefed the Judge sufficiently.

Order! The hon. member for Newton Park did not say that the Prime Minister had not briefed the Judge sufficiently. He referred to “the Prime Minister’s Judge”, and the hon. member must withdraw that reference.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it immediately, and I regret that I said it, because I very definitely did not mean it in that way. What is the situation according to what the Judge stated on page 2 of the report? If the hon. the Prime Minister is not satisfied, why did he appoint this commission? Why did he waste the State’s money by appointing this commission?

I am only asking that you explain who told the untruth under oath.

I most certainly did not tell any untruth to this commission under oath. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the capers of the hon. member for Newton Park, and also to the interjection of the hon. member for Kensington. Since they never told the commission about the so-called two telephone calls. I want to know whether the two telephone calls were made on Friday, or whether both were made on Saturday. Or can the two hon. members not yet decide when the telephone calls were made? I now want to tell the hon. member for Kensington that I regard this statement about the two telephone calls as an absolute untruth, and I shall tell him why. The judge of the commission struggled with this point. On page 54 of the record one may read about how he continually asked the man how he explained this matter, that he must help him because he could not understand it. The judge was more than friendly towards both hon. gentlemen, in spite of the fact that he is being accused to-day of being the hon. the Prime Minister’s judge.

Order! The hon. member may not refer to that, because it has been withdrawn.

But he nevertheless said it. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Kensington was continually questioned by the judge about the position, and at no time under cross examination, or during his main examination, did he mention two telephone calls. Not one of the two hon. members said in their evidence that they were telephoned twice. Now they find themselves in a dilemma in respect of their dates. Now that they have gone through the record they find this out. They know that it will be raised again in the debate, and that is why they now have to carry out capers and an egg dance to get out of it. That is the bare truth of this case.

I want to advance another reason why they are doing this. The hon. member for Newton Park told the commissioner: “You are asking me what my comment was. I give you my comment in my notes”. I now want to allege that the hon. member for Newton Park probably knew of this loan before the time, and that he intended to make that accusation at the Joubertina meeting. That is why he said “I am told …”. He wanted to secure himself against possible problems, and therefore said “I am told”. In this case there was a witness, i.e. Mr. Hertzog Biermann, who said that in February of this year they received two anonymous telephone calls here in this Parliament, and that these anonymous calls informed them of the so-called loan of the Prime Minister’s son-in-law. I now want to ask the hon. member for Newton Park, seeing that he was the confidant of the Sunday Times at the time, and also the mouthpiece for …

For gossip.

… for United Party gossip, whether he was unaware of those two anonymous telephone calls to which Mr. Biermann testified? If he affirms this, then surely he knew of that loan before the time. Yet before the commissioner the hon. member said that he heard about it for the first time from the hon. member for Kensington when that hon. member telephoned him. It is highly unlikely that this kind of information did not reach Parliament while the hon. member was engaged in the question of the Jan Haak loan. It is highly unlikely that they would not also have fed that gossip to the hon. member while he was busy with the Jan Haak loan. Now this tallies exactly with what was said here. That is why the hon. member told the commissioner that he made his comments from his notes. He said on page 5 that he was handing in his notes. He said that he was delivering his comments according to his notes, and to prove what his comments were, he handed in his notes. I want to allege that the hon. member most probably knew of this gossip, and that he intended to use it. The hon. member for Kensington then telephoned him on the Saturday, because the Sunday Times also says “According to a comment yesterday”. If that is the truth, and it is a very strong possilibity, purely from the evidence of that record, then the hon. member for Newton Park also told that untruth to the commissioner, i.e. that he had heard about it for the first time from the hon. member for Kensington.

I want to go a little further. There was a small uproar in the House of Assembly on the 27th August. On 30th August we had a very impudent leader from the editor of the Sunday Times, in which he said the following about politicians. He said that the politicians know nothing of this Kolver affair, and that he would enlighten them. He then told them:

I just want to tell the editor of the Sunday Times: That statement of his is a statement he should actually have made before the commissioner. But what happened to him on the day the commission sat? His temperature rose. He then submitted a doctor’s certificate to say that his temperature had risen. A temperature is always the result of an illness, but the certificate did not mention what the illness was. I tell you now that the entire country knows what that fever was. It was sham-fever! I am going to make an accusation, but my conclusions will all be drawn from this statement. These are justified conclusions that we are drawing from the evidence. I am not going to add a word of my own. I am only going to use their evidence. According to this statement of the editor of the Sunday Times they say, inter, alia, that they delegated Hertzog Biermann. May I just dwell for a moment on Mr. Hertzog Biermann. For 35 years he has been a senior Sunday Times reporter. Do hon. members know what testimonial he obtained from his boss? His boss states that he made such a botch of things, that he made such a poor showing in Bloemfontein, that he could just as well go into politics. I now wonder why the hon. member for Kensington has suddenly been offered a United Party seat? Do hon. members know what his assignment was? Here is the assignment, according to the Sunday Times statement:

According to his evidence he arrived in Bloemfontein, and there drew three cards displaying the name Kolver. The one card does not concern us at all. One of the other two cardswas marked A. T. K. Kolver, and the person was born in 1914. The other card was marked A. T. Kolver, and that person was born in 1941. By chance there was an antenuptial contract recorded on the A. T. Kolver card. He also went and drew out that Kolver’s bond and found that it contained an affidavit of Mr. A. T. K. Kolver. According to the evidence here—and I can give hon. members the chapter and verse—Mr. Biermann says that as soon as he saw the name of Mr. A. T. K. Kolver, born 1914, and that of Mr. A. T. Kolver, born 1941, he knew that the one was the son and the other the father. He knew that the father was A. T. K. Kolver. He then drew out the bond that recorded the name of a company having Mr. A. T. K. Kolver as one of the directors. On the back there was an affidavit of a group area. The address was furnished as “Hartebeesfontein”. In evidence given to the judge, Mr. Biermann states that he was aware of the fact that the young Kolver did not live at Hartebeesfontein, but at a place called “Bokpost”, because there was a large house built at Bokpost, and a great deal of publicity was given to the marriage. He knew that it was the young Kolver’s place, and that the old man lived somewhere else. In other words, he had all the facts which could very clearly indicate to him who the young Kolver was, and that the loan was granted to the older Kolver. He then first telephoned Johannesburg and sent that information across, together with a copy of the bond. What did the editor of the Sunday Times say then? “He sent me a telegram.” I say that that statement, i.e. “He sent me a telegram”, is a lie. I shall tell hon. members why.

Did the judge find this to be the case?

Just forget about the judge. I shall tell hon. members why. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Prinshof is trying to make a tremendous fuss again about the interview which was given on the 13th. I told the hon. member …

Let the hon. member for Prinshof finish speaking.

If the hon. member wants to finish speaking, he may do so.

I said that he then sent him the mortgage bond. He says that he sent the mortgage bond by post. We had someone in Bloemfontein, and we discovered that Mr. Biermann had made that inquiry on the 11th. In other words, there was more than sufficient time for those documents to have been sent by post. It is said now that a telegram was sent. Sir, do you know what was strange in that regard? In the article of the 15th—i.e. the gossip article—about three-quarters of the bond was quoted verbatim. Had the information been sent by telegram, it would have been impossible to give such a verbatim account of the whole bond. We can accept from the evidence that the editor-in-chief of the Sunday Times had the complete mortgage bond before him. At that stage the hon. the Prime Minister said that he wanted to appoint a commission of inquiry. Do you know, Sir, what the editor-in-chief of the Sunday Times said then? He gave a statement to the Rand Daily Mail on 16th March. His statement reads as follows—

In other words, what the editor-in-chief says here is that if the Prime Minister were to look at the mortgage bond, he would see for himself that it is the father and not the son. Now, that mortgage bond was in the hands of the editor-in-chief in the Sunday Times office, even before the report was written. Even before the 15th, the report was there. When the report was written, they made extracts from the mortgage bond. If this advice to the Prime Minister is correct, then as a member of the publie I am entitled to say, “Then Joel Mervis himself should have seen from that same mortgage bond, to which he has drawn the attention of the Prime Minister, that it was the father and not the son”. Therefore, as an ordinary member of the public, I say that I am entitled to come to the conclusion that Mr. Joel Mervis knew before this gossip article appeared that it was Kolver Senior and not Kolver the son. Now I want to ask: Why did he tell that story? I shall come back shortly to the hon. member for Newton Park. Why did he tell the story that it was the son and not the father? Now he makes the weak excuse that actually the story would have been better if it had referred to the father and not to the son. Sir, I shall tell you why the editor did this. He knew that they were engaged in character assassination. They wanted to find something to the detriment of the Prime Minister. They found this gossip story. They discovered that this gossip story had no substance. Sir, do you know what would have happened had they said that it was the father and not the son? The people would have said: “So what?” They would have known that it was just another farmer. But then they simply said it was the son so that there would be a clear insinuation of favouring. That was part of the plan of the Sunday Times, of the United Party and of the Herstigte Nasionale Party as well. I speak now as a member of the public and I say that the probabilities are that the hon. member for Newton Park had included this allegation in his notes beforehand, and before the hon. member for Kensington had phoned him. I shall also attempt to prove it. Do you know, Sir, what the hon. member told the commission the reason was for his publishing the story? He said: “We have had such a struggle to find out what the policy of the Minister of Agriculture is in regard to Land Bank loans, that I am now grateful. Mr. Commissioner, I am so grateful that there is a new policy now in terms of which farmers can get more money”. Sir, it was also very obvious in regard to the mortgage bond. It was obvious to everyone; that mortgage bond was granted on 20th February, 1969. That was a full year earlier. Now the hon. member is using that as an indication of a new policy. Sir, it was just camouflage.

It was the Prime Minister who said that this year.

It was camouflage, and the hon. member knows it. He simply camouflaged it. He, too, wanted to spread that gossip story, and then he tried to camouflage it by means of this weak story. Now I want to come to the hon. member for Kensington. I have read the record most carefully, and I find some equally naïve replies. The Commission found this too. When the hon. member was asked if he did not think that an ordinary member of the public would assume that there had been favouring of the Prime Minister’s son-in-law, he replied: No, I could not read that into it. It is impossible … [Interjections.] The Sunday Times says that if you “botch” something, they send you to Parliament. I can well understand that they gave him a U.P. seat. And do you know what I am waiting for now? I am waiting for Joel Mervis to come to Parliament, as well, because he has made just as much of a “botch” as his lieutenants have done. We in the National Party are mindful of the fact that in this regard an absolute, organized attempt at character assassination is in progress. We have decided to oppose it. We are not prepared to allow public life in South Africa to be brought to a lower level by action of this sort. We are engaged in exposing it for what it is. The hon. member for Newton Park can challenge me now to repeat all this outside. I shall tell him that this is why we have Parliamentary privilege. It is there for the purpose of establishing the truth without all sorts of actions being instituted. If the hon. member tells me that I have come to one unjustified conclusion, I shall retract. All the conclusions at which I have arrived are based on evidence given under oath before the commission. I assume that it was given under oath. Was it not under oath?

Of course it was. You should know that.

I want to thank the hon. member for Newton Park for giving me the opportunity to finish my speech.

The hon. member has again asked the same question. He wants to know whether it was the 13th or the 14th. But why two telephone calls now? Why is this now being said for the first time? If the hon. member were to telephone me at approximately half-past six in the morning, and I were to tell him I had no time as it was nomination day but that he could telephone me at such and such a time, then surely it would be exactly the same call. After all, I had not given any interview. [Interjections.] These are the facts of the matter. It does not change the interview I granted the hon. member. The hon. member said that everything he had said and all the conclusions he had drawn were based on the evidence. But surely the judge’s report was also based on that evidence. I was quoting to the hon. member when my previous ten minutes of speaking time expired. I want to ask the hon. member for Prinshof as well as the hon. the Prime Minister whether they are dissatisfied with the findings of this judge?

Did you or did you not say that the Prime Minister’s son-in-law had a loan?

I did not say so.

Then what did you say at Joubertina?

That hon. Minister can ask the hon. the Prime Minister. He has my notes there, and he can see exactly what notes I used at that meeting. The judge said the following—

And now, on page 4, the judge gives his final findings, as follows—

This is the matter before this House, but I know why the hon. the Prime Minister would like to discuss this matter and not the matters which I raised in Parliament for the first time this year. When I raised the case of Mr. Jan Haak, what did the hon. Prime Minister say at the time? And I am addressing this to the hon. the Minister of Health at the same time, so that he may start packing his bags. At that time the hon. the Prime Minister said of Mr. Haak—

After the election, however, the hon. the Prime Minister granted a press interview and do you know what the Prime Minister said at that time? He said (translation)—

And just as the Prime Minister tried to defend the hon. the Minister of Health and the Minister of Transport, so he defended Mr. Haak, too, in this House. And what did he tell us at the time? He said the reason Mr. Haak actually wanted the loan was not for himself, but for his minor son. One could in fact have property registered in the name of such a person, but because a bond could not be registered in his name, Mr. Haak had to make that loan. The hon. the Prime Minister was told very clearly in the Other Place by Senator Redi Louw: “But surely this is not the full story; after all, through a court order one can have a bond registered in the name of a minor child”.

But this is the kind of defence the hon. the Prime Minister put up while we were trying to find out here what the policy of the Land Bank was, and now I want to tell the Minister this. I am now going to read to him here statements made by Mr. J. C. M. Smit, General Manager of the Land Bank. Then the hon. the Prime Minister must tell me whether he thinks this is policy, and policy is what we in the United Party are looking for. According to Die Burger of 24th August of this year, Mr. Smit said (translation)—

Then Mr. Smit also said the following, according to Die Burger of 18th March of this year (translation)—

How does that concern this matter?

I shall tell the hon. member. It does concern this matter. It is because we on this side of the House were not interested whether or not it was the hon. the Prime Minister’s son-in-law who had obtained the loan. [Interjections.] The only thing we were interested in was—and I want to repeat it—policy and we are still trying to find out what the policy is. Where does the Land Bank draw the line? When is a farmer a big farmer? [Interjections.] Be quiet now. In terms of this statement of Mr. Smit, even a man as wealthy as a Mr. Harry Oppenheimer can obtain a loan from the Land Bank. But at the same time the hon. gentleman says no, it is not the policy of the Land Bank to help people to become land barons. And the hon. member for Smithfield, who is not here at the moment, what did he say during the election? He said if things were wrong in the Land Bank, this Government would rectify them; but, said hon. member, loans had been granted by the Land Bank which he would never be able to justify. The hon. member for Smithfield said that at a meeting in his constituency this year. Now I am asking, if this is the reaction even of members on that side of the House, surely we are entitled to ask what the policy of the Land Bank is? But, Sir, do not tell me that it is only the United Party that is doing so now. According to Die Burger of 8th May of this year, the Congress of the Northern Cape Agricultural Union requested that farmers be informed about the merits according to which Land Bank loans are granted. I repeat, that they be informed about the merits according to which Land Bank loans are granted. In other words, even the farmers’ organizations in South Africa are not completely informed as to what the policy of the Land Bank is. And now I want to tell the hon. Prime Minister this. He does not know what the policy of the Land Bank is. [Interjections.] Not one of us in this House knows what the policy of the Land Bank is. I could again mention the example to him of a man who only recently … [Time expired.]

By way of a diversionary manoeuvre the hon. member for Newton Park now comes along and ostensibly tries to find out what the policy of the Land Bank is. He has already been told what it is. If he wants to hear it again, I will give it to him once again to-morrow. But at the present moment I am looking for something else. I am looking for a perjurer. That is what I am looking for.

†I want to repeat that in English, because I want the hon. member for Kensington to understand it. Two hon. members gave evidence before this commission. We have heard the hon. member for Newton Park. He at first said that there was one call; not it is two, but those calls were on the Friday. If I accept his evidence, which was given under oath, and he says he gave the correct evidence under oath that it was on the Friday, then obviously the hon. member for Kensington lied under oath when he said it was on the Saturday. Does he understand that? Does he understand that if this hon. House accepts the evidence of the hon. member for Newton Park, which he has reiterated now, that he only spoke to him on the Frday, then he perjured himself when he appeared before the commission? Does the hon. member understand the shadow that hangs over his head in this House as an hon. member of this House? I want to give him an opportunity because I have accused one of the two, either the hon. member for Newton Park or the hon. member for Kensington, of having committed penury. The hon. member for Newton Park dapies that it was he who committed perjury. Both cannot be correct, Sir. The hon. member for Kensington is a former chairman of the Society of Journalists; he is the man who eloquently wrote, if I may use that word as far as writing is concerned, about members who hold public office. Sir, there is a shadow over that hon. member. If he elects not to say anything at all, as he is apparently going to do, then there is this shadow over him that it was not the hon. member for Newton Park who committed periury but that it was George Oliver, M.P. for Kensington, who in fact committed perjury.

Have you laid a charge?

Sir, I am very glad to have this opportunity this afternoon to say a few words in connection with certain stories that were circulated in the newspapers during the election. These stories, which all members probably read, because they appeared in a Sunday newspaper, i.e. the Sunday Times, were circulated as a result of information given to the Sunday Times by the hon. member for Newton Park. The hon. member never denied it in the Sunday Times or in other English or Afrikaans dailies. In other words, I take it that he furnished this information.

What information?

The hon. member must just be patient for a moment. Towards the end of his speech he tried to divert the thunderstorm from him by dragging Mr. Haak into this, as well as the hon. the Minister of Health and the hon. the Minister of Transport. The person we want to get at is the hon. member for Newton Park, because he told untruths to a newspaper. Just a week after the report about Mr. A. T. Kolver, a report also appeared about the terrible loan that Mr. De la Rey Venter supposedly obtained at the expense of smaller farmers who applied and could not get loans. The amount was also mentioned by the hon. member for Newton Park.

He is an incessant gossiper.

That is all he does.

He did so with no other purpose than to canvass a few votes. If he had done so after the election one could still have understood it, but he did it with one specific purpose, and that was to try to canvass a few votes. He tried to discredit the hon. the Prime Minister by dragging his son-in-law’s name into it, and that is where he gave incorrect information to the newspaper. He tried to discredit me in the Colesberg constituency, but fortunately the voters of Colesberg have a great deal more sense than he has, and as a result of his revelations the number of votes for the United Party decreased by 150. Sir, what was the information? I supposedly received a loan of more than R200,000 from the Land Bank. I want to tell the Committee frankly that I have a Land Band loan, but it does not nearly approximate that amount, not even a third of that amount. That is why I say that the hon. member is a liar.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it. I say that he told untruths. In addition he is alleged to have said that Mr. De la Rey Venter has a fantastic house at Grysrand costing between R30,000 and R40,000.

You did not get it from your father-in-law.

Sir, was either the hon. member for Newton Park or the hon. member for Kensington at Grysrand to see in what kind of a house I am living?

Is it any concern of theirs?

It is only gossip.

In what Sunday Times did it appear?

Those hon. members know that it appeared in the Sunday Times.

Where is the newspaper?

The hon. member may go to the archives and obtain the newspaper there; it was just before the election. I am not in the fortunate position of the hon. member for Newton Park, Who married a farm.

Are you jealous?

Not in that sense. I worked for my land. The hon. member now wants to know what the policy of the Land Bank is. No wonder the hon. member does not know what the policy is, because he has no sense; his mind is foggy if, sitting in the House of Assembly for so many years, he still does not know what the Land Bank’s policy is. It is surprising that he does not know it. I can describe the Land Bank’s policy in a few words: Any person who qualifies for a loan at the Land Bank can obtain a loan.

How does one qualify?

You surely cannot expect a man to obtain a loan if he is sitting on 10 morgen of land and applies for a loan of R100,000. Must he obtain it? Is the hon. member a responsible person, or is he not? I do not think he is. The Land Bank is an autonomous body: it is an altogether autonomous body, and loans are granted to persons who qualify.

On merit?

Sir, look at how the hon. member, and also the hon. member for Kensington, carried on here. One does not expect such absurdities from that hon member. Is it not a blatant scandal that an hon. member takes the trouble to go to the Deeds Office to ferret out this kind of information? I was asked during the election whether United Party people also have Land Bank loans, and I replied that I had not been to the Deeds Office, but that I presumed there would probably also be some of them that have loans. I have not been to the Deeds Office. I said, in addition, that I regarded myself as having too much decency to make this known in public, even if I knew the names of such persons. When I say that I regard myself as having too much decency to do so, the hon. member can deduce from that in what light I regard him. I am glad that I had the opportunity this afternoon to say these few words to that hon. member, whom I have avoided altogether up to now, and I am going to continue to do so. because I do not think that he is the type of man that ought to be sitting in this House. Everyone outside regards us as men of integrity. That hon. member is a colleague of mine, even though he is sitting on that side. Can I say of that hon. member that he is a colleague of integrity? No, I cannot say so, not in view of his actions. One must, after all, try to state one’s policy at some time or other, and not to make personal attacks here. [Interjection]

Order! Hon. members must not be so personal.

Sir, their endeavour to discredit the person of the Prime Minister did not succeed, and they were even less successful in trying to discredit me.

Sir, as a person who will never be able to get a Land Bank Loan for the delightful Orange Grove in which I live, I hope that I will be permitted, for a few moments at least, to steer the debate into quieter waters. I must say first of all though that I was surprised at the vehemence of the accusations and the attacks made by the last speaker and by the hon. the Prime Minister on issues which seemed to me to be based partly on the number of telephone calls made and the days on which they were made and also in which papers they appeared. May I suggest to the hon. Prime Minister that there is a remedy, a remedy which should be used more. That is to go to the Press Board of Reference; and if there have been any wrong reports whatsoever, why not go to the retired Judge, who is the chairman of the Press Commission of Reference and get a decision in that respect?

Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister raised two important points in his speech and I am glad that he did so. The first one was the question of the non-aggression pact with African countries to the north of us and the other one was his important statement in regard to the non-white policy of his party. I am glad that he raised the debate to the level of a philosophical discussion and all I wish to say in this regard is that I hope that hon. members opposite who are interested in such philosophical discussions will take cognizance of two basic truths. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education is also a philosopher and I am sure that he will listen to me. First of all, before one can discuss a matter such as this on a philosophical basis, one has to decide the meaning of the terms you employ. The hon. the Prime Minister and that his policy was one of separate development suggesting thereby that it was not our policy. Of course, it depends on the meaning of those words “separate” and “development”. We on this side all favour the idea of development and we also favour the idea of a separate pattern of development when it comes to separate residential areas, separate public school facilities, and so forth. Sir, until we get a clear definition of what separate development does mean, we cannot discuss it as philosophically as we should.

The second mistake that is often made is to confuse ultimate objectives with immediate measures. This point was once expressed to me by a professor in a rather over-simplified way. He said that the Afrikaans-speaking South African is only interested in ultimate objectives while he does not concern himself with immediate measures, while the English-speaking South African distrusts the ultimate objectives and is only concerned with the immediate measures themselves. Could we not on that basis and by not thinking too much about ultimate objectives, decide on certain immediate objectives on which we and that side of the House can agree and in the interests of South Africa go ahead on that basis? For example, the development itself of the Bantu areas is something on which we agree. We must have racial peace as stated by the hon. the Prime Minister. We must also have less infringement on the dignity of the individual in this country. We can agree on those points and work together on that. We can work together on the principle of “an” outward policy, not necessarily “the” outward policy of the Government or on the details thereof. We can also work together on the idea of border development as economic development in South Africa. I give this as a suggestion.

I hope I will now be permitted to leave this rarified sphere of philosophy and return to the sphere with which the hon. the Minister of Community Development and myself are more used to, namely the ordinary sphere of politics. I want to say at the outset that in regard to the Marendaz affair and the role of the Minister of Mines, I have rarely seen such bias, such one-sidedness, such a suppression of facts and such a refusal even to state the Opposition’s point of view, on the part of the Government and its supporters as in the S.A.B.C.’s broadcasts of 11 p.m. last night and 7 a.m. this morning. I charge the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs before the hon. the Prime Minister for allowing the S.A.B.C. to be used as a political instrument for political bias in this respect.

I also want to know more about the question raised during the Marendaz discussion. A very interesting point was mentioned by the hon. member for Durban (North). It is one part of the affidavit of Mr. Marendaz which reads as follows—

This raises certain interesting questions.

If it is true, so what?

If it is a true we would like a few replies from the hon. the Minister. First of all, was he in Ghana? What was he doing in Ghana, selling diesel engines to Dr. Nkrumah? In fact, what was he doing in Ghana at all at a stage when Dr. Nkrumah was villifying South Africa as being one of the greatest international villains of all? Was he travelling on a South African passport or, perish the thought, on a British passport? Did the Department of Foreign Affairs know about the visit? Why was something given to him which appears to have been a semi-official banquet?

I will make it easy for you. I was in Ghana. So what?

Very well. So he was in Ghana. What was he doing there?

I went on a private business trip and I paid for it.

If the hon. the Minister was on private business, what was he doing at the banquet at which the President of Ghana, the wife of the Minister of Justice and wives of other Cabinet Ministers were present?

It was done on invitation. So what!

All I know, is that he is a very bad commercial traveller for his firm and Marendaz. But he could have improved his position had he given some entertainment at that official banquet. We all know about the terpischorean talents of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport. Why did he not take him along to offer some entertainment at that banquet? He might then have sold some engines.

I think I found out in Ghana that you had been there the year before.

If anybody told him that I had been in Ghana the year before, that person was a contemptible liar.

Mr. Chairman, it is a matter of regret to me that when this debate started, the hon. the Prime Minister spent a truculent two or three hours in trying to get a discussion going on the number of sleepers broken or in a state of disrepair on a certain line in Natal. I do not want to go into the details of his personal dispute with the hon. member for South Coast. But I do want to say just a few things about the general position regarding safety on the Railways. In the old days of the United Party a certificate of safety was issued by the Auditor-General every year to say that the Railways of South Africa were safe. After this Government came into power, we asked that that certificate should again be issued. The hon. the Minister and his predecessor refused it. Why cannot we have that instead of ex parte reports by engineers?

Surely you are telling untruths now.

But that is the position. Does he not know that that certificate of safety was issued in the past? I can show the hon. the Minster some of them. Furthermore. he was unable to tell me, in reply to a question, the number of drivers, shunters and other staff employed by the Railways who are killed on duty annually. Do you know. Sir, that during the last year there were 451 derailments and 132 collisions, of which 126 were, as a result of negligence on the part of the staff. It was admitted by the hon. the Minister in reply to a question These are important issues. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the Opposition is running away as it has never run away from any particular matter. They ran away from the Vote of the Prime Minister, the debate of which they reduced to the level at which it is being conducted at present. In the first place, they have run away from the Marendaz case as they have never run away from any particular case, and they then seized upon Railway matters. When they found that Railway matters were burning their fingers, they left them at that and started talking about other minor matters. Now that the hon. member for Kensington has been cornered and the charge of perjury is hanging over his head, we find that the hon. orator of Orange Grove got up to try and save the situation. Sitting there as they are, the hon. Opposition have been rubbed in the dirt and have suffered a defeat as I have never seen an Opposition suffer in South Africa. That small bantam-cock sitting to the right of the Leader of the Opposition has overstepped the mark as far as the conduct of politics in this Parliament is concerned.

But I want to come back to the hon. member for Kensington, who sits opposite me in this House. He came to this House four years after I did. I think he may be a few years older than I am, but we probably belong to the same generation. Ideologically speaking, we probably differ as night from day on the future of South Africa, and we shall continue to differ from one another to that extent. But there is a certain measure of integrity and decency in this House, because we come here to represent the citizens of South Africa. We have been elected by them. What struck me in this cast, was that the hon. member grinned every time accusations were levelled at him. The only inference I can draw is that he was too ashamed of himself to do anything else or otherwise he had no feeling of self-respect left. The hon. member for Orange Grove was probably told by the Whips of his party to come to the rescue and to save the debate by diverting it in another direction away from the hon. member for Kensington. This is what happened here.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Kensington. I want to ask him what his reply is to the question put to him by the hon. the Prime Minister as regards the cloud of perjury hanging over his head? Is he going to hide behind it like an old coloured woman (meid)?

Order! What did the hon. member say?

I asked him whether he was going to hide behind it like a coward. [Interjections.] I said he was sitting there like an old coloured woman (meid).

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it. Is he going to hide behind it as he is doing now or is he going to get up and tell us what happened on 13th or 14th March of this year?

I just want to ask what it was the hon. member said after he had said that the hon. member for Kensington was sitting there like a coward? Can those words remain on record like that?

No, he subsequently withdrew them. I thought the hon. member first said “mouse” (muis), but I now understand the position to be different. That is why I told him to withdraw what he had said. He then said that he had called the hon. member for Kensington a coward, and I told him to withdraw it.

The hon. member for Kensington in his day was a journalist of a Sunday newspaper with, as it is alleged, the largest circulation in South Africa. I say that that is a scavenging newspaper, but the newspaper itself says it is the watchdog over the public interests in South Africa. If he, as a journalist of that newspaper, is of the reputation he wants to give that newspaper, I want to ask him again what passed between him and the hon. member for Newton Park on 13th or 14th March of this year? Who committed perjury? That is what I am asking the hon. member and I will resume my seat now if he has the courage to get up and answer that question. [Interjections.]

The United Party, the Opposition, wants the youth of South Africa to follow them. They are knocking on the door of the youth of South Africa. The hon. member for Kensington is supposed to be one of the future leaders of that party who were handpicked by the hon. member for Hillbrow. He was picked to replace the hon. grey-headed old member for Kensington who used to sit in this House in the past. The former member was one of the most respected members of that Opposition, and he was the personification of integrity and virtue. I want to ask the hon. member, as the successor of the former member for Kensington, once more to reply to the question that was put to him by the hon. the Prime Minister. I challenge him! [Interjections.] I am prepared to resume my seat now so that he will have another five minutes to reply to the question as to whom it was that committed perjury. [Interjections.]

It is obvious to me that the United Party is degenerating into a mere gossip factory. At this late hour I want to say that if the United Party continues to spread gossip and launch personal attacks in the country outside, it will merely help to detract from the discussions in this House and lower the level of parliamentary proceedings and public life in South Africa. [Interjection.] What is more, if I were you, Mr. Chairman, I would only allow the hon. member for North Rand to speak when he yawns. It does not only affect the dignity of this House, but it is slowly but surely destroying the small amount of inner strength that is still left in the United Party. When the National Party occupied the Opposition benches—and I think I am the only one present here to-day who was in this House at that time—we also, on occasion, launched attacks on the Prime Minister and Ministers of the Government of the day, but, our attacks were never of a personal and disparaging nature such as the attacks of the United Party are to-day. No, we attacked the abominable colour policy of Minister Hofmeyr, the short-sighted settlements policy of Senator Conroy and the policy of the United Party, but our attacks were always based on a high level of mutual respect and regard. In those days we also had our boisterous moments and dramatic events in this House, but we still had a sense of humour and we pitted standpoint against standpoint and argument against argument. But what happens under the circumstances we have had? The Opposition are spreading gossip outside and they do not have the moral courage, because when they are taken to task they are as silent as the grave, like the hon. member for Kensington. They are the bigwigs. They boast outside like politically-possessed men, but when they are taken to task and when policy is pitted against policy, they are as silent as the grave. That is the present state of affairs as far as the hon. Opposition is concerned. Why do we have this state of affairs and why does the Opposition indulge in so much mud-slinging? It is because they do not have a leg to stand on. They do not have a policy. They cannot risk pitting standpoint against standpoint. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition know why he cannot pit his policy standpoint against the standpoint of this side of the House? The reason is that the white voters of South Africa have condemned and rejected for good and all the idea of a multi-racial Parliament. The white voters in South Africa will reject the United Party as long as it rejects development of the various race groups along their own lines. That is the position they got into in this country to-day. And now that the general election is something of the past, they find themselves on the wings of political ecstasy because they won a few seats—I have never seen anything like it in my life! Believe it or not, they are under the impression that there has been a political landslide in this country. I admire them with their gossiping, because the hope they have is a vain hope. They will never be in a position to govern South Africa again. I want to remind the House that it is a long time in the history of South Africa since that party last governed the country. It is the first time within living memory that we, as a democratic country, have an Opposition such as this, an Opposition which has been condemned to suffer the agonies of the Opposition benches for 22 years and there we have another five years ahead of us. This is not only the worst Opposition in South Africa, it is the worst opposition in the world.

I want to come back to the point concerning the hon. member for Kensington and I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he does not regard it as something terrible for a young man, who came to this Parliament only recently, to have the charge of perjury hanging over his head, and he is as silent as the grave. During the past 27 years that I have been a member of this House, it is the first time that I see that such a dark cloud hangs over the head of a young member and that other hon. members say that he should remain silent.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.