I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

Before calling upon the Leader of the Opposition to move the motion of no-confidence of which he has given notice, I think it may be of assistance to members if I were briefly to state how far debate on a motion of no-confidence may traverse matters of which notice has been given.

The practice of this House is that when a member has given notice of a motion, it blocks other notices of motion, amendments and discussion if the matter dealt with can be adequately disposed of by vote or amendment when such motion comes before the House. It would be irregular and obviously unfair to a member who makes constructive proposals if his proposals were to be forestalled in an earlier debate. On a motion of no-confidence which is given precedence by the Government, however, a certain amount of latitude must obviously be allowed for criticism as to the action or the inaction of the Government in the past, but members should refrain from discussing the actual details of the specific proposals contained in the various motions of which notice has already been given.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Government when it last came into power some 16 months ago had an election held prematurely at the behest of the hon. the Prime Minister at a time when I always suspected he saw troubles and difficulties ahead from which he hoped to divert the attention of the public by relying upon loyalties created during the previous constitutional struggle. In fact, the appeal of the Government in 1961 was largely that the electorate should confirm the result of the referendum and give the Government an opportunity to set the new Republic upon its feet. The Government received that mandate although at that time it showed very few signs of having answers to many of the problems which already existed or to certain of the new problems which were already looming ominously over the horizon. This is the year when, under normal circumstances, the election would have been held had the Government decided to run its full course in office. I have no doubt that were a general election to be held this year the Government might well find itself in a very different position. [Laughter.] I cannot help noticing the nervous laughter coming from that side. However, the fact of the matter is that the old issues which divided us in the past have ceased to exist or to be of any importance in the political field. As a result there are more and more people prepared to bring unbiased minds to bear on the problems with which the country is faced at the moment both old and new. I think an increasing number of those are coming to the conclusion—I understand the nervousness of the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing—that the Government has failed to adapt itself or its policies to changing conditions and that it has failed to learn the lessons of the contemporary world. Had some of those lessons been learned and applied in the past many of our present difficulties could have been avoided. Some of those lessons could have been learnt from our experience here in South Africa; some could have been learnt from watching what was going on in the battle against Communism in Africa and in other parts of the world; others could have been learnt from the experience of the emergent African states and others again could have been learnt from the experiences of our own country and other small countries in the international sphere. [Interjections.] It seems to me, Sir, that the first lesson which this Government has failed to learn in the international sphere arises from the fact that no matter how critical one may be of the United Nations Organization, of its constitution, of its working, of its methods, it is going to continue to exist just as long as the United States of America and other powers in the West decide that it shall continue to exist. And while it exists it is going to be an instrument which will mobilize world opinion whether irresponsible, whether immature or not. Yet, may I say that our own Minister of Foreign Affairs is by no means the most caustic critic of that organization whose speeches or writings I have studied. I recently had occasion to read an article by James Burnham, an economist of note, which appeared only a month or two ago in a satirical sketch in the National Review. It was an article on the United Nations and an article in which he sought to put words into the mouth of a mythical United States Ambassador to the United Nations Organization. This is what he said—

He refers to the United States of America—

Then he shows that the Organization has done nothing when it has come to major issues like China, like Berlin, like South-East Asia and Cuba. [Interjections.] Then he points out—and this may be of interest to that talkative Minister—that on minor issues its intervention has served to harden the disputants, has encouraged demagogy, inflamed passions and compounded the tensions. Be that as it may, Sir, it is a severe stricture of a world organization. I believe that much of it is correct. But I believe that nevertheless it would be a mistake to do what I think this Government is doing and what the interjections from that hon. Minister would seem to imply they intend to do and that is to base their actions and their policies on the hope that the United Nations would disintegrate and that that disintegration would provide either a solution to certain of our problems in the international sphere or lessen the pressure of world opinion upon us. The fact of the matter is that whether we like it or not the Western powers still regard the United Nations Organization as an instrument which can be used for the maintenance of peace and to contain aggression, and that they can give it teeth of a most powerful and dangerous kind when they want to is shown most clearly by what happened in Korea, and more significantly perhaps by what happened at Suez when two of the great nations of the world, like Britain and France, were forced to climb down without even putting up a fight. UNO has already been invited on various occasions to bare its teeth towards the Republic of South Africa—no more than that of the moment—and that, of course has come mostly from a section of the Afro-Asian bloc. Sir, I think that against that background we must decide what our attitude should be. It seems to me that we should now be taking action to re-establish contacts, to build up friendships, to break down hostilities, to ensure that we have friends who will stand by us not only at that Organization but in the event of that Organization deciding to try to take some action against us, as it was invited to do by the General Assembly motion to apply sanctions to South Africa. In this regard, Sir, one must notice that the Government’s hope that the announcement of the Bantustan policy with its promises of freedom and complete sovereign independence to the Native reserves would change the attitude of the Western nations has been completely vain. It has been completely vain for two reasons. Firstly, because they do not regard this policy as a relaxation of apartheid, they regard it as an intensification of apartheid.

How do you know?

Because they have said so. Do you not ever read what they say at the United Nations Organization? Secondly, because so many of them are still seeking the support and the goodwill of the Afro-Asian bloc whose members, for the most part, are no longer subject to the restraint or authority of the old colonial or metropolitan powers. I think we have to face the fact that whether or not we like it pressures are increasing. The Government seems to have failed to learn the lessons of the past and to be powerless to deal with the situation which is developing at the present time. The position is a serious one and I make no excuse for describing it as such. It has become serious very largely because this Government has failed to realize the dangers that beset small nations, friendless and alone in a world that is still governed by power politics, especially where such a small nation is wealthy, where it occupies a strategic position and where it has big mineral resources. We have already seen the nations of the world stand aside while India swallowed Goa. We have seen Tibet swallowed by communist China; we have seen the threat, not to a small country but to a big country like India with a population of between 300,000,000 and 400,000,000, only checked, perhaps temporarily by Commonwealth co-operation, by massive supplies of arms from Great Britain and the United States of America and the promise of arms from Russia.

I think we are entitled to ask what alliances has this Government established; who is going to give us massive supplies of arms even if we are prepared to pay for them? I believe. Sir, that I am not incorrect in saying that there are certain countries who will not sell us arms to-day. Even when Great Britain sold arms to us it was done against the protests of certain of her peoples. I know that despite the imminent dangers predicted by the hon. the Minister of Defence in this House last session when vast sums were asked and voted for Defence many of the members opposite will be asking what the dangers can be and what the necessity is for raising this subject. Sabotage is already taking place in South Africa and if this Government is to be believed then it is directed, inspired and largely financed from outside South Africa. And that may well be a precursor to other actions if the position in Africa continues to change as it has changed over the past two or three years. I wonder how many of the hon. members opposite know that there is good reason to believe that six months before Holden Roberto invaded Angola there was a conference at Casablanca—presided over by the Russian ambassador—of those interested in the invasion? I wonder how many know that when those rebels went across the frontier they had a telegram of good wishes from Mr. Khrushchey? Now we hear that Ben Bella, the new master of Algeria, has made a public announcement that he has sent trained senior officers to assist the rebels and that he is making armed forces available to them. Will anyone intervene on our behalf or restrain States from taking action of this kind against us from over the borders of the Republic or are we still in the position where the nations of the world, despite our strategic importance, might stand aside with folded arms because they disapprove of the policies of this Government?

There are two further lessons in the international sphere which this Government does not appear to have learned. The first is their failure to appreciate that the internal actions of this Government can never be explained away by the activities of the State Information Office or any other apologists for the Government. It is not wrong reporting, it is not false images or vicious Press attacks which has made South Africa so unpopular amongst responsible people and amongst the nations of the Western world. It is the actions of this Government, the actions of this Government properly understood, properly evaluated and properly judged by responsible people. The Church Clause, though apparently never applied, has done more harm to this country amongst Christian peoples than hon. members opposite have any idea. This House will remember how only last year the refusal of the Pretoria Municipality to let the visiting Japanese swimmers use the Hillcrest swimming bath overshadowed overseas completely the announcement by the Prime Minister of self-government for the Transkei. Just as the activities of the Minister of Justice at the present time are doing much to destroy the work of both the State Information Office and the South African Foundation. If isolated events can have such repercussions it can well be understood what the cumulative effect is of that vast mass of laws and regulations which is known as petty apartheid on people of the Western world.

There is another lesson which this Government does not yet appear to have learned and that is the lesson of the dangers of relative economic isolation. Two years ago this Government and its spokesmen were reckless of the economic advantages of continued Commonwealth membership. It seems to me that at the present time they are showing a dangerous tardiness in making provision for the position which may arise in the event of Britain joining the Common Market. Our Minister of Economic Affairs arrived at discussions long after Ministers from other Commonwealth countries had been participating and he did not have the advantage of having Britain pleading for him. We know the gloom when he came back from that first conference, how he warned the farmers and the industrialists in South Africa of what the position would be. We know his optimism before he went over again. Since then there has been silence. I think we have a right to know what has been achieved. I think we know that membership for South Africa is out of the question, that associate membership is out of the question either in Europe or as an associate member of the 16 country African group. We know that we are limited to negotiating on a commodity basis, on a competitive basis with other countries. [Interjection.] My friend asks what odds I give on Britain’s chances of getting in. I give him these odds: I believe that if Britain does get in we are not going to get treatment as favourable as any other Commonwealth country. And I believe that a wise husbandman has regard to the future, that he is not profligate, that he makes plans for what can happen and it is just there where this hon. Minister has fallen down. I have no doubt he is going to come along and tell us that there is a possibility of gaining certain concessions and we will be told to rejoice at the prospect. But I doubt whether whatever he can offer us is going to hide the fact that his operation has been anything more than a salvage operation. That is a serious situation for a country which relies as much on foreign trade as South Africa does. Do you realize. Sir, that while a country like America spends only 4 per cent of her national income on imports we in South Africa spend between 25 per cent and 30 per cent on our imports and that money has to be earned somewhere?

I think the Government has been slow to learn these lessons in the international sphere. I think it has been slower in adapting itself and its policies to changing circumstances. It seems to me it has learned absolutely little or nothing from the experiences of the metropolitan powers in dealing with the emergent African states. Surely, Sir, by now, from the unfolding picture in emergent Africa, this Government could have learned that once you have promised a people independence you lose control of the time table towards that independence, you lose control of the time table because of the nature of African nationalism. We saw it in Ghana and we had an unhappy experience of it in the Congo. We are seeing a similar type of thing developing in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia. But despite the experiences of those other powers this Government promises independence to Bantustans in South Africa. What hope have they got of controlling the tempo of development towards independence? Are they not going to be faced with all the problems with which the metropolitan powers in Africa were faced? Are they not here going to be aggravated by the fact that the Government is as yet unable or unwilling to fix the boundaries of one single future Bantustan and are they not going to be complicated by the fact that here in South Africa the rate of progress towards independence is going to be influenced, affected and inspired by a vast mass of people living outside the Reserves in the so-called mixed areas and having very little idea of what is going on in the territories of which they are to become citizens? It is happening already. The hon. the Prime Minister must be aware of police statements as to people from Langa and their activities in the Transkeian Territories already. How long is it going to take before in those territories, like other embryo states, they will try to send emissaries to UNO? How long before they seek financial aid abroad? How long before they make it part of their business in life to bring greater pressures to bear upon South Africa? I can imagine no power who has had this experience once or who has seen it once daring to take the risk a second time unless that power was hoping to rid itself of all responsibility for those areas. Here the position is worse. In Africa we had the position that metropolitan powers who had controlled their colonies over many years and had had long experience in doing so, were abdicating those responsibilities. Here we are creating colonies, virtually speaking, in order to abandon them and abandon with them millions of people who will always be permanently present in the mixed areas but will be artificially regarded as citizens of those states. I think there is something else. Experience should have taught us that once a country has gained independence you cease to have any control over the direction in which it will travel. Experience should also have taught us that in most cases the expectation of life for democracy is nil. In fact, one man one vote for one election seems to be a pretty fair summary of what has been happening in most of those African states. But nevertheless they have all tended to become part of the field over which the cold war is being waged in Africa at the present time. And as such some of them are becoming potential dangers to the Republic. Nor have they retained the friendship of the metropolitan powers at whose hands they were rescued from barbarism, by whom they were economically uplifted and at whose hands they received some measure of civilization and at whose hands they finally received their independence.

It is against this background that we have to ask ourselves what confidence can we be expected to have in the suggestion that in what is left of South Africa when this Government has dismembered it we will retain the friendship and the co-operation of the states the Prime Minister is seeking to create. The hon. gentleman is asking us to take an enormous risk. He is asking us to take an enormous risk in the interests of a policy which in essence attempts a solution for only one half the non-European population of South Africa while it leaves us with an aggravated problem for the other half. In 1959 when the insurrection in Algeria was gathering force our Government sent observers to Algeria to study the methods being employed by the French. One of them was a staff officer, Col. I. G. Willers, who recently wrote an article in the Burger in which he drew attention to the manner in which the Algerian rebels, when hard pressed, withdrew across the borders into Tunisia and Morocco where they were given asylum. This is what he wrote—

How many Tunisias and Moroccos is the hon. the Prime Minister going to create here in South Africa to create safe retreats for troublemakers in the mixed areas of South Africa? This Government has gone even further. It has abandoned all claims to the Protectorates. The hon. the Prime Minister tells us we shall be better without them. Already the hon. the Minister of Justice is complaining about the Lobatsi conference, already there are complaints about political fugitives who have gone across the borders into the Protectorates. What is going to happen when those areas get their independence, possibly well before some of the Bantustans?

What are you going to do about it?

Mr. Speaker, I have heard perhaps the most fatuous question of the year so far: What are we going to do about it? The hon. gentleman knows full well what our policy is. We are not going to dismember South Africa. We are not going to abdicate our responsibilities and hands up on behalf of Western civilization. We are prepared to try to retain control over the whole of South Africa, an ambition far too great for these honourable gentlemen to aspire to. But let me put just one other thing to them. Have not the past years shown something and that is that small nations very often have powerful allies bringing with them great dangers to their neighbours? I need only mention Cuba. Honourable gentlemen opposite can imagine what might happen in South Africa if a similar sort of situation arose. I think the other experience we have is that amongst these emergent African states there has been a general instability when it comes to government, a general inability to maintain law and order, which makes them very often a danger to their neighbours. I think the last lesson to be learned is that except where there has been White control, White leadership and White initiative in the emergent African states, population figures have been kept low by disease, by misery and by warfare. But now that the stage has been reached where the European should be taking a lead in the next advance towards industrialization and economic development, now he is withdrawing from Africa, and he is withdrawing usually to the accompaniment of falling economic standards amongst the peoples whom he has controlled and led in the past.

Now you are talking sense!

I thought that that was a lesson that could be learned by this Government, but despite that lesson being obvious throughout Africa, we find the hon. the Prime Minister making preparations to withdraw from these Bantustans. He is setting us on a similar course here in South Africa. The White man has brought peace here, very largely he has overcome disease— his next task is the battle against poverty in those areas. But at this stage, Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister wants to abdicate his responsibilities, he wants to withdraw. I want to say to the hon. gentleman that the problem of poverty in the Native areas, the Bantustans, cannot be solved without massive application of White skill, White enterprise, White initiative and White capital. Sir, in an exhaustive study of this problem of industrialization by Professor Lerner of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology amongst the under-developed peoples of Africa, he says that there are four prerequisites for industrialization: The first was literacy, the second urbanization, the third media and the fourth was empathy. By media he meant people listening to the wireless and reading newspapers. By empathy he meant the desire to better oneself. I think in our reserves amongst our indigenous population at this present juncture not one of those four prerequisites are present. How is that development going to take place?

I have been talking about emergent Africa, but I think to understand fully what is happening one should also pay due attention to the sinister role which Communism is trying to play in our troubled Continent. And, Sir, I think one has a right to doubt whether this Government is heeding the lessons which could be learned from that experience, from experience elsewhere in combating the communist threat, and one’s doubts are strengthened by the fact that it seems quite obvious that the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Justice do not see this matter in the same light. The Minister of Justice seeks to chill our spines with warnings of revolution being actively planned by strong underground communist movements, while the hon. the Prime Minister assures us that everything is calm and everything is under control. Sir, I think one thing is quite certain and that is that the Minister of Justice by the methods which he is using has done much to build up the image of Communism as the champion of the cause of the non-European in this Republic. He has done two things, Sir. First of all he has lifted individual communists from obscurity into the limelight of martyrdom. That is never a good thing if you are combating any movement. Secondly by associating Liberalism with Communism in his public utterances, he has created the impression that people are regarded as potential if not actual communists because they befriend the non-European people, because they stand up for them.

Nonsense!

Sir, few things could be more advantageous to Communism than that image and few things could be more dangerous to the maintenance of law and order in South Africa.

Really!

I want the hon. member to listen for a moment to what I am going to say now. There is a South African journalist, whom we all know, Mr. Pieter Lessing, who in a fine analysis, which I hope most hon. members on the other side have read, of the communist danger in Africa entitled “Africa’s Red Harvest”, says this, after examining the whole picture and giving the history of the communist movement, its infiltration into the trade unions, its attempts to capture the African women’s movements, its attempts to influence the youth in Africa —this is what he writes about South Africa—

I do not think he goes too far, Sir, because it is one of the recognized practices of Communism to try to inspan the nationalistic aspirations of subject peoples, and having inspanned those nationalistic inspirations, to exploit them to the full, to cause disorder and then, when the metropolitan power is forced to withdraw, or when orderly government breaks down, to try and take control. That is the lesson of the outside world. Now it seems to me that in combating Communism this Government has failed to realize one fundamental thing and that is that if you want to destroy Communism you must not only deal with individual communists, but you must also destroy the seed-beds in which communist ideas germinate most readily, and you must imbue your people with the faith that your way of life offers them more than the communist system. For in the last resort Communism can only be effectively eliminated by believing in, propounding and actively practising a better philosophy for all our people. And we believe that that philosophy should be based on the ethics of Christianity.

Now in what seed-beds does Communism germinate most readily in South Africa? I believe they are those built on poverty, fertilized by frustration and cultivated by hurts to human dignity. How much stronger would the Government’s position not have been if it was taking active steps to foster the emergence of a responsible Native middle class? If the urban Native population, the majority of whom are completely unfamiliar with the reserves, had some representation in the Parliament that controls their destinies or some proper machinery for consultation in all those matters which are of vital concern to them, how much more ready would these people not be to stand on the side of law and order, to assist in the battle against Communism? How much more ready would they be to stand on the side of law and order if the more responsible members were exempted from the pass laws, if they were exempted from the pin-pricks of petty apartheid? How much more loyal would they not be to the Republic if instead of engendering amongst them a sense of being unwanted in the greater South Africa, we could develop amongst them a common loyalty to one State and a sense of belonging here as part of a truly great South Africa?

Has experience not shown that one of the greatest bulwarks against Communism is a stable family life and the ownership of land —of property even if it is only one’s own home? Have hon. members opposite forgotten that the people who held out longest against Communism in Russia itself were not the big industrialists but the Kulaks, the small land-owning peasant class of the Ukraine?

Sir, surely Communism would have less appeal for the urban Natives in these big urban townships, around our big urban industrial areas, if they were allowed to own their own homes and if they could enjoy undisturbed family life. Because. Sir, what is so odd about the plan of the hon. the Prime Minister is that his plan for the future of the Native peoples lays the greatest emphasis on the rural population. But history has shown that Communism takes on much more readily in the urban areas than in the rural areas, and yet virtually all his attention is directed upon the rural Native. And what is he offering the urban Native? Things like job reservation and a vote in a country he has never seen and probably knows nothing about. These gentlemen seem to forget that it is amongst our urban African population that grievances breed and leaders arise. In short, it would seem that if we are to combat Communism effectively, we must develop amongst all our people a common loyalty to one state and a sense of function in that state: we must give the spiritual values a proper place amongst our people, and we must carry them with us in a dedicated effort to eliminate poverty and indignity. I was very struck by something that was written by Paul Hoffmann, one of the most distinguished contemporary international civil servants. Here is what he said—

Sir, I believe one of the instances of these “better lives” is a sense of function, a sense of useful belonging to the state in which they are physically present. But I believe you will only achieve that sense of function in South Africa if all our peoples have not only representation in the Parliament which controls their destinies, but also some participation in the day-to-day administrative processes of the state. In fact, when one reads these things, when one sees what is happening in other parts of the world, when one reviews the manner in which this Government has tried to combat Communism, when one observes the emphasis which it has placed upon restrictive and oppressive laws, when one sees its failure to appreciate the real issues, if one sees the way it has played into the hands of the communist agitator, then one is driven to the conclusion that it is only the essentially law abiding nature of the vast mass of our people which has saved us from calamity at the present time.

When one looks forward into the future, Mr. Speaker, I think one is without any reason to hope that this Government will be able to meet the challenge with which it is going to be faced in ever-increasing measure. And one has little reason to hope because the methods the Minister is using are of a kind which are the very negation of the spirit of democracy. Let me say at once that I believe that the Minister of Justice is justified in taking strong steps against all irresponsible action and all irresponsible incitement. I believe he is justified in doing everything in his power to stamp out Communism in South Africa and to maintain law and order. I believe that violence and sabotage solve nothing, whatever the underlying motives for those actions may be; they can and will achieve absolutely nothing in South Africa except ill will and the exacerbation of racial tension.

But the Communism against which he should concentrate his efforts is the Communism of the communist world, backed by enormous powers, in which, as I have said many times before, there is no Liberalism at all, and which, if it gained a foothold, could mean interference with South Africa and even a take-over in South Africa by a foreign power, and a great deal of trouble for everybody.

But the reformers, the men of goodwill, should not be confused with this issue. This country has to remind itself from time to time that it is still something of a democracy and that our people are free to air their grievances and to seek remedies for them. But, Sir, this Minister is destroying the philosophy, the values and indeed the habits of the democratic way of life. I know that he is acting in accordance with enabling legislation, about which we have expressed our views in this House before now. What we criticize and condemn is the manner in which the Minister uses his powers. I think he has failed to realize that it is not enough for justice to be done—it must be done in such a way that people have reason and confidence in believing that it has been done. You see, Sir, if that is not done, you have no confidence in the administration of justice as carried out by the hon. the Minister, and doubts arise when people have been acquitted and are then subjected to restrictions by the Minister. Doubts arise when nobody is arraigned before the courts and charged with many of the crimes and misdeeds which are crimes and misdeeds for which these people are under restrictions. Sir, you may find, if you go on like this, that although Communism may not succeed in replacing democracy, it can destroy democracy by fascist methods having to be employed in order to maintain law and order in the country. I have stated my belief based on the experience and lessons of our times that this Government will not succeed in destroying Communism, will never succeed in destroying Communism by undermining or weakening so many of the pillars of democracy which other countries are so keen to establish to defend themselves against the very attacks of Communism.

In the same way, and heeding the same lessons, I believe that the race relations policy which this Government is following is incompatible with the continuance of harmony between the races in South Africa. I say that because I believe that increased friction cannot be avoided if the Government continues this policy. It cannot be avoided firstly because of the increasing severity of the restrictive laws which will become necessary to limit arbitrarily the influx of Africans into the White areas and to reverse the outflow from the reserves—restrictive laws which will be necessary to carry out unscrambling schemes like the removal of Natives from the Western Cape, the pressure that will be necessary to apply the Group Areas Act according to the letter of the law.

Already the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development—may I say how sorry I am that he is not here this afternoon; I understand he is indisposed—has spoken of the appointment of a Director of Bantu Resettlement to help and to encourage (that is the word used) the Bantu in urban areas to settle in their own homelands. At the same time a stern warning has been issued against employers who try and get round the provisions of Government policy and having more Bantu in the urban areas in industry than strictly allowed by the Government.

The hon. the Minister seems to envisage the removal of the more advanced Natives, their siphoning away in order to help in the development of their own areas.

Now what is the fate of employers in the mixed areas to be? Is their labour always to be kept at a minimum, and are the best labourers to be siphoned off to the Native reserves? Are we to enter a new period of friction between the police and the Native population? This Government has been in power for 11 years.

Eleven years?

Fourteen years, but take the 11 years since 1951. So far from reversing the flow, the Native population of our urban areas has increased by well over 1,000,000 in those 11 years, and in spite of that influx employers of all types are still having difficulty in getting the sort of labour they want. In fact the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development himself admitted recently that there appear to be very few surplus Natives in the urban areas at the present time.

Against this background, how is the flow to be reversed? Inevitably families will be broken up. Men will be taken out of decent employment and forced back into poverty-stricken reserves, where as yet there is no sign of any employment for them. The day-to-day friction caused by these activities and the resentment with which the police have to deal when they are trying to carry out this policy, are well known. Newspapers have been carrying well-authenticated stories of the hardships which have resulted from the application of this policy.

Exaggerated stories!

Well, I do not believe there is a single employer of Native labour in this urban area who has not come himself across one hard case, at least one hard case. And, Sir, there are hard cases so hard that many of the officials of the Native Affairs Department are heartbroken because they have to carry out the law.

Are you not ashamed of yourself?

What I am ashamed of is that the social conscience of that hon. member has become so hardened that he is no longer interested in those hard cases. And unfortunately there has been so many of those cases that people have ceased to worry about these cases.

Did you have any on your farm?

I had one case on my farm. I’ll tell you about that too.

On your farm “De Grendel ”?

Yes. If the hon. gentleman will come and milk my cows I may give him a chance.

The Government does not seem to realize that these Natives do not leave their areas capriciously—they leave the reserves because of their economic needs, and they come into our urban areas because of our economic needs. I wonder whether this Government is never going to learn that you cannot reverse the force of economic laws without applying tremendous pressure and without using great force and most restrictive legislation? You will never be able to reverse that flow unless alternative employment is provided in the reserves or on the borders of the reserves, and up to now there has been very little sign of that being provided to any adequate degree. I don’t believe I am wrong if I say that in seven years’ time the Government has not supplied jobs for more than 10,000 in border industries in the whole of South Africa instead of the 30,000 a year as suggested by the Tomlinson Commission. And, Sir, the result is going to be worse feelings, more friction, greater restrictions. I have not said anything about the Group Areas Act, a vast mass of complicated legislation, which can be applied and sometimes is administered in a manner which can be unjust. And unfortunately the position seems to be too often, when it is applied, that it is the Indian or the Coloured population which is asked to move. And the resultant bitterness is almost frightening to contemplate because continually it seems they are being called upon to make bigger sacrifices. Now it is not easy to get figures, but the South Africa Foundation, which does its best to put the best light possible on the activities of the Government, in its recent publication “South Africa in the ’Sixties” suggests that in Johannesburg, Durban, Cape Town and Pietermaritzburg alone, if the plans proposed are acceded to, 250,000 Coloureds will have to be moved, 100,000 Indians, and about 5,000 Europeans. Inevitably these frictions are beginning to make their influence felt. Already there is too great a tendency on the part of the non-European masses to withdraw their co-operation from the processes of government.

In the past, crime was often successfully combated because of the assistance and information given to the police by responsible non-Europeans. I don’t think I am wrong when I say that to-day the police are experiencing increasing difficulty in getting any information from those non-European sections of the community, especially in the case of crimes which have a social background, crimes against the social order in South Africa.

Unlimited rewards are offered.

Perhaps I can say that the big failure has been on the part of this Government to realize that you cannot continue to govern people and maintain law and order unless the vast masses of the people want that law and order to be retained because they have a stake in the continuance of the existing social system.

Moreover we are faced with the fact that certain new aspects of Government policy are going to create additional frictions. The creation of all these new authorities, independent but unavoidably conflicting—Whites, Bantu, Coloureds and Indians, each with powers that must overlap, is going to cause friction because of the interdependence of our populations as they exist to-day. We know that the final determination of the boundaries of these Bantustans is going to cause friction. We know that there are going to be border troubles: we know there will be trouble with patrolling, trouble with political fugitives. Our experience already with Basutoland and Bechuanaland gives us an idea of the sort of thing that can happen. We can’t guard those borders against the spread of disease, against stock thieves. The Minister knows it. Look what he has had to do in the Western Transvaal! We cannot guard those borders against illegal immigrants. How much greater are our problems going to be when there are thousands of miles of additional boundaries by the creation of new independent Bantustans? There are already branches of the Nationalist Party in the Transvaal asking for more guards on existing borders, and already there are responsible Nationalists asking where the manpower for the future guards will come from. But this Government goes stubbornly on. If has failed to learn the lesson of its own failure.

It has also failed to learn certain lessons in the economic field, and I think the first of those is that separate development and economic progress are virtually incompatible in this country, and I think that that is because sane, sensible economic advice tells us that this country is one integrated economic unit as regards its markets, as regards its labour force, its capital supply and its basic taxation system. Any attempt to break down and build barriers is going to result in a drag and a brake upon progress and expansion, and perhaps an irreparable brake. Progress, Sir, is more likely to come from closer economic unity and fewer restrictions on the use of labour and capital. There are only two aspects of this matter I want to mention. The first is that the development of the reserves and the border industries is going to call for heavy capital expenditure at the expense of the expenditure on existing industry in other parts of the country, and a retardation of the rate of progress and the standards of living of the whole community. We have had the experience of vast sums being invested in these schemes and we know that in many cases there have been no returns or a long wait before the first dividend is paid. I think it was Dr. van Eck who said that at Zwelitsha they fought for 20 years to get the scheme going and they waited for 14 years before the first dividend was paid. Professors of economics like Professor Richards have made it clear that such investments will involve a reduction in the returns from other and more productive avenues, and the general result is going to be a slowing up in the increasing standards of living for the whole of the economy. Other economists back him up and show that in shouldering the burden of Bantustan development the modern sector of the economy will have to be content with lower rates of increase in their real income. Now, Sir, this is important at a time when despite the general exhortations of this Government there is a general hesitancy amongst industrialists to embark upon new investments and new undertakings. It is also important at a time when our agriculturists are having to rely more upon increased internal demand because of their inability to sell surpluses overseas. But obviously under this scheme both agriculture and the industrial sector of the economy will suffer.

Then there is another aspect of this policy, and that is that separate development means more and more control and more and more State interference when there is too much already. I think Dr. Norval put it very well when he said that no greater disservice could be rendered to the country than an impression that a planning of the economy in the sense of the way in which industries were to be run, was being undertaken. He could mention several instances, said Dr. Norval. There were job reservation, border industries, restrictions on road motor transportation and the like, all of which have the same effect. Sir, I think even these few words make it clear that economic progress and complete separate development are totally incompatible with each other, and that any advance towards separate development is going to impede the economic progress of the country. Already these uncertainties have had an effect on the economic life of the country at a time when the big problem of the Government is to get private investment off the ground. If you look at the figures. Sir, in 1961, net private investment of R269.000.000 for the year was R100,000,000 lower than for the year before. But the important thing is that the percentage of the national income taken up by net private investment dropped from 20 per cent in 1951 to 6 per cent in 1961. Now, expansion at that rate can hardly mean prosperity for everyone. One is left with the feeling that this progress towards separate development is going to mean nothing more or less than planned poverty for everyone in the country.

There is another lesson which the Government failed to learn in the internal sphere, perhaps the last I should deal with, and that is that concentration on ideological and constitutional issues has led to the neglect of the real interests of the public. There are many instances of it. I propose to give only two, one of them well known to the Prime Minister. The first concerns the neglect of scientific and technical education by this Government to the point where his own Economic Advisory Council has told him that the lack of trained personnel is going to be a serious limiting factor in the expansion of our economy in the very near future.

In England also.

I think he has admitted it to his own people, but what worries me is the lack of a realistic attempt to tackle this issue. One of the underlying reasons is a shortage of qualified science teachers. Do you know what we have reached at the moment, Sir? We have reached the situation that there is an attempt to cope with this problem by the forming of science masters’ associations in the hope that the unqualified masters may get some knowledge of science, however superficial. I believe it is the duty of this Government to tackle this matter, because with present salaries they will never attract adequately trained people. Sir, this is not Russia. Our young people are going to go in for professions which give them the best reward, and if there is a shortage I believe it is due to neglect by the Government and its failure to encourage people to enter the profession, and to see that the salaries are adequate.

They even come to Parliament, like the Chief Whip.

I think the second example of Government neglect owing to its preoccupation with other matters is its neglect of the agricultural community in South Africa, to the point where agriculture is fast becoming a troublesome appendage, instead of the backbone of the economy of the country.

What is the price of wool?

The hon. member for Cradock wants to support me on this, I know. He knows that the basic trouble has been lack of planning and a startling readiness to go back on many of the undertakings and basic policies of the past. No plans appear to be made to replace lost markets by finding new markets, or assisting to enlarge the demand for existing markets for expanding production, despite continual exhortations by the Ministers to mechanize and produce—“ meganiseer and produseer”, they said. When the hon. gentleman produced, where was his market? [Interjection.] am not surprised at the hon. gentleman’s displeasure. He knows just how difficult things have been. He knows that now that the drought is over, the farming community is forgotten again. He knows that technical services and research have been neglected to the point where it will take them many years before they can catch up with the industry. He knows that violence has been done to the principles of the Marketing Act by departing from the concept of costs of production plus a reasonable reward to the farmer, and emphasizing instead supply and demand as the major factor in the fixation of prices. Nor has adequate assistance been provided to the farmers to cope with their difficulties. They have not even been given adequate assistance to make the adaptations which the Government itself knows are necessary. Sir, I say this. The farming community is not asking for charity; it is asking for fair prices for their products, and I believe they deserve it.

Mr. Speaker, I have given a brief survey of the Government’s failure to learn the lessons of contemporary history and to adapt its policies in the light of lessons which could have been learnt in the international sphere, in emergent Africa, in the battle against Communism in the Republic itself. I believe that the result of that inability, that lack of adaptation, is undermining not only Western civilization in South Africa, but the existence of the White race itself. I make this indictment—and I believe it is a grave one—because unless this Government is prepared to modify its policies considerably, all races in South Africa will suffer and the economy will suffer as well. I think the modifications most needed are a realistic acceptance of the fact that the White and non-White races are inter-dependent and that our future safety and progress depend on retaining control of the Republic of South Africa under one central administration. I believe that the idea of separate development can never be implemented to the extent this Government believes it can. I believe a policy which gives no parliamentary representation to the Bantu population does violence to the spirit of our times, and the policy which gives complete independence to eight Bantustans is sheer folly. I cannot stress too strongly that I believe that separate development and adequate economic progress are incompatible with each other.

Now, we on this side of the House stand for a very different policy.

Multi-racial government.

Our policy is based on four principles: A sincere willingness to share in practice the fruits of Western civilization with all non-Whites who are capable of taking with us joint responsibility for the future development of the country, with maintenance nevertheless for the foreseeable future of White leadership and a firm refusal to permit political control to pass into the hands of an uncivilized proletariat; effective inter-racial consultation at all levels of Government administration, the protection of the human dignity of every individual, regardless of his race, colour or creed. I believe that when the United Party becomes the Government of this country it will implement that policy, and that we will implement it in three stages. The first will be immediate steps to relieve racial tension by the repeal or amendment of all laws infringing the individual rights and dignity of non-Whites, coupled with a revision of the pass laws and the Group Areas Act; secondly, a carefully planned advance in constitutional and economic reform to meet the legitimate aspirations of the non-White races; thirdly, the gradual development in South Africa of a race federation. Sir, I would define a race federation as a system primarily designed for a multi-racial state under which the power of self-government will devolve on each race in respect of the matters which most intimately concern it, under the general control of a central administration which retains specific control over matters of overriding common concern. Each race will be represented in the Central Parliament in accordance with the state of civilization it has reached, so that the most advanced group would retain political power although sharing it with the less advanced. I believe that such a policy will give new opportunities and new hope for South Africa. It would enable us anew to seek the friendships of responsible people amongst the responsible nations of the Western world. It will inevitably enable us to make contact, lasting contact, with the responsible nations amongst those in Africa and Asia. It will enable us to give a true alternative to the falsehoods of the communist philosophy. I think it will enable us to close the unhappy chapter in our history which started with the coming into power of this Government in 1948. I think it will open a new era of friendship and understanding in S.A., with all our peoples working together with a common loyalty for one State. That is the sort of policy we stand for, but because that Government has not a policy of this kind, I believe that the people of the country are losing confidence in it, and that is why I move that this House has no confidence in the Government.

I second.

Mr. Speaker, when the Chief Whip of our party asked me to reply to the Leader of the Opposition, I asked him what he thought the Leader of the Opposition would say. He told me to read last year’s speech and then I would know exactly. That is what I did and I was able quite easily to anticipate every argument he used. Of course, Mr. Speaker, this is an unrealistic motion. The Leader of the Opposition is asking this House to express a lack of confidence in the Government while a little more than a year ago the people expressed confidence in this Government in no uncertain manner. Not only did the people express confidence in this Government at a general election, but at recent by elections it was apparent that the people’s confidence in this Government was increasing. I want to be very honest. I was somewhat disappointed at the result in Florida, but only for one reason. I though that we should have done better because the United Party could not have had a worse candidate. It is as clear as daylight that people who have never belonged to the National Party, an increasing number of English-speaking people particularly, are more and more accepting the policy of this Government. You will ask why this is not far more obvious. Mr. Speaker, even though they accept the policy it takes them some considerable time to relinquish their old loyalties. I supported the National Party policy for three years before I joined it, and if a sensible man like me takes three years, how long will it take them? [Laughter.] It will take them a little longer, but they will come over, just as I did and just as the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) and the hon. the Minister of Information did. I want to make an earnest appeal to this House not to consider adopting this motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition because I want to tell you, Sir, what will happen if the House adopts it. I do not want to give you my impression of what will happen; I want to quote the words of the only newspaper in South Africa which still unequivocally supports the Opposition. I am speaking of the Sunday Times. The Sunday Times is the only newspaper in South Africa which unreservedly supports the United Party. It wants to have nothing to do with the Progressives. It says that there is only one party to govern the country and that is the United Party. In the Sunday Times of some months ago there appeared an article by Mr. Stanley Uys which reads as follows …

He talks about members of the Opposition and goes on to say—

Mr. Speaker, he says that no more than 12 members on that side are qualified to analyse legislation. However, to describe the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. Van der Byl) as a piece of dead wood is really very cruel. [Laughter.] He looks like a piece of dried biltong, albeit a very dapper one. And to describe the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) as dead wood is also wrong. He looks more like a juicy pumpkin.

Order! I want to ask the hon. member not to be so personal.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition had very little to say about the economic position of South Africa. I thought that he would concentrate on that and that he would accuse the Government of not doing the right thing in connection with our economy: When we think of their prophecies as to what would happen when we became a Republic, and particularly a Republic outside of the Commonwealth—at that time they predicted the greatest economic disaster for this country. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned the difficulties that would face us if Britain joined Euromart, but what is the economic position of South Africa to-day a little more than a year after having become a Republic outside of the Commonwealth? The fact is that our economy has never been more sound. Money has never been as plentiful as it is to-day. The building industry is experiencing a tremendous boom. There is no unemployment. Money is streaming into the country. Share prices are considerably higher than they were prior to Sharpeville. Even the most hostile newspapers cannot but wax enthusiastic about the economic upsurge in South Africa. It is as clear as a pikestaff that the confidence which was lacking for a while, the confidence of other countries which was shaken to a certain extent as a result of certain occurrences, is not only returning, but is reaching a peak which we have never known before; and the scaremongering of certain hon. members on the other side and of certain newspapers is to no avail. Our economy has now become shockproof. Take the share market. A year or two ago, if you had had something like the adoption of sanctions by UNO, the share market would have crashed, but on the day following the announcement, share prices actually rose. Take the unfortunate occurrences at Paarl. Only in the morning did prices fall slightly, but by the afternoon they had recovered completely. Therefore, the economy of this country under this Government 1½ years after our becoming a republic is as sound as never before. Of course, one still finds the prophets of doom on that side—like the hon. member for Wynberg—who wrote the following in one of his articles—

However, this is the same person who a year or two ago predicted that a bloody revolution would take place in South Africa.

I want to come now to the attitude of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the question of peace and quiet in South Africa, his attitude in respect of the question of the danger of Communism, the danger of agitators and saboteurs in this country. Not only am I disappointed at his attitude but I am shocked at the attitude which his party is adopting in regard to these matters. I want to say this: I fully believe that he condemns sabotage, but it does not help to condemn sabotage vaguely and then to say that the cause of it and the reason for the emergence of Communism, of agitators and sabotage, is the policy and the actions of the Government. I want to refer to the propaganda made by his party. They have tried in every possible respect to butter these people up and to seek excuses for their actions. I want to refer to an article which appeared as coming from the United Party, as being the standpoint of the United Party, written by the hon. member for Wynberg in one of the most recent issues of the Cape Times. I refer to the occurrences in Paarl. I want to say nothing while the inquiry is in progress at Paarl, but what was the attitude of the hon. member for Wynberg an attitude which is given as the official attitude of the United Party? Not a single word of disapproval is uttered in that whole article in regard to some of the worst murders that we have ever had in this country. No, he says that what happened was because of the barbaric conditions which developed in the country under this Government. He goes on to accuse South Africa of being an uncivilized country and an un-Christian country.

But he is both of those things.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Which word must I withdraw?

Both of them.

I withdraw them.

He attributes these unfortunate occurrences at Paarl to the barbarism of the Government, and he says that this country is barbaric and un-christian. He says—

That is an absolute untruth. Then he says—

But is that not also the policy of the United Party? Are they in favour of allowing the wife of every Bantu to live with their husband in the urban areas? Is it their policy that the wife of every bantu mineworker should stay on the Rand? I put this to the hon. member for Springs. That is not their policy. The restrictions upon the influx of those people were imposed by the previous Government, and that is the policy of their party. When the hon. member for Green Point was Minister of Bantu Affairs did he allow the wives of all the male Bantu to live with their husbands? Now, however, they say that this is the kind of un-Christian action which is “incredible but true He goes on to say—

That is their policy, but then they besmirch us abroad by saying this type of thing; they say that that is the reason for the murders which were committed. He says that ours is an uncivilized country. I want to ask: Do they derive any pleasure from besmirching their country in this way? In this article which gives the “United Party Viewpoint” they make use of a number of half-truths to besmirch this country in the worst possible way. Let me enumerate the points he makes. He says—

That is a half-truth and the hon. member knows that even if they had remained there he would not have been willing to make full-fledged students of them. However, he does not say what provision has been made for them, and he continues—

They know that that is untrue. They know that there is more contact to-day than ever before. However, the tragedy of the whole thing is this: In this condemnation, in this slander of South Africa, they demonstrate an intellectual and moral dishonesty which is almost unbelievable. They justify attacks upon South Africa which would have been just as applicable if they had been in power as they are applicable now that we are in power. Mr. Speaker, an English representative at U.N.O. made a bitter attack upon apartheid; he said—

And the hon. member for Wynberg writes that that attack is completely justified. Why? Because we have the following things in South Africa—

And that is why he says that it is fair to call apartheid intellectually dishonest and grotesque, offensive and spiritually indefensible. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) now whether they are in favour of separate trade unions or whether they are in favour of mixed trade unions. Is the hon. member for Springs in favour of train apartheid or does he want to abolish train apartheid? Is he in favour of bus apartheid or does he want to abolish it? And is it not a fact that long before this Government came into power, his party was applying bus apartheid in Johannesburg? The very things which they will reply if they come into power they now tell the world are the things which make this country an un-Christian and uncivilized country.

I come now to job reservation. I want to put this question to the hon. member for Springs who knows something about job reservation: Are they in favour of abolishing job reservation in the mines? No, they are not in favour of doing so, but they make use of what is their policy and they say that that proves that South Africa is an uncivilized country. It is not apartheid as they understand it which is being attacked by those people. In reality what it is our traditional policy here in South Africa. It is our traditional policy of segregation of which they are as much in favour as we are; and to say in the light of this that we are an uncivilized country, that we are an un-Christian country, while they advocate the same policy, is morally cowardly, intellectually dishonest and spiritually indefensible. Surely we can expect some responsibility on the part of the Opposition? In the first place the hon. member for Wynberg says that we are uncivilized because we oppress the Bantu, because we permit all these injustices to be done to them, but then the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell), the leader of their party in Natal, comes along and uses these words—

However, his colleague tells the world that they are being oppressed and that this country is un-Christian and barbaric. In the same newspaper in which the leader of the United Party in Natal states that Dr. Verwoerd is the greatest liberalist who is giving the Bantu far more than he expects, the hon. member for Florida states that this Government is a minority suppressing a majority. I want to put this to the Opposition: Why do they give so much publicity to these minor matters? Do they never feel the need to defend the good name of South Africa? Do they never feel the need to put matters in South Africa in their correct perspective to the outside world? Do they never feel the need to tell the world that the Black man in the Republic of South Africa is better off than the Black man in any other part of the Continent of Africa? Do they never feel the need to tell the outside world that the Black man in this country earns better wages, that he is better housed, that he has better medical services and that his education is better than in any other part of the Continent of Africa? Why must the Opposition pick out minor difficulties and give publicity to them and suggest that they are symptomatic of our whole policy in South Africa?

We here in South Africa are saddled with the most difficult problem of human relationships in the history of the world. If there was no UNO to interfere with us, if we had a sympathetic and co-operative English-language Press and a sensible Opposition, we would still be saddled with an almost super-human problem. We are faced with a unique problem and it is simply childish to think that one can solve this problem by means of formulae worked out in England, at UNO and by people who have never had to deal with this problem. The only people who can solve this problem are the people who have lived with it for 300 years. I want to make this point and air this view as food for thought for the Opposition, that no matter which party is in power, there will always be things in South Africa which the rest of the world will not understand. There will always be those things which I have just enumerated. There will be separate residential areas, there will be group areas, there will be no mixed marriages, there will be no mixed swimming for Whites and non-Whites; there will always be things, no matter which party may be in power, which the world will not understand. Is it unreasonable on our part then to ask the Opposition to defend South Africa in respect of these matters with which they agree and not to enumerate these things and say that they are signs of our barbarism and our un-Christianliness here in South Africa?

Mr. Speaker, there is colour discrimination in South Africa, something which the world does not want to understand, but the Opposition know just as well as we do why these things exist. We are trying to get away from that discrimination on the grounds of colour as far as is possible and practicable, but we dare not get away from it in a way which is simply going to replace discrimination against the Coloured races by discrimination against the Whites in South Africa. That is why I ask whether in this respect we cannot expect the Opposition to assist us and to defend South Africa when they know that those same things in respect of which we are so criticized by the world to-day will also exist under their government. Can we not expect assistance from them? No, far from doing so, they lend their support to the besmirchers of South Africa; they say that this is a cruel and un-Christian country, and they seek out those things as excuses for the agitators and for the troublemakers and the saboteurs in South Africa. They say that it is because this Government oppresses the people, because the Government does such terrible things as to keep a Bantu wife away from her Bantu husband, that there is the frustration of which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke, and unrest and sabotage in the country. A great fuss is being made because people who seek to overthrow the White government in this country —whether this takes place by lawful or unlawful means makes no difference—are locked up without a trial. But does the history of the world not show that those steps are taken when a country faces a crisis? They were taken by England; they were taken in Cyprus; it has been done throughout the world; it has been done in this country. When the Government feared during the war that the lawful Government would be overthrown, General Smuts assumed Draconic powers and locked people up without trial; he placed people under house-arrest without trial. Mr. Speaker, it will have to be a very unrealistic person who says that the position at that time was more dangerous than it is to-day in this cold war against South Africa. As I stated on a previous occasion, the worst that could then have happened was that Dr. van Rensburg, John Vorster and Jan Moolman might have come into power. The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) does not look such a dangerous man to me; he does not look like a wolf in sheep’s clothing. To tell the truth, to my mind he looks more—as Churchill said of Attlee—like a sheep in sheep’s clothing! However, now that we have the danger that the White government might be overthrown in an unlawful manner—and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition admits that that danger does exist—they do not want to give the Government the power to lock people up without trial; they do not want to give it the power which every civilized government considered to be necessary in a time of crisis.

I say that we have the right to expect the assistance of the Opposition in defending the good name of South Africa, in defending the position of the White man in South Africa. We want very much to do this with their help, but I want to tell them that it will be done with or without their help and our position here in South Africa will be maintained. I do not want to underestimate the dangerous position in which South Africa finds herself. We find ourselves in a serious position, but the greatest mistake that we make in South Africa —and this is the mistake which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made this afternoon—is to diagnose wrongly the danger which threatens us. What is the diagnosis of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition? His diagnosis is this: Change your policy and the problems of South Africa will disappear like mist before the sun; change your policy and other countries will make military pacts with you; change your policy and you will be viewed favourably by UNO: change you policy and criticism of South Africa will disappear and there will once again be friendship towards South Africa abroad. Mr. Speaker, to say that the hatred which we are experiencing on the part of the Afro-Asian countries, the lack of sympathy, is due to the apartheid policy of the Government, is so much blatant nonsense. What does history tell us? These attacks on South Africa started long before this Government came into power. These attacks started when Jan Smuts, who at the time was the darling of the West, the founder of UNO, defended our cause at UNO. At that time a resolution was adopted against us condemning our treatment of the Indians in South Africa. There was no apartheid then. The Coloured was still on the Common Voters’ Roll at the time. Representation in this Parliament was then promised to the Indians and at that time the Bantu still had their representation in Parliament. When all those things which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now says we must restore were still in operation the venomous attacks against us were already starting and UNO had already adopted a resolution against us. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that we must seek the friendship and affection of UNO. I want to ask him what he is prepared to sacrifice for that friendship. How far is he prepared to go to buy the favour of the Afro-Asian countries at UNO? Is he willing to go as far as Southern Rhodesia went—Southern Rhodesia which allowed 15 Black people to take their seats in its Parliament under its latest constitution, and not only that, but Southern Rhodesia which is adopting laws to force integration upon the Whites in Southern Rhodesia—compulsory mixed swimming, compulsory mixing in hotels? I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he is prepared to go so far? However, Sir Edgar Whitehead for whom I have the greatest respect, went much further than this. He said at UNO: “Not only are we prepared to give 15 Black people seats in Parliament, not only are we prepared to force integration upon Southern Rhodesia, but I tell you now that within 15 years the Black people will govern Southern Rhodesia.” Was UNO satisfied with that? No, they adopted a motion against the constitution of Southern Rhodesia by 75 votes to 1. Only South Africa voted against that motion. Even England abstained from voting. Is there apartheid in Southern Rhodesia? Is there a cruel Verwoerd in Southern Rhodesia? No, they are not even satisfied that there will be a Black government in Southern Rhodesia in 15 years’ time; they want everything and they, want it now. When will the Opposition realize that the struggle of the Afro-Asian countries is not a struggle against Verwoerd? It is not a struggle against apartheid; it is a struggle against the White man in Africa and against the White man in South Africa. We must have no illusions as to what those Afro-Asian countries at UNO have in mind for Africa; we must have no illusions in regard to the policy which they seek to force upon Africa. That policy which they seek to force upon Africa is precisely the same policy that they want to force upon South Africa. That policy has some very fine-sounding names; it is called the policy of human rights, the policy in terms of which merit alone counts, but stripped of all those fine words and all its fine-sounding terms, the policy which the Afro-Asian countries and other UNO countries seek to force upon Africa is that the Black man must rule in those countries where the Black man is in the majority; that is what it amounts to. That is the policy which they forced upon the Congo; that is the policy which they forced upon Tanganyika and Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia; that is the policy which they are now forcing upon Kenya and Southern Rhodesia, and that is the policy which they seek to force upon the Republic of South Africa. It is difficult to say what the Whites in the North are going to do; I can only wish them success, but the world must realize one thing and that is that as far as the Republic of South Africa is concerned, it is the intention of the Whites to stay here and not to abdicate.

What is the answer of South Africa to this challenge of the world that where the Black man is in the majority the Black man must rule? Every man and woman must reply to that challenge and every political party must reply to that challenge. The Progressive Party has given its reply. It has said that where the Black man is in the majority the Black man must rule. Dr. Jan Steytler stood up in this House and said that just as surely as the sun will rise to-morrow, so surely will the Black man eventually rule South Africa; their task is simply to ensure that when that day does come it will be a civilized Black man who rules. What is the United Party’s reply to this challenge? It thinks that it can meet this challenge by making concessions. The concessions which it is willing to make are not very clear because they change from day to day, but it thinks that it can meet this challenge by giving the Coloureds, the Indians and the Bantu representation in this House, representation by their own people, because, after all. according to them, that is what will eventually happen. No matter how many representatives they wish to give the Indians, the Coloureds and the Bantu in this House, they still think that they can buy the favour of UNO by making these concessions. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition what causes him to think that he will be able to satisfy the world in this way, that he can satisfy the leaders of Black nationalism in Southern Africa in this way? Joshua Nkomo is not satisfied with 15 Black representatives in the Southern Rhodesian Parliament; Kenneth Kaunda is not satisfied with a Black majority; Banda is not satisfied that the Whites in Nyasaland should have any rights except under his conditions, and if Kaunda and Banda and those people are not satisfied, why should Luthuli and Sobokwe and Mandela be satisfied with the concession which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to make to them? But what is far more serious is this: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has told us what an important body UNO is. Whether we agree with him or not, it is a terrible fact. What leads the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to think that by his concessions he will be able to satisfy UNO? If Southern Rhodesia had been unable to satisfy UNO by saying that within 15 years there will be a Black government in Southern Rhodesia, how does he think he will be able to satisfy them with his concessions? I want to issue this warning to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: With his policy he is setting out on a very slippery road from which there will be no return. Mr. Speaker, I want to say something here now which is going to shock this House, but I think it is necessary for this point to be made, a point which I believe in the depths of my soul to be the truth, and that is this: Place the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in control of South Africa to-morrow and within 15 years we will have a Black Prime Minister in South Africa because his policy in reality is nothing less than the “partnership” policy of Sir Roy Welensky and Sir Edgar Whitehead. Let me say at once that not only do I have the greatest admiration for Sir Roy Welensky but I also have a feeling almost of affection for him. However, five years ago Sir Roy Welensky said that the utmost that he was willing to do was to offer the Black man of Rhodesia a junior partnership—precisely what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is doing. Three years after Sir Roy Welensky had said this in a broadcast he said that the most that he was willing to do was to offer the Blacks an equal partnership. First of all it was only a junior partnership: three years later it was an equal partnership and now, two years later still, Sir Edgar Whitehead says that he is prepared to offer them a senior partnership. Just as little as entrenchments and guarantees and instructions in the Constitution in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland prevented the Black man from becoming a senior partner in Southern Rhodesia, so little will it prevent the Black man from becoming the senior partner in the Republic of South Africa. I tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that no matter how good his intentions are, no matter how honest his intentions are in respect of the White man in South Africa—and I believe that he is profoundly honest in his intentions—he will not be able to maintain the position of the White man here. He will be as powerless to do so as Sir Roy or Sir Edgar, not because he does not have the correct motives, not because there is any lack of honesty on his part but because his policy is not the right one. because he is misinterpreting the developments in Africa, because he is misinterpreting world developments. On the other hand we have the National Party. It is not blind to what is happening in Africa. It knows that it will have to live together with the emergent Black states in Africa; it knows that that movement which has been set in motion is inexorable and can never be reversed, and it is not blind to the political and other aspirations of the Black people here in our midst. But, we take our stand on this point that this country in which we are living has been built with the sweat and the tears and the blood of the White man, of the Voortrekker and his descendants and of the 1820 settler and his descendants and, as the hon. the Minister of Justice has said, we did not lease this country; we do not merely have the usufruct of it. We do not want to retain this country for any other man. We took this country and tamed it just as the American occupied America. Give the Black man his rights in the areas of his forefathers. It is not we who wish to fragment this country, as is said by members of the Opposition. That has been done by history. We say to the Black man: “There is your opportunity; there you will develop to the full politically; there you will be able to build up your state to full independence, if you are capable of doing so.” We appreciate the dangers in that connection. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, has referred here to the dangers, he asks whether they will be able to conclude alliances with other countries, whether they will be able to conclude an alliance with communist Russia. Mr. Speaker, that is not a problem which will only arise if our policy is implemented. That problem will exist if Basutoland and Bechuanaland and Swaziland become independent. I want to put this question to the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan): Is he willing to ask the British Government not to permit those countries to become independent? No, we will simply have to face up to this thing. We will have to cooperate with those people like sensible beings and live together with them in peace and harmony. I want to put this question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: If this holds such great dangers, if a possible independent Transkei constitutes such great dangers, just imagine what dangers lie in a Republic of South Africa with Luthuli as Prime Minister of this country. In that case it will really not make any difference any more as far as we are concerned if they do conclude an alliance with Russia and those countries. The choice of the electorate has been forced upon it by circumstances, and because the electors correctly interpret the signs of Africa. That is why more and more White people in South Africa and in Africa are seeking the protection of the National Government. The National Government has become more than the Government of the Afrikaner; the National Party has become more than the party for South Africans; it has become the party and the sanctuary of every White man on the whole Continent of Africa and that is why the people have confidence in it. That is why the people will reject the Opposition and for that reason this motion moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is so unrealistic. Therefore, I want to move as an amendment—

I formally second.

I do not want to deal for any length of time with the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) who has just spoken. There were, however, three matters in his speech which I feel that I must mention. The first is a very important admission which he made which indicates to the country how critical the position in South Africa is to-day. In his speech he tried to defend certain legislation and certain actions of this Government by saying that we are living in such a period of crisis that there is the danger that the lawful Government of South Africa will be overthrown. How can anybody then say that there is peace in South Africa if the danger that the lawful Government can be overthrown is so great? I cannot remember any period in peacetime under a United Party government when there was any danger that the lawful Government would be overthrown. We find these crises to-day under this Government.

A second point which the hon. member tried to make was that we in the United Party will never succeed in satisfying the countries of Africa and the Afro-Asian countries with our policy. However, we never put this as point number one in our policy. Neither did we ever make point number one of our policy the fact that we wished to satisfy the communist countries, even though the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing is having maize exported to communist countries. Our main aim is that we hope first of all to create a split in those Afro-Asian countries and, secondly, we want the Western countries on our side. That is our important aim. If we have only one vote on the Security Council, only one veto by one of the Big Five, we will be able to avoid an attack by UN upon our country. If we could have had only one vote changed at the International Court, that decision would not have gone against us. Can anybody tell me that a United Party government operating according to the traditions of a General Smuts would not have succeeded in obtaining that one vote? The misfortune is that this Government cannot even obtain that one vote.

The third point which the hon. member for Vereeniging made was this: He stated that there was greater support for the Government on the part of the English-speaking people. I think that the result in Florida is an adequate answer to that. He may perhaps be able to boast that a newspaper like the Rand Daily Mail indirectly supported the National Party in that by-election in that it asked the Progressives not to vote for the United Party, but even the Progressives could not go so far as to vote for his Government. When the hon. the Minister of Labour wanted to hold a meeting there for the English-speaking people he had to cancel his meeting because an insufficient number of people turned up. This causes me to think of a certain speech which the hon. member for Vereeniging made in which he tried to defend—or tried to find some excuse for—the fact that two English-speaking members had been appointed to the Cabinet, namely, the hon. the Minister of Immigration and the hon. the Minister of Information. If I remember correctly the hon. member said that there were many other and better people who could have been appointed! I want to leave the hon. member for Vereeniging there.

I think that all of us must admit that our country has to deal with greater problems than ever before, even under this present Government. Those problems are of a twofold nature—they are international and they are also domestic. If we look at the position to-day and we compare the conditions with what they were even five years ago, is there one hon. member on the Government side who can say honestly and with an open mind that our country is safer to-day, that our country is to-day more prosperous? Five years ago it was not necessary for the hon. the Minister of Defence to speak about the possibility of blood running to stirrup-depth. The hon. the Minister of Defence knows that even greater problems await him under the policy of this Government because once those Bantustans become independent states he will be faced with the possibility of hostile armies within the borders of South Africa.

What country in the world is more safe to-day than it was five years ago?

We would have been more safe under a United Party government than under this Government. I want to quote the words of the hon. the Minister of Defence which he used on 5 September last year when he spoke at the National Party Congress. He also spoke about the arming of the Bantustans and he used these words [translation]—

Can anybody believe that we are safer to-day under this Government? I will give the hon. the Minister the cutting—it is from the Vaderland.

It is so obvious that even you ought to grasp it.

There we have it now and I hope that those words are recorded in Hansard. The hon. the Minister of Defence says that what he said is so obvious that even I ought to grasp it. In other words, it is an acknowledgment that when those Bantustans become independent, they will be able to build up their own military forces.

However, this is not the only sign of danger; it is not the only sign of dissatisfaction. Since we were last assembled here there has been seething discontent amongst large and important groups of South Africans in the country. I am thinking of something which is unique, something which I do not think has happened previously. I am thinking of the motion of no-confidence which was adopted in a Minister by his own workers; I mean the motion of no-confidence which was adopted by members of the Post Office staff in the hon. the Minister of Post and Telegraphs. I think of the seething discontent amongst the mineworkers on the Rand in regard to the effect of the pneumoconiosis legislation, so much so that the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) could scarcely make himself heard at a meeting. This is how dissatisfied the worker of to-day is with that Government—and then we hear that it is a country of good fortune, of milk and honey, according to the hon. member for Vereeniging! I wonder who can say that the farmer of South Africa is to-day more happy and more content than he was three years ago? Talk to the farmer of the Western Cape who finds himself in difficulty because of the marketing system …

Why are you talking about five years ago? Why do you not talk about the period under your own government?

I can talk about the period of the United Party government if the hon. the Minister so desires. I can reply briefly to the hon. the Minister as far as farming matters are concerned. I can talk about the Marketing Act which the United Party introduced; I can talk about the Wool Act which the United Party introduced; I can talk about the Land Bank Act which the United Party introduced for the farmers. I can talk about these things but to-day I am dealing with the failings of this Government. As long as the Government sits on those benches it is our duty to remove it.

Can the farmers of the Western Cape say that they are better off to-day than they were five years ago, particularly where their markets are being threatened to-day, where they are not certain whether they will be able to find markets in the years which lie ahead? The maize farmer of the Transvaal has never been as worried as he is to-day. I was told by a leading maize farmer that at least half of the maize farmers in the Transvaal to-day are being threatened by bankruptcy; that there are maize farmers who have abandoned their farms and gone to the large cities to look for work there.

You know that you are telling a lie.

On a point of order, Mr. Sneaker, is the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) allowed to say that the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) knows that he is telling a lie?

The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Sir, and I say that he ought to know.

Order! The hon. member must make an unqualified withdrawal.

I withdraw.

The one finds that the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing has to send a commission overseas to find out how to restrict production while we would like to see our production increasing and markets being found for our products. We find that the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services hinted that the small-scale farmer in South Africa is uneconomic, although he denied that he said it in so many words. Is that a sign of prosperity in this country to-day? There is only one hon. Minister who is, I think, happy to-day. I am sorry that he is not here to-day; I am sorry to hear that he is indisposed. I am refering to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration.

He is pleased at all the karosses he is receiving.

Yes, as the hon. member there says, I see in the latest issue of Bantu that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration was presented in that one month with no fewer than two beautiful karosses because he was again preparing further parts of South Africa to be handed over to the Bantu. I see that in that periodical he is called the “rhinoceros” by the Tswanas— they no longer even call him the white rhinoceros!

Let us admit, Mr. Speaker, that there are two dangers threatening our country to-day. The one is a danger from outside and the other is the danger from within, the danger of dislocation, the danger of race-relationships which can get out of hand within the borders of South Africa. I honestly wish to accept the fact that all the large parties are trying to find a solution to those two great dangers, firstly, the danger from outside and secondly, the danger from within. We on this side of the House love our country and we are anxiously watching how the threat from outside, from the north, is approaching our country. We note with anxiety the fact that there are greater threats coming on the part of UNO. At the same time we are disturbed at the conditions within South Africa where we wanted to have a happy White leadership with justice but where we see that our country is being ripped up by the Government on that side.

I believe that we in the United Party have a solution to our problems, firstly abroad and secondly domestically. As I have already indicated, as far as our foreign problem is concerned the problem is not to win the friendship of the Afro-Asian or communist countries, but our problem is simply to win the friendship of a considerable number of the Western nations in order to save ourselves from disaster. Only a United Party Government will be able to do that.

I believe that the policy of race federation, a federation of all peoples, as announced by my hon. leader, will be a policy which will effect safety, peace and quiet within the country. The policy of the Government is giving the Native something for which he has never asked. The Native never asked that the Transkei should become independent or that Zululand should become independent. We see no reason why this should take place. Our policy of race federation means that we will retain White leadership with justice throughout the whole of South Africa. We are not going to try to retain a terrifying White mastery in a small fragmented part of the Republic, a part of the Republic surrounded by Bantu states as is envisaged by that side of the House.

How are you going to achieve that?

We are going to have one central Parliament for the whole of the Republic of South Africa.

Who is going to have the majority in that Parliament?

The Whites. Let me quote the words of President Lincoln for that hon. member. Those words hold good for us here. President Lincoln used these words when the Southern States wanted to secede—

Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? That is the lesson that we have to learn here. Let us be friends here in South Africa. The policy of the United Party is the policy which I believe to be the only salvation for South Africa.

We heard something here and there this afternoon, but not much, of the policy of the independence of these Bantu homelands. After the outstanding accusation of my leader I would have expected the hon. the Prime Minister to find some reply to it, but who stood up to reply? The hon. member for Vereeniging! And he was not even able to reply; he could not say a single word in reply. Mr. Speaker, let us analyse this Bantustan policy in its naked truth. Firstly: It means tearing our eight independent states from our country, South Africa. Secondly: It means the granting by the National Party Government of one man, one vote to each of those Natives in the Bantustans. It means the granting of one man, one vote to about 6,000,000 or 7,000,000 Natives who will still be here in South Africa, in the White areas. They will have one man one vote there although they will still form the majority by the year 2000, as was stated in the Tomlinson Commission. [Interjections.] The Native workers and their wives on the farm of the hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler) will have one man, one vote in the Bantustan right on his boundary, and he may perhaps still have to arrange their postal votes.

I do not want to exaggerate what is going to happen this year. Let us accept the fact that self-determination will be granted to them this year. What follows on that? Self-government, as in the dominions, and thereafter comes the third step of independence. We expect that first dangerous step to be taken this year and the country must well understand what the Government is doing. Is there anybody who says that the Government is not serious in giving full independence to these Bantu states— I have quotations here—unfortunately, I do not have the time to make use of all of them—of the hon. the Prime Minister and of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in which they admit that they are in earnest with that policy—* that they really want to give independence to the Bantustans. Let me give an example. On 20 May 1959, the hon. the Prime Minister said in this House (Cols 6221-2)—

Then he said this—

What can be clearer? Just as there are different states in Europe so there will be different independent states in South Africa. I have here a cutting from the Transvaler of 24 August 1962. Nobody will accuse the Transvaler of not interpreting the views of the Government. In its leading article the Transvaler takes to task those Nationalists who in secret tell their own people that the Government is not in earnest with its Bantustan policy; that they are not going to receive full independence. Let me read what the Transvaler said. This is the hon. the Prime Minister’s own newspaper (translation)—

Hon. members on the other side must listen to these words which appeared in the Transvaler —this is an admonition to those who tell their voters that the Government is not in earnest with its policy. The Transvaler continues (translation)—

There you have the proof, Mr. Speaker, that the Government is in earnest with that policy which it has and that it is of no avail for hon. members to go visiting in the dark and telling people that it is merely fabrication in order to satisfy the outside world. Here we have the answer in the Transvaler itself.

On a point of order, what the hon. member has read out and what he is saying now are not the same.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay will have an opportunity later of replying to the debate, although I remember that his last great and important statement was to deny a report that his voters in Mossel Bay no longer wanted him.

If we look at the matter as it is, if we accept what the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) said—that they are honest with their policy, and we accept the fact that we are honest with our policy, then we can compare the policies and we can ask under which of these two are we going to ensure that Western leadership with justice is going to continue in South Africa. That is what we want and that is what they want. Which is going to be the best and the safest for the whole of South Africa and our White civilization—eight separate armies in these eight independent Bantustans on our borders or. one single army under the control of one single Minister of Defence? Which is going to be the most dangerous: The policy of the hon. member for Brits of pushing 3,000,000 rifles into the hands of those Natives in the eight Bantustans, or our policy which will ensure that the Defence Force of the whole of the Republic will remain under White control?

Under a Black Minister of Defence, according to your policy.

What can be more dangerous than to throw open the gates of the Bantustans for the importation of arms even from Russia and Red China? However, under the policy of the United Party we will be in a position to prevent that sort of thing happening on our borders. When the borders of those Bantustans are open to infiltration by communist agents, not only will there be agitation there but those agents will infiltrate into the rest of the Republic. When, however, one retains control over one’s entire country, one keeps Communism out of one’s country to the benefit of White and Black. What is more dangerous than to say, as is done under the Nationalist Party policy, that one is going to have 8,000,000 Natives in South Africa who are going to be citizens of eight foreign states? Mr. Speaker, that is unthinkable. What would be the position, for example, in England if besides her 50,000,000 British citizens, she still had 50,000,000 Russian citizens? That is what the Government of South Africa wants. There will be just as many citizens of these foreign states in South Africa as there are Whites. That is their policy. Is there anybody to deny it? They are going to receive citizenship of the Transkei and of Zululand and of the other Bantu states while they are still living here in South Africa. Under the policy of the Nationalist Party there are going to be, let us say, 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 Native workers in South Africa who will be members of trade unions with headquarters in Umtata. That policy is going to become a danger to our industry, to the farmers and to the whole of South Africa. In contrast to this we have the policy of the United Party in this connection. [Interjections.] Let the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) tell me this: Will he employ Natives on his farm who are members of an agricultural trade union whose headquarters are in Umtata and who can at any time call a strike on his farm? He will have to be satisfied with that because under the policy of this Government that sort of thing can happen when the Bantustans become independent.

One can continue, Mr. Speaker, and think of the dangers under the policy of that Government as against the safety inherent in the policy of the United Party. I address a fair number of meetings on the platteland and I have been told that stock thefts are greatly increasing. The reason for this is that the powers of the Department of Justice and those of the police are curtailed where they wish to pursue stock thieves when they flee into the reserves, the future Bantustans. Can you imagine. Sir, how much more dangerous this is going to become in the future? Think of the economic results of that Bantustan policy. Cheap industries within the Bantustans which will compete with South Africa’s industries will create unemployment and misery in South Africa. Think of the danger of placing the control over the sources of some of our largest rivers in the hands of a foreign country, in the hands of an independent Bantustan. Then the Government tells us that they are really trying to strengthen the cause of the White man on the world scene! I have never heard more arrant nonsense! What is the Government going to do? They tell us that one of the major dangers on the international scene is these new Afro-Asiatic countries becoming members of UN and which are in the majority there to-day. What is this Government going to make possible? It is going to permit eight Black independent states to come into being here in South Africa. As independent states they will have the right to send their representatives to UN. Of course those representatives are certainly not going to support the South African Government 90 per cent of the time. In other words, not only do they leave Western civilization here in South Africa in the lurch but they leave Western civilization throughout the whole world in the lurch. They strengthen the hands of the Afro-Asians by that policy which they are following.

What is going to become of the Coloured population in the Bantustans? What is to become of them if those Bantustans become independent? Are we going to hand them over to those new Black states just as the Whites of Umtata and of Mount Fletcher and other towns in the Transkei are going to be handed over within the next few years? If those countries become independent what is going to prevent the African National Congress and the Pan-African Congress coming into being there again? What is going to prevent these things happening? Anyone who loves South Africa and who compares the policies of these two parties, the Bantustan policy with the policy of a race federation, cannot but say that our civilization will be safer, a hundred times safer, under a United Party government. Our policy is not a policy of suppression of the Black man. We believe that our policy will be applied in the interests of the White man and the Native and the Coloured. All will be South Africans under our policy. That policy of the Government has already been tried; it was tried a century ago. At that time we already had Bantustans within the borders of the present Republic. There was the Bantustan of Chaka; there was the Bantustan of Dingaan. That is what the Government is trying to create within the near future, except for the fact that where in the past it was assegaai against rifle, their Bantustans are going to be armed with the most modern weapons and will constitute the greatest danger to our civilization here in South Africa.

Therefore I say, Mr. Speaker, that there can only be one choice for this country and that is to support the policy of the United Party. The time has come for the country to become aware of what is happening. I thank Providence that it has woken up. There are signs throughout South Africa that the terrible results of this Bantustan policy have begun to make an impression upon the ordinary voters—that they have begun to realize the dangers. They are looking forward to the day when there will be a Government in South Africa which will be a Government of one country in which every citizen will have one undivided allegiance to South Africa.

We have been listening here to pleas emanating from the hon. member who has just resumed his seat that everybody in South Africa, irrespective of his colour, should have one single allegiance to one whole country, South Africa. That means, and his leader also said so, that apart from that sole allegiance every man irrespective of his colour, should have a vote for a single Parliament, this Parliament of South Africa. In other words, in terms of the policy of the United Party, Black people will sit together with White people in this Parliament.

Who said that?

Do you deny it? Now I do not understand hon. members over there. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that in terms of his federation plan, all people are to be represented in this Parliament. Now I should like to know from the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk): Will the Black people in South Africa be represented by Whites or by Blacks?

Whites.

I say that in terms of the federation plan of the United Party, the Black people of South Africa will be represented in this Parliament by Black people. There are many proofs for this, and it is obvious from what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated very clearly.

What is wrong with that?

There is much wrong with it. I first want to state that it is the standpoint of the National Party that a Black Member of Parliament will never sit in this Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. The difference between the National Party and the United Party is that in terms of the policy of the United Party, in the course of time, first in small numbers and then perhaps in larger numbers, Black Members of Parliament will take their seats in this House. Now I ask the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) whether that is so, whether it is possible in terms of his federation plan. I want to put a similar question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Is it possible in terms of the federation plan of the United Party that Black Members of Parliament will sit in this House? I ask that question but I receive no reply. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not say, “No ”. In other words, Black Members of Parliament will sit here.

Read my speeches.

Let me put it differently: In terms of the federation plan of the United Party, will it never be possible for any Black man to sit in this House? Is that the truth, then? No reply. I want to put a final courteous question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: In terms of his federation plan—the country is anxious to know it—and his reply must be published—is it possible that this House will have mixed members, Black and White intermingled?

Under the Nationalist Party, yes.

I hope hon. members will note that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not wish to reply to this question. But there are a few other questions I should like to ask. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating here the whole afternoon that we should satisfy the outside world. If he should go to London to-morrow or next year, or to Bonn and Paris and to New York, and President Kennedy and General de Gaulle and Mr. Macmillan were to ask the Leader of the Opposition: “In terms of your federation plan, is it possible for a Black man to take his seat in the Parliament of your Republic?”, will he refuse to reply to Mr. Kennedy in the same way that he now refuses to reply to me? And if he gives no reply to that question, how can he expect the outside world to treat South Africa with greater consideration than we are enjoying to-day? Because I want to state that South Africa has never been more highly regarded by the outside world than it is at this moment.

Oh!

I want to challenge the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Which friend did we have before which we do not have to-day? Mention one country in the whole world which was a friend of South Africa and which to-day is our enemy.

Why do they vote against us at UN?

In every sphere of life …

No, tell us.

Order! The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) will have an opportunity to make a speech later. He should not interject continually.

I want to come back to this point. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not want to tell us to-day whether in terms of his federation plan Black members will sit here. Which Afro-Asian country will he satisfy if he does not want to give any reply to this question? To-morrow it will be published in the foreign Press that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was asked whether it was possible, in terms of his federation plan, for a single Black man to sit in this Parliament, but that the Leader of the Opposition did not want to reply. Does that help South Africa? I ask the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), who is continually explaining the federation plan in the Press. Surely it is a simple question. I regret that I have to stress this point so much. But I ask the hon. member for Yeoville whether it is possible that in terms of the United Party’s federation plan a Black Member of Parliament can take his seat in this Parliament? No reply. Hon. members are not prepared to reply to that. Now I just want to show hon. members what the difference is between political honesty and political dishonesty. I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) whether, if the Progressive Party could have its way, Black members would be able to sit in this Parliament?

Yes.

You see, here we have a reply Now I want to put another question to the hon. member for Houghton: In the Parliament of the Progressive Party, will it also be possible, and will it even be likely, that there will be a Black man in the Cabinet of the Republic?

Yes.

There we have political honesty. But what about the United Party? Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) is a man who knows politics and he will not allow himself to be put to shame by a woman. Now I want to ask him: Is it possible, in terms of the federation plan of the United Party, for a Black man to sit in this Parliament? I ask that question also of the hon. member for Drakensberg. In terms of the Federation Plan of the United Party, will it be impossible for a Black man to sit here?

Who are you that I should reply to you?

Mr. Speaker, you will permit me again to emphasize the political honesty of the hon. member for Houghton, and I leave the matter there.

But now there are a few more questions I should like to put to the Leader of the Opposition. I have here the Cape Times of last Thursday. 17 January and on the front page there is this report—

White Only on Beach Move:

Now my simple question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is this: The City Council of Cape Town consists mainly of supporters of the United Party. Does he associate himself with this request, or does he not support it? You see, Sir, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition comes here with a pious face—and I almost become annoyed because he wastes the time of a man like the hon. the Prime Minister and even of other people sitting in this House—and he pleads for friends in the world, and says that his policy will ensure that we have friends. Here I am now putting a simple question to him. His United Party City Council now asks that notices should be put up with the world “apartheid ”. I am just asking him whether he agrees with it or not. There is no reply. Sir. no party has ever had a leader with less courage than the hon. member for Rondebosch (Sir de Villiers Graaff), and no party has ever had a leader who is more dishonest towards the electorate in respect of his policy than that hon. member.

Order! The hon. member may not say that.

I withdraw it. South Africa has never experienced a political party with a leader who refuses to tell the voters what he is going to do.

Since when have you been one of my voters?

I do not want to react to that, but in reply to this reaction on the part of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition I just want to say that South Africa should take note of the intelligence of the Leader of the Opposition. Here the Cape Town City Council asks for apartheid notice boards. Will that bring us friends, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants? He pleads for friendship in the world. If he wants to seek friendship, he must say that he does not agree with this. If, however, he agrees with the United Party City Council, he must tell us that also.

I want to pose a second question. On New Year’s Day 10,000 Black people went to Muizenberg. Does the Leader of the Opposition want that to happen again, not only on New Year’s Day but also on other days of the year? Or does the Leader of the Opposition want the Government to take some step or other to prevent it? Is Muizenberg to be left like that?

What about Hartenbosch?

Now. let us take the two. Hartenbosch and Muizenberg. Hartenbosch and Muizenberg are just the same as the honesty of the Progressive Party and the position of the other party. I ask the Leader of the Opposition: If the Government takes steps to prevent 10,000 non-Whites again going to Muizenberg and occupying the beach there, will we have the support of the United Party? Mr. Speaker, there is no reply.

I put a third question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He said very clearly that the Black people—I think he meant just the educated ones—should also have a vote in South Africa. They cannot remain for ever without a vote. We agree with that. The Black man in South Africa must at some time or other have the right to vote. The policy of the National Party is that as long as it is in our power the Black man will get no vote for this Parliament, but every Black man will get a vote for the Parliament in his homeland, in his own country. And let me now say very clearly that we are not busy bluffing, but that we are going to implement this policy to the last detail. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition agrees that we cannot forever deprive the Black man of the franchise. Those who are educated will have to get the franchise, and increasingly more of them. But the policy of the United Party is that the Black man must get the vote for this Parliament. Now I cannot get him to say whether the Black man will have to vote for a Black man or for a White man in this Parliament. But now I want to ask him this: The Black people of Langa, in what constituency will they vote? Will Langa be a separate constituency? Surely that is a simple question. In terms of the federation plan of the United Party, the Black people of Langa will get the vote. Where will they get it? In which constituencies? Or will it be a separate constituency? Now I want to ask the hon. member for Rondebosch, when he pleads for more friends in the world, what the position will be of the Black people in Sharpeville? In what constituency will they vote in terms of this federation plan, in Vanderbijlpark or in Vereeniging? Or will Sharpeville be a separate constituency? Let me repeat the question to the hon. member for Houghton: If the Progressive Party should come into power, will the Black people in Sharpeville vote?

Yes.

Will they get the vote for this Parliament?

Yes.

Will they cast their votes in the constituencies Losberg, Vanderbijlpark, Heidelberg? Or will they form a separate constituency?

It will be a constituency.

Thank you. That is political honesty. Now I want to ask the United Party also to give a clear reply. The National Party says that these people in Sharpeville will be given the vote, and if it is possible everyone in Sharpeville will be able to vote, but they will vote for the Parliament in the homeland to which they belong, but never for this Parliament.

May I put a question to the hon. member? How will effect be given to it in respect of those who were born here in the White area?

Mr. Speaker, nobody knows where the hon. member for Turffontein was born, but he votes in Turffontein. Sir, the tribal connection of the overwhelming majority of Bantu can be ascertained without any doubt. But we did not even have to make this experiment. Britain did many bad things in the past, but just lately it has done certain good things from the point of view of South Africa. All the Basutos who work in the mines and are spread over South Africa and who live in the White areas in the Republic, in Langa and in Sharpeville and everywhere, all voted for the Basutoland Parliament, and that appeared to be practicable.

That is not true.

The Basutos who work in the Republic voted for the Basutoland Parliament whilst working in the Republic.

Under the Basutoland law.

What law is the hon. member referring to? The political organisers of the parties in Basutoland even approached the Basutos in our country.

There were a few people.

Now listen to that. Let me now put these few questions also to the hon. member for Springs. In terms of the Federation Plan of the United Party, will it be possible for a Black man to sit in this Parliament or not? Put it the other way round: Will it be impossible for a Black man in terms of the federation plan of the United Party to sit in this Parliament? Mr. Speaker, this is the sort of thing which must now make friends for us abroad. I ask the hon. member: In which constituency will the Black people of Sharpeville vote, or will they form a separate constituency? If one wants to make friends abroad, one cannot use a better name than Sharpeville in this regard. I now ask the hon. member whether the Black people in Sharpeville, in Vanderbijlpark, Losberg, Heidelberg, will vote, or will they get a separate constituency? Why can we get no reply from those hon. members? The voters want to know this. So we begin this Session of Parliament with a party which wants to govern in South Africa, because I see the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says, “We have checked the Nat. advance ”. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) boasted here of the results in Florida. I do not know what he is boasting of. The number of votes cast for the United Party decreased within a year by 293 and we have reduced their majority by 45, and now the United Party is highly satisfied. I mentioned the figures last year already, but I must do so again just to put the Leader of the Opposition right.

How many fewer votes did you get?

The United Party votes decreased by 293. There was a lower percentage of votes cast. The number of votes for the National Party decreased by 248. Are you satisfied with that? The United Party is like a man who has been in the desert for 14 years. Give him a drop of water and he thinks it is a gallon.

Which party’s percentage of votes increased in Florida?

I have not worked out the percentages, but evidently hon. members are now very satisfied with Florida. Their majority decreased by 45 and they are satisfied. In this House they are 56 members short and in Florida their majority decreases, and then they say they are making progress. May I just point to that party’s past for a moment? They have now been in existence for 28 years, but ever since they came into existence they have never shown progress. In 1938, the first election they fought as the United Party, they had 111 members, whilst we had only 27. At the moment they have 49 members. Since 1938 the National Party gained 67 seats from the United Party and has retained them all until to-day. The United Party has since 1938 gained six seats from the National Party, but has not retained one of them until to-day. The total number of votes cast for the United Party has always decreased. The total number of votes cast for the National Party has always increased until to-day, so that in the referendum and in the election thereafter the National Party had a majority also in the number of votes cast. In so far as the total number of votes is concerned the National Party is a majority party. Now they advance the argument that the National Party represents only a portion of the country. What is the position? The United Party holds only seven out of 68 rural seats. But they are not even an urban party. They hold only 42 of the 88 seats. They represent a portion of a portion of the population. To-day there are eight members of the United Party sitting on the Nationalist side, who first sat on the United Party side. There is not a single ex-Nationalist member on the United Party side apart from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson), but he did not join the United Party directly. He first tried to establish a little party. In that same period no fewer than eight Members of Parliament walked over to the National Party from the United Party.

And the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was given a seat, whereas we won seats from the United Party.

Since the existence of the United Party, 48 of their M.P.s came over to the National Party, and 14 joined other parties. In other words, since the existence of the United Party it has lost 62 members in this House, whilst in all those years it gained only one member, viz. Mr. Sullivan, from the Labour Party. On the other hand the National Party during that time lost only one, and it cost them Bezuidenhout to achieve it. I mention these matters because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is building castles in the air here and because the hon. member for Orange Grove is under the illusion that the United Party is making progress. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, you know, has forgotten that Parliament has started sitting. He still thinks he is sitting talking to Mr. Horak, the secretary of the United Party, and Mr. Fourie of the Free State and Mr. Opperman, and now those people are telling him that things are going well with the United Party. He reminds me of Mr. Soapy Williams who travelled in Africa. Mr. Williams got to Ghana and asked whether they did not have a tailor because he wanted to show how well-disposed he was towards them. They then took him to a Black tailor to take his measurements for a suit of clothes. Then Mr. Williams asked how much material he would require, and the Black tailor said yards. Then Mr. Williams said, “That is rather funny; in the United States I usually take five yards of material.” The Black man replied, “Yes, but don’t forget in the United States you are a big man ”.

The attack made by the Leader of the Opposition on behalf of the communists and the Progressive Party that we are now linking liberalism and Communism …

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to say that the Leader of the Opposition is talking on behalf of the communists?

To their advantage.

I just want the hon. member just to complete his sentence.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition on behalf of the communists and to their advantage accused the Government, and particularly the Minister of Justice, of now linking liberalism and Communism. Now I just want to say that the chaos we have in Africa to-day …

On a point of order

Order! If the hon. member formulates the idea in the way he has done, he cannot say that the Leader of the Opposition spoke on behalf of the communists.

I withdraw, but I say that it is to the great advantage of the communist. And let me say this. The chaos we find in Africa to-day was not caused in the first place by communists. It is to their advantage. They welcome it. It is a splendid seedbed for them. But the chaos we have in Africa to-day, the misery which prevails in the Congo and throughout Africa, was caused in the first place by the spirit of liberalism or humanism which prevails right throughout the world to-day. It is the liberalists of the world who cause it, this sort of humanism—call it what you like—which causes what we see in Africa to-day. But there is liberalism and liberalism. The old-time liberalism was a fine thing. It sought to uplift people and improve conditions and give something to those who had nothing. But the present-day liberalism or humanism is something quite different. It disrupts. It is so blinded by political aims that where it interferes there is chaos instead of upliftment. There is destruction, even of political systems and of civilization. There is even destruction of Christian civilization and of everything else. In that sense liberalism to-day is the precursor and the best ally and the best front a communist can have. Present-day liberalism does not lead to improvement. It is in that sense that the liberals of South Africa are the allies of the communist and his best front. If the liberal of South Africa gets his way, there will be chaos in the country, and what would the communist like more than chaos? That is exactly what he wants. There was a cartoon in the Rand Daily Mail of a tree, the tree of Communism, and the hon. the Minister of Justice was depicted as trying to affix a twig to this tree of Communism, the twig of liberalism. That completely misleads the public. Liberalism does not grow out of Communism. It is just the opposite. The tree is liberalism and the branch is Communism. Liberalism does not grow from Communism; Communism grows from liberalism, and in that sense the liberal in South Africa acts as the front of the communist and the attack made here by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is in favour and to the advantage of Communism and to the detriment of South Africa, and he has done South Africa a disservice, not only through this speech but by refusing to give the replies which he ought to have given to the questions we put to him.

Mr. Speaker, it is a long time since I have seen such blatant evidence of the sharpness of the attacks of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition upon the Government as was given by the last two speakers on that side of the House. There was not one word of defence on all the points which the Leader of the Opposition has raised. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) played the part of a quiz master here and reminded me of a quotation: “Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, refrains from giving wordy evidence of that fact ”. What has he said this afternoon? Nothing whatever. Not one question has been answered. I hope that the hon. the Minister will make use of this occasion to reply to the points that have been raised. I hope he will answer on behalf of the Government.

Answer the questions.

If the motion before the House this afternoon was that this House had no confidence in the Opposition, I would answer his questions, but the motion is that the House has no confidence in the Government, and we have not heard one word from them yet. All we have heard are these tirades from hon. members over there, the sort of tirade one is used to getting from the hon. the Minister of Justice. They talk about liberalism and equate it with Communism. Do these hon. members appreciate what they are saying? It is quite obvious that they do not appreciate it. It is quite obvious that they do not appreciate what Communism really is. If they think it is liberalism, let them equate it with the Liberal Party. No, it is evident that they do not know what Communism is. I can quite understand the hon. members for Vanderbijlpark and Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) not understanding it, because even the hon. the Minister of Justice does not understand it. I think the hon. the Minister of Justice will have to answer to this House for exactly what he is doing.

What is your proof for saying all that?

My proof is contained in two newspaper reports. If the hon. the Minister would like the references I will give them to him. Does the hon. the Minister of Justice deny that he said that liberalism was a greater danger to South Africa than Communism? He says it is worse, but what is the Minister doing about liberalism? Has he banned the Liberal Party? I am being very fair to the Minister now. He is equating the two issues and says that the one is a greater danger than the other.

You must not make these understatements.

Order! The hon. member should not interrupt.

I think perhaps this attitude of mind on the part of the hon. the Minister of Justice gives us some indication of what the problems are. What does the Minister of Justice really think Communism is? Perhaps he will tell us why he is fighting it and how he is fighting it, because it seems to me that we have never in this country had such a dismal state of affairs as far as law and order are concerned. After all, we had a Bill before this House last year in which the Minister asked for these incredible powers and he has made these tough speeches, and what did we have immediately following it? A lot of tough speeches and an awful lot of sabotage, but no one has been arrested in this regard. What did the Minister say when he spoke at the passing-out parade at the Police College? He said that the common criminal was a novice compared to this criminal, that is the communist/liberal.

Who put in the stroke?

The stroke is mine. He said—

Then the Minister goes on to say—

But while the hon. the Minister is searching for their souls, they are blowing up our post offices and our pylons and Nationalist newspapers, and what is the Minister doing? He is searching for their souls and talking about liberalism being an even greater danger and that he will get tough. Only yesterday the hon. the Minister said the saboteurs were playing with fire. He goes on to say that “we shall not hesitate to take very strong action against them” What has the Minister done? Has he not yet taken strong action? Why does he talk about “going to take strong action ”? With all the sabotage we have had, apparently nothing has been done about it yet. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Labour has just gone out, but he seemed to spend the recess vying with the hon. the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Justice for the authorship of the Sabotage Bill. He said that the Government was going to get tougher, that the Government would go all the way and take all the powers it needs, and that it would go on and on until it gets water-tight legislation. Is not the position in this country to-day the clearest evidence that this is not the solution to this problem? The Minister has been clothed with all the powers he could possibly want and he cannot deal with the problem. If he goes on to get water-tight legislation, he will get a wonderful compartment into which he can seal himself, but he will still not be able to deal with the problem any better. There is the most incredible crass incompetency on the part of the Minister’s department. We see in the Sunday Express of 23rd December last year the following report—

Now what is the Minister doing about this? This book is not banned, I might say. It might have been left over from the days when the hon. the Minister had charge of sabotage. What does Gen. van den Berg say about this? He says—

Then it goes on to say—

Now, is this the way in which one deals with sabotage? It is all very well for the Minister to say he will get tough and to say that he will protect all the White people and uphold law and order, but we have had the worst disturbances that this country has ever seen, even in war-time. If the Minister will learn the lesson now the lesson is that this turning of South Africa into a police state and getting water-tight legislation will not solve the problem. No one will solve that problem so long as the Minister wears, as he does, a blindfold over his eyes. The basic problem will never be solved by legislation; it will be solved by facing up to the facts in South Africa, facing up to the facts of the urban areas where all this is taking place; facing up to the fact that there are certain people who are permanently resident there. But as long as the Government applies the policies it does, this will go on. As the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, if they were, for example, given freehold title to their land, do you think anyone would riot or take part in sabotage?

What about Rhodesia? What about Salisbury?

This is not Salisbury or Rhodesia. This is the Republic of South Africa, with a very strong Minister, a very tough Minister, who has all the powers he needs. What is the Minister going to do? What help does he get from the other Ministers, like the Minister of Finance and the Minister of the Interior? The Minister of Finance says that more Sharpevilles are possible in South Africa. Does the Minister of Justice agree that we will have further incidents. and if we are going to have these incidents what is the Minister going to do about it? It is all very well to talk about it, but what is he going to do about it? So far he has done nothing at all. Then we have the Minister of the Interior talking about our wives having to fight at the side of their husbands and take up their guns. But what is the Government doing about it? Nothing whatever, except to give the Minister the power to put people under house arrest, and to ban certain organizations, and the effect of that has been precisely nothing. I hope the hon. the Minister will indicate to this House exactly what he will do. We have an Act here in terms of which the Minister was going to deal with sabotage. In very extravagant terms he introduced his Act last year as being the answer to sabotage, as being a Sabotage Bill which will clothe him with certain powers with which he can “stamp out” sabotage. Those were his words. In the result, what has the Minister done? He has taken so many powers under this Act that he spent most of the recess examining the Act to see whether in fact it meant what it apparently means and making exceptions to it, making exceptions to what one can report, excusing certain Nationalist newspapers because they have broken the law by reporting certain things, telling certain papers that they could now publish the United Nations reports whereas in fact they could not before, because they were publishing the sayings of certain banned people. The hon. the Minister seems incapable even of dealing with that Act, let alone dealing with sabotage. If the Minister and the Government are not prepared to face up to those facts, we will get sabotage in a big way and the police will be able to do nothing about it as long as the root causes remain, as long as the seedbed, as the Leader of the Opposition has called it, remains there. Now I hope the hon. the Minister will tell this House what he is doing about it, or rather, tell this House why he has not done anything about it, and why it is that he is quite obviously incapable of dealing with sabotage. I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will give us the benefit of his views on the very legitimate criticism which the Leader of the Opposition has expressed.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has introduced a motion into this House. Like all other hon. members I listened very attentively to him and I was particularly struck by one point which the Leader of the Opposition made. I was particularly struck by it because the Leader of the Opposition emphazised it repeatedly. It is namely this that he has no confidence in the Government. After that I listened equally attentively but unfortunately I do not know as yet why the hon. Leader of the Opposition has no confidence. But after all, for our purposes as we are assembled here, it is not important whether or not the Leader of the Opposition has confidence in us. That is definitely of lesser importance. What is important is whether the people outside have confidence in us or not and it is very clear, when you consider the political history of South Africa over the past years—the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) referred to it—that to an increasing extent confidence reposes in the National Party and in the leadership of the Prime Minister.

What has happened since we were last assembled here, since the House of Assembly was prorogued which could to any extent have brought the hon. the Leader of the Opposition under the impression that there was less confidence in the Government or that the confidence in his party had increased?

Japie has joined them.

I think that even the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not regard that as an acquisition. What has happened, however, which could in any way have brought the Leader of the Opposition under that impression? While the hon. member was talking and trying to launch an attack against me, an attack which was not very successful—I am told that the younger Pitt was much more successful in his days than the hon. member—I thought about what could have brought the Leader of the Opposition under that impression. We have come to know him as a very gullible person. I got the impression that there could only be one reason why the Leader of the Opposition thinks that there is more confidence in him and less confidence in the Government and that it is because one of his newspapers in the Transvaal made a calculation after the Florida election. That calculation amounted to this that during the 14 years the Leader of the Opposition had advanced by .03 per cent. Let us accept that. Although with the best will in the world I cannot understand how if anybody’s majority drops, he could have advanced by .03 per cent. I cannot even understand that calculation. Even a crab which walks sideways —and the Opposition does not always walk straight—cannot claim that he is advancing if his majority drops.

The Leader of the Opposition attacked me. inter alia, on this occasion. He made certain allegations which time unfortunately does not permit me to analyse to-day. But what I do deprecate, without even mentioning the attack which the hon. member who has just sat down tried to make, is the fact that he did not produce a single proof to try to substantiate those allegations. I want to charge the hon. the Leader of the Opposition with this that he did not try to substantiate those allegations because he does not have any proof in respect of the attacks which he has made on me. The Leader of the Opposition amongst others accused me and said my actions, inter alia. were responsible—and this is a serious accusation to make against any South African, more so if he occupies the position of a Minister—for bringing South Africa in disfavour with the world outside. I throw the accusation made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition back at him and I want to tell him that I do not want to do what he did and that is to make allegations and to leave it at that but I want to prove the reasons why I am saying that. I accuse the hon. member pertinently of this that it is members of his party, and prominent members of his party, who are responsible for it that those wrong impressions about South Africa exist overseas, more particularly in regard to the Sabotage Act. I want to give him an example. For many years a member sat in this House who, I think advanced to become a front bencher of the United Party, a person who until 1958 was a prominent member of this House and who in addition is a legally trained person. I am referring to Mrs. Bertha Solomon. The hon. member now wants to know the origin of the impressions which exist overseas. While we were discussing the “Sabotage Act” in this House last year she wrote reports in various newspapers, amongst others, the Winnipeg Free Press, reports which came to my notice. With reference to that report in the Winnipeg Free Press I wrote a letter to her because the good name of South Africa—not that of the National Party—was at stake. I wrote to her as follows—

That was what I wrote in that connection. The reply which I received is very significant; it is indicative of the mentality of hon. members who have sat on that side of the House and who are still sitting there to-day—

Imagine. Mr. Speaker, leaders opposite besmirch South Africa’s reputation overseas in this way. Prominent members of the United Party have the temerity to attack the Government and me in particular in regard to that legislation and then the Act is not even available to such a person when those attacks are launched against South Africa. That is the reckless manner in which members of the United Party bring the good name of South Africa into the picture. But listen to this—

And from whom do those newspaper reports come? Those are not the reports which appear in the Burger or the Vaderland or the Transvaler; those are the news reports which appear in the newspapers which support hon. members opposite. And where do those newspapers in turn get their information from? They get it from hon. members on that side of the House. Here we have this lady, a prominent member of the United Party, and she says “The newspaper reports I used misled me ”. Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has the audacity to level the accusation against people who try to step into the breach for South Africa in these circumstances that they are the people who are responsible for what is being thought and said about South Africa overseas.

With these few words and in view of the hour we have reached I now move—

I second.

Agreed to.