Before I ask the Secretary to read the first Order of the Day I want to refer to something which happened yesterday. While the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) was speaking he referred to a book called “Guerilla Warfare ”. He made the following remark and I quote—

I call upon the hon. member to withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker. I withdraw those remarks. May I add. Sir, that I intended no personal affront to the hon. the Minister.

Will the hon. member apologize?

I apologize. Sir.

First Order read: Adjourned debate on motion of no-confidence to be resumed.

[Debate on motion by Sir de Villiers Graaff upon which an amendment had been moved by Mr. B. Coetzee, adjourned on 22 January, resumed.]

When business was suspended last night I was busy replying to the argument of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in which he blamed this side of the House and me in particular for a certain opinion which existed about us overseas. I told the hon. member that that propaganda against South Africa emanated from his own ranks, not only from his own ranks in the sense that it was a member of his party, but in the particular sense that it was a legally trained lady who till recently was a front-bencher of that party in this House. In order to link up I wish to repeat the first and essential paragraph of the relevant letter which I received from the lady. She wrote the following to me in reply to my letter to her in connection with that article—

It is surprising, Mr. Speaker, if that can happen to the green wood what can happen to the dead wood like the hon. member for Durban (North)? The relevant letter then goes on—

The letter then goes on to deal with other matters which are not relevant for the purposes of this argument.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to it that on one occasion I had warned against pink Liberalism which was not only a danger in South Africa but which was a danger throughout the entire world. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition held it against me for having made that reference and for having pointed out the relative dangers inherent in it. With due respect to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, if I wish to turn to an authority in that regard, in spite of the fact that the hon. member read a great deal during the recess—I readily concede that—I shall not turn to the hon. member but I shall of necessity turn to the person who is the greatest authority in the Western world on Communism and the combating of it. I refer to Mr. Hoover, the chief of the F.B.I. in America. I am very sorry that while the hon. member found time to read a great deal he did not read the two latest books of Mr. Hoover about Communism and related matters. Had he done so he would, for example, have come across the following passage which I want to read to the hon. member so that he can think about it—

These words “seemingly intelligent persons” are quite important—

… perhaps unknowingly …

I emphasize that—

That was what an authority on Communism, Mr. Edgar Hoover, said in this connection. If the hon. member attacks me for having made a similar statement I am at any rate in good company and I prefer to be seen in that company. If time permits, Mr. Speaker, I shall again deal with the hon. member’s statements and if time does not permit it we shall have many other opportunities in the course of this Session to discuss them.

I must of necessity turn to the hon. member for Durban (North). In the normal course of events I would prefer to advise that hon. member than to admonish him. On this occasion I want to do both. In the first instance I wish to direct a word of advice to the hon. member for Durban (North). After all, the hon. member does know something about the world. He knows that there are people in the world who spend a great deal of energy and who go out of their way to be rude. It is not necessary for them to do that; they can simply be natural and they will attain the same result. During the course of this debate the hon. member for Durban (North) has shown himself to be a person with little respect for the truth. During the course of my speech I wish to refer to certain untruths which he has uttered. What did the hon. member say? I went to the trouble of checking the correctness of the notes which I had made and found them correct. The hon. member pointed out that many acts of sabotage had been committed and added: “But no one has been arrested in this regard.” But that is not true. Not only have many people been arrested but many are already serving sentences in the prisons of South Africa in terms of the Sabotage Act which was passed last year, sentences which vary from anything up to 20 years. The hon. member is a legally trained person and one would have expected a greater measure of respect for the truth from him. Had he adhered to the truth he would not have harmed his case in the least. The hon. member made the blatant statement that nobody had been arrested while he ought to know better and indeed knows better; he does indeed know that not only have people been arrested but they have been found guilty and punished very severely. I go further. The hon. member quoted from a speech which I made at Pretoria on the occasion of the passing out of policemen on 8 December 1962. The hon. member has a very good report of my speech in his possession and amongst others he quoted from it. Once again, Mr. Speaker. I wish to show you what respect the hon. member has for the truth. The hon. member said this—

I never used the words “communist liberals ”. Nor do they appear in the speech which the hon. member has in front of him. The hon. member comes here and makes that blatant statement that I had said that. I now come to the most serious instance in the speech of the member. The hon. member is an advocate; he is as well acquainted with the etiquette of the profession as I am. If you were to act in a court of law as the hon. member acted in this House yesterday, Sir, it would be regarded as extremely unprofessional conduct and a Judge would regard it as such. Not only would a Judge regard it as extremely unprofessional conduct but he would regard it in such a serious light that he would refer the matter to the Bar Council for action against such an advocate. Had the hon. member made himself guilty of such conduct in a court of law, a very strong word which exists in the law, would have been applied to him. I do not want to use it here to-day but that word would have been used in regard to him and his conduct would have been referred to the Bar Council with very serious consequences to the hon. member because what did he do? He quoted from the second half of my speech and he read these words (and this is quite correct)—

That is quite correct. I did say that and I repeat it. But I said that, unfortunately for the hon. member, in the second half of my speech which he has in front of him and had in front of him when he spoke yesterday. In the first half of my speech I dealt with the prevention of crime and I gave certain tips to the young recruits in that connection. I used the following words in the first half of my speech—

I said that in the first half of my speech in connection with the prevention of crime. When I had disposed of that aspect of the matter completely I came to the question of undermining. I repeat Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has my speech in front of him and that was how it was reported. But what does the hon. member do? The hon. member quoted what I said about “the enemies of the safety of the State” and which forms part of the second half and he then continued and said “then the Minister goes on to say …” and he quoted from the first half of my speech. If an advocate acts like that in a supreme court he would be most severely admonished by the Judge. Furthermore, he will in future always be under suspicion in the supreme court because nobody will believe him if after that he quotes passages from court decisions. My attitude is simply this and I am saying this bluntly to the hon. member: In future I shall no longer be prepared to take notice of anything which he quotes and I shall not believe him if he quotes anything. There are not many legally trained men in this House and many of the laymen sometimes look askance at us as legally trained men. It is fitting, therefore, that we should be careful not to act in that way. Whether we sit on the Government side or on the Opposition side, we as legally trained persons must in heaven’s name not act in such a way that we have to be ashamed of one another in this House. I think having said that I have for the time being disposed of that point raised by the hon. member for Durban (North).

However, I wish to accuse the hon. member for having done something else. The hon. member will remember very clearly that when we discussed this legislation last year the question cropped up of reports of court cases and related matters in which persons could not be quoted. The hon. member will remember very clearly that on that occasion I said that I was not very happy about the relevant clause as it stood but that I could not present him with a better formula and that during the recess I would rectify those matters administratively. Knowing that the hon. member repeatedly reverted to it and quoted from Hansard what he had said in that regard. In those circumstances the hon. member will understand it when I say that I do not consider it worth my while replying to the other matters raised by him on this occasion. There will be other opportunities later in the Session for the hon. member to raise those matters in a proper way and when they will be discussed further.

Once again the hon. the Leader of the Opposition let an opportunity slip by to step into the breach for South Africa in connection with the very difficult struggle she is waging against Communism. Instead of our getting his co-operation in this regard the hon. member saw fit to make the attack upon me which he did in fact make. It was not a particularly vehement attack. In any case, that was the impression which I gained. Apparently the Rand Daily Mail gained a different impression because somebody told me this morning that their placards appeared all over Johannesburg with the words “Graaff smashes Vorster ”. I do not blame the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for smiling. Surely he and I know that he is not capable of doing that. It is quite interesting to note the exact origin of the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition. Why does the Leader of the Opposition not avail himself of the opportunity to fight Communism? Why does he fight me? Let me say this with all modesty about the Leader of the Opposition: There was a time during the recess when he did indeed want to do so. Not only did he want to do so but he did indeed do so once and that was in a speech he made at King William’s Town. Immediately after he had made that speech the hon. the Leader of the Opposition received an order from the newspaper which supports him, namely the Star of Saturday 30 November 1962. An article by their political correspondent appeared in the Star the last paragraph of which reads as follows—

I wholeheartdly agree with that. I do not always agree with the “conviction” of the hon. member, but I agree with that. The Star then continues and gives orders to the hon. member—

Hardly had they posed the question whether he had acted wisely to mount the band wagon when the hon. member got off it. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that he never read that article. In other words, he never received the order but that merely shows you, Sir, the extent of the telepathy which exists between him and his masters, because without having received the order he got off the band wagon. The Star continues—

[Interjections.] I am very grateful to hon. members for reacting like that because it confirms a suspicion of mine to which I shall return later on. I go on to read—

I wonder whether the hon. the member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) will agree with that as wholeheartdly. Not only does the Star make an appeal to the Opposition, but it is an order that they should not fight Communism—they should let it lie aside; they may not even speak against it—but that they should exterminate White Nationalism. That is the order which is being given in the Star. I agree with the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) in all humility that if the catastrophe should ever befall South Africa that the Leader of the Opposition and his party come into power that that would perhaps be the road which we would follow here. That danger does in fact await us if ever the Opposition should come into power. The writer of the article concludes by saying—

That is the order which is given to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party. If there is one appeal which I should like to make to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to-day before I sit down it is, firstly, this that the hon. member should appeal to his fellow members who reveal the spirit of Mrs. Bertha Solomon to refrain from besmirching South Africa on false facts and, secondly, that the hon. member should not miss the golden opportunity which we have—whether or not we differ as far as our political views and approach are concerned—to show a common front to the communist danger of which he is as aware as I am. When the hon. member spoke about Roberto Holden’s invasion of Angola he accused us of not having friends and said that we were standing alone. He asked what would become of us if something similar happened here. I do not want to discuss the merits of that attitude with the hon. member at this stage. I want to deal with his attitude as he stated it to us here. If what he says is true, is that not all the more reason why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should throw in his weight with us? If he is correct, then surely it is not for the continued existence of the National Party for which we are fighting here in South Africa; surely it is not for the continuation of file Prime Ministership of the hon. Dr. Verwoerd for which we are fighting; but surely it is for South Africa and for our children who will follow us for whom we are fighting.

The hon. the Minister has made a very serious charge against the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell). I want to say immediately that I would have expected that a Minister, and especially a Minister of Justice, would have taken the trouble to check the facts before he came before this House with a charge such as that he has made and in the language which he has used.

I have here in my hand the Press report which was used by the hon. member for Durban (North). The date is 8 December 1962. The first reference to the Minister in that report is the following words—

In other words, these are the Minister’s words which are being quoted. And then there appears a section which apparently was uttered by the Minister before that—

The charge, Sir, is a very serious one, and it is this that the hon. member for Durban (North), knowing the order in which these statements were made, reversed them in this House in order to mislead this hon. House. In actual fact, Sir, I believe that anybody who read this Press report would have read it exactly as the hon. member for Durban (North) did namely that the statement first quoted was the statement first made and that the statement which appears lower in the report is the second statement. I hope that the hon. the Minister will be prepared to apologize to the hon. member for Durban (North) in this house. I have little doubt that the Minister had reports on these Press reports and if he had been incorrectly reported it was his duty to the public to have taken the matter up with that newspaper and not to have launched an attack on a young and brilliant member of this House.

I leave this matter there. I leave it to the conscience of the hon. the Minister. I do sincerely hope that he will do the right thing by the hon. member for Durban (North) and by this House.

This has been a remarkable debate. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has come before this House with a reasoned case and has in my submission amply justified proposing the motion which stands before the House that this House has no confidence in the Government. Sir, what have we seen? We have seen three hon. members now on the other side of the House, the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee), the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet), and now the hon. Minister of Justice not even attempting to challenge the case made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. They have not attempted in any way to attack that case. They have come here with an attempt to try and distract the attention of this House and of the country from the charges made by the Leader of the Opposition and which stand completely unchallenged on the records of this House in the debate which took place yesterday.

Sir, I will try and deal with the case which has been put. I do not believe it gets us anywhere to come and to try and distract the attention of the country from the charges which have been made and which are of a serious nature.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

I want to make my own speech. The hon. member put something like 50 questions in the course of his speech yesterday.

Are you going to reply to them?

It is quite unnecessary. The challenge in this debate is the challenge to the Government. It is not a question of debating points in an attempt to distract attention from the state in which this country finds world opinion and finds opinion mounting against this country.

The Minister of Justice has referred to Communism, and it will be my charge against this Government in the course of my further remarks that the Government is not fighting Communism in the most effective way and that the measures which are on the Statute Book at the present time are not the most effective measures. Moreover I believe that in the exercise of the powers which he has, the hon. the Minister of Justice has all too often used very wide powers given to him by this House for the safety of the state, without taking account of the necessity of acting in accord with the rule of law. Sir, this is a very serious statement to make and I make it in all seriousness, because I believe that in fighting Communism, while there may be occasions where the Government may find it necessary to resort to extraordinary measures, a Government should be as careful as it possibly can to avoid the methods of Communism in seeking to uproot Communism in this country.

The charge which has been made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition deals partly with the creation of these Bantustans, and one point that was made by an hon. member on the opposite side in reply was to say that the policy which this Government follows in respect of the political rights of the Native peoples in South Africa is exactly the same as the policy which is followed by the Government of Britain in respect of Basutoland as provided for in the Basutoland Constitution. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark amongst others made that statement.

That is not quite correct.

I do not think the hon. member will deny that he made the statement that the political rights vested by the Basutoland Constitution in the Basutos outside Basutoland were exactly the same as those contemplated by this Government.

No.

But that is what the hon. member said. That is certainly how I understood him. And that statement has been made again and again by hon. ministers and others on the other side of this House. I have here the Basutoland Constitution and its provisions are perfectly clear. For the sake of the record I think I should read them. Section V of Proclamation No. 53 of 1959, which is to be found on page 660 of the Official Gazette of Basutoland, provides as follows under the heading “The Franchise ”—

Exactly.

It is perfectly clear what that provision means. It is perfectly clear that if a Basuto has broken contact with his homeland and is working outside and if he has not the other qualifications or has not returned to Basutoland to live there for a period of 12 months in the aggregate during the five years immediately preceding registration, or alternatively that he has maintained a home there— and quite obviously a very, very big proportion, running no doubt into millions of the Natives in this country, if they were Basutos, would not have the qualification to vote, even if they are of the Basuto people. Certainly if drawn from the tribes of South Africa … would not under a similar constitution be entitled to vote in the areas from which their ancestors originally came. This entirely demolishes the only excuse this Government has found for seeking to provide that persons who belong to a particular tribe should be entitled to vote there even if all contacts with that tribe has been broken. It is obvious from this that persons who may have moved from Basutoland to the Free State and who have broken all their contact with the homeland have no right to be registered in Basutoland unless they have lived there and return there for the requisite period or alternatively have a home there. It is obvious that this destroys the whole basis upon which the hon. the Minister of Bantu Development has sought through the years to justify the system of franchise as providing a real solution for the problem of Native Representation. Sir, this Government would never, I believe, be able to get the good will of the outside world back for South Africa so long as it founds it policy on fallacies of this sort. Sir, if ever there was a responsibility on the Government in respect of this matter, it is this responsibility. They are making an experiment for which there is no precedent. I do not say that that necessarily means that it is wrong. But I say that to make this experiment on the basis of a complete fallacy as to what is the law in respect of territories adjoining us and to seek to justify their policy on the basis of that, should no longer mislead anybody and it certainly is no basis at all to support the case which the Government makes.

I would like to go further into the question of these Bantustans and I would like, if I may to add a few thoughts to what my hon. Leader has said in this regard. It is perfectly obvious that this policy is one which brings South Africa into the greatest possible danger. It is the belief of this side of the House that South Africa as it is must maintain its present boundaries. We are utterly opposed to the creation of what on the admission of the Government would eventually become independent states, some wholly within the boundaries of South Africa and some of which occupy a very considerable portion of the sea borders of this country. We believe that this is a most dangerous policy. But even worse than that, it is this policy of the Government among other things which is bringing down the ire of the outside world on South Africa. I would like to say that South Africa can’t go on to live in this state. Not for a moment would I suggest that we should bow down before the behests of black Africa. Hon. members there know as well as we know on this side of the House that we are determined to maintain a home for the European in this country and that we are not prepared to take part in any steps which will lead to the downfall of the European in South Africa. That is a common responsibility which we share with hon. members on the other side, and by that we stand. But we say that this Government is setting about this in the wrong way and one of the reasons why I believe that this country should be losing confidence in this Government and is, I am convinced losing confidence in this Government, is the fact that it is imposing this policy against the wish of I believe the majority of the Europeans of South Africa. There are tens of thousands of supporters of this Government who are utterly opposed to this policy of the hon. the Prime Minister, just as are the people we represent on this side of the House.

Where is your proof?

Hon. members know very well that that is the position. They come into contact with their constituents and they know that a large proportion of the electorate is opposed to this new course in the field of Native policy.

That is proved for instance at Welkom when you hold a meeting there.

When I have held meetings in the Free State I have been tremendously well received, and on each occasion I am certain I have convinced a number of the supporters of the hon. the Minister that they are on the wrong course.

Yet you get motions of no-confidence everywhere.

The fact that I may have received motions of no-confidence on occasion is nothing. There are plenty of places in this country where the Nationalist Party has constantly got motions of no-confidence. But even if we do get motions of no-confidence in the Free State, we will come back and we will continue to do so until we open the eyes of those who support hon. members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure during the recess to go overseas, and I am glad to be able to tell this House, and I do it in all sincerity, that wherever I went (and I went to many countries, including America), I found that there is an enormously strong under-current of sympathy and understanding towards South Africa. It is realized that we have one of the most difficult tasks of history. I go further and say that I found that there was a great deal, and there is to this day a great deal of latent support for South Africa in all those countries, and I believe that a good government in South Africa could get back to the position that South Africa occupied at the time when the present Government took over in South Africa. If there is one thing that I as a member on this side of the House am proud of it is that I found that overwhelmingly that latent sympathy and concern for South Africa which I found in those countries, was based very largely on what happened before the present Government came into power; it was based on the performances of that great South African, General Smuts, and I believe the common man contributed even more than that for it is based primarily on the tremendous admiration of these various free countries of the world for the performances of the soldiers and the sailors and the airmen of South Africa in World War I and World War II. That has not been forgotten. That sympathy is there. For my part I came back encouraged to know that in the event of there being a change of government in South Africa—and it is just a question of time—the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will have no difficulty whatsoever in finding a way in which we can meet not only the criticism in the outside world, but can put South Africa once more on the road to greatness on which its feet were set at the time that this Government took over.

May I put this question to the hon. member: During his travels abroad when asked, what did he tell the important people whom he met? What did he tell them would be the position under the federation plan of the United Party? Would it be possible for a Black man to sit in this House?

The hon. member unfortunately has a fixation in relation to a Black man sitting in this House. I want to tell the hon. member what I did do. I believe that when outside South Africa one must do what one can for one’s country, and at the great conference in Washington I was asked if I would tell the audience something about the policy in respect of Coloured Affairs in South Africa. Of course, I made it clear that I was speaking as a member of the Opposition. But I must say that I tried to put the position fairly. I put forward the Government’s policy in such a way that it was placed in a most favourable light, and let me say that I did not mention many of the petty pin-pricks which are part of the Government’s policy and which are doing so much damage to this country.

You did not quote Bertha Solomon?

I did not quote Bertha Solomon. I only heard in the debate yesterday from the hon. the Minister of Justice of the very serious blunder made by that lady. I did not know about it and there was no need to quote it. But I tried to place South Africa in a most favourable light, and I think no one can ask more than that from us when we are overseas. It may interest the hon. the Leader of the House that one person came to me afterwards and he said “You know, I was very interested in that policy. We could do with Dr. Verwoerd down our way. I asked him where he came from and he said “From Georgia!”

I wish to pass on to other matters and the matter I wish to deal with first is a reason which has not been advanced so far, I believe, in relation as to why this House and this country should have no confidence in this Government and in the Nationalist Party as it exists. I believe that if there is one thing that is necessary if South Africa is to surmount what we all admit is a tremendous challenge which faces us all, whatever our political convictions might be. It is the necessity not of political unity in this country, but for the general underlying unity of the South African people. It is my confirmed belief. Mr. Speaker, that that is most essential. I had the privilege of spending my early years in a school where the majority of the children were Afrikaans, and I am convinced that the sooner we get back in this country to the position where we have our children together in the schools, where they can learn to understand each other, where they can learn each other’s language the better it will be for South Africa. I believe that there is no more urgent problem for the people of this country and the responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders of this Government and the provincial councils controlled by the Nationalist Party to take steps to take the children, Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking, to get to know each other, to go to school together, and thereby to become better South Africans. I believe that it is a crime against the children of this country that they should not have the opportunity many of us in this House had many years ago in getting to know the other section of the people of South Africa, thereby qualifying ourselves very much better for life in South Africa, and I believe meeting the problems which we have to face, problems which, whether we like it or not, have to be faced by us, whether we are Afrikaans-speaking or English-speaking, whether we come from the great cities or whether we come from the rural areas.

What about the private schools?

Sir, when the Government sets an example in practically insisting on the division of the children in the public schools, members opposite have no right whatsoever to talk about the private schools in this country. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) has no right to query me in view of the fact that he availed himself of the opportunity of sending his children to English-medium schools. It is a matter of great seriousness in this country, not a matter for political debating. I believe that we simply cannot afford to allow our children to be separated any longer, and the sooner we make an effort to get them together and to understand each other better, the better it is going to be for South Africa.

But you take it amiss if I do so.

No, but I do take it amiss that the hon. member does so and then uses it as a point of criticism against this side of the House.

Order! The hon. member encourages these interruptions by replying to everyone of them.

Mr. Speaker, it is sometimes difficult. You know that if you don’t reply to interjections, it is said that you cannot reply to them. You must forgive me if I have allowed myself to be misled.

I wish to come to another reason why there should be no confidence in this Government. A major reason is to my mind that there is an alternative Government in this country that can govern this country very much better.

Where?

The party sitting on this side of the House. There is an alternative Government which can bring about a better state of affairs for South Africa. I believe that on the policy of this side of the House there would be a far better opportunity of winning back the support that has been lost among the free countries of the world. We obviously cannot get the support of the communist countries of the world. We are simply not prepared to pay the price. But among the free countries of the world this Government has been utterly careless in regard to the great support which South Africa has had and which should have been maintained in all circumstances. Secondly, so far as the problem of race relations is concerned, I say that it is perfectly clear to anyone, including hon. members opposite who are prepared to face the true facts, that this Government’s colour policy has failed utterly. It is not providing a solution for the problems of this country and it is continuing to do South Africa more and more harm, losing the goodwill of countries who should be our friends. There is an alternative way which was put by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. It is not necessary to go into it in any further detail. There is no question whatsoever that there is an alternative to the policy of this Government. It might not satisfy the whole of the world, but I believe that we could regain the support of those countries who have stood by South Africa in the past.

What about Rhodesia?

I am not referring, of course, to the policy of the Progressive Party. That has been contained in South Africa. The only policy for South Africa is that which the Leader of the Opposition put before this House yesterday.

What chance is there that your policy will be accepted by the Western world?

The hon. member has simply not been listening. I have explained to him that if this Government would revise some of its policies, if it would amend certain of the legislation (I cannot refer to it in detail) that alone could carry us a very long way towards gaining the support of the outside world.

Why can’t Rhodesia get the support of the outside world?

Mr. Speaker you will not allow me to carry on an argument with the hon. member across the floor of this House.

May I ask the hon. member this question. The hon. member says that if we amend certain aspects of our policy we will regain the favour of some of the Western nations. Why could Rhodesia not get the support of the Western nations for its policies?

Firstly that is a misstatement on the part of the hon. member. Secondly, the circumstances in respect of South Africa and Rhodesia are utterly different. There is no parallel. The claim that I have made, Sir, and I challenge any other hon. member on the other side to seek to disprove it, is that if the policies of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition were followed in this country, as they will be when this side of the House gets into power, there will be a great difference in the attitude of the outside world to this country. Often it was not big things which have brought about this attitude in the outside world; very often they were smaller things, petty things, things often which are not at all important in regard to preserving the position of a future for the Europeans in this country.

Name them.

Hon. members know perfectly well what I am referring to. One piece of legislation after another through the years has been opposed by this side of the House— certain aspects of the Sabotage Act last year, the Group Areas Act, the Separate Universities Act. There are many enactments which were forced through by applying a time limit and the guillotine. If we had been successful in our opposition, there is no question that South Africa would have stood in a very different relation to the outside world compared with the position as it is to-day. I don’t believe that a single hon. member on the other side of the House will deny that.

In spite of the immense difficulties through which this country is passing at the present time I am an optimist as far as South Africa is concerned. The first reason for that optimism I have already given. It is quite clear that this Government is not going to remain in power for ever. It will be replaced by a Government which will place a different policy before this country. Secondly, I believe that the South African people will not allow themselves to continue to be led by the nose as many of them have been led by the nose in the past 15 years but that they will revolt against these policies. In growing numbers they will come back to the support of the true road for South Africa, the policy followed by the United Party, the policy which was followed by General Botha, General Hertzog and General Smuts. Hon. members opposite believe that they are there for ever. I would just like to close with this remark. No Government is in power for ever. We have seen in recent times case after case in the free world where in election after election there have been unexpected results and governments which thought that they would remain in power for a long time suddenly found themselves ousted. For my part, I have no quarrel with the efforts which are being made from this side of the House to change the Government's policies whenever we think they are wrong. I am convinced that in the end this will lead to a change in the Government of this country, will lead to sensible government for South Africa, government in the interests of South Africa and in the interest of all the peoples of South Africa. If we do that there is no question that we will once again get that support which the former leaders on this side of the House got for South Africa in the outside world and which was carelessly tossed away by those who have led the Nationalist Party and South Africa to the parlous position in which we find ourselves now.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) has advanced quite a number of arguments to which I should like to reply in the course of my speech. I want to begin by saying that we have noted the fact that the hon. member has announced that if the United Party comes into power it will repeal the Separate Universities Act.

I did not say that. As far as I can remember, I referred to it as one of the Bills, the passing of which, particularly having regard to the manner in which it was passed, has done great harm to this country.

*Mr. J. J. FOUCHÉ (Jnr.): Surely that is the only way then in which I can interpret the hon. member’s remarks. If this is one of the laws which are doing great harm to South Africa—and the hon. member says that this is one of the reasons why we are losing friends abroad—then surely I must accept that if the United Party comes into power it will repeal it.

Alter it.

You are misquoting me and you are coming to the wrong conclusions, but obviously we will amend it.

After all I gave the hon. member the opportunity to correct me. He cannot accuse me of having misquoted him. When he objected I immediately gave him the opportunity to correct me. The hon. member went on to say that this was one of the laws which was harming us abroad. Surely then it stands to reason that either the United Party does not care if our reputation is harmed in the eyes of our friends or they do care, and if they do care then surely they will do away with these things which they believe are harming us. Then hon. member cannot say therefore that I am misquoting him. As an individual I have a very great respect for the hon. member for Germiston (District), and for his integrity. But I cannot have the same degree of respect for the political views which the hon. member holds in many respects and for his arguments. The hon. member makes the accusation against this Government that our actions are not conducive to national unity in this country because we are segregating the children at school into separate groups. In reply to an interjection he then stated that we must not talk about private schools because what counts is the example that this Government sets to the people of South Africa. Is that correct?

Do not distort my words.

Let the hon. member please tell us then what he said.

I said that it served no useful purpose to ask, “What about the private schools?” I said that the Government must set the example.

But that is precisely what I said. My point is that it is not only this Government that should be called upon to set the example, because this Government. the National Party Government, has not always been in power in South Africa. After all, before the National Party Government came into power, there were United Party governments in power. Did those United Party governments do anything in connection with the private schools which then existed? Which party is in power in Natal? Is there a United Party Provincial Council or not? Has that Provincial Council ever made the slightest efforts to do anything about the numerous English-medium private schools in Natal? I do not think hon. members opposite, in a debate on a motion of no-confidence, should make accusations against the Government, accusations which are groundless. The hon. member for Germiston (District) began his speech by saying that the Leader of the Opposition had come along with a reasoned case in support of the motion before the House and that not one of the members on this side had tried to reply to the motion. In the first place I just want to point out to the hon. member that the moment the Leader of the Opposition sat down one member after another stood up on this side and stated the case of this side of the House. Not only did they state the case of this side but in fact they also did their very best to elicit statements from the other side in connection with the policy which the Leader of the Opposition had announced on behalf of that side, and not a single reply was forthcoming.

Then I just want to deal hurriedly with this point. The hon. member says that in fighting Communism, this Government must guard against using the methods of the communists. I want to point out that it has been stated repeatedly that when one takes steps against the communists and against the diabolical doctrines that they propagate, then in the first place one does not treat them as one would treat any normal person. Furthermore, I say that I do not concede any rights at all to the communists. But in the second place I want to say, as I have stated repeatedly in this House, that there is also another side of the picture, and this is the dangerous side, and that is that it has been proved times out of number that the method that is in fact used by the communists throughout the world is to make use of the freedoms and the privileges of democracy to destroy democracy. No government which has the future of this country at heart would dare to allow the communists to follow that pattern of theirs in our fatherland and this Government is not willing to allow the communists the privileges and freedoms of democracy or to destroy democracy itself.

Will the hon. member tell me how the Government knows whether a person is a communist until such time as he has been tried?

*Mr. J. J. FOUCHÉ (Jnr.): The question as to who is a communist has been resolved time and again. It is laid down in one Act after another. It is not necessary for me to explain it to my hon. friend who is also an advocate.

But I want to go further. The hon. member for Germiston (District) quoted from the Basutoland Constitution and said that the whole reason for the introduction by this Government of the Bantu homelands policy and the franchise disappears when one looks at the provisions of the Basutoland Constitution. The hon. member then went on to read out certain provisions of that Constitution. I do not want to quarrel with him in that regard. Firstly I just want to say that the fact remains that according to the documents quoted by the hon. member it is quite possible for Basuto who are not resident in Basutoland to obtain the franchise there. In other words, that possibility does exist in the case of Basutoland. But. secondly, I want to say that this Government’s Bantu homelands policy is very definitely not based on the example of the Basutoland Constitution. The Basutoland Constitution did not give rise to this Government’s policy of Bantu homelands. In other words, whatever the Basutoland Constitution may provide, it has nothing at all to do with the success or failure of this Government’s policy of separate development and of Bantu homelands.

Let me go further. The United Party comes along with this motion of no-confidence and it seeks to justify it on the basis of petty objections and trivial problems which it tries to pose as against the policy of separate development, but it is unable to suggest anything else in its place.

You were not listening.

I listened very attentively and the explanation of his policy by the Leader of the Opposition was such that question upon question had to be put to him about it and those questions were not replied to either by him or by hon. members on his side. We are living in times in which we as Whites and as parties must not simply level destructive criticism at one another without putting forward alternative suggestions. We dare not give the world just a negative picture in connection with the efforts which are being made to solve our difficult racial problems. I have no objection to the Opposition’s criticizing the Government’s policy but then at least they must be prepared to put forward an alternative. Let us have an end to this story that it is not necessary for them to suggest an alternative policy because the motion is not one of no-confidence in them. Apart from the amendment, the fact remains that the Opposition’s policy and that of the Government in this connection are so divergent that nobody in this House or outside can have confidence both in our policy and in their policy. They have moved a motion of no-confidence in this Government’s policy. That implies that if there is a lack of confidence in this Government’s policy, there must necessarily be confidence in their policy. If therefore they move a motion of no-confidence in this Government then they must be prepared to say why there is lack of confidence and they must be prepared to say why they should be trusted to govern this country. They can only move a motion of no-confidence in us therefore if they have something better to put forward in place of our policy.

I have already said that yesterday the hon. Leader of the Opposition gave us an unclear picture of his race federation plan. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet), amongst others, raised one question after another in connection with their policy and not a single member on the other side was willing to reply to those questions.

They have all been answered over and over again in the past.

Mr. Speaker, at the risk of your pulling me up for repetition I am tempted to repeat the questions asked by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark. We must understand each other clearly. Nobody would allege for a single moment that any plan which is designed to solve our racial problems is without problems and without difficulties. Nobody in his right mind would suggest that. While every policy that can be put forward has its problems it is very easy just to criticize; anybody can do that. The Leader of the Opposition says that this Government’s policy is antagonizing the world against us. That statement has also been made by the hon. member for Germiston (District), and they make that statement in spite of the fact that what we are presenting to the world is a picture of a policy which makes it possible for the non-Whites eventually to develop fully in their own areas and to obtain their full rights there. That policy, the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Germiston (District) say, antagonizes the world against us. My question to them is this: What do they think would be the effect of their policy under which, within the same state structure, they want to give the non-Whites political rights which according to them, however, will always be subordinate, within the forseeable future, to those of the Whites? Having regard to what is happening in the world, let me ask the Opposition how on earth they think they will win the affection of the world with their type of policy. The Leader of the Opposition goes on to talk about “petty apartheid” and amongst other things he mentions the Church clause. Surely we can have no clearer proof of the weakness of the Opposition’s case than the fact that a man like the Leader of the Opposition, whom I know as a reasonable and decent person, has to conjure up arguments of that kind to support a motion of no-confidence. Surely he knows what the position is in connection with the so-called Church clause. After all, it has been explained repeatedly in the past. He knows that the Church clause contains no such terrible provisions. He knows that the Minister cannot take steps until certain things have happened—in the first place until such time as such church attendance causes a disturbance in the area. The local authority may then ask that steps be taken and then only the Minister may act. Why does he tell the world this sort of thing?

That is quite untrue.

If the hon. member reads the Act he will see that it is perfectly true. What good do the Opposition think they can do this country by advancing this sort of argument? The Leader of the Opposition then goes on to ask why the Government is so slow in learning the lessons of Africa. I almost despair, and in my despair I want to ask them why they are so slow in learning these lessons. They want to know in connection with the Bantu homelands whether we are not going to learn the lessons that we can learn in Africa, but my counter-question is this: Where in Africa and where in the world has any attempt ever been made to apply a policy of separate development? Some kind of attempt, however, has been made everywhere else in Africa and in the world to build up a multi-racial community within the same state structure, with destructive consequences for the White race. Are they not going to learn the lessons of Africa? To begin with, in every state where an attempt has been made to set up, within the same state structure a multi-racial community enjoying full rights, they have gone much further than the Opposition is willing to go here with its race federation plan, and if they have been unable to satisfy the world and if the experiment culminated in the end of the Whites, then I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether they are not going to learn the lessons of Africa? How long do the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. members opposite think they are going to succeed in retaining power in the hands of the Whites if political rights are given, within the same state structure, to the non-Whites with their superior numbers, and which country’s sympathy are they going to gain for South Africa with their policy? I cannot accept that they believe that they will be able to retain that power. The Leader of the Opposition talks about “some representation” for the non-Whites in this Parliament. How long does he think they are going to be satisfied with “some representation ”? If they are given political rights in the same state, they are not going to be satisfied with “some representation ”. Won’t the Opposition also please learn the lessons of Africa? They hold themselves out as the alternative government. It is these same hon. members who talk so mirthfully about this Government’s policy of dismembering this country, and yet they are the people who are also willing to develop the reserves for the non-Whites. In other words, they too want to create a country in which the non-Whites alone will reign supreme in one part of the country; in the rest of the country, however, there will be a place not for the Whites only, because there White and non-White will be living together, whereas at least we on this side also want to give the Whites their own area. Why do hon. members opposite say this sort of thing?

Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition painted the dangers of threatening Communism to us. I agree with him that it is a great threat not only to our country but to Africa and to the world. But then a follower of his, the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant)—I am sorry he is not here at the moment—holds a meeting at Thaba ’Nchu and tells the public about the bogey of Communism. In other words, the danger with which this side of the House is trying to frighten the electorate is apparently an unreal danger. Can this House have any confidence in the Opposition having regard to the spectacle that we are now witnessing? I say that this Government is worthy not only of the confidence of this House but of the electorate because in the first place the policy of this Government is one which is fair towards every person in this country, whatever his race or colour may be. It is a policy which is honest and fair, and it is a policy which is gradually beginning to find favour with thinking people. I want to read out a few quotations. An American Senator, who recently toured this country, said that South Africa was on the right road. I quote—

This comes from a prominent politician in America. But this is not the opinion of politicians only. A businessman also toured this country recently and when he returned to his own country he spoke of South Africa in laudatory terms. I refer to Clarence B. Randall, a prominent American businessman, who recently visited South Africa. Let me quote again—

I say that the thinking politicians and businessmen are gradually beginning to change their minds about our policy. But that does not apply to the Whites only. Our non-White neighbours too are beginning to see things in a different light. A new party was recently established in Basutoland, and in a statement issued by them the leader and secretary of the party say this—

That is the attitude which this new party adopts and they specifically declare that they are anti-communist. I say that at the election of 1961 and again at all the by-elections of 1962 the electorate of the Republic of South Africa showed that it had confidence in this Government. Responsible Whites abroad are beginning to show more and more signs of confidence in the policy of this Government as well as in our economy. Our non-White neighbours are beginning to have confidence in our policy. That is why this House cannot but express its confidence in the Government and lack of confidence in the Opposition, and I shall gladly vote therefore for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vereeniging.

The hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. J. J. Fouché, Jnr.) appeared to be most impressed by the fact that an American Senator has announced himself to be in favour of the racial policies of this Government, but the hon. member is deceiving himself if he believes that the Senator expressed the official policy of the Government of the U.S.A. He said he was an outstanding Senator and representative of the thinking of his country, but he is not representative of the thinking of the people of the U.S.A. The pronounced policy of the U.S.A, is away from racial discrimination. In fact the U.S.A, has an official Civil Rights Commission, which sits constantly evolving ways and means of applying the pronounced policy of removing discrimination on the grounds of race, colour or creed in the field of housing, employment, the franchise, etc. So the hon. member must not think that because a stray Senator visits this country from the U.S.A., his Government here has the approval of the outside world. He said also that to use the Church clause as an example of the image presented abroad gives an untrue picture. This may very well be so, but can the hon. member tell us whether it is or is not true that thousands of Africans are being endorsed out of the urban areas and their home-lives broken up, that thousands of Africans who have lived in the Western Cape for 20 years or more are being sent away with no alternative livelihood provided for them, with much human suffering being caused? Can he tell us whether it is true or not that Indians are being uprooted from their homes and businesses and being put out on the veld, and that Coloureds are dispossessed of their homes, and that a thousand people per day for the last three years were arrested for pass offences and that people are languishing in banishment without trial, some of whom have been there for seven or more years? Is it not true that there are people under house-arrest in this country, without trial, and is it not true that in South Africa we have mediaeval spectacles such as trials for blasphemy and trials for heresy. Sir, these are the things which create the image of South Africa abroad. Is it not true that in South Africa normal rights and freedoms which are inherent in democratic countries have indeed been taken over as the property of the State, to be handed out to citizens like licences subject to renewal, subject to withdrawal and all dependent, not on the responsibility of the citizen to enjoy or exercise those rights but dependent merely on the colour of the skin of the citizen. These are the things that have created the South African image abroad—that and speeches such as those made by the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs at the Day of the Covenant celebrations—a racially inciting speech if ever I heard one—and speeches such as those made by the Minister of Education, Arts and Science when he congratulated the South African Library Association on not having held a mixed meeting since 1948 and where he stated that it was the declared policy of the Government that there shall be no mixed membership whatever of scientific or professional organizations, and even speeches like the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech on New Year’s day when he found it necessary to deliver a special separate speech to the Bantu people since they could not be considered as part and parcel of the ordinary population of this country and must have a message suitable to their own status in life which, of course, as far as he is concerned, is to be for ever the drawers of water and the hewers of wood. These are the things that breed the image abroad for South Africa, not the thousands of rand spent by the Minister of Information in his offices, putting out glossy pamphlets in New York and in London. Sir, before I leave this subject of our image abroad, I want to suggest to the Government that it should set up a little school for coaching the television “stars” who appear on its behalf on the overseas screens. For instance, the hon. the Minister of Justice, who is so fond of complaining of the inaccurate statements which have caused so much damage overseas, should realize that some of the half-truths that he puts across, cause just as much damage. I refer to a report of an appearance he made on television in New York not so long ago— in fact throughout America because it was a C.B.S. television programme which was viewed by millions of people throughout the United States—in which I understand the hon. the Minister, when asked about passes, produced his identity card and said that he too, a White man. has to carry his identity card, which is quite half-true, not quite true, because the hon. the Minister forgot to add that he does not get arrested if he does not produce his identity card on demand. This information, of course, was filled in by the interviewer who happened to know more about South Africa than perhaps the hon. Minister knew. I might say that a comment on this programme in the New York Times read as follows—

Apparently the most devastating indictment of the Government’s own policies is to let Government spokesman talk on television.

Then there is the hon. Commissioner General of the Transkei who also recently made a television appearance in Britain, I understand. The interviewer had just shown a map of South Africa depicting the Bantustans as scattered spots thereon. He then asked Mr. Hans Abraham whether he thought that these scattered spots could function as a unit, and this was the answer: “Well, you know, a leopard has unconnected spots scattered over his skin. This does not make him any less of a leopard.” Well, this sort of absurd spectacle of representatives of the Government appear on television, I can assure hon. members opposite, does far more harm to South Africa’s image abroad than anything else I can think of.

The hon. member who has just sat down has presented again the idea of Bantustan as the ethical background to apartheid, as something which would placate opinions throughout the world. I must say that to me it is astonishing that we should spend so much time discussing this imaginary South Africa consisting of Bantustan on the one hand and White South Africa on the other. The real South Africa is what we should be discussing, and the real South Africa is, always has been and always will be a multi-racial country. If all the apartheid legislation which has been put on the Statute Book over the past 14 years can only achieve these things, that there are nearly 1,000,000 more Africans in the urban areas than Whites, more than three times as many Africans in the urban areas than there were ten years ago, and three times as many Africans as Whites employed in all the major industries in our urban areas, and in only three of our principal cities do Whites outnumber Blacks, then I say we are wasting our time on pipe dreams discussing a South Africa consisting on the one hand of Bantustans and of White South Africa on the other. Nothing, but nothing, can possibly happen in the next 15 years which can alter this.

Would you not say that that is a pipe dream too?

Because of our great natural resources, because of the imagination and the intelligence of our entrepreneurs and perhaps mainly because members opposite also like to enjoy a high standard of living— because of all these factors the economic development of South Africa will proceed apace, because economics is stronger than politics and, Sir, the prerequisite for economic development in South Africa is an adequate supply of African labour. That is the prerequisite, and this applies whether the development is taking place in the private sector or in the government sector or in the semi-state sector such as Sasol or Foscor or Iscor. An adequate supply of African labour is what is necessary. I know that hon. members take comfort from their belief that the labour coming into the so called White areas will be migrant labour. I want to assure them that they are wrong here because the trend will be away from the use of migrant labour and not towards it. The reason for this is that the whole complexion of South African industry is changing and in fact has already changed. It is no longer the type of industry which require unskilled workers. It is industry that requires semi-skilled and skilled workers, people who can work machines in this country. and that sort of labour cannot be migratory labour.

Why not?

It has to be trained labour and it has to be stabilized and therefore the tendency will be for migratory labour to decrease and not increase, and I want to warn hon. members too that if they think they will find Africans who are migratory workers easier to deal with, in any way, than stabilized labour, they are wrong there too, because if there is anything that is difficult to deal with it is the thousands upon thousands of rootless men, divorced from their home life in the reserves but nevertheless physically with us in the White area.

What do the mines say about it.

The hon. member talks about mine labour. First of all, I do not in any case approve of compound labour of any description; let me make that perfectly clear. There is one distinction, however, that South Africa is not responsible for the families of those particular mine workers since the majority of them come from outside our borders. But it is bad labour and it will be increasingly difficult to use this sort of labour. The mines themselves realize this, and if they were given the opportunity they would stabilize the mine worker just as they have done on the Rhodesian copper belt and just as they wanted to do in the Orange Free State gold mines. I want to say that no plans for the development of border industries or for the development inside the reserves will stop labourers coming into the White areas. Hon. members opposite are constantly telling us that we have 1,000,000 foreign Africans coming into South Africa to work despite the oppressive conditions in this country and despite the relative freedom that Africans enjoy in their own areas. Does it not strike them that exactly the same thing is going to happen with Bantustans? Even if “one man one vote” or complete political autonomy were given to Africans living in our reserves, nevertheless, the full factor of the high wages paid in the White areas and the push factor of poverty in those areas is still going to drive them into White South Africa to work here, to be physically amongst us. Sir, the crux of the problem is the same. It remains what it always has been. The fact is that we have to cater economically politically and socially and in every single way for two-thirds of the African population who will always live and will always work outside the Bantustans and in the so-called White Republic of South Africa.

I do not want to repeat that this is a multiracial country and that the problem, as I have said, is going to remain the same. I do not want to repeat over and over again in this House the policy of the Party that I represent. I think it is fairly well-known. I simply want to say that in short we accept the fact that South Africa is multi-racial, and we realize that adaptations on a great scale have to be made in South Africa. We accept that the 12,000,000 non-Whites are with us and will always be with us—in fact in increasing numbers—will have a great deal to say not only about the economic future of this country, with which they are already inextricably bound up, but also in the political future of this country. Quite ineluctably they will have a great deal of say in the political future of this country, and it is silly for us to bluff ourselves to talk of isolation, to pretend that we can work out our own destiny. We cannot do so to-day. The world is one great interdependent unit, and not only will the Africans, the Coloureds and the Indians within our borders determine the political future of the country, but what the outside world wants, will also have a determining effect on this country. It is ridiculous to ignore this fact.

A great deal of time has been spent in this debate on a discussion of the United Nations. We have heard the United Nations called a bunch of Afro-Asian states and that the Afro-Asian states together with the communist bloc rule the United Nations.

That is true.

It is not true. If the hon. member would simply bother to examine the votes on different subjects at the United Nations, he would find that the so-called Afro-Asian bloc does not often act as a bloc at all. On many occasions it splits. There is the Monrovian bloc, there is the Casablanca bloc, and they vote differently on different issues. Many of them vote completely differently from the communist countries. [Interjections.] I can quote examples. Hon. members do not know what they are talking about when they say that the Afro-Asian bloc always vote together and that they always vote together with the communist bloc in order to dominate the Assembly. Sir, I could mention various measures before the United Nations where there was a complete split in the voting. But one thing which I will say is that there is one subject on which there is complete solidarity, where the Afro-Asian and the communist and the Western nations show a complete solidarity, and that is on the question of racial discrimination. In that regard there is no differentiation. It is a seriously deceptive half-truth to tell this country, as the Government does and as Radio South Africa does and as our Information Services do, unfortunately, as even members of the official Opposition sometimes do, that our only enemies are the Afro-Asian, and the communists. This is not so. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) quoted a speech of Mr. Patrick Wall yesterday at the United Nations where he referred to the “abomination of apartheid ”. He said a great deal more. Sir, the United Kingdom and the United States have expressed their feeling about racial discrimination over and over again in very strong terms. I do not agree with the statement made in the Opening Speech that “thoughtful people abroad are beginning to show an increasing appreciation of the Republic’s firmness of purpose and its determination to solve its problems in its own way and with fairness to all”, nor do I agree that thoughtful people are beginning to consider us as the great bulwark against Communism on the African continent. Quite the contrary. The Western nations fear that the racially discriminatory policy practiced by the White race in South Africa is going to be the very factor that is going to drive the as yet uncommitted African nations into the arms of the communists. This is one of the great fears that they are constantly voicing. My experience abroad differs considerably from that of other members who have also been globe-trotting in the recess. [Interjections.] Well, we did not flock together and in fact we had different experiences entirely. Most of the people to whom I spoke—and I spoke to people in all walks of life, people in official positions, ordinary citizens like teachers and taxi drivers and anybody who was willing to discuss things with me…

Especially liberals.

Yes, especially liberals. Astonishingly enough I found thousands of liberals. In fact, it is the accepted creed of civilized countries as the hon. member should know. I found that most people did not consider as a bulwark against Communism, and they did not express growing appreciation and approval of our policy, as Senator Ellender allegedly did. What they did was to express surprise that South Africa is as peaceful as it is, given the conditions that operate in this country. It is true that a few people, since I visited the Southern States as well, did express some agreement with the Government’s racial policy—people like Senator Ellender. I did not see him but I saw many people in the Southern States who agreed with him. There were people, for instance, who belonged to the White Citizens’ Council who bought Negroes one-way tickets to President Kennedy’s summer home, telling these people that there were lots of jobs waiting for them there. So they sent them off to park themselves outside President Kennedy’s home. These are the sort of people who naturally agree with the racial policies of the government. [Interjection.] “A good idea.” says the hon. member behind me. I am surprised that he himself has not thought of that before. I can only tell him that the thoughtful people to whom I spoke did not regard the White Citizens’ Council very highly in America, and as I said earlier, the whole pronounced policy in the United States is against racial discrimination. Efforts are being made in every field in the country— housing, employment, franchise and education —to do away with racial discrimination as fast as possible. That is the official policy of the United States of America.

They can afford it because the Whites there are in the majority.

Sir. no country can afford to have racial discrimination because racial discrimination breeds frustration and frustration breeds bitterness and eventually it will breed a blood-bath in this country. Sir, there were also people who expressed the view that it would be foolish to hand this country over to illiterate non-Whites, but that is very different from saying that they condone racial discrimination. There is a tremendous difference between saying on the one hand that you do not believe that the government of the country should be handed over to illiterate people and saying on the other hand that you approve of racial discrimination, and this, I believe, is where the Government makes its mistake, it does not realize that when people say that they approve of retaining control in the hands of responsible people, as against illiterates, it does not mean that they approve of racial discrimination. Very often too I find that members on the Government side mistake politeness for approval. People abroad are often very polite to visitors, but this does not necessarily mean that they approve of the Government’s policy.

Hon. members opposite have constantly said “what about Rhodesia?” They are taking comfort in the thought that White Rhodesians have joined them in the laager. They gloat about the fact that Black Rhodesians have turned their backs on the concept of partnership. Sir, are people so foolish in this country as to believe that the recent elections in Rhodesia mark a closing chapter in the history of that country? Do they not realize that the whole of the continent of Africa is in a period of transition and that a great deal is going to happen on this continent before the closing chapters are in fact written? If there is anything that we should learn from the lesson of Rhodesia, it is that it is no good offering concessions too late, to offer them when the Black man has lost all confidence in the assurances and promises of the White man. That is the one lesson that we should have learnt from Rhodesia and I say that members of this House are stupid if they believe that the closing chapters have been written in Rhodesia. The whole of this continent is in a state of transition, and none of these temporary factors as a totalitarian government in Ghana or chaos in the Congo or the elections in Rhodesia are going to spell the closing chapters on the continent of Africa. A great deal is going to happen in this country and on the continent of Africa before the closing chapters are written, and one thing is absolutely certain and that is that there is one known and noticeable trend and that is in the direction of the removal of racial discrimination. No longer can you consider the African an alien illiterate mass. We must realize that to-day he is an individual who is demanding his individual rights and who is demanding a share in the destiny of whatever country happens to be his birthplace. There is no doubt whatever in my mind that the same thing will be realized here as has been and will be realized elsewhere on the continent, no matter what steps the Government takes to try to stop it. The present Government, of course, is determined to do everything in its power to halt that trend, to pass one piece of oppressive legislation after another, but I think we should be under no illusion. As long as there are people who are denied rights of political expression, who are denied equal opportunities in the economic field, who live the barrack like sort of life that the Africans live in this country who are denied normal family life, so long will individuals and groups of individuals continue to find some means of expressing their frustration. The Government to-day have left such people with few measures other than violent means of expressing their frustrations. It refuses to understand that if non-violent protests are not allowed, if peaceful meetings are not allowed, then the non-violent protests will be replaced by violent protests. If moderate leaders are silenced, they will be replaced by extremist leaders. This is what the Government fails to realize. It does not realize that house-arrest, commissions of inquiry and sabotage acts will not help in the long run. It is quite possible, I agree, to govern by force for a very long time, but in the long run consent must be obtained; coercion cannot work forever.

I want to conclude by quoting remarks that were made in a court of law by Mandela before he was sentenced. I want to quote from his defence in his own trial. This is what he said. I think members of this House should know what is being said by African leaders in this country—

What violence is there on the part of the Government?

The Government does not permit peaceful protests. The Government breaks up peaceful meetings of protest.

Sabotage.

No, not sabotage. Does the hon. the Minister of Information know that, for instance, there is no such thing as a legal strike amongst Africans in this country?

You had that under the United Party and you agreed with it.

The hon. the Minister knows that I did not like it. Does the Minister of Information know that there is no peaceful means whereby the African can express his frustration and his discontent? Hon. members should take note that where peaceful methods are not allowed violence will take place. Sir, I hope that these words which were uttered by an African leader will bring some light, some thought, to the minds of hon. members opposite.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) on her new leader, Mandela. She came along here with a quotation from Mandela who, as we know, does not even speak on behalf of his own people but accuses the Government of itself being an oppressor because he wants to blame the Government for the results of his violence or the agitation which he provokes. If she wants to make Mandela her leader that is up to her.

I want to go further. I want to start with a remark made by the hon. member for Houghton to the effect that the whole of Europe was amazed, as she was, that there was so much peace in South Africa and not more violence. She probably spoke to the committees overseas which all collected money for the users of force and the agitators and the people who want to commit sabotage here. Perhaps she connived with them. However, let me tell her that she lost a golden opportunity to explain to those people why there is so much peace prevailing in this country. Apparently she was not able to do so because she belongs to the group in South Africa whom I shall call the levellers; that is, a process of the destruction of the West, namely, to try and bring everything in the world down to the same level. However, let me tell her this: because she belongs to that group it has not yet penetrated her mind that the only reason why there is peace in South Africa, more than in other parts of Africa, is because we have a policy here which recognizes the identity of each separate race. We recognize each race by a policy which has become a curse in the world because it has been misrepresented. We recognize the particular attributes of every race in this country and we are the only country in the world to do so. When we come to an analysis of the community in South Africa we find that it is not a “multi-racial society ”. [Laughter.] The hon. member laughs because she is a know-all. She cannot put it higher than to say that we have “racially plural societies ”. We have the society of the Whites and we have the society of the Blacks but we know that the society of the Blacks is not homogeneous; we know that that society itself consists of a group of people who want to have nothing to do with one another and who cannot tolerate one another. Besides having the Whites and the Blacks we also have the Brown people who are the closest to the Whites and then we also have the Yellow people who have their own civilization of which they boast and which according to them is far better than ours or that of the Brown people. Mr. Speaker, when we make that analysis and when our point of departure is that each of these groups has the right to be what it is and that each of them has the right to be so without being maligned by others, and where we in our legislation deal with each as a separate group, we then remove points of friction. It is of course obvious that in a similar society one has all sorts of adaptations, reconciliations and compromises which one will find nowhere else in the world because this is the only place in the world where we have this sort of society, namely four communities within the same political borders.

However, that is beyond the comprehension of the hon. member; and it is beyond the comprehension of the people with whom the hon. member associates. It is beyond the comprehension of the people who seek to level everything. If they see differences they pretend that they do not exist although they know that they are important differences. However, those differences are important differences, Mr. Speaker. As soon as the economic laws take effect and as soon as people are fed and clothed, they look around and say: Who are our people? The Whites do it; the Blacks do it because they are also human beings; the Yellow people do it and the Brown people do it. If we do not afford people in South Africa an opportunity of giving expression to their own particular attributes, it will be the finish of the whole world. If she has her way she will have nothing in this country but disturbances; not disturbances dealing with strikes and economic matters but disturbances between men belonging to different groups. That is what she will have.

The hon. member is going in one direction to level everything that there is to level. However, because she herself belongs to a group which has applied apartheid strictly over the centuries, she does not need it because she is in no danger. She ought to know that. She merely places it on another level; she says that it is a religious level and we may not talk about it. She enjoys the benefit of the apartheid applied by her own group; she is in a safe bastion in that regard but those who do not have such a religious apartheid of that nature have to practice equality. I have a relative who is married to a Jew. At the moment she is a teacher of Hebrew in Israel but she had to become a Jewess. If she had not done so her husband’s parents would have gone into mourning for him for more than a year. However, that has nothing to do with politics. Those are simply the facts and they explain the background of the hon. member for Houghton. They also explain her attitude in connection with the racial composition and the racial legislation of South Africa. I think that I can leave the hon. member for Houghton to her own conscience. She can think about it and revise her analysis of the South African society.

The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker), the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) revealed an approach which I would like to analyse. The hon. member for Germiston (District) accused us of not replying to the attack of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He said that we did not try to refute the case which his leader made out. Let me tell him this: The fault does not lie with us. The fault lies with the case. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did nothing but generalize. Now the hon. member for Germiston (District) says that we must reply to those generalities. Generalities are only academic. If we have to reply to similar generalities they become academic. The hon. member for Orange Grove made certain wild allegations although he added a few things to which I want to reply if time permits. I want to pay the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a compliment by saying that I must take him seriously and not as an academic. He accused us of all sorts of things. He accused us of not wanting to seek friends at a hostile UN. He also accused us of not seeking friends in connection with our problems in regard to South West Africa.

I did not mention South West Africa.

Then I was mistaken and the Burger was also mistaken. I am very pleased to hear that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not talk about South West Africa because I think that the less we talk about it the better. Nevertheless the accusation was that we do not want to seek friends in a hostile UN and a hostile West.

When somebody makes such accusations it presupposes that he has some way of removing that hostility if he is given the opportunity of doing so. He also said towards the end of his speech that when this Government accepts the race federation plan of the United Party it is possible that the West, and it is highly probable that UN, will have a different opinion of us.

It is particularly difficult for me to adopt a standpoint against the benefits which, in his view, will flow from his federation plan because nobody actually knows what it really contains. I have tried to understand it. In it I see a number of ideas which were borrowed from the National Party. It presupposes apartheid: it presupposes certain Bantustans; it presupposes geographical units—for example, like Xhosaland; it also presupposes entities completely separate from the White community. I will produce proof in this regard in a moment. He borrowed this from the National Party. However, because in his own view he is now in bad company he has to borrow further and he brings a political concept into it, namely, that of a federation between the races. That is to make the plan more attractive. Then he goes further and he tries to frame a constitution as the Progressive Party does, a constitution which will be stable and which will be inflexible and which will entrench the rights of the various groups. Therefore, he borrows from all the parties. He has made a political camel for himself in this way. It must obviously be a camel because he will have to stay with it in the desert for a long time.

1 want to tell the hon. Leader of the Opposition that there is one member of his party who has more courage than he has, the courage to place on record what he thinks his leader considers to be the meaning of race federation. This is the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) who is not here now. In the Sunday Times of 3rd December 1961— this was shortly after the last election—he recorded what he believed to be the United Party’s interpretation of race federation. This is the only document which I can use to ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition whether he thinks that in this way he will find peace and friendship at UN. I want to read to you, Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member for Yeoville wrote. He said that as far as their race federation plan was concerned there were three phases. The second phase was that they would effect certain very important and urgent reforms very soon. The reforms are the following—

I want to ask him this: Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition think that if this is the second instalment—I am not even mentioning the first instalment because that is merely the repealing of a few laws—that if they place the Coloureds on the Common Roll, if they give all the Natives in South Africa eight representatives either in this House or in the Senate, if they give some measure of representation to the Indians, in that way they will gain favour at UN? Does he still remember how General Smuts could achieve nothing when he gave representation to the Indians? That was in 1945. Does he think that he will do better than General Smuts did in 1946 when he told that story to UN? That is the first point I want to make. This is the race federation plan which he hails as the panacea which will provide us with friends.

The hon. member for Yeoville writes as follows—

I want to ask the hon. member whether he thinks that he will do better at UN than Mr. Whitehead who went there and said: Look here, I am going to do this and I promise you that in 15 years time there will be a Black man’s Government in Southern Rhodesia. They sent him home with a flea in his ear. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition think that he will do better if he says: We will talk with Luthuli. we will talk with Mandela and we will still have an entre nous with one or more of the people who are at the moment perhaps, or ought to be. behind bars? Does he think that he will do better than General Smuts and the gentlemen from Southern Rhodesia did? I ask this of all the hon. members opposite and I ask it of the hon. member for Orange Grove who like a faithful echo actually tried to sing his own chorus on this subject. There is a third point which is contained in this race federation proposal of the hon. Leader of the Opposition and the United Party. You will remember. Sir, that the great grievance of the world against us is in regard to discrimination. They cannot understand that we are not a group of levellers: that we draw a distinction between race and race. The hon. member for Yeoville goes further and says—

Does he think that when he tells UN he is going to continue with separate residential areas he will make any impression upon them? Does he think that he will make any impression on the United States where they have sent an entire army to keep one Black man at a White university and where they regard Little Rock as a sort of historical occurrence? I am not even talking about the Afro-Asian group which wants to know nothing about any differentiation between White and non-White.

I must say that it could only be a person with boundless optimism—a fool, if you will allow me to say so. Mr. Speaker—who believes that he will make any impression upon a spoilt, obsession and prejudiced world by means of that proposal and that argument.

I want to quote further from this race federation plan, the plan which is now held up to be the sound plan which we must accept for the sake of the friendship of the world. In this question of race federation, the great problem is who must have the franchise and how many of which group there must be. The hon. member for Yeoville says this—

Nor does that amaze me, Sir. In a later speech which was reported in a Port Elizabeth newspaper he said—

If ever anyone made a ridiculous statement then it was the hon. member for Yeoville. I read an article by Desmond Buckle, a West-African Negro writing for the Daily Worker, and he argues that the Blacks of this country subsidize the White people to an amount of £300,000,000 per annum. He says that as the national income rises that subsidy will rise. In other words, they have money to subsidize us with and still contribute towards the economy of the country. I challenge any economist, any statistician within or outside the United Party to make an analysis of the contribution of each of us to the national economy. That is simply not possible because the wages earned by the individual is nowhere near his contribution; the tax which he pays is not proportionate to his contribution. It is possible that we may have an industrial leader who is a very unassuming man and receives a very modest wage but who through his initiative and his organization makes a very large contribution towards the growth of our economy and towards our national income. I would like to see how the United Party are going to make that analysis.

Does the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) think that he will ever be able to make an analysis of. for example, what the Xhosas. the Zulus, the Basutos—to mention three of the groups whom they will have to consider—contribute to the national income so that he can say how many representatives they are entitled to?

We have another strange remark. When UN asks them when they are going to introduce this wonderful federation plan the hon. member for Yeoville says that it is obvious that—

Will he be able to say that to Ghana? Will they accent the fact that the White people are more civilized than the Blacks? It will simply be adding fuel to the flames if somebody tries to tell those people that the bearers of civilization are not the Black people of Africa but the White people, not because they are White but because they are more civilized. There is an English proverb which says that comparisons are odious. However, in this particular case that English proverb did not penetrate at all to the writer of this article. So much then for the excellence of the race federation plan to bring us peace and friendship with the West.

Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition accused us, and particularly the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, of not having made prior plans to combat the assumed disadvantages—“ assumed” is my own word— which will follow upon Britain joining the European Economic Community. Britain is not yet a member of that community but he is already starting to accuse us of not taking steps to combat the disadvantages if Britain does become a member. In other words, we must not only be prophets but after we have used our gift of prophesy we must take steps long before the time arrives to combat the prophesied disadvantages. However, he did not mention one single fact to prove that things would go worse with us afterwards than they did before. I can well understand that the British Government would prefer to see us treated differently from members of the Commonwealth. If we receive the same rights as the members of the British Commonwealth then of course the fact that a state is a member will not help much. Accordingly, they will try to give us something less than they demand for their own people. That is on the cards. However, it is not for him to accuse the hon. Minister and say that this will happen. The most he can say that it is the policy of the National Party which has led to the fact that we have been kicked out of the Commonwealth, as they put it, although we withdrew. He can perhaps say that it was a wrong policy but that matter has already been settled. He now accuses us in a vague way without saying anything in regard to what actually can go wrong. We ourselves know that we may lose our preferences, but our reply to that is that England will suffer just as much harm if the preferences which we enjoy in England are terminated when we in turn suspend the preferences which England enjoys here.

Then he reproaches us and says that we are pickling a rod for our own backs with our policy of the Bantustans. He says that we already have so many borders around our country that we cannot even guard all of them. The hon. member for Orange Grove went further and said that stock theft would increase so much that we would not even be able to catch the thieves in their places of refuge. I wonder whether the hon. member for Orange Grove considered what he said. Let us accept the fact that they are going to become independent states. Surely we will have extradition treaties. Say for example a thief escapes from here to Portuguese East Africa. Will we not have him extradited? That is surely the easiest thing in the world. In any case, it is so ridiculous that one really cannot reply to it.

Do you want to tell me, Mr. Speaker, that we will then be in a different position from the one in which we were previously? Imagine, for example, that the revolution in Angola is a success. What will become of Bechuanaland? Let us imagine that Bechuanaland receives her independence as Basutoland will receive it. What is to prevent their concluding alliances with foreign powers? But, there is no reason to make that assumption. It is an insult to the Natives themselves because where are their friends? Who are their friends? Their friends are their neighbours. Hon. members opposite have insulted the educated and the decent Native by what they have said and they have fouled their own nest. As far as I am concerned I believe in the Afrikaans proverb which states: “Dit is ’n slegte voël wat sy eie nes bevuil.” (It is a bad bird which fouls its own nest.)

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) who has just sat down did not make use of his opportunity this afternoon to tell us what the advantages will be if the Government follows its declared policy. On the contrary, he prefered to tell us what will happen if the United Party comes into power. He again asked all sorts of questions about the race federation plan of the United Party. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other leading members on this side of the House have already explained it repeatedly to the people and to members on the other side. The hon. member for Standerton did that deliberately. I predict that just as each member who spoke before him did. every member who speaks after him will try to tell the people what they think the race federation plan of the United Party is.

This House is not to-day engaged in the year 1963 in discussing the federation plan of the United Party; it is not discussing the apartheid policy of 1948. No, Mr. Speaker, this House and the people outside are discussing the 1963 apartheid policy of this Government. The apartheid policy of the Government on that side differs very widely to-day from the policy which they submitted to the people of South Africa in 1948. South Africa stands at the cross-roads of her history. South Africa is on the point of departing from the traditional policy which she has followed for 300 years. The policy followed by this Government to-day is taking an entirely new direction. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) and other members on the other side have said repeatedly that this Government is not fragmenting South Africa; according to them the history of South Africa has already fragmented the country. But that is not so. Where in the history of South Africa over the past 150 years have we had independent Bantu areas, independent areas which were divorced from South Africa? [Interjections.] Of course we have had areas in South Africa which by tradition were mainly Black. Nobody denies that, but they have always formed an integral part of South Africa. That is the history of South Africa. It was not fragmented into a Kaizer Mantanzima area or a Tswana area, each one having its own independence. Since the end of the last Bantu wars which we had in South Africa there has not been one Native area which has been independent of South Africa.

When did we have a race federation?

*Mr. STREICHER; They were part of South Africa. The hon. Chief Whip asks me when we had a race federation in South Africa. I want to tell him that there was the closest co-operation between White and Black under all the previous great leaders whom South Africa has had; there was some form of political representation for these people or they had some form of political say in South Africa.

When did we have Natives in the White man’s Parliament?

*Mr. STREICHER; The hon. member for Brits knows that it was one of his former leaders, who was later the leader of the United Party, who gave the Natives separate representation through the medium of White people in this House. I want to ask the hon. member for Brits whether he does not think that the race federation plan of the United Party is a continuation of that policy. Let the hon. member for Brits tell me if any great leader, even the late Dr. Malan, ever said that it was his policy to create separate states in South Africa, or “afgeskeie state”, as the hon. the Prime Minister is fond of calling them. No, if there is a party which is continuing to follow the traditional pattern which has been followed here for more than 300 years, it is the party on this side of the House and its leader. The Native areas, the so-called Native reserves, have undeniably become part of South Africa, but the apartheid which we are discussing in 1963 is not the same apartheid on which this Government came into power in 1948. From 1948 to 1963 this Government has been concerned mainly with laying down the conventions, the traditions of South Africa in legislation. It has simply laid down in legislation its traditional way of life, that of segregation in the social and residential sphere.

And what was your attitude in 1948?

I will come to that point. The accusation from my side of the House against the Nationalist Party over the past 15 years has been that the Nationalist Party has sought to follow a policy of total territorial segregation in South Africa, and that apartheid is only assuming its form now in 1963. Territorial and total apartheid is only being started in South Africa now, in 1963. It has only been since the hon. the Prime Minister has taken over the Nationalist Party, and particularly since 1959 and since his new visionary speech of that year that we have had this new idea of full self-determination for the Bantu, and it is particularly since last year that the hon. the Prime Minister has started with the idea of the development of separate states. I want to point out to the House that on 23 January 1962 the hon. the Prime Minister said the following (Hansard, col. 70-71)—

That is the direction which he definitely indicated last year. It is a radical change and we on this side of the House are entitled to put a number of questions to the other side of the House. The first question that we have to ask is this: Are the people of South Africa aware of this tremendous change which has come about? Have the people given their decision?

Yes.

Repeatedly.

I want to quote to the hon. member the statement which was made by the hon. the Prime Minister in 1961, shortly before we had an election. What did he ask the people of South Africa? Why did we have to have an election in 1961 instead of in 1963 in the normal course of events? Did he or the Nationalist Party tell us that they wanted to ask the people to support them in order to create separate states in South Africa? I have here the statement of the hon. the Prime Minister as it appeared in the Burger of 2 August 1961 and I contend that in this statement there is not one word that this Government was going to start bringing separate states into being in South Africa in 1962 or 1963.

I want to ask the hon. member whether he preferred to lose the election in 1961 or in 1963?

The hon. the Prime Minister told us in this statement in 1961 why it was desirable for an election to be held then. He said that difficulties were anticipated this year, that all sorts of difficulties could be expected in 1963, particularly international difficulties. In all fairness to the hon. the Prime Minister I want to say that the following statement was made. [Translation.]—

That is all; nothing more; not one reference to separate states.

May I put a question to the hon. member? When did the hon. the Prime Minister make his statement on the Transkei in this house?

The hon. the Prime Minister dealt with that in a speech in 1959 when we had his new vision, but the year before last, prior to the election, we had this statement from him, and at that time nothing was said. Let me put it this way: At every election since 1948 the Government has asked the people for a mandate—I admit that—to keep South Africa White and to keep the White man in control. Is that not true? They asked for mastery (baaskap). Who can forget —can the people of South Africa forget— these words which were uttered by the late J. G. Strydom: “Vote for South Africa; vote for the National Party to Keep South Africa White.” We experienced that in every election. Even the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the hon. the Minister of Education—all of them—said: “Vote for the National Party to keep South Africa White.”

May I ask a question?

Hon. members cannot continue to ask questions.

The hon. member knows that normally I am always prepared to answer questions but I think hon. members on the other side are rather abusing my willingness to answer questions.

Mr. Speaker, not one word was said at the election of 1961 that we would have separate states in our country. You will agree with me that a prerequisite for the success of any policy is that the policy must be understood, and I say that this policy of the hon. the Prime Minister has never been explained to the people of South Africa. When I say this I do not want to quote the United Party; I want to quote the nationalists. If that policy was submitted to the people in 1961, would it not have been known to a man like ex-Senator Smit? Listen to what Mr. H. J. Smit has to say, according to the Burger of 17 August of last year. [Translation.]—

Hon. members on the other side can no longer tell me that it was we who kept the people in the dark, that we were wrong. Here you have the speech of a leading member of the Nationalist Party, an ex-Senator who states that this Government did not fully inform the people of South Africa before the election in 1961.

When we told the people that the policy of this Government would result in territorial separation and total apartheid eventually becoming the policy of the National Party we were told that the United Party was wrong. We know how they ridiculed the maps of the United Party which we published to show how the Black states in South Africa would develop. I contend that it was the reaction of the people in 1959 which shook the Government. You must not forget that in the provincial election in 1959 the United Party reduced Nationalist majorities and even took back the Boksburg seat from them. When the Nationalist Party noticed this, they realized that there was one thing which they had to keep away from the people and that was their Bantustan policy. I contend that it was for that reason that we did not hear a word about it prior to the election in 1961. But the House of Assembly had scarcely met when the hon. the Prime Minister and the Nationalist Party announced the policy with a flourish. I want to say, on the basis of the hon. the Prime Minister’s own words on 23 January 1962 that in 1961 when the election was held the Government must already have known of all the plans and that those plans must all have been cut and dried. It was impossible for them to get those plans ready in the period between the election in October in 1961 and the Session in January 1962. What did the hon. the Prime Minister tell us? (Hansard, col. 75)—

If the hon. the Prime Minister wants to apply it step by step in this way. I contend that the Nationalist Party and the whole of the Cabinet knew of the plan before the election of 1961 but left the people of South Africa in the dark.

The people were well informed.

I want to make a further accusation, namely, that to make a success of this policy of separate states the Government is now seeking to bring about complete territorial segregation. No longer are we dealing merely with 6, 500,000 Natives within our own White areas as mentioned in the Tomlinson Report. I contend that this House under the guidance of this Government wishes to go further than Tomlinson envisaged for the year 2.000. In other words, I contend that it is now the policy of this Government to effect complete separation between White and Black in South Africa. I say this too in pursuance of what the hon. the Prime Minister said last year and I want to quote from col. 71 of Hansard of 23 January 1962—

Lest anyone should say that I am quoting the hon. the Prime Minister’s words out of their context, I just want to say that I have omitted a paragraph or two which have nothing to do with the final point which the hon. the Prime Minister made. I want to quote further—

Are we still not going to have the position where we will have 6, 500,000 Natives forced together in our cities—foreign national units?

What is your point?

My point is this: According to the hon. the Prime Minister and according to the political philosophy of the Nationalist Party itself, are we not going to experience difficulty with the 6, 500,000 Natives within our own areas? If we do not want any trouble, according to the philosophy of the Nationalist Party, then those people must leave. Are you surprised therefore if the hon. Leader of the Opposition says that this policy of the Government’s will lead to trouble and planned poverty throughout the entire country? Let me mention one example— the 800,000 economically active Natives on our farms. If we remove them, where are the people to take their places? Together with their families, there are nearly 2, 500,000 people on our farms alone, not to mention our industries.

Put your standpoint.

The hon. member for Parow must consult the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais) who wants all the Natives removed from the Western Province. The hon. member for Moorreesburg told us a few months ago that the spirit which prevails in Cape Town must also prevail in the north; in other words, since the Nationalist Party seeks to remove the Natives from our European areas here, the same thing must also be applied in the Transvaal and other northern provinces. Was it not the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) who also told us that our entire Orange River scheme should be based on White labour; that there should be no place for the Native?

Who said that?

The hon. member for Kempton Park. If we are to carry out what the hon. Prime Minister said on 23 January 1962, namely—

then the 6, 500,000 Natives must be removed from our White areas. Does the hon. member for Moorreesburg want our entire life to disintegrate like a canker? If the hon. member does not agree with the hon. Prime Minister, let him say so. But if he does agree with the hon. the Prime Minister he must be in favour of a policy to remove all the Natives from the White areas. Let him say this to the people too. The people are entitled to know it. and we have the right to ask it. The policy of the Government is very clear. The Western Province is to be treated as some sort of guinea pig. They want to start here and they want to continue the process in other parts of South Africa.

There is another matter that I want to mention. We know that the people of South Africa are morally bound to abide by the settlement of 1936. the promise which was made to the Natives that they would receive more land. But I contend that if this Government continues with its policy of territorial segregation and of creating separate states in South Africa, we will not only have to purchase the balance of the land from the Natives but the people of South Africa will have to be asked to make very much greater sacrifices. Very much more land will then have to be provided than was envisaged in 1936.

Why?

If, according to the Tomlinson report, there are 6, 500,000 Natives in the White areas and one wants to follow a policy of removing those people who are there in too large numbers, one will certainly have to have more land. If one wants to go further than the Tomlinson report and remove more Natives, one will need more land. All these things simply prove to us and to the electorate how revolutionary this policy is which they started in 1962 and what tremendous sacrifices the Whites will be asked to make. After the Whites have made all these sacrifices, the White man in South Africa will still not know whether this policy of the present Government will retain South Africa for him. This Government came into power in 1948 by exploiting the feeling of solidarity of the Whites and by exploiting the position of the Whites in South Africa. This policy of the Government must now be subjected to that test. If the Government keeps its word which it gave in 1948 and in successive elections that it wants to retain South Africa for the White man …

Study the manifesto of 1948.

It appears to me that the hon. member has not yet studied the statements and speeches of former great leaders of his Party. I can also refer him to his present leaders to the hon. Minister of Transport and to what he said.

We have not departed from that policy at all.

In the past the hon. the Minister of Transport denied that the policy of the Government was one of territorial apartheid and total separation.

That is only one of the aspects of apartheid.

I want to tell the hon. the Chief Whip that we are still only at the start of the Session.

I want to remind the hon. member of a speech by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration which was quoted here last year. What did the hon. the Minister say in 1956? He said that it was quite wrong to think that they wanted separate states because the man who said that, spoke without having a knowledge of the Native. In 1959 the hon. the Minister addressed the congress of the Nasionale Jeugbond of his party at Bloemfontein and said that he did not believe that the Natives wanted independent states. But, the hon. the Minister knows that the Natives do expect it to-day. He knows that the son of Victor Poto wants it. Has a promise not been made to those people? Then the hon. member for Brits comes along and wants to tell us that there has been no departure from the policy! The hon. the Ministers of Bantu Administration and Bantu Education go so far as to say that the people can go along and say so if they want “one man one vote ”. The Ministers are bending over backwards to help the Natives. The hon. the Minister even goes so far as to say that to his mind the Zulu language is a more beautiful language than Afrikaans.

I did not say that.

All these things are happening so that the Government can explain to the Natives that the policy which they are advocating is that every opportunity must be given to those people to develop. But, in the meantime what are they doing to the White man in South Africa? As the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked: Will what is happening to the north of us not also happen here if we create those Bantustans? I want to draw your attention to what Mr. J. J. Scholtz wrote. I think he is the foreign editor of the Burger. This is what he said on the 21st December last year. I understand that he was present at the meeting of the Territorial Authority of the Transkei while they were discussing their new constitution. He says this (Translation)—

This is that he writes in regard to what he saw in Umtata where the leaders of the Natives were deliberating.

We are canalising it correctly.

He states (Translation)—

The article states that it is fundamentally the same as Black nationalism in the rest of Africa and because they are Black nationalists they are now working together to implement the Transkei plan, but that we must not be surprised if, because they are Black nationalists, they begin to insist on equal human rights in a year or two when the Transkei does perhaps have self-government. What does equality of human rights mean? It means equality of human rights at the national level as well. It means that in every respect those people can be precisely what the White man is; and in spite of all this the Government is still provoking the severest criticism at UN. The Government is now seeking to provoke even more severe criticism within our own borders. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) and other members have already mentioned it. I do not want to elaborate on all the dangers which face South Africa if that policy of the Government is implemented. I want to confine myself to criticizing the Nationalists themselves. I have before me a cutting from the Oosterlig of the 13 th September 1961. This is a report on the Nationalist Party Congress which was held in Bloemfontein where the Nationalists expressed criticism, expressed their hesitancy and suspicion in regard to the position which exists to-day between themselves and Basutoland—the border troubles that they have. What did the representatives say? Representatives from the area bordering on Basutoland described the position on the border as a powder-keg. Others said that a feeling of revenge was growing in the hearts of the border farmers and that there was going to be trouble. Mr. Pretorius of Bethlehem said that the agitators in Basutoland made it very difficult for the border farmers. Mr. Olivier of Wepener said that even weapons were being smuggled across the border and that smuggling was an everyday occurrence because the police of Basutoland were easily bribed. Mr. Speaker, these are the troubles which we have to-day with a Bantustan our own borders, a Bantustan which at one time it was the policy of this Government to incorporate in the Republic. I wish hon. members on the other side would peruse all the speeches made in this House in 1954 on a motion introduced by the late Dr. Malan and then they will find that this (border troubles) was one of the reasons which were mentioned as to why those territories should be incorporated. But, the Government has departed from its policy to-day. Nationalists have indicated at their own congress that they are dissatisfied with the position and alarmed at the trouble which will come. But, the Government tells us that that is not enough and that there will not only be one but possibly seven or eight Bantustans, independent states on the borders of South Africa. There is not only one place which will become a powder-keg for South Africa, but if one includes the Protectorates the number is closer to 10. I want to ask hon. members on the other side why they departed from the policy of incorporating the Protectorates.

Was it never your policy?

The hon. member knows that it was the policy of the United Party to take steps to enter into negotiations to have those territories incorporated. That was the attitude of this side of the House in 1954. Dr. Malan and all former leaders followed that policy. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down tried to make out a case in support of his contention that the National Party has departed from its traditional colour policy, and he tried to produce proof in this regard. If we analyse the proof which he tried to produce, we find that in reality he could have passed no greater judgment upon the United Party’s own race federation policy then he in fact did by adducing the proof which he tried to produce to show that we have departed from the traditional colour policy. He accused the Government and the hon. the Prime Minister of having tricked the people; of not having informed the electorate about the development of the Bantu policy as it has developed over the past years. That is untrue. He himself gave the answer and contradicted that statement when he contended that they drew up maps prior to the 1955 provincial election and distributed them throughout the whole country to prove that we were going to fragment South Africa. That is a clear proof that it was already known at that time.

But they denied it.

We went from platform to platform and put this policy to the voters. [Interjections.] In March, 1961, during the Commonwealth Conference in London the hon. the Prime Minister in his speech at the South African Club put this question very clearly and pertinently and I am sure even the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) had his radio turned on that day. I think that there were very few people in South Africa who did not hear that speech and everyone, including the members of the Opposition, listened tensely to the message of the hon. the Prime Minister. In that speech the hon. the Prime Minister made the position very clear, even before the 1961 election. Prior to the election the hon. the Prime Minister put that policy very pertinently and clearly in this House. It seems strange to my mind that a member of this House could be guilty of the type of misrepresentation which we have just heard. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) made statements here which appear strange coming from a member of a party which propounds a policy of race federation. He quoted what Mr. J. J. Scholtz had apparently said—that Black nationalism would sweep everything before it. Those same Black people whose nationalism is now being canalized and who are now finding expressions for their nationalism in their own areas, are those to whom they seek to give political rights together with the Whites in South Africa under their federation policy. If our policy constitutes such a deadly danger, how deadly then is the danger which they are creating for the White man in South Africa? If Black nationalism is such a great danger in its own area and in the rest of Africa, will that Black nationalism then become so tame and diluted if the Bantu obtains political rights in this country together with the White man and sits in this House together with the White man? Does he not think they are creating a platform by means of which the Black man will receive even greater power and have more opportunity to agitate for more and more rights and for non-White supremacy as we see it in all the African countries? Can he not realize that they are creating a platform for the agitators? Who will be the people who will sit in this Parliament together with the White man? Will it be the Black man who is taking the lead in the Transkei to-day, or will it be those people who, inspired by White agitators, agitate “for one man one vote ”? Is that not exactly the danger which they are creating?

The hon. member has tried to show that the Transkei or the other non-White homelands will constitute a great danger to the White man in South Africa and that under their policy that danger will be avoided. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has also emphasized this point very strongly, that there will be no stopping them; that things will be taken completely out of the hands of the Government of the Republic once they take the first step towards independence in the Transkei. and that demands will then be made at an increasing tempo. I want to ask the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) this question: Under his federation scheme, if it does become of application and the same people whom he quoted here in order to attack us. who are already demanding their independence, receive independence under their system of race federation, what are they going to do? Are they going to compel those people by force of arms to remain dependent upon the White man? Are they going to force them not to become independent? In what way can they contain those national aspirations of the Black man in the Transkei if they constitute such a deadly danger? Are they not going to give them independence if they ask for it? They are already asking for it. He says that this is the danger which threatens us as Whites—that they are already demanding their independence. Will those people not ask for independence under their policy? Do they not realize that that will create a far greater danger? They dare not say it because it is not in conformity with their policy. They simply cannot agree to it, and they will most certainly have to use force in order to compel them to remain dependent. No, I think that the arguments of the hon. member are futile.

Happenings in this country and throughout the whole world give the lie to the arguments used by the Opposition in this debate. They contend that the apartheid policy of the Government, the policy which the hon. member tried to show was a departure from our traditional colour policy, the policy which is a continuation of General Hertzog’s policy, the segregation policy started by him, is one which is alienating our friends and isolating us. Or does the hon. member now contend that the federation plan is a continuation of the segregation policy of General Hertzog?

I want to ask the hon. member this: If the late General Hertzog was so much in favour of independent states in South Africa for the Black people, why was he prepared then to have White people as Natives’ Representatives in this Parliament?

Does the hon. member not know that that was a compromise with General Smuts at that time? Does the hon. member not know that you have to adapt things to the changing circumstances of the times? No, the hon. member tried to make out a case and I say again that he condemned himself. He condemned his own policy with the arguments he used in trying to attack our policy. I repeat that the arguments that were used to the effect that the colour policy of the Government was isolating South Africa and alienating her friends, are refuted by the facts. Is the opposite not true? In comparison with all the other parts of the world where White and non-White have to live together, is South Africa not the one country in which there is the largest measure of peace and quiet? Is it not here in South Africa where racial harmony is increasing and improving all the while? I say that in contrast to what is happening in other parts of Africa and the world it is precisely the policy of separate development of this Government which is directly responsible for the fact that the relationship between the Whites and non-Whites in South Africa is improving. Is it not this maligned policy of separate development which has brought about stability in South Africa? Is it not this policy which has been responsible for renewed confidence being shown in South Africa abroad? Is ft not precisely at this stage when the apartheid policy is starting to develop and when the implications of it can be understood, that things are going very much better here in the economic sphere than in comparable countries in the rest of the world? Is it not in South Africa that money is being invested by foreign investors? Foreign investors, particularly at the present time, are shrewd political observers. They will not invest their millions in a country where there is any danger of the Government being overthrown or ousted by a Black Government? Why are the investors withdrawing their money from other African countries? Because there is no stability there. It is in those countries where the Black man is taking over the Government more and more—and the Black men who hold the reins of Government in their hands in any case comprise a small clique which is communistically inclined—that there is a lack of confidence that there is no confidence abroad in those countries. But more and more confidence is steadily being shown in South Africa by foreign investors who invest their money here. Is it not precisely the policy of separate development which is responsible for the fact that South Africa is gaining more and more friends abroad? Is it not this development which is responsible for the fact that there is a better idea of our problems in the world? Surely it is perfectly clear that in all Western countries, and also in some Asiatic countries, a far better idea of and a larger measure of friendship for South Africa is developing. But it is precisely this policy which the Opposition is trying to attack, which is aimed at allowing the White man to retain his rights in this country, also for generations to come, and it is the only policy which has that aim. I hope that hon. members will not contradict me. I hope that not one hon. member will say that the race federation policy will guarantee the survival of the White man in South Africa, as the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) contended this afternoon. It is precisely the opposite. Was it not the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself who stated very emphatically at De Aar in May last year that the Black man could not be kept out of this House for ever? He spoke about the “foreseeable future”, which is of very short duration when we study the political insight of those hon. members. I am not even talking about the other parties; the United Party is still the most conservative party of all the opposition parties in the country and even they admit that the right of the Black man to take his place in this House will be determined by his measure of development and by his contributions to the Treasury, no matter how impossible this may be to determine, as the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) has tried to show. I say again that it is precisely this policy of separate development which is responsible for the fact that this measure of peace and quiet and friendship has been obtained abroad, and at this stage when conditions in Africa are developing as they are developing, the policy followed by this Government is becoming so much clearer and more understandable to the world. We have already heard the death-knell of the Federation. Why? Because the Black man is not interested in a partnership. He is only interested in mastery, in complete supremacy. Give him the opportunity to govern or to rule and give him the opportunity to develop to the highest degree, but why should that entail the ruin of the White man? I say that it is as a result of this policy that things are going very well with South Africa. We see what is going on in the economic sphere. From the speeches of various leaders in various spheres we see that things are going particularly well with South Africa. We had a group of professors from America visiting this country under the leadership of a Professor Gilbert, and according to the Friend of 26 July had the following to say, amongst other things, in Cape Town—

These are people who are certainly not supporters of apartheid. The people who make these remarks are certainly not Nationalists, but unprejudiced economic leaders in the

U.S.A, where friendly feelings are not always shown towards South Africa. We find that the vice-president of the Newmont Mining Corporation stated at the annual meeting of the American Institute of Mines in New York that South Africa offered excellent opportunities for investment and excellent rates of interest. He pointed out. inter alia, that the national income per capita was as follows: South Africa. R254: India. R248; Nigeria R60 and Ghana R100. We would not have these statements if there was not an increasing measure of confidence in the Republic and if these people were not prepared to an increasing extent to invest their capital here. We find that the periodical Southern Africa, which is published in Britain, stated that the Republic was the richest country in Africa and one of the countries which had the finest development amongst the younger countries of the world. All this proves that things are going particularly well with South Africa and they are going well simply because the outside world has confidence in this Government. If that were not so, that capital would have flowed to other countries in Africa. But it is precisely as a result of that fact that it is being invested in the Republic and not in other countries, because South Africa offers practically the best investment possibilities in the world. We find that the British firm, the British Titan Product Co. Ltd., is investing an amount of between R6,000,000 and R8,000,000 in a new factory which they are erecting in Natal. We find that the British textile millionaire, Mr. Cyril Lord, has come here to invest an amount of R 1, 500,000. We have received a report to-day that South Africa is becoming independent in respect of her textile production as a result of investment capital and the erection of factories by foreign industrialists in South Africa. These things would never occur if there was no confidence in the Republic and the Government.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also expressed criticism of the agricultural policy of the Government. Let me just say this: During the past year, when we had surpluses and when large areas of the northern provinces particularly had to face severe droughts, Opposition speakers streamed into the northern provinces and particularly into the Free State in large numbers to try to make capital out of the difficulties of the farmers. We know to-day what the results of that campaign were. We know that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), who is regarded as the best Opposition speaker, was only able to attract small audiences of 100 people or fewer in the Free State.

But more than the Ministers!

That is not true. What is the position? They tried to make capital out of the difficulties of the farmers because of the drought but even under those emergency conditions the farmers in the Free State were not prepared to even consider the United Party because they know the promises which the United Party made to the farmers of the Free State. The farmers know that all those promises are completely impracticable. But they know more. They also know that those promises are simply the sugar-coating of this federation plan which has to be swallowed, and the farmers of the Free State are not prepared to sell their birth right for a mess of pottage. [Interjections.] The hon. leader of the National Party in the Free State points out that the hon. member for Kroonstad was returned unopposed and that is precisely one of the constituencies where there was a tremendous amount of agitation, where conditions were acute, and yet the hon. member was returned to this House unopposed. The United Party do at least have some common sense in that they know when they have a weak case and when they are retrogressing and not progressing. They are not prepared to test their strength. Mr. Speaker, things are going well in the agricultural sphere in spite of the fact that individual farmers are retrogressing. Let me mention one single figure to you. In 1952-53. if we take 100 as the index figure for 1936-39, the agricultural products’ index figure was 147, and in 1960-61 it was 206. Therefore, the total increase as far as agricultural products were concerned was 45 points during that period. Progress has been made in all spheres of agriculture. The total yield of the agricultural industry continues to increase in spite of the fact that there are difficulties, in spite of the fact that there are surpluses. Things are going well and the farmers of the Free State and of South Africa know to whom they can turn for assistance if they find themselves in difficulty.

To whom?

They know this from their experience of the past. They also wanted assistance prior to the 1948 election and at that time they did not even receive promises. The United Party Government simply turned its back on them. They know where they will receive assistance and they know who their friends are.

I do not propose to follow the line of thought of the hon. member who has just sat down but I must say that I listened with a great deal of interest to the narration he gave us of the wonderful prosperity that South Africa is enjoying. But is that a fair way to put it—that overseas people have renewed confidence in us, that money is pouring into the country, that people of wonderful financial standing overseas are expressing confidence in us and that we have prosperity abounding? Sir, I wonder if the hon. member has asked himself where that prosperity comes from? Does he not think it comes from the joint efforts of the Whites and the non-Whites in this country and that without our labour force we would not be in this position? But his Government is the Government that is proposing to take our labour force and send it back, when it is so-called foreign labour, to the territories outside our borders, and if it is not foreign labour, then to put them in their own enclaves which will be foreign countries in the near future. So the prosperity which has been created, the position of which he is able to boast, is the very position which his Government is now proposing to upset and to undermine. It proposes to change the very basis upon which our prosperity has come to us— the product of the brain and the hands of the White and the non-White in this country working together in harmony to build up prosperity in a country which has one common economy, which his Government is going to destroy. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) said last year that it would be a good thing to have a number of economies, that it would lead to a healthy kind of competition in this country. Sir, time is running on and I would like to move—

I second.