On behalf of the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) and myself I should like, with your leave, Mr. Speaker, to read out the following statement to the House:

After the debate on 23 January 1963, the hon. member for Durban (North) came to see me and after a discussion, the hon. member advised me—

1. 1. That he is satisfied quotation B in fact appeared before quotation A in my speech of 8 December 1962.
2. 2. That in fact quotation B had nothing to do with quotation A in that A deals with subversive activities, whereas B deals with the prevention of ordinary crime.
3. 3. That quotation A was used out of its context as a caption by the newspaper Daily News.
4. 4. That quotation B was printed as the fifth (5th) paragraph of the quotation A in the Daily News report from which he quoted.
5. 5. That on closer study of the report and speech it is apparent that A and B is not connected.
6. 6. That he was, however, misled by the way the said newspaper reported the statement.
7. 7. That he did not think it necessary to inform the House of or to quote the intervening paragraphs which would have made the position more clear.
8. 8. That he concedes that it appears from the way he framed his speech that in the report from which he quoted B followed immediately upon A.
9. 9. That he had no intention to mislead hon. members or anybody.

I accept the hon. member’s explanation and understand the dilemma in which he was placed by the said report and which led to my remarks as to his conduct as a barrister.

In view of the hon. member’s statement accept that he did not intend to act unprofessionally or to mislead the House.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to come back to the motion moved by my hon. Leader because it seems to me that there has been an attempt on the part of recent speakers to get away from it. Before doing that, however, I should like to deal for a moment or two with the procedure which is in conformity with the tradition of Parliament and with the practice of the hon. the Prime Minister in past debates of this character. The Government, in putting up speakers to oppose the motion moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, has put up a number of back benchers from their side of the House. Only one Minister has spoken so far and he. I think I am entitled to say. was more concerned with matters of a rather personal character and matters affecting his own particular portfolio arising from people who are no longer members of this House. There has been no effort whatever, Sir, to answer the case put up by my hon. Leader. In some quarters it is being felt that the procedure adopted by the Government on this occasion is a procedure which has been approved by the Prime Minister himself and that it stems from a desire to cast a deliberate slight on my Leader. Sir, I am not one of those who believe that that is the case. I want to say this, and I hope the Prime Minister will accept this, that in my experience the hon. the Prime Minister is a courteous man and I do not believe he would do that. So I ask myself how it is that whereas in the past, particularly during the last two sessions, the Prime Minister has rushed in to defend his policy, on this occasion he seems to be completely hamstrung, unable to find any grounds whatsoever to oppose the motion moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Let me say that we on this side of the House welcome this. We believe that we know the answer and I am going to voice it in a moment. The answer is this: It is obvious that the hon. the Prime Minister could not find a champion in his own front benches to put up a case against the motion of my hon. Leader. We are now at the beginning of the third day’s debate and we know why he could not get that champion. The reason is this: Past debates on this question of Bantustans have shown that the front benchers, the middle benchers and the back benchers of the Nationalist Party do not understand it and cannot put up a defence. If there were to be just three speakers of the Nationalist Party and make a speech in support of Bantustans as they understand the concept, we would have precisely that difference of opinion expressed, for example, from time to time by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the Prime Minister himself. Not only does the Minister of Bantu Administration differ from the hon. the Prime Minister, but he differs from himself. He is a divided personality. I want to quote something in a moment or two to show why I come to that conclusion. [Interjections.] May I suggest to the hon. Minister of Water Affairs that he should not allow this excessive water in South West Africa and in his Department to so colour his verbiage. Let him water it down.

With regard then to the position in which we find ourselves of not a single member on the Government side attempting to answer the Leader of the Opposition it is because the Prime Minister himself and his advisers have realized that when in the past he came into the fray immediately after my Leader, he had made himself the target of the criticism of Government policy that had followed. [Laughter.] It is true, Sir. Whenever the Prime Minister has put the Government’s policy in regard to any matter involved in the motion of no confidence, he, as head of the Government, has become the target of hon. members on this side of the House. His own people have told him that he should not do it this time; that he should come in at the end of the debate so that he could not be criticized; that he should wait till the eleventh hour, until there are no more speakers on this side, before he put their defence. I am being quite serious. Sir. [Interjections.] Hon. members opposite have seen the criticism from this side of the House over the past two sessions driving home point after point. As soon as the hon. the Prime Minister had entered the debate the criticism followed from this side and they could not take it, Sir. I repeat that they are incapable of answering it. I defy any hon. member opposite to point to a speech in Hansard where he has set out their policy of apartheid, their policy of separate development. their policy of Bantustans, other than the Prime Minister and—with due respect— the laboured efforts of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. That is precisely the position. Where do we stand with regard to this matter of Bantustans? I am not going to deal with a particular situation in a particular territory. I want to deal with the matter in general principle because I am representing a province which is affected. I live in a province, Sir, in respect of which the Government’s plans, as we know them, will lead to the fragmentation of that province until it will cease to be habitable by White people. I say that advisedly. What sort of sympathy do we get from the Prime Minister? The only statement we can get from him is that he is very sorry but, of course, he did not do it; history placed the Black man in Natal; history divided the country up like that. History did nothing of the kind, Sir. We have lived in harmony with the Bantu in Natal since the rebellion in 1906. The discord and the trouble which have arisen at the present moment flow exactly from the Government’s present policy and from no other source. There are things which are sometimes just talked about quietly over a cup of tea and there are matters in respect of which one's political opponents are inclined to say: Look, you must not bring these matters into the open too much because it may harm South Africa. Mr. Speaker, I intend no harm to South Africa and I am going to watch my language accordingly. [Interjections.] I hope hon. members will be equally enthusiastic about the other sentiments which I am about to voice. In regard to those matters where my province is concerned I propose to speak out and to speak out in the place where I took the oath and that is here in Parliament. Here I face the Prime Minister as a man to man across the floor of the House. I repeat that what he is doing is to place the Bantu in Natal in a position where they will take over the whole of the province in the fullness of time. That is what his Bantustan policy will lead to. The carving up and the fragmentation of my province, under these circumstances, is a scandalous thing. The information which we get from the Government in regard to their plans comes to us in bits and pieces and dribs and drabs, for the simple reason that this concept is the concept of a single man, the hon. the Prime Minister. It is his idea. He has foisted it on to his party and let me say at once: party discipline, as far as the Nationalists are concerned, is still holding them together and it will make them vote for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) to my hon. Leader’s motion. But that is not the issue. Mr. Speaker. The destiny of South Africa is not going to be decided by the majority vote of this side or that side of the House. The destiny of South Africa is going to be decided by what happens outside these four walls. What we have been asking the Government all these years—and we cannot get an answer —is this: What precisely is the Government’s intention in regard to this Bantustan concept? Not in regard to a particular area such as the Transkei, for example, but their whole concept. We have been told that eight of these areas will be set up in the main. That is as far as we have got, but in the main on the question of boundaries we have got no further. The Government, however, goes on acquiring more and more land. In this regard I want to come to the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. Where will the acquisition of land stop? The hon. Minister of Bantu Administration, speaking on the third reading of the Promotion of Bantu Self Government Bill, said this—

He was referring to the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) who is no longer with us—

Now, Sir, what did the hon. Minister have to say in 1944 about the purchase of land for the Bantu? I see that smile on the face of the Minister of Bantu Administration; he knows what is coming. To-day he talks about a word of honour to purchase that land but what did he say in 1944 when his Government was in Opposition? He said this—

That sounds like a pre-election speech and it was. It was the same man, the same Minister, who now comes along and makes that speech in Hansard which I quoted first to the effect that it is a matter of honour for this Government to buy land, that the United Party Government had bought so little, that they were the first Government to buy land for the Bantu. Sir, we are in this position that the Government continues to buy land. Where it will stop no man knows. The Government goes on with the development it has undertaken towards self-government and independence. They have come with their proposals with regard to the constitutions. Many Natives are asking about the constitutions. Sir, I do not want to magnify my difficulties but I doubt whether any hon. member has more difficulties than I have in regard to this matter. I shall come back to this presently, Sir. I speak the Zulu language. Many Natives come to me with their troubles. It is a cardinal principle with me. Sir, that when dealing with Natives, I do not criticize the Government. Under those circumstances where do I as a Member of Parliament stand in the matter. I represent the Bantu as much as I represent the Coloureds and the Asiatics and the Whites in my constituency. Everyone of us who is representing a constituency represents the Bantu. They have no representatives in this House. Many Natives come to me and I take up their case —the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development knows that. I have gone to him from time to time with a case and I usually get his sympathetic understanding, even if it takes a very long time to get it through to his Department. Where do we stand in this matter when the Bantu themselves are seeking enlightenment? There is no more confused group of people in the Republic to-day than the Bantu. They are utterly and completely confused. The Government consults only with a very small number of people in a particular area where they propose to establish a Bantustan. Only that small number have a vague idea of the basic principles of what the Government is proposing. What do the other 12,000,000 know about it? This system of Parliament is something completely new to them. I have said this in this House before, Sir, and I repeat it: The system of counting of votes to get a majority decision has been completely foreign to the social life of the Bantu. You can go back to the days of the immigrant Bantu tribes and you will find that not one of them ever used the vote as a basis for decisions. In these circumstances the mass of the people. in the main uneducated or not sufficiently educated to be able to follow our form of government, are left completely bewildered and wondering what is happening. My hon. friend, the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) repeated here what we have so often said that the Bantu did not ask for this. This is something which was foisted on them by the Prime Minister. This never came out of the cooking oven to the Nationalist Party; this comes out of the domestic oven of the Prime Minister. He cooked it up, nobody else. If hon. members opposite cannot defend their own policy and cannot make an intelligent speech, giving chapter and verse, how then, Sir, can those millions of people outside these walls understand and appreciate it and come to worthwhile decisions? Worth-while decisions in a matter of this kind can only be come to if you know the facts, when you have knowledge. when you are in a position to study the facts. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question which has repeatedly been asked: What form of government does he propose to give the Bantu in these various Bantustans? Is it to be based on the democratic principle of the vote? Is it to be a sort of a hotch-potch of people who have been partly appointed and partly voted into position? Or is it to be a form of government where the Government says: We are going to appoint your rulers, we are going to appoint your Ministers and your Parliament. We are going to have the people that we want in the same way that they are doing in the case of the Bantu Authorities.

Let me quote, Sir, from an official booklet “The Transkei”, Fact Paper 102 of June 1962. This booklet quotes the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is quoted as explaining the kind of government which the Bantustans will have—

Let me interpolate here, Sir, and say that I do not know whether the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education was wrongly reported to have said in reply to a question that the Bantu governments would, for example, have a Minister of Education.

I denied that report several times.

I accept that, Mr. Speaker. I did not see the denial that is why I put it to the Minister. The Prime Minister then goes on—

What is an indigenous constitution, Sir? Is it one coming from the people themselves? In the same booklet, on page 5, we have the speech of the Secretary for Bantu Administration and Development. He is a down-to-earth sort of a man. He is a practical man; he has to deal with this job every day, for about 20 hours out of the 24, and what does he say on the same point? He said—

He says quite clearly that they had better keep the form of government which they had because that was the way they would have to go any way. Is that an indigenous form of government? Was that what the Minister of Bantu Administration had in mind when he said this (Hansard 101. Col. 7187)—

That will serve their interests best; an indigenous form of government and then we have the Secretary for Bantu Administration saying: You better take the form which is given to you, which is a hotch-potch; it is a hybrid; something of democracy and something of your tribal system. The Secretary for Bantu Administration said it would not be forever and I want to point at once to one of the points which has already been hammered and hammered by Bantu statesmen and Bantu educated men that they should take what the Government is giving them and then immediately agitate for a different constitution. I want to ask the Government, in regard to the constitutions which they propose for these Bantu states, will they allow these Parliaments to amend their own constitutions? The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration was questioned from this side of the House in regard to the powers which those Parliaments would have. The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) asked him whether they would control their own army in their own area and the Minister said: “Of course not.” I am trying to get a clear picture because the Government will not give it to us. We have to build it up. We have to collect bits and pieces of information from various sources and try to build up a composite picture to find out what the Government is getting at. I want to ask the Minister of Bantu Administration this: Is the intention that our Defence Force in South Africa should defend the whole of South Africa, including those independent States? Is that the policy of the Government? Will they not be allowed to defend themselves? Will they have no defence force of their own?

Wait and see.

I think it is a fair assumption that the Minister is unable to answer. When he said “of course not; the Bantu states will not have the right to defend themselves” he must have meant that South Africa will be defending the whole country. I want to take it a step further. We have heard a great deal about the 6, 500,000 who are to remain in the White area in terms of the Tomlinson Commission’s report. Various speakers have dealt with those 6, 500,000 Bantu. That calculation may be a million out either way. What I want to ask the Prime Minister is this: Does he envisage 6, 500,000 Bantu remaining in the White areas? Under his policy as he has seen it developing, with his hand on the steering wheel steering it where he wants it to go, does he envisage that? There is not a member in this House who can guide him or steer him or qualify his views. I know the Prime Minister. Where does the Prime Minister see this 6, 500,000 Bantu in their final destiny? In spite of the criticism which has been voiced about keeping those 6, 500,000 Bantu in the White areas, does he really see them remaining here? Is he prepared to stand up and say: I accept it that there will be 6, 500,000, plus minus, Bantu people in the White area, in all these housing schemes which we are producing for them, in all the transport schemes which the hon. Minister of Railways is providing for them. He is building new railways to carry the Bantu people. That is to remain; it is a permanent part of our economy; we cannot do without the Bantu, they must stay. Or is he going to say: sooner or later the 6, 500,000 Bantu must leave the White areas and those areas must remain white? Except for the Coloureds and the Asiatics. We want answers to these questions because these are the questions which are worrying the Bantu.

I now want to come back to this question of my own attitude. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration recently, with the Commissioner for Zululand, attended a meeting in my area where they instituted an “ukukanyakufikile ”—Regional authority. Both the hon. the Minister and the Commissioner for Zululand spoke. He spoke in Zulu. And the Commissioner criticized me for a speech I had made. The main portion of the Commissioner’s speech was published in this Government document called “Bantu” No. 1 of 1963. It says this—

That is the Commissioner and not the hon. the Minister—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister sat there. He subsequently spoke and according to newspaper reports, in which I was named, because I made that speech, the Minister sat there and he subsequently spoke and he referred once more to the wolves that were trying to eat up the Bantu inheritance. It is a favourite expression of his. He sat there and he listened to the Commissioner-General for Zululand making that speech, a civil servant, a public servant, a man who has been in the precincts of Parliament, and who knows parliamentary procedure and usage and who knows as a civil servant he has no right whatever to criticize a public representative for views expressed in regard to political matters, even if they clash with those of the Government. What right had he at a public meeting attended by 10,000 Zulus to criticize me in that manner. They knew precisely who was being criticized and 20 or 30 came to me during the next 24 hours to ask: What must we do now under these circumstances? What has happened between you and the Government? Sir, what right has a man in that position to criticize in that way. I say he should be cashiered on the turn. The Government of course can appoint whom they will from time to time as commissioners-general. That is entirely for the Prime Minister and his Cabinet to decide. Surely they can find people who are qualified and who are satisfactory in that position. I can show them one who is entirely unsuited and unqualified. No man should stand up in front of a gathering of Natives and make such a speech about another White man at a time like this. The position is dangerously balanced and we are, living in very critical times when the utmost tact is required. The whole Bantustan question is at issue and there a man in the position of Commissioner-General, who is greeted by this concourse of Bantu with their loyal greeting of “Bayete”, comes along and makes a speech before this gathering in which that particular sentence was used. I think it is absolutely disgraceful. And the Minister sat there and allowed it to happen. I think he understands sufficient of the Zulu language to appreciate what was happening. And there was much more than that. There were fluent Zulu linguists there apart from the Zulus themselves who spoke about it afterwards. Of course neither the newspapers nor this paper here printed what was said by the Commissioner-General in fact at that gathering. I repeat that when it comes to the relationship between Black and White, hon. members opposite have no right to criticize hon. members on this side for their utterances.

Practice what you preach!

I am prepared to stand on my record against any other hon. member on the other side. I say that these are the things that are creating discord in this country, uncertainty at every point where you touch on this question of Bantustans, uncertainty for a White man and uncertainty for the Bantu. Here we have millions of these people who to-day do not know where they stand. How can we guide them, those of us who wish to do so. even if we disagree entirely with the Government’s policy but when we wish to see law and order maintained and who wish to see the Republic go forward on an even keel? The Government is taking a course which is pushing ahead the constitutional development of the Bantu in a manner which was undreamt of even five years ago; they are forcing the pace; they are forcing it on a people who understand nothing of the responsibilities they are asked to bear.

Coming to my last point, I want to say that one of the greatest difficulties is in regard to this question of land, I say that if the Government leads the Bantu to self-government in an area where the land is held by the community, they are asking for trouble. There is no country in the world except the communist countries where land is held in communal holding, because under the capitalistic system it is the basis of the foundation of security for our money, and if we are going to get the Bantu with us, we must give them a stake in and a title to their own land. Give the Bantu a stake in his own country, give him a chance to become a land-owner. I know that this also creates difficulties, but the Government should see that that is done before self-government is granted. Let the Bantu be a home-owner and a land-owner in his own territory. If that is not done, the Government is going to be faced by a perpetual pressure of the new Bantustans for a revision of the constitution under which they are being created, and trouble will eventually flow from this as certain as night follows day.

If anything more was needed to show up the bankruptcy of the Opposition, it is the fact that one of their prominent front-benchers commenced his speech to-day by complaining that the hon. the Prime Minister had not immediately replied to the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He worked himself into a state of excitement over that matter.

Mr. Sneaker, this is something quite new that the Prime Minister is to be told when he has to participate in a debate! It is for the Prime Minister to decide when he wishes to do so, and I think if the hon. member would go back into the records of Hansard, he will find that General Smuts the previous Prime Minister of the United Party did not always reply immediately to motions of no-confidence. No, he hided his time. This is something entirely new to attack the Prime Minister because he did not reply immediately. It shows the state of bankruptcy of the Opposition. I take it that the hon. the Prime Minister was waiting for something to reply to. He was waiting for a member of the Opposition to make a statement, into which he could get his teeth. The speech made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition on Tuesday last, was a long and discursive statement, but it contained very little that was new. He said very little that he has not said before: he told the House very little that is not well known. In those circumstances I quite appreciate that the Prime Minister preferred to bide his time and to wait for something to which he could reply.

Coming back to the statement made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, it was a lengthy and discursive statement. A large part of it was devoted to telling the Government and members of the Government that they had not learned certain lessons. That was the main theme of his statement. Coming from the Leader of the Opposition it is very amusing! Sir, there is one important lesson the United Party and its Leader has never learned and which they should learn—his predecessor never learned it—namely that a political party without a clear policy on a national issue cannot hope to gain the confidence of the country. [Laughter.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is trying to laugh it off. I will prove to him just now that they do not have a clear policy—they never have had a clear policy. A party without a clear policy must stagnate and it must lose its adherence. That is exactly what has happened to the United Party to-day, and is still happening. I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that if I am to judge by the very large number of letters, stacks of letters I have been receiving from English-speaking people, some of them admitting that they are adherents of the United Party, it is clear that the United Party is losing support every day. Only a few days ago I had such a letter from a very prominent English-speaking businessman in Johannesburg. The United Party is losing support, particularly of English-speaking South Africans. For the benefit of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) I can tell him that I have received a number of such letters from Natal. And what about the voting that recently took place at Michael House and at another school? [Laughter.] They are trying to laugh it off. I know for a fact that that is a serious affair and not a schoolboy prank. They cannot laugh it off.

What has happened is that first of all there was the breaking away of the Conservatives of the United Party. That was the first step. Mr. Bailey Bekker, Mr. Blaar Coetzee, Mr. Waring and the others. That was followed by the split in the United Party, when the Progressives broke away. It was an even more serious matter for that party, because some of their best men left the party.

When did they join the Nationalist Party?

The United Party could not satisfy both wings of that party, the Conservative as well as the Liberal wing. At present the United Party still has two wings, a Conservative and a Liberal wing. Hon. members over there know that it is so. It is not even the middle-of-the-road party. It has no road, and it has no direction.

Returning to the United Party’s lack of policy which seems to amuse the hon. the Leader of the Opposition so much, I must remind the House that this has been going on for more than ten years—this condition of, shall I say, political anaemia, from which the United Party is suffering. Let us go back a bit.

In 1952, ten years ago, Mr. Anthony Delius, Gallery Reporter of the Cape Times, wrote—

In 1953, the correspondent of the London Times sent a despatch from here—

These warnings were not heeded. In 1954 the Cape Argus in large headlines proclaimed—

I notice that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not find that amusing. The fact of the matter is that the United Party is still egg-dancing.

Tell us something new.

That hon. member must remember that I showed him up once and I will do so again.

The speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on Tuesday was an egg-dance.

Older hon. members will recall that about five years ago I told this House about a meeting of the Eastern Province General Council of the United Party. From the report in the Eastern Province Herald it appeared that there were clear differences of opinion at that meeting.

Mr. George Hayward expressed the doubts of the Conservative section when he said “Our policy must be clearly stated. The United Party has opened its doors to right and to left. What is our policy?”

Then there was Mr. Frielinghaus, a Member of Parliament for Port Elizabeth, who said: “Everybody wants to know what our policy is. Has the party the pluck to state its policy for the future?”

And then the hon. member for Albany came along, honest Tom Bowker, who very naively said: “But we already have a policy. The only difference is that we call ours ‘segregation ’ and the Nationalists call theirs ‘apartheid ’.” To-day, he probably would say that the policy of the Nationalist Party is still apartheid, but the United Party policy cannot but lead to political integration of Black and White.

This lack of policy continued for some time. The then Leader of the United Party, Mr. Strauss, started to look round for a policy. There was his “six-point” plan; there was the “twenty-one-point” plan, and later there was the hundred-and-twenty-one-point plan. Meetings had been held in the different provinces to try and work out a plan. Nobody was any the wiser as to what the United Party’s policy was, just as they are none the wiser to-day. Then the unfortunate Mr. Strauss was dropped as leader and the present Leader of the Opposition took over. He started looking round for a policy and then his “Senate plan” was born—or rather, it was still-born. That was the last we heard of it. Then after a number of party meetings in different parts of the country, he came with their race federation plan, and that is still the plan of the United Party.

May I ask a question?

No, my time is limited. The hon. member belong to the Conservative wing of the United Party.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition explained his race federation plan at Kimberley and elsewhere, and the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) wrote articles in the papers in an attempt to try and explain. And now on Tuesday, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wound up his speech by setting out his race federation plan as follows—

As Mr. Delius pointed out nine or ten years ago, it is unfortunate that the details are deficient. In the same speech on Tuesday he went further to explain this policy and he said—

And then as a sop to the non-Whites in the country, he added that that political power “would be shared with the less advanced ”. Is the hon. Leader of the Opposition really serious? How does he reconcile the declared policy as stated on Tuesday with what he said earlier in his speech when he said that “one man one vote” is the aim of the Africans? In his race federation plan, who is going to decide as to the “state of civilization” which each of the races has reached? My experience at the United Nations, is that every African state regards itself as fully civilized. True, often it is only a thin veneer of civilization, but they regard themselves as fully civilized. Who will decide according to this plan whether the Bantu have reached a particular “stage of civilization ”? Who according to this plan, will decide what “the legitimate aspirations” of each of the races are? Sir, the hon. Prime Minister’s experience at the Imperial Conference and my experience at the United Nations, showed that the aspiration of every African politician is “one man one vote”, as was admitted by the hon. Leader of the Opposition in his statement. Incidentally “one man one vote” is the basis of the Prime Minister’s Bantustan policy, i.e. “one man one vote” in their own areas. But according to the plan of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, it will lead to " one man one vote”, with a big majority of non-Whites gaining political control in this country. If he does not realize that, then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is blind to realities. What happened in Kenya will happen here. What happened in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland will then happen here, if his policy of “race federation” is to be applied. A book was recently written by a very well-known Conservative member of the British Parliament. Unfortunately I left the book in Pretoria, but I think it is called “The Shadow of the Spear”, in which he makes this very significant remark, when dealing with the granting of concessions to the Blacks in Kenya. He says—

What about your Bantustan policy?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition had a lot to say about attacks on South Africa at the United Nations.

Were you referring to Bennett?

No. Unfortunately I left the book in Pretoria, but I made a note of that phrase.

As regards the hon. Leader of the Opposition’s references to the United Nations, we are at the present moment busy preparing a report on the last session of the United Nations. He will see that 90 per cent of the attacks on South Africa came from the African states. The hon. member does not seem to realize— it is an important point—that the attacks on South Africa at the United Nations, and also at conferences held in Africa, are not so much directed against the regime in South Africa, against the present Government, as that they are directed against the White man in Africa. I have here a periodical issued in Ghana. It has appeared for the past three years, and is entitled “The Voice of Africa ”. Various articles in this book regularly refer to “White domination”, There is an article here headed “Slothful, Sinister Duncan Sandys ”. There is also a reference to “the White man”, There is an article by Peter Malotsi, who is a member of the P.A.C., in which he refers to the “Welensky-Salazar-Verwoerd axis”, but it is not directed only against us. Here also he refers to “the minority of the 3,000,000 Whites” in South Africa. He talks of a change in the heart of “White South Africa”, not a change in the heart of the Government. There are other articles, also one by the friend of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), namely Nelson Mandela in the concluding paragraph of which he foreshadows a sabotage campaign in South Africa. There are other articles which refer to “White supremacy” in South Africa—no reference to the Government. but to the Whites. The same happens at the United Nations. The attacks are against “the White man” in Africa and in South Africa.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has moved a motion of no-confidence. Such a motion presupposes that he hopes the time will come when as the alternative government they will be able to take over the government of this country. But except for his statement about his race federation policy, he told us very little that we do not know. He says that he agrees to a very great extent with an article on the United Nations by a certain Mr. James Burnham. He calls it a “satirical sketch ”. I do not know why he calls it “satirical”, because much of what Mr. Burnham says in that criticism of the United Nations is perfectly correct. But in the same breath the hon. Leader of the Opposition told us of the important role played at the United Nations particularly by the Western powers who, he said, still regard the United Nations as an important organization, and he warned that we should not build upon the hope of the United Nations disintegrating.

Sir, I do not want to indulge in any prophecies, but I want to say here to-day that I have no hesitation in stating that the United Nations is rapidly losing the confidence of a very large number of the Western countries; I have no hesitation in saying that in recent years the prestige of the United Nations has very considerably dropped. It has shown that it is ineffective in maintaining international peace; it was unable to deter aggression on Goa; then there was the Congo mess and, which should never have happened, it was interference in the internal affairs of another country. And then there is the important fact that the United Nations is insolvent, literally insolvent. How long it will be able to keep going, I do not know, but it is experiencing very great financial difficulties. President Kennedy had difficulty in getting Congress to buy the UN bonds which the Secretary-General asked for, but how long can that go on? I say that that is the general feeling. In discussions and talks with delegates around the tea tables and so on, I gathered that there are many Western delegates who have very serious doubts as to the future of the United Nations.

May I point out that also the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, Lord Home, referred to what he called “the crisis of confidence in the United Nations”, That was in the speech he made last year, and he also very strongly criticized the United Nations for not taking action in connection with Goa. He said—

He said—

On another occasion he said, referring to Goa—

I have here the statement issued by his office, which he made to the United Nations Association in London and in which he very strongly criticized the United Nations’ inaction. He said—

Then he went on to say that the fact that the United Nations compromised on essential principles …

What are you quoting from?

The statement Lord Home made at the United Nations Society in London.

He went on to say that if the United Nations compromises on essential principles and if it allows the use of force for the expansion of national ends, then it is finished, and that the members of the Association should understand that. So, in spite of what the Leader of the Opposition says, it is clear that there are serious doubts, also in the British Government, as to the future of UN. He also referred to other imperfections of the United Nations and said—

Sir, it was not only Lord Home. Also in America very serious doubts have been expressed, amongst others, by ex-President Hoover, who said last year—

Then there were the speeches made by certain other prominent Americans. Senator Ulbright, a leading American politician, who is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in an article in the Foreign Affairs Quarterly, described UN as “a cold war battle-ground”,

Senator Henry Jackson, in an address to the National Press Club at Washington, said that the United States attached too much importance to UN. He expressed the opinion that the best hope for peace does not lie in UN, but in the unity of the Atlantic community. At every UN session the State Department appoints two members of Congress to serve on their delegation. This also happened in 1960. The Congressmen in turn made a report to Congress, which was reported by the Government Printing Office in Washington. This section of their report opens with the following paragraph—

And then they put two questions.

They proceed to give their reply and state that “reluctantly and regretfully our answer to these questions is * No ’ ”.

So much, then, for the statement of the Leader of the Opposition that all the Western nations are still strongly supporting UN.

Mr. Speaker, one of the main contributing factors towards the feeling of lack of confidence in UN by the Western nations is the growth of the Afro-Asian bloc. They are to-day in full control of UN. In 1946. when General Smuts represented South Africa at the first sitting, there were three African states, apart from South Africa, eight Asian and near Eastern and one Caribbean state, plus six communist states, making altogether 18. To-day, where there were 12 African, Asian and Caribbean states in 1946, there are 32 African states. Together with the Asians there are to-day 57 of them, as against 12 in 1946. There are ten communist states to-day as against six. In other words, there are 67 Afro-Asian and communist states to-day as against only 18 in 1946.

Something which came as a shock to the Western delegation and which made them realize the power of the Afro-Asian bloc, was the sanctions resolution passed against South Africa, at the 1962 session. Newspapers which are no friends of South Africa’s, such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, the London Times and others, all expressed their concern about that resolution and said that UN had no power to pass such a resolution, and that the sanctions resolution had contributed very greatly to the feeling amongst the Western nations as to the UN’s loss of prestige.

As regards South Africa’s position vis-à-vis UN. I will say no more at this stage than that we will bide our time and watch the position. But I would also say this, that it is unlikely that the South African Government will permit its representatives—will put its representatives in the position of being insulted there, as happened during the last two sessions. Mr. Speaker, this seems to amuse the hon. member over there that the South African representative was jeered at by the Blacks in UN—but I want to say that insults hurled at the representative of a nation at an international conference are insults hurled also at the country they represent.

Before you go on, will you just repeat what you said? Is it unlikely that the South African Government would put its representatives in what position?

The position of being jeered at in UN meetings. as happened particularly during the last two sessions of UN.

Is that a threatened withdrawal?

Our representatives are still there. They will be there, but it is a question as to whether we will allow them to be insulted as has happened during the past two sessions, because insults to the representative of a member of an international organization are insults to the country they represent.

And if they are insulted, will you withdraw them?

You can draw your own conclusions. [Interjections.]

Order!

You can be in the United Nations without being … [Interjections.]

The Leader of the Opposition said that it was not wrong reporting or false images or Press attacks which have made South Africa so unpopular amongst the nations of the world.

No.

You said it was not wrong reporting, false images, Press attacks, that had made South Africa so unpopular amongst the nations of the world, the Western world. I want to know from the Leader of the Opposition on what grounds he bases that statement? How much knowledge has he of what appears in the Press, on the radio and on television, particularly the U.S.A. and in Britain? I can testify from personal experience as to what is happening there. The South Africa Information Offices can testify, and our Embassies and Consulates can testify as to what is happening there. I am satisfied that no other country has in time of peace been so vilified and slandered abroad as has South Africa during recent years. I have here one of the most recent cases. A television team of the Columbia Broadcasting System, one of the two leading American concerns, whose television broadcasts are watched by about 15,000,000 people every night, came to South Africa. It is unbelievable what was put over on television by this team.

There were two teams here. Which one was that?

The Columbia Broadcasting System which came here last year.

Our office in New York was obliged to lodge a very strong protest. Let me add this: When we were asked for a visa, the representative of the Columbia Broadcasting System told our Consul-General in New York that they wished to come to South Africa, because they felt it was time that “the other side of the picture should be shown.” I want to say that the man who made that statement told a deliberate falsehood.

The television presentation commenced by showing the Black Sash women in Johannesburg and said that “these White women protested the tyranny of a minority of 3,000,000 Whites ”—not 3,000,000 Nationalists—“ over 12,000,000 non-Whites.” Then it showed a demonstration which was held by the students and professors of the Witwatersrand University against the Sabotage Bill, and it was stated that under this Bill

The broadcast continued—

Mr. Speaker, in view of the reference to the missile bases in Cuba, I would mention that the South African Government was one of the first to assure the American Government of its support.

The Columbia Broadcasting System’s presentation referred to a statement by Victor Hugo and then said:

This presentation was shown to about 15,000,000 people. The narrator said—

It said that “all the millions of Blacks and 1.500,000 Coloureds of mixed blood and 500.000 Asians are in reservations and compounds ”. There was much more. It was a really shocking presentation, and then the Leader of the Opposition tells us that it is wrong to say that the ill feeling produced abroad is due to false Press and other reports. My experience has been that if we do correct a false report it is not published, not even by a leading paper like the New York Times. There was the case where the United Nations representative in Katanga, Gardiner of Ghana, accused South Africa of having sold aircraft to Katanga. I immediately cabled to South Africa and got the facts, which I reported to U Thant, the Secretary-General of UN. My denial was issued in a statement issued by the Secretariat. The original complaint had been fully reported in the New York Times under a big headline on the second page. My denial much abbreviated, was sandwiched in between two other reports on Katanga. I was obliged to write to the New York Times and to insist that the full denial be published. That sort of thing is continually happening. Our Information Office has the same experience. When they ask for a false report to be denied, it is either not published or put where it is not easily seen.

Another point made by the hon. member is that we should re-establish contacts and build un friendships and break down hostilities with other countries. I presume, in view of what he said just before that, that he was referring to contacts with the African states.

No.

Then he included the African states. Mr. Speaker, in spite of insults and vituperation, South Africa has during past years continually shown a willingness to co-operate, but there has been no response or reaction from the African states. On the contrary, co-operation has been made impossible. South Africa can no longer attend conferences on the Continent of Africa. We are denied visas for our delegates. South Africa is a founder member of the C.C.T.A., but at its last meeting we were formally kicked out. There have been statements of African leaders also at the last session of the UN Assembly. The delegate of Nigeria boasted that he was proud of the fact that Nigeria had played an important part— these are his words—“ in kicking South Africa out of the Commonwealth ”. When Uganda recently received its freedom, the Prime Minister went out of his way to say that they were not prepared to have any relations with South Africa, Tanganyika did the same.

The desire to co-operate, is a two-way traffic; it has to come from both sides. Last year, through the French Embassy and on the decision of the Cabinet, I requested that the Republic of Madagascar be approached asking whether they would be prepared to exchange diplomatic representatives with South Africa. The suggestion was duly conveyed and we were later informed that the Malagasy Government felt that the time was not opportune in exchanging diplomatic representatives. As hon. members know, the United Arab Republic for no reason whatever—there had been no trouble—simply advised us that they were withdrawing their Minister from South Africa. Last year we invited the Minister of Transport of Congo (Brazzaville) to visit South Africa. We thought everything had been arranged, but then we were informed that the present was not an opportune time for such a visit. South Africa has done everything in its power to try to foster good relations with the African countries and it is through no fault of ours that it has not been achieved.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition in the course of his speech said: “I believe I am not incorrect in saying that there are certain countries that are not willing to sell arms to South Africa.” May I ask on what grounds he made that statement? I would hate to think that his words were intended as an encouragement to other countries not to sell arms to us. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, will you allow me to say something on a point of personal explanation? When I received my Hansard for revision this morning, I saw that I had used the following words in respect of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). I said that she had probably spoken to the Committees overseas which all collect funds for those who commit violence and the agitators and those who seek to commit sabotage here. I then added words which I should rather not have used, namely that she had perhaps connived with them. Will you and the House allow me to withdraw those words?

On a point of order, may I ask whether the hon. member’s request has been granted?

Order!

Mr. Speaker, the object of this debate is to have a discussion as to whether the country can trust the Government to guide it through the dark days that lie ahead. I must say that one could not have gathered that from the speech of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs who has just sat down. He started off his speech by accusing the hon. the Leader of the Opposition of having said nothing new. Sir, he is the last one to talk. He was still talking when his time expired. but he said nothing new whatever. The first part of his speech sounded rather as if he were rehearsing for the not far distant day when he will be sitting on the Opposition benches attacking the United Party Government. The second part of his speech was a continuation of his severe criticism of UN, which he ended by saying that he and his Government were going to watch the position very closely. Well, that does not really get us very far in considering whether or not this Government can be trusted to govern this country any longer. If the House is satisfied with the hon. the Minister's announcement that the Government will continue to watch the position, then I suppose that is all right. But in considering this question, we have to take the Government’s programme to judge what to expect, and we have had two main statements on which to judge. The one was the New Year message to the country by the hon. the Prime Minister and the other was the speech we listened to from the State President last Friday. Of course the two speeches resembled each other very much, both in form and in substance. I suppose it is a case of great minds thinking alike, but perhaps it was only one great mind thinking alike. But in any case, taking those two speeches together, they form, in my opinion, full justification for a vote of no-confidence in the Government in this House. But that justification has been further bolstered by the speeches we have had from the Government benches, because not one of them, including the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has really attempted to satisfy the country that this Government is well apprised and capable of dealing with the problems that lie before it.

The statements to which I am referring contain two main points. The one was that vast economic expansion was just around the corner. and the other theme was criticism of UN. It was also noticeable, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, that in neither of the statements was any reference made to the agricultural industry, or hardly any. In one speech certain doubts were expressed, but the other paragraph said that the outlook for the farming industry was bright. I hope the agricultural industry can take comfort from that. But as far as the economic boom is concerned, we all know that there are possibilities for vast economic expansion. We all know that something like an economic boom is just around the corner, but it has been round the corner for years now.

It is here.

Our trouble is that this Government cannot get us round the comer. Why, we do not know. We know, but the Government does not seem to know. What we cannot understand is that if this vast expansion is on the way. while this unheard of prosperity is approaching, why it is necessary for the Government continually to offer artificial stimulants to bring about the state of affairs which according to them and the hon. member for Vereeniging is with us already. The Prime Minister, in his New Year pep talk to the country, was in a very cheerful mood indeed. My reaction, on reading his cheering message to the country, was that the fishing at Betty’s Bay must have been very good indeed. But in any case he was in an optimistic mood and he was full of confidence for the future, and when he came to industrial development he was particularly optimistic. He spoke about industrial development and said that amongst the industrialists there was more than confidence; there was enthusiasm, and not only amongst local entrepreneurs but also amongst those overseas, and he expressed his pleasure at the favourable comments and the delight expressed by visitors from overseas in the future of the country, which I take it means that he welcomed their interest and looked forward to overseas finance to assist our local entrepreneurs in bringing about the expansion which we all desire. But two days before the hon. the Prime Minister made that speech, the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs made another one. He said, according to the report in the Cape Times—

I understand Salome was a very prominent strip-tease artist in the time of King Herod—

Sir. does that breathe optimism for the future; can that be construed as an invitation to capital to come to this country, issued by a mouthpiece of the Government? Who are we to believe—the hon. the Prime Minister or this melancholy anachronism, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs? Quite seriously I wonder whether the Prime Minister cannot do something to curb the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs …

You should rather curb Hamilton Russell.

… because he is really an antideluvian relic of past unhappy days, and every single speech he makes is simply sabotaging the hon. the Prime Minister in his well meant efforts to encourage the country and to create a spirit of confidence in the country.

And Vorster does nothing.

Well, I do not speak about the rest but I do think that the hon. the Prime Minister ought to insist that the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs should never make a public speech before first submitting it to him for his censorship. But there was another voice as well; there was the voice of the hon. the Minister of Finance. He was not wildly optimistic and he was not issuing words of warning against the wicked overseas capitalists either. He made what I would regard as a sensible and a responsible statement: He said that the country’s economy and financial position had remained steady since last year and that sound progress had been maintained in 1962. Well, that is three voices from the Government but there was a fourth; there was the Minister of Economic Affairs. In addition to the 46.000,000 odd rand with which he promised to subsidize industries within the next five years, he made an impassioned, almost hysterical plea to the ordinary man in the street to help boost the economy by spending more. Sir, some of us can remember one of his predecessors prescribing “spare diet and castor oil” for the residents of this country. Now we have the present Minister calling upon an overtaxed and hard-pressed people to put their hands in their pockets and to go on a spending spree to help the Government to get round the corner to prosperity which they think this country ought to enjoy. Sir, I ask you. what confidence can the country have in a Government which speaks with so many contradictory voices as to how really to achieve the degree of expansion which we all want to see.

The other leg of the speeches to which I am referring is the criticisms levelled at UNO, to which the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs added a few more this afternoon. As my Leader pointed out we have serious differences of opinion with UNO, and those differences of opinion are not confined to ourselves. As the hon. the Minister has pointed out the criticism is widespread. Dissatisfaction with the present functioning of UNO is general and the feeling is undoubtedly growing that UNO, in its present state, is not fulfilling its functions. But, as my Leader has pointed out, surely we have to accept the fact that UNO is there and that UNO for the foreseeable future is going to stay there, and calling it names won’t remove it. Competition between the Prime Minister and Dr. Castro for epithets to fling at the General Assembly or the Security Council will do absolutely nothing to resolve the differences or to bring any nearer a state of affairs where we might have a better opinion of the United Nations Organization. Indeed I would go so far as to say that language such as has been used by the Prime Minister in regard to UNO simply creates the impression that he is scared stiff of the situation in which his party—because it is not only he; it goes back to his predecessors has landed South Africa vis-a-vis the world and the world organization and simply confirms the opinion which is very widely held already that this Government may be expert professional politicians but when it comes to statecraft they are not even promising amateurs. The Prime Minister’s attitude seems to me to be based on at least one fallacy. He points to the fact that a couple of minor politicians have hitched their wagon to his star as proof that to an increasing degree he has the support of the whole White electorate in his race policies. His State Information Office in their advertisements overseas has claimed that basically there is little difference between the two main parties in the matter of racial policies, and I notice that the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) in her journeys abroad has been assisting the State Information Office and the Prime Minister in spreading the impression that there is not much significant difference basically between the United Party and the Nationalist Party and as a result, that on the whole the Prime Minister can claim that he has the support of both. I do not suggest that the hon. member for Houghton used those words but she certainly gave the impression that as far as she is concerned there is nothing to choose between the Nationalist Party and the United Party and that they are equally bad as far as racial policies are concerned. Of course, both the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Houghton are quite wrong and so is the State Information Office, but that is by the way. One can only shake one’s head and simply say that politics sometimes makes for strange bedfellows. I think the Prime Minister is wrong in two respects. In the first place he is wrong in saying that he has the support of all the people of the country, and I think he is wrong in refusing to admit that at the present time at any rate— what may happen in the future none of us knows—the main attack of the world organization is not against South Africa or the South African people but against the race policies of the present Government, and unless the Prime Minister can grasp that fact, then inevitably we must be on the wrong lines in dealing with the situation.

Turning to the question of confidence, the hon. member for Vereeniging in moving what appeared to me to be a direct negative to our motion, moved a motion of full confidence in the Government. Well, I wonder what kind of confidence he wants. As far as we are concerned what is required is not blind confidence but confidence based on sound reason, and we for three days have been asking for sound reasons from that side of the House as to why that confidence in the Government should exist. We have not been given those sound reasons, least of all by the hon. member for Vereeniging.

Sound, but no reasons.

Sir, the people of this country are not to be treated like the light Brigade at the battle of Balaclava—“theirs not to reason why—theirs but to do and die ”—or perhaps I should say “pay or die” as far as the taxpayers are concerned. That is not the kind of confidence that the people of this country want or that we are looking for. We want good reasons for that confidence. Now, when we look for reasons for confidence we naturally tend to look back a bit to see what reassurance we can get from what has happened in the past. This Government has had plenty of problems in the last 15 years. How have they dealt with them? Take the question of manpower for example. We all know that this economic expansion which the Prime Minister ardently desires depends on adequate manpower. We have been telling him that for many years, and yet for 15 years this Government denied it and refused to allow immigration into the country, and at the same time not only did they not allow immigration but they rigidly refused to allow the non-White people to develop what skills they could in order to supplement our skilled labour force. It is true that now they have seen the light and that they are attempting to get some immigrants, but after all for 12 to 14 years they did nothing about it. In fact they denied that there was any need for immigration.

Take the question of transport development. For some years after this Government took over nothing was done to meet the needs of railway development. We remember the previous Minister of Railways telling us when he took over that the honeymoon period was over and that many of the schemes which were on the Table ready to be carried out might never be needed and that he was not going to go on with them and goodness knows how many tens of millions of pounds it has cost us all to enable the present Minister of Railways to make up the backlog which was left to him when he took over from that dynamic bundle of energy who preceded him.

Take the question of the oil pipeline. That was under favourable examination in 1947, but it is only a few months ago that the Minister of Transport had a vision and announced that he accepted in principle what had been on the cards for 15 years. We look forward to hearing what he is going to tell us about the pipeline …

He will probably tell us it was his idea.

We have been waiting for 15 years for a positive decision on that subject.

Then there is the Orange River scheme. That was actively being pursued before this Government came into office and for 15 years this Government would not look at it. They had deputations from farmers from all over the country and they refused to look at it. Now a ray of light has been shed and it is being heralded as a great inspiration on the part of this Government. Fifteen wasted years!

The same applies to budgeting. For years we have begged this Government to be more careful with their budgeting. We have accused them of consistently and systematically overtaxing the people and we have asked them to have some kind of a plan for their budgeting for the years to come but nothing has happened; the country has been overtaxed year after year, and now, at the end of last September, the Prime Minister had a bright idea. He arrived at the Economic Planning Council’s session and he announced that we should now undertake a system of economic planned budgeting, and he went on to say that he thought that the budget last year was probably wrong. I could not expect him to say that we were right. But it is something to get the Prime Minister to admit that his Government was wrong. Well, we shall look forward with great interest to the reaction of the Minister of Finance in his Budget to this vote of censure that he has had from his boss on his method of budgeting.

Take the Republican question. There is not the slightest doubt that this country went to the polls at the referendum in the firm belief that they were voting either for or against a republic in the Commonwealth, thinking that they could rely on the Government’s statement, and the Government was completely wrong. Sir, so one can go on and in fact one can say that in every major issue over the last 15 years this Government has been wrong. Why should they be right now? I think it is very cold comfort looking back on the last 15 years when it comes to the question of confidence in the Government. Goodness knows we have plenty of problems ahead of us now. We have for instance, the agricultural industry, financing, marketing, export markets. There is no reference to any of those problems at all either in the Prime Minister’s New Year statement or in the Opening Speech by the State President. In fact the farmers by inference have been shown very plainly what the Minister of Lands told them some years ago that they are no longer the backbone of the country, and as far as this Government is concerned they can now take a back seat with no cushions on it to soften the bumps over a bad road. The farmers were not even mentioned in the Speech from the Throne at the Opening of Parliament. It is quite true that the Government has made efforts to get a certain number of immigrants but we have to get a great many more to make up the backlog of 12 years, and I think we have to do much more to incorporate these people into the South African nation. I think a period of five years is much too long under our conditions here to keep people waiting for citizenship once they have decided to stay and shown that they are going to make good South Africans. I think they should be allowed to become South African citizens much sooner than that. How the Government is going to make up this backlog heaven only knows. At the same time the Government should take active steps to encourage greater skills for our non-Whites. Job reservation should be done away with to-morrow if the Government is really serious in wanting to expand the economy of the country as it should be expanded.

We had hoped this afternoon to hear from the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs some information as to how he viewed the problem of our relations with the United Nations. Well, we have heard what he had to say. It is quite clear that he has no idea at all and no information to give us. It is the same with our relations with the rest of Africa. The Prime Minister always says that his policy is friendly co-operation with the rest of Africa, but his policy of friendly co-operation with the rest of Africa seems to depend on the rest of Africa staying as far away as possible from him. It is no good saying “I want to be friends with you” and then refusing to have them in your country. The isolated refusal to which the hon. Minister referred is understandable in view of the definite refusal of the hon. the Prime Minister to accept any kind of officials from any state in Africa in this country. There is no reference to any of these things in the programme outlined to us by the State President, or by the Prime Minister in his New Year address.

I notice, Sir, that the Other Place has a number of Bills coming before it and one of them deals with the export of ostriches, so perhaps I should not say that the agricultural industry has been entirely overlooked. Of course. I would like to see a clause put in there providing for the compulsory export of the whole Cabinet together with the sand in which their heads are so firmly buried.

The picture drawn by Government speakers when they draw a picture that is intelligible at all, is that all is well, that there is a spirit of optimism abroad, that vast economic expansion is around the corner, that the corner is about to be turned, that prosperity awaits all of us. that we should all put our hands in our pockets, that racial peace exists—they do not say that it is racial peace maintained very firmly by the Minister of Justice—that the rest of the world is modifying its hard views about us and that in any case we should not take any notice of the rest of the world in view of the happy future awaiting us here and that we should just feel pity for the outside world which does not appreciate with what a marvellous Government South Africa has been blessed. Sir, I wish that were a true picture. Unfortunately it is quite a false one. The true picture, as I see it, is that South Africa is facing a year or two of the most fateful years in its history. Agriculture is crying out for drastic reorganization; we are about to be asked to hand over a large portion of our eastern seaboard to what will be an independent foreign country, a jumping-off ground for our enemies against what is left of a dismembered Republic, whilst on the west we are threatened with the loss of South West Africa. Nothing that has been said yet indicates that the Government has any policy holding out any promise of successful implementation in dealing with our vital, urgent and possibly deadly problems for this country. This Session will be largely taken up by discussing these questions in greater detail, but I say that meanwhile, based on the evidence before us, on our experience over the last 15 years, on the failure of the Government to take the country in its confidence it is painfully clear that the present Government is a menace to the continued well-being of our country, a grave digger of the future of the Republic and as a matter of urgency it should be repudiated by every responsible citizen of the country irrespective of the political party he may favour.

Mr. Speaker, …

What a delightful relief!

I realize that listening to me will be a relief after listening to the Jeremiah of South Africa, the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson). We all know the hon. member; we all know the manner in which he addressed us just now, the superior, even way in which he puts over his bitterness. Sir, it does not impress us anymore. We have heard it too long. The hon. member talks about this Government being a menace. He talks about the failure to turn the corner of the economic boom that lies ahead of us. Sir. it is not so long ago that this honoured gentleman was telling us that South Africa was bankrupt, that the banks and the factories would close. He used that language when South Africa became a Republic and when South Africa was out of the Commonwealth.

Give us a quotation.

That was the language used by the hon. member. One can imagine how bitter he must feel when he sees the country moving ahead economically, when he sees that our gold reserve has risen to a record level instead of the low gold reserves that he and his party predicted. All the prophecies made by him about the economic future of this country have been proved false. But the hon. member still gets up and in a slow deliberate way he tries to create fears in this House about the future of South Africa. I know that the personal remarks made by the hon. member about the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs will raise a few laughs …

[Inaudible.]

Sir, I never interrupted the hon. member when he was speaking. He must not squeal now. He talked about an antediluvian Minister and about the Government’s having gained a few minor politicians. He was no doubt referring to the Minister of Immigration and myself. All I can say is, judging by the sentiments on this side of the House is that they are very pleased that they have not been joined by minor politicians of the type of the hon. member for Constantia. He talked about an “antediluvian Minister ”. He does not even represent a true South African anymore. He represents something that does not fit into this House, something that is a relic of the colonial system. That is why the hon. member feels so bitter and that is why he is such a Jeremiah when he talks about this Government.

I want to refer to this no-confidence motion. The hon. members of South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) and Constantia are very upset because it would appear that the motion is not being treated realistically by this side of the House. I know that this is a formal motion that is put before Parliament at the beginning of a session. This is a most unrealistic motion. It is no good trying to create vigour where there is no vigour. There is no vigour even in those benches that there is no confidence in this Government. I know and I appreciate the efforts which the hon. members make, especially the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for whom I have the greatest respect. I know it is up to him to try to keep the spirit going. I want to read a report just to show how unrealistic it is. This is a report which appeared in the Star of 11 September—

Then he gives his evidence—

Do those hon. members really rely on ex-Senator Hennie Smit for encouragement? I know the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) is very pleased about the results of Florida. I know the hon. member for Natal (South Coast) (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) is very pleased with the by-election results at Vryheid. I took part in that by-election. [Interjections.] I will tell you, Sir, how much I helped them. The majority was increased by 250.

That is not true.

Let me ask the hon. member: Was the National Party majority increased?

By 42.

Oh no, Sir. Listen to this. This is from the member for South Coast—

At that time there were by-elections in Britain. A by-election is always an election where the government is in a more difficult position. It is not a general election—it is a by-election. In the by-elections in Britain the Conservative Party lost two or three of them. A by-election shows the people of the country what the trend of events is. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) admits that the Government increased its majority at Vryheid and yet it is supposed to be a moral victory over the Nationalists. Take Florida and here, I do not think the hon. member can correct me, the Nationalist Party reduced the United Party majority by 45 votes. But it was a by-election. We are talking about the results of only a year ago, not those of four years ago. The majority was reduced by 45—another moral victory. The hon. member for Germiston (District) made a calculation. He said: What about the percentages? I remember reading about the percentages and it shook me because one of the papers said that the United Party could say that it had increased its percentage more or it had lost less votes than the Nationalist Party did by .3 per cent or .03 per cent.

Let us look at the agricultural position in this country. We had an opportunity to have an election at Kroonstad. That is a farming, a mealie, district. We have so much talk about the mealie farmers. Why did the United Party not go to Kroonstad and fight the election? It has no confidence in the Government; the people outside have no confidence in the Government! There was their opportunity. But they decided that the seat could go unopposed. I must say that I regard the position of the United Party with a certain amount of understanding and a feeling of sorrow …

Are you homesick?

No, I am not homesick. I feel sorry for them because you hear so many views expressed by United Party members. I remember when they kicked us out the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) got up in this House and he said: “Now we have got rid of the element which has been undermining the United Party. We now stand united behind Mr. Strauss as a party with one policy.” Very soon they were no longer standing united behind Mr. Strauss but they were standing united behind the present Leader of the Opposition. The next minute the Progressives were out but two of them stayed in; they are still in the party. There are more than two, Sir. The hon. member for Constantia was right in the forefront and then there is the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell). That is why I say I have a great feeling of sorrow for them.

I want to refer to the speech of the hon. member for South Coast on the Bantustan policy. I am not afraid to discuss the aspects of that policy. I want to refer in the first instance to a cutting which I have here from the Natal Mercury of 17 January 1963. The Natal Mercury is not a supporter of the present Government. It comes from their representative in Lusaka. It reads—

You know what the position is in Northern Rhodesia, Sir. They have control of the the Northern Rhodesia Executive. But that does not satisfy them. That is not their object. Their immediate call is for one-man-one-vote. It is no good closing your eyes to it. Throughout the whole of Africa that is ultimately the demand. Mr. Speaker. I can show you how that has come from Dr. Hastings Banda; how it started in Kenya. It is no good saying that they will accept a qualified vote, that they will accept the basis of federation which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has expounded. The Leader of the Opposition was even anxious that they should accept it but they will not accept it. They may use it as the thin end of the wedge but they will not accept it. That is the history which we have right throughout the African Continent. We have that situation right on our borders in Northern Rhodesia. The hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) who has relations in Rhodesia, knows the situation. It amounts to this that the hon. members of the Opposition have learned nothing from the history in Africa. The position has developed in that direction and nobody is going to stop it. I can quote African leaders who have said in the past: “It is no good telling us that human dignity is that there must be no discrimination, that we must be allowed to go to hotels, to go to cinemas, to swimming baths. That is not the human dignity that we want. Our determination is to get the ultimate human dignity which is one man one vote.” [Interjections.] All I want to show hon. members is that this is the situation and this has been African history during the last few years. Hon. members sneer at the Bantustan policy but there is a clear-cut policy in that policy and that clear-cut principle is this: There is a division; there has always been a geographical division. There is a clear-cut political division. As far as the White man in South Africa is concerned, excluding the reserves, this is the area in which the White man will exercise his vote, and nobody else but the White man. That is a clear-cut issue. We say to the Bantu: If you want a system of one man one vote you can have it in your Bantustan area. That is where you must exercise your political rights. Hon. members want to know to what it will lead. It can lead to all sorts of things. But I want to ask them this: Look what the other system has led to. I was in Kenya when they thought of giving about a quarter of the Kenya Legislature over to the Africans. That was the maximum they thought of and what happened in the end? It is controlled by the Africans. It was reported to me when I was in Northern Rhodesia—and I am not talking out of turn in saying this—that a question was put to Lord Malvern about their partnership policy. He explained that it would be a partnership like a horse and a rider and he left it to the questioner to decide who would be the jockey. That was not so long ago, and to-day in Northern Rhodesia the complete control of the Executive Council is in the hands of Kuanda and his allies. He fought the election under an arrangement with Sir Roy Welensky and he got in under Welensky’s support. The leader of the United Federal Party, Mr. Roberts, appealed to them and said: “You can’t do this to us; surely we are entitled to half the seats in the Executive Council; we are a strong minority.” Kuanda’s immediate reply was: “As far as we are concerned you must understand, the majority in this country are now ruling; they have the power and the minority is in the opposition and you get no member on the Executive Council and no member in the Cabinet.” That is the language of Africa. I am convinced that there must be this clear-cut issue. It is no good bluffing yourself that you can get away with some other system. They also thought that they would be able to hold the position in Northern Rhodesia.

May I ask the hon. Minister a question? Does he really believe that the Africans in what the Nationalist Party calls the White areas will be satisfied to vote in the areas from which they came even in cases where they have lost all connection with those areas?

Firstly, I say that the African has not lost all connection with his homeland. Secondly, I say definitely that he must understand that his political rights are in his homeland. He must not be made to think that he has some qualified right in what we call our homeland, if you want to call it that. Because once you accept that principle that he has a qualified right in the White area he will not be satisfied with that right, he will demand one-man-one-vote. You see that right next to you in Northern Rhodesia. How can you close your eyes to it? How can you say there is another system?

Won’t he want more land?

The whole world is demanding more land, Mr. Speaker. Throughout the history of the whole world people have been demanding political rights in other countries either in the form of pressure or otherwise. If there is an attempt or a demand for political rights in what we call the White homelands, then that will become an act of political aggression. The same as it would be an act of political aggression if the Germans demanded political rights in Holland. I am not drawing a comparison between the pattern in Europe and the pattern which we have here but I am trying to create principles which we must follow.

Who knows what the future of the world is going to be? All we can do is to see what has happened to the other attempts which have been made to satisfy Black Africa. All that has happened has been that the White man has been pushed out of the country politically and otherwise. When you speak to people from Rhodesia or from Kenya they say to you straight out: Look, there is no argument about it; unless you make that a clear-cut policy, unless you follow that policy, you have not got a hope in South Africa. You may withhold it for ten to 20 years, but your children and their children will never be able to hold on to South Africa as you want it with fairness and justice to everybody. That is why I say that should be the principle which we should apply. We are not afraid to talk about the Bantustans. I am only too glad to talk about the Bantustans. I am proud to know that at any rate I am moving in a direction in which I can see a future. Not only a future for myself but a future for those to follow. The history of Africa with regard to the White man has shown that the other system does not give any stability whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, I do not say that there will not be problems. Of course there will be problems. I want to say this to the South Africans: Why is it that the Kenya man or the Rhodesian must be a better South African than the South Africans who sit in the On-position? Why do they say: Yes, you must do that. They have lived under a system which has meant the end of everything which they hold dear. That is why I say that this issue is much broader and much bigger than just an ordinary party argument. I feel that surely in regard to this issue there should be a feeling of South Africanism which should make us pull together. Surely this undermining, this creating of an atmosphere of suspicion, this saying that we are creating Bantustans for cheap labour, is un-South African. I read a speech of the hon. member for South Coast in which he said we were going to spend R20,000,000 on the Transkei and what about the poor and the widows and the pensioners. Is that the language to use in regard to an issue of this sort?

He was quoting your Minister.

He was not. If the hon. member will not believe me I will give him the actual speech. This was his Vereeniging speech. Listen to the language—

What is the purpose in saying that? Is the purpose to create ill feeling between the Whites and the Blacks? Or to create suspicion amongst the Whites?—

That speech was made on 8 November 1962. Not so many months ago. Listen to this—

I believe that hon. members on that side of the House are also in favour of good race relations between Black and White. But listen to what the member for South Coast says—

Where is that sort of language getting us? And to-day he said that he was a friend of the Zulu, that they went to him for advice: that he represented the Zulu. This is what is devilling our society in South Africa. I do not mind the hon. member for Constantia calling me a minor politician. What I do want to see is that the major politicians should at least realize that this sort of language is not going to save South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most queer speeches I have listened to during the few years I have sat in this House. To start off with, an ex-member of the United Party spends the first quarter of an hour of his speech on a subject which is hardly relevant to this debate, namely the prospects of the United Party getting into power. I ask myself: Why this speculation? Is it possible that the hon. member is beginning to doubt that the ship which he left is really sinking? Then he went on to make one analogy after the other, analogies which have been made over and over again by hon. members opposite—look what happened to Kenya; look what happened to Rhodesia; look how the Rhodesians are now supporting our policy here! Surely the test is this: Does the hon. the Minister of Information think that apartheid would have solved the problems of the Whites in Kenya? There are only 80,000 Whites out of a population of 3,000,000 in Northern Rhodesia and does he think that apartheid would have solved their problems? If we have more security and more peace in South Africa to-day it is simply due to the fact that the Western community is stronger here than anywhere else in Africa and despite the Nationalists’ policy over the past 14 years we are still much stronger than anywhere else in Africa. Other policies would have led to an even more stable and peaceful situation than that which we have to-day.

My Leader made a charge against the Government, namely that their policy was creating this bad image overseas. He admitted at the outset that there was a tremendous amount of distortion of what was happening in South Africa. He referred to the misrepresentations that were taking place. The gravamen of my Leader’s charge was that if some of the Acts of this Government were published in their entirety, if you published the Sabotage Act, for instance, in any Western country, it would be totally rejected because it went against all concepts of Western civilization and democracy as seen by most of the Western countries. That was the charge, but the Minister of Information made no attempt to meet that charge. I am afraid, Sir, what we have had from the Minister of Information in this respect is what we have had from most of the speakers on the other side. They made no attempt to meet the very serious charges which my Leader has made against the policies of this Government. I will therefore try to shift the debate to a slightly different ground, to the economic ground, and see if we cannot get an answer from hon. gentlemen on the other side on the economic consequences of their policies. According to what I have listened to in this debate the attitude of hon. members opposite is that thanks to the Nationalist Government we have had tremendous economic development over the past 14 years. They admit that over the past two years there has been consolidation but they say the boom is just round the corner. I cannot illustrate that attitude better than to quote what the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs said in the South African Patriot. In the Patriot of November/December 1962 the hon. Deputy Minister wrote this—

This is the sort of propaganda that is put out, namely that South Africa has had exceptionally rapid economic and particularly rapid industrial growth. Now, Sir, I intend testing that by the facts. I do not intend letting those statements go. There is really only one indicator if you want to measure whether the welfare of a nation is improving under a particular government or not and that indicator is your average real income per head of the population because that measures your standard of living, it measures your purchasing power and it discounts such things as price increases and population increases. I say that is the best and the truest measure where you want to determine whether the welfare of the country is expanding and progressing rapidly or not. What are the facts in this respect? Commercial Opinion of November 1962 has gone to the trouble of calculating, on the basis of official statistics, how rapidly the economic growth and the standard of living were rising in this country since the first figures became available. We find in a table on page 30 of this publication that they calculate that between 1915 and 1925 (that is right at the beginning of the Union) the standard of living as represented by the real income per capita was increasing to 0.4 per cent, not quite ½ per cent. We all know that the growth was very slow then because South Africa was still predominantly an agricultural country. Then we find that in the next phase, from 1925 to 1929, the growth increased to 1.6 per cent per annum; from 1929 to 1938 (the period just before the war) it increased further to 2.3 per cent per annum. From 1938 to 1948, which includes the war period when a large percentage of our manpower was non-productively employed outside the country, the standard of living rose even further by 2.6 per cent per annum. At that rate it does not take a very long period before you double your standard of living in the country as a whole. Then we find that in the period from 1948 to 1953, the first five years when this Government was in power, and they were still verly largely riding on the investments made before they came into power, the standard of living increased at a rate of 3.2 per cent per year. Then we come to the last period and find that from 1953 to 1960 the rate of increase in the standard of living for the people of South Africa dropped from 3.2 per cent to 1.5 per cent. And in the last two years, according to calculations of Hupkes and Van den Berg in their “Economic Survey”, that rate has not been much more than 1 per cent. In other words, Mr. Speaker, in the past decade of Nationalist government our growth has been slower than it has been since 1925. You have to go back to 1925 to get a slower rate of growth of the improvement in welfare in this country. In the past ten years it has been lower than in any period since 1925. Now this is the fabulous growth that we have been told about by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs.

What are the consequences of this? Sir, this Government came into power at a period when the country was fairly highly industrialized already, just after the development of new gold fields. With proper government that expansion of 3.2 per cent per year could have been kept up and could have been increased. For a society of the nature of South Africa there is no reason whatsoever why we should not increase our standard of living at the rate of 3 per cent per year, which would in a very short time wipe out the most stringent poverty amongst our lowest income groups and would afford all our workers Western standards of living. But far from that happening, far from maintaining the rate of growth of about 3½ per cent per year, we find that it has dropped to 1½ per cent a year. What does this mean? It means that in the past ten years if we had kept up our rate of growth at 31 per cent our standards of living in South Africa would already have been 20 per cent higher than they are to-day. That means that extreme poverty would to a very large extent have been wiped out already. Put in figures, it would have meant that our national income would have been R1,000,000,000 higher than it is to-day. That is the price we are paying for a Government that follows such unreal and impractical policies. Of necessity it must slow down the rate of economic growth of a country like South Africa.

The hon. the Minister also said that South Africa was growing phenomenally industrially. I have gone to the trouble to compare the rate at which we have become industrialized in the past ten years compared with the previous ten years before this Government came into power, that is between 1938 and 1948, and it is not even two-thirds of that period.

We have not industrialized nearly as fast during the past ten years as we did during the period 1938-48, and one must take into account that South Africa was involved in a war for six years of that period, when it was very difficult to get equipment and to get investment and to industrialize rapidly. On what basis, then, can hon. gentlemen on the other side claim that South Africa is growing so rapidly, that our economic growth is so rapid and that our standards of living are rising so rapidly? The hon. the Minister writing in the S.A. Patriot tried to justify the Government. On what basis? It is rather amusing. He picks the five slowest growing countries in the whole of the Western world and then he compares the growth of our national income, and he then comes to the conclusion that three of them were growing slightly slower than we did. Had he gone to the trouble of calculating the real income per head, he would have found that even in the five slowest growing countries in the Western world, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand were growing faster than South Africa. He does not make any attempt to measure the growth of South Africa by comparing it with continental Europe. Had he gone into that, he would have found that Common Market countries alone were growing three times as fast as South Africa—the standards of living there were growing three times as fast as here. Had he gone to the trouble of looking at Japan, he would have found that they were growing five times as rapidly. And whether we like it or not, on what available evidence there is, it would appear that even in the communistic bloc they are growing very nearly as fast economically as the Common Market countries. In other words, even in the communistic countries standards of living are rising a lot faster than here in South Africa. Mr. Speaker, that is the real picture as shown by our own statistics, that far from being a country which is growing exceptionally fast and industrializing exceptionally fast, we are one of the slowest growing countries in the whole Western world.

What are the consequences of this? Apart from the fact that your standards of living are not rising fast enough, this slow rate of growth is gradually leading to a very serious problem of unemployment. I must here also say that never before in the history of South Africa had conditions been so favourable for economic growth as in the period when this Government had been in power. Because what has happened in the world since 1948? What has happened since 1953? We have seen the most phenomenal growth of industry all over the world. The demand for our export products has increased from year to year, and our exports in fact have increased many times over. Not only that, but this Government came in at a fortuitous moment, just after the discovery and development of vast new gold fields, and the result is that since 1953 the value of gold production alone doubled in this country. External conditions have never been so favourable to economic growth as they have been in the past decade in this country. Yet we have this miserable performance, this miserable growth compared with other countries in the Western world.

And what is it going to lead to? Apart from the fact that our standards of living are rising very slowly, there is also the danger of the unemployment problem, particularly as far as the non-Whites are concerned in our country. In this respect I would like to point to the serious problem of unemployment that already exists amongst the Bantu in South Africa, as set out in an article by the chairman of the Wage Board in the Economic Journal of June

1962. On page 111 he writes—

In other words, there is a potential surplus population of nearly 2.000,000, who all, of course, are not workers, but at least 500,000 are workers. He goes on to say—

So the chairman of the Wage Board finds that at this present moment there are hundreds of thousands of unemployed male Natives and female Natives in this country who cannot get employment. In addition to that he calculates that whereas about 75,000 new Bantu workers come onto the labour market every year, at the rate at which we have been growing in the recent past employment opportunity is only created for about 42,000. In other words, for two-thirds of the Bantu work-seekers coming onto the market yearly there is no work. It is easy to see, Mr. Speaker, how this may lead to a very dangerous and very explosive situation if unemployment amongst the Bantu i, going to rise steadily. There is only one answer to that, namely that we must grow far more rapidly economically.

Why did we have this very slow rate of growth in this favourable period, economically speaking? There is little doubt that the main factors which have led to this slowing down in the rate of our economic growth has been the lack of an immigration policy of this Government until quite recently. We were still growing at a rate where we did not get by way of immigrants the necessary technical skill we required. The second main factor of course is the drying up of the flow of foreign capital, which gradually reduced and finally in 1955 virtually dried up completely, and in recent years we have had an outflow of foreign capital. We can well realize what effect that had on the growth of our economy. All these policies combined and the inherent military and political dangers as a result of the policies of the Nationalist Party have destroyed the confidence of investors. That cannot be shown better than by the fact that in the last decade the rate of private net capital investment, which indicates the rate at which a country is growing, has fallen from 13.6 per cent to 6 per cent in the last few years. It has very nearly become halved in the last decade, and yet that is the most productive sector of your investment. That is the type of investment that established new factories and new businesses, creating additional employment. I do not know why the hon. Minister shakes his head, because these are official figures. There is this great reduction in private net capital investment. Then of course lastly, in addition to all the other factors, we cannot have that economic growth as long as the Government follows their restrictive policy in respect of labour, setting limits to the acquirement of skills by the non-European people and neglecting the training of all the people, White, non-White, in acquiring skill—neglecting the education of our people as a whole. I am sure that most educationists will admit to-day that South Africa is falling behind in the Western world in the rate of educational development. Economists are coming more and more to the realization that the question of economic development is not only a matter of investment of capital but it is also investment of capital in education, in the training of your people, training them in new skills in this technological age, training them in science. There we are falling behind in the world.

We are told that there is a big boom around the corner. Surely we can only have that economic growth in the future if those restrictions are removed. I admit that after the period of stagnation that we have had during the past two years and the development of surplus capacity, economic conditions will probably improve in the next year or two. But there will soon be a limit to that improvement, unless we reverse these fatal policies that have slowed down the rate of economic development so tremendously. For what earthly reason should we grow faster in the future than we have in the past ten years? It is most unlikely that external conditions will become more favourable for economic growth. On what basis can we possibly then grow faster? As I see it, that can only be achieved if we reverse many of these policies that I have cited, and probably the only practical way to bring that about would be a change of government. Unless we reverse some of these policies, we will not get this sustained boom that we are now being promised. Already the Prime Minister’s own economic advisers tell him that a limit would quickly be set to any boom that develops by the bottle-neck of a shortage of skilled manpower. What has caused that bottle-neck of a shortage of manpower? The fact that we have cut down immigration for 14 years to such a tremendous extent, apart from the neglect in the training of our own people. What are the signs that a reversal of these policies will take place? I see no sign at all at the moment. In fact, what we are being promised is an intensification of apartheid, an intensification of these policies that have already slowed down the rate of economic growth in South Africa despite its large potential. I cannot elaborate too much on this, but in particular let me point out two serious economic consequences for particular areas that the Government’s policies will have. In the first place we are told that border development is now going to be expedited, that the Government is going to divert industrial development as far as possible to the border areas. The fact that that is not an economic operation is self-evident from the fact that the Government finds that they have to give a lot of special concessions to those industries. So those industries will obviously not be economic, their development will not be as economic as in other areas. Otherwise special assistance would not be necessary. Of course I know that the fashion to-day is to say that this is only decentralization, and it so happens by good chance that the Prime Minister’s policy of border development also accords with the idea of the decentralization of industry. But there is no objective evidence whatsoever that our industries in this country have become already over-centralized. It is just simply a statement from time to time, because if you compare our big centres of industry, you can compare them in two ways. Firstly, by taking the percentage of people living in those four or five big centres of industry in South Africa and comparing that percentage with for instance the percentage in Australia or Canada. Then we find that the concentration in South Africa is no worse than in those countries. You can also make a comparison in other ways. You can compare the actual physical size of our big urban centres, our industrialized centres, with those in the leading industrial countries in the world like the United Kingdom, Germany, France, America, Japan, and our big centres are small compared to theirs. The fact of the matter is that of course ultimately when a city gets to the size of London or Tokyo or New York, you reach certain limits where it becomes uneconomic to expand further, but none of our cities have come near that stage yet. It is an excuse, not a reason.

If one had a sensible Government in this country, surely the highest priority for diverting industrialization at the moment should not be to the border areas but for many reasons already given by speakers on this side of the House the Government should stimulate industrial development for instance on the Witwatersrand. This shifting to the border areas does not solve any of our problems at all. All that it does is to shift the so-called integration of Black and White from existing areas to new areas. It solves nothing. At this stage in our history, surely the Government should give special attention to the stimulation of industrial development not in the border areas but on the Witwatersrand. Do they realize what is going to happen on the Witwatersrand in the next decade? In the most recent issue of the Financial Mail estimates are made of the probable exhaustion dates of the 35 gold mines on the Witwatersrand and according to the Financial Mail of 11 January 1963, they say that in 1961, the 35 gold mines of the Witwatersrand produced 34 per cent of South Africa’s gold (R198.000,000). In ten years’ time all but eight of them will have closed. That means that 27 mines are going to close in the next decade. The Financial Mail makes a further estimate and says that at present the area’s gold production is about 7,000,000 oz. a year, one-third of the Republic’s total. In 15 years, unless fortune smiles again, it is likely to have sunk below 1,000,000 oz. If the Government does not take steps now, this is going to be one of the distressed areas of South Africa in the next decade. It is most amazing that hon. gentlemen should sit here representing those constituencies on the Government side without in any way using their influence on the Government to direct its attention to those areas. If we want a big surge of industrial development in the next decade, surely that is the area where it can be done most economically—where you already have the public services, where you already have the houses, and where you have your commercial buildings. Surely that should be the area. The whole scheme of the Government becomes so illogical. You have vast permanent urban Native populations in the locations, but because technically they do not fall within Bantustans, those towns cannot even qualify for border development. And then you have got a city like Pretoria, only 36 miles removed from the same centres, and because as a result of historical reasons they happen to have a Native reserve within 30 miles, they can qualify for border development. It makes no sense at all. Even taking the argument that this border development even if it is not economic is there to safeguard the existence of the White man, will the White man’s existence be safeguarded any better by industrial development in Pretoria than in Roodepoort or in Krugersdorp or in Boksburg, or Benoni? That is only one of the consequences of the policy of Bantustan development. But there is another aspect of it, the attempt to remove Native workers from the Western Cape. If you look at the economic history of the Western Cape in the last decade, you find that despite the large influx of Natives in industry here in the Western Cape, the Western Cape has not become industrialized any faster than the rest of South Africa. As a matter of fact it lagged behind in industrial development. Now what is going to happen in the Western Cape if instead of that inflow of Natives to industry you are going to reverse that trend and you are going to move Natives away from the Western Cape? Surely there can be only one consequence, and that is that the Western Cape will grow even slower comparative to the rest of South Africa than has been the case in the past ten years. That is the only deduction one can make. But what will the consequences be? The Whiter the Cape becomes, surely it will only mean the Blacker Port Elizabeth and East London and Kimberley will become. What do you solve by this sort of moving pawns about from one part of the country to the other? It does not make the White area of South Africa any Whiter over-all. All you are doing is that you pick out one certain island in the whole of South Africa that might possibly get Whiter at the expense of much slower economic growth. Hon. gentlemen on the other side should begin to realize how very difficult these problems are and that our racial problems cannot be solved by a political trick like apartheid. There is no sudden solution for our problems. The problems are far too complex. They are not only political problems but also economic problems and social problems. Surely the only sensible way is to advance not only on the political level but also to advance on the economic and social level. The proper priority should be to develop economically first and socially and politically last—reversing the order and not pushing political development in this way. As hon. members have already pointed out many of the Bantu have not even asked for this development. Surely the more sensible way to tackle our problems is to advance on all levels. At least everyone in this House must be agreed that the more rapidly you grow economically and the more rapidly our standards of living rise, the easier it will become to solve our very complex problems. That should be the highest priority. If you start the other way round, as this Government does, by starting an unreal, impractical political solution, you solve nothing. You also retard and restrict your rate of economic development, surely in the long run making the solution of your problem impossible.

That is the main difference between us on this side and hon. members on the other side, that we have not got such a simple solution for the problems of South Africa, thinking that if only you can find the right political formula, our problems will be solved. We realize on this side of the House that advance to greater racial harmony must proceed on all levels of life, on the economic level, on the social level—better education—and lastly on the political level.

The hon. member who has just sat down gave us a very interesting dissertation on the economic position in South Africa. Amongst others, he also coupled apartheid to the economic position. In that connection I just want to ask him one single question: Where he alleges that apartheid or. shall we say, the policy which is being followed in South Africa by this Government, is hampering the economic development of South Africa, I want to ask him to compare for a moment the economic stability of South Africa with that of other countries in Africa, countries in which you found the White man and where you still find him to some extent to-day but countries which he is leaving fast and where apartheid was not practiced. I think that is the only test which we can apply in that connection inasmuch as he alleges that apartheid is to a lesser or greater extent the reason for the slackness in our economic development. At a later stage in my speech I want to express a few views on our financial and economic position and I shall then read a few quotations. Sir. to refute certain allegations made by the hon. member as well as certain allegations we had from the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson).

Firstly, I wish to confine myself to the motion of no-confidence as moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I realize that the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues on that side of the House have a very unenviable task to fulfil. They state that this House has no confidence in the Government. You particularly realize that that is, as it were, a statement which cannot be proved if you look at the history of South Africa over the past months and years. I also think that hon. members opposite realize that as well as we do. Last year, two or three months after the general election when the Opposition suffered the most crushing defeat in the history of the United Party, the Leader of the Opposition was wise enough not to come forward with a motion of no-confidence. On that occasion he came forward with a motion of censure and he said that if the Government did not do this or that the people of South Africa would lose confidence in the Government. That was what he did last year. In other words, he admitted by implication last year that the people of South Africa did indeed have confidence in the Government. But if it did not do this or that, it would lose that confidence. Up to the present we have heard nothing about this or that which the Government had failed to do since last year. This year he musters up courage, after his position has worsened since the general election in 1961 and after the position of the Government and the National Party has improved, and while he is aware of the fact that the people outside have greater confidence in the Government to-day than ever before. He now tries to prove to this House that statement which cannot be proved. I say that since the general election in 1961 the Government has continued to grow in strength. If we were to accept this motion of no-confidence in this House, it would imply that the whole of South Africa had no confidence in the Government, because every member of this House represents a constituency consisting of between 10,000 to 15,000 voters, and as such the people outside have no confidence in the Government. In spite of that, we repeatedly submitted the figures, as the hon. the Minister of Information did as well, to show that according to past elections the voters are continuing to show greater and greater confidence in the Government.

In the course of his speech the hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised certain points, very general points I must admit. It would really have facilitated our task had the Leader of the Opposition and those members who spoke after him been more specific. He raised certain general points of criticism and gave us a review and I wish to thank him for the fact that he did not come here with criticism against the Government and nothing else, but for having given us a review, and I think an honest review, of how he viewed South Africa and Africa and possibly also the rest of the world. But while I appreciate the way in which he did it, it does not mean that he has discharged the onus which he himself has placed upon his shoulders. He certainly did not acquit himself of his task with greater success, although we regarded it as a reasonable speech.

The points he raised were, inter alia, the following: He said amongst others that we should cultivate friends at UNO. I admit that when you look at the voting at UNO from time to time we are all concerned. We realize that the voting does not paint a very favourable picture for South Africa and that gives all of us cause for great concern. However, I think we are also all agreed that the voting at UNO is not, in the first instance, an absolutely true reflection of the real friends we have in the world, because, rightly or wrongly, there is a feeling against discrimination in the world to-day. The feeling that there should be no discrimination on the basis of race or colour is being revealed throughout the world to-day. The countries who feel that way, countries which we know are good friends of ours, reveal that feeling that there should not be any discrimination. But they do not have the same problems which we have. The problem which confronts South Africa is unique inasmuch as it only applies to countries where the White man is to a very great extent in the minority and where the Black man is numerically the stronger. We must obviously make the deduction that the Black states of Africa and the other Coloured races cannot feel very sympathetic towards us because of our policy of discrimination. I should, however, like to ask the Leader of the Opposition and hon. members opposite this: When they come forward with their so-called race federation plan, a plan which contains all the elements of discrimination, are they at all hopeful that that system of race federation will gain them more friends at UNO? I get no reply from that side that that will be the position because I think hon. members accept that that will not be the case. The reason why we have problems at UNO is the feeling which exists against discrimination and the race federation plan of the United Party contains all the elements of discrimination. Not only does it contain the elements of discrimination, but it also contains all the characteristics to sell the White man in South Africa. You cannot doubt that, Sir, if you really approach the matter objectively because we have had repeated examples of that in Africa. It is exactly the same policy which other countries followed and where the position of the White man has worsened. It is the policy of partnership, of granting concessions. Britain succeeded to keep her Empire going for several hundred years by following a policy of granting concessions, but we must realize that the world has grown very much smaller. The world is no longer as big as it was in the past. There are easier means of communication to-day, such as the radio, the telephone and improved transport facilities. What happens here to-day is known this evening to all the other countries of the world and that is why the development in the world is taking place at a much faster pace. If we had to revert to a policy of making concessions to-day, a policy which may have been successful in the past for many years, we must realize that as a result of those concessions the process of development will be at a much faster pace than in the past. We will achieve nothing else than that if we follow the policy of the United Party. We know that what they are going to give to the Bantu by way of concession will not satisfy the Bantu. He will ask for more to-morrow and even more the day after.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also referred to the laxity in making provision should Britain join the Common Market. He also said that in spite of experience we were giving independence to people in South Africa; that we had not learned the lessons of Africa. I think we can justifiably say that the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. members opposite do not learn from Africa. Africa has repeatedly proved to us that the policy which they advocate to-day, the old policy of partnership, has been tested in numerous countries in Africa and failed. The same sort of policy was followed in Kenya, Tanganyika and the Rhodesias and they know as well as we do what happened there. I think, therefore, that it is not us who have not learned from Africa but the Opposition. If it is possible to continue to exist in a multiracial country like Rhodesia or one of the other African states, a policy other than that of partnership must be evolved, and the National Party has evolved that other policy and the Government wants to put it into effect. That is the reason why the people outside are giving stronger support to the Government to-day and will give it stronger and stronger support in future. In the other African states those people, who personally experienced it paid dearly for this policy of the Opposition, this policy which has failed there. They are coming to South Africa in their thousands and they are the people who are the greatest and strongest supporters of the policy of the National Party, they who have had the experience of what went wrong in those states which were handed over to the Natives. It is often said that we are allowing South Africa to be divided and parts of the country to come under the control of the Bantu. I admit that I too would have liked the borders to be different. We are often accused of dismembering South Africa. Naturally I would have preferred a border which extended from east to west across Africa, along the Limpopo or the Zambezi, so that we could have said that this southern point of Africa belonged to the White man and what lay to the north of it belong to the Bantu. That would have been much more acceptable to all of us but that is just not practical politics. To-day we are only within the borders of South Africa and it is only here that we have any authority. It is only within those borders that we can carry out our policy.

Tell us where the borders will be.

I repeat that I would have liked the borders to be different.

You want to do away with all borders.

There was one person in the past whose views hon. members opposite have always accepted. I refer to General Smuts who thought very strongly along the lines in which the Government is to-day working. I just want to read portions of what he said in 1948. The accusation is often levelled at us from that side of the House that we want to practice a policy of domination (baasskap) and that we want to remain the master, that we want political domination. Even in 1948 General Smuts said this—

Then he continued—

Hear, hear!

Now hon. members agree. He said—

Hear, hear!

Hon. members are still agreeing, but they do not want them to be given any power in their own areas. General Smuts went on—

Not in our House of Assembly.

Hear, hear!

He says—

Those were the lines along which General Smuts thought in 1948 and if hon. members still agree with him I do not think we are very far away from each other. They should develop politically. That is precisely the difference between what is happening here in South Africa, between the policy which we are following here and what is happening in other African states. In other states of Africa the control was given to undeveloped nations, people who were not in a position to exercise that power. Here in South Africa we have a policy in terms of which we first want to educate those people; we as White people want to educate them so that they will ultimately be in a position to attain that power. If hon. members agree with what General Smuts said I think they can to a very great extent agree with us, at least to such an extent that, together with us, they will defend the policy of South Africa in respect of this all important question.

Does the hon. member believe that the Government is now following the policy of General Smuts?

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) possibly did not follow too well what I said. I quoted what General Smuts said. I said that in 1948 General Smuts thought strongly in terms of what is being done by the Government to-day. [Laughter.] If hon. members do not believe it, I shall read it again. This is what they hold against us—that we give the Bantu political rights as they develop in their own areas. In Col. 2906 General Smuts said—

Not in the Parliament of the White man, but in their own areas. All that I say is that if hon. members agree with General Smuts, they are not so very far removed from us as they occasionally try to make out.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made two further allegations which actually, in my opinion, deal more with administrative matters than matters of principle. He said, inter alia, that the Government accepts the fact that people are communists if they step into the breach for the non-Whites, and he also spoke about the neglect of our education. I think that this is actually more a question of the implementation of a policy, the administrative aspect more than the policy itself. If the hon. member had discussed this matter, one could have considered it, but he did not really argue against the policy. The general nature of their criticism made the attacks of the Opposition most ineffectual and I would prefer to confine myself to another subject, namely, the amendment, because I feel that by doing so I will be able to make a far more positive speech and because there is a great deal of substance in the amendment, namely, that the House has confidence in the Government. The hon. members of the Opposition had, quite understandably, very little to say about the economic position. The hon. members for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) and Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) were the only ones to discuss this question. I think that if one tries to criticize a Government one has to ask oneself how things are going with the country. The first thing that one then has to ask is: What is the state of the country financially and economically? It is quite understandable that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not discuss those points because the position in South Africa to-day is so good. The hon. member for Constantia quoted from speeches made by the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and another Minister, and the only criticism that he was able to pass in the economic sphere was that these Ministers did not all tell the same story. However, in any case, I do not think that we will easily move him to believe hon. members on this side of the House. That is why I think that we should rather examine the statements of people who move more in these circles. Round about New Year various newspapers gave financial reviews of the past year and gave their opinions in regard to what could be expected this year. On 9 December the Argus stated—

This is in regard to the past year. Dealing with the possibilities for 1963, no less a newspaper than the Sunday Times stated on 30 December—

A newspaper in East London stated—

These are the reports which we receive in connection with our financial and economic position. and if the hon. member for Constantia wanted to say something about this matter he had only to look at some of his own newspapers. In this morning’s newspaper we again read (translation)—

On the same page we read that the revival is continuing on the property market. This is the type of report which we have to-day in regard to our financial and economic position. I say that this is the first important test which must be made of any Government: How are the finances and how is the economy of the country managed? Is the country financially and economically sound? It was for this reason therefore that I asked the hon. member for Jeppes just now, when he contended that the policy of this Government in regard to racial matters had a detrimental effect upon our finances, to compare the position in South Africa with that of other countries in Africa where our policy is not being implemented. On the contrary, South Africa is the most stable state in Africa. We have the greatest measure of security of all the states in Africa. What is the reason for this? There can actually be only one reason which causes South Africa to stand out above the other states of Africa in the economic sphere and that is the policy of this Government. Because other states such as Kenya have completely lost their stability as a result of racial matters, it can only be in respect of our racial affairs and policy that we are retaining that stability, and nothing else.

Is it not possibly our gold?

What about the copper in Northern Rhodesia?

We in South Africa cannot avoid our racial affairs. No matter what we are discussing, whether we are discussing economic affairs or education, nine out of ten times racial matters enter the problem. Because it is so often discussed, I want to-day to make my own humble analysis of South Africa, in the first place as part of Africa and, secondly, the position of South Africa in the world to-day.

In the first place, I want hon. members on the other side to see South Africa, as I do, as a part of Africa. In Africa there are no fewer than 220,000,000 non-Whites, and on the whole continent there are only 5,000,000 Whites of whom more than 3,000,000 are in South Africa. The White man has lost his authority and his position in all the other states of Africa—or is rapidly doing so. I want to ask this question: This side of the House is attacked by the Opposition because of the Government’s racial policy. I want to ask hon. members opposite: Where the White man has lost his position of power in the other states of Africa, has this happened because he has followed the policy of the National Party there? Did the White man lose his position of power in Kenya because he followed a policy of apartheid, or is it a fact that we are faced with the problem to-day that we have to deal with Pan-Africanism and with the slogan “Africa for the Africans?” If this is true, if we accept the fact that the more than 200,000,000 Bantu in Africa are voicing the cry of “Africa for the Africans” and that it is not a hollow cry—that they really do want Africa for the Black man—then you will agree that apartheid has nothing to do with the matter, but that we as Whites in a country forming part of Africa have a common struggle and hon. members are all concerned with that common struggle, just as I am, irrespective of whether they are protagonists of apartheid or not. If hon. members agree with me in this regard, they will also realize that we have to stand by one another at this time against that great danger, a struggle which is not being waged against the apartheid policy but against you and me because our skins are white. We must realize that the time has come when we as Whites must stand together against that common enemy who is threatening the survival of the White man, not only in Africa but also in South Africa.

Let us look for a moment at a South Africa in the rest of the world. We exchanged a few words just now in connection with UN. We heard that that cry of “Africa for the Africans” is accepted in world circles—the most extreme form of race hatred ever to have existed in the world in this sense that the White man is not conceded the smallest niche on the whole of the continent of Africa. However, that cry of “Africa for the Africans” is obviously accepted in world circles. Why is it accepted? It is accepted under the cloak of a so-called freedom. Articles which the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs quoted mentioned freedom which should be given to the Bantu as against the White man. This is done under the cloak of freedom; if the truth be known, it brings no freedom. Where independence has been given to them in the states of Africa it has not meant freedom for those people; it has not meant more freedom for the individual. What it has meant has been murder and death and sorrow to a very, very large extent. Notwithstanding this, however, the architects of this whole scheme in Africa succeeded in carrying the world along with them to a large extent because it was done under the cloak of freedom. As a result of the fact that many of our friends in the Western world have their own problems, economic and otherwise, and as a result of the fact that they often actually consider it to be of greater benefit to them to do business in millions than to look to the survival of a small group of White people in Africa, there is a second fact that we must realize. In the first place we must realize that we have this danger in Africa not as a result of apartheid, but because we are White people. The second thing that we must realize is that at this stage in any event we cannot expect much support and protection from the rest of the world and that to a very large extent we will have to wage a lone struggle in South Africa. In order to wage that struggle, in the realization that we are doing so alone and that we cannot expect support from any of the countries which should actually support us. it is more necessary to-day than ever before that we in South Africa should co-operate and stand together. It is sometimes disturbing to us to see a tendency on the part of our political enemies to pin their hopes on interference from outside. The hon. member for North-East-Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) stated at a meeting last year that the Government would obviously not be removed from office from within South Africa and that this would perhaps have to take place from outside. It appears to me —I hope that I am wrong—that that idea has taken root in the minds of other leaders.

The Minister of Lands said the same thing.

I know that that will never have the approval of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition because in my opinion it is nothing short of high treason to hope that forces will be forthcoming from outside to remove the Government from office. However, this evening I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition with all respect please as soon as possible to dispose of that view should it again be aired.

Tell that to the Minister of Lands.

If, finally, we make an analysis of the position in South Africa. [Interjections.] I did not speak this evening about the Progressive Party or the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). I do not think that it is necessary at the present stage to devote much attention to her. I do not want to offend the hon. member for Houghton, but that is my opinion. In 1961 the Progressive Party received a reasonable measure of support at the general election. Shortly before the election I was in the Natal area where the Progressive Party received considerable support. Who was actually responsible for the fact that the Progressive Party received so much support there? It was no less a body than the United Party. Businessmen in reasonably high circles in Natal gave me the impression that they could no longer see any future in the United Party and that they were quite prepared to lend their support to any other party in which they could see their future salvation. That was why a number of them went over to the Progressive Party. Our experience recently has been that they are starting to trickle back. They realized that they were wrong. There is to-day only one possible alternative government and that is a government of the official Opposition. They are the only people with whom we can make comparisons. [Time limit.]

It is continually being said that it is time for the White people to stand together. There is nobody in South Africa who does not believe in that idea of standing together.

But you believe in standing everywhere (rondstaan).

But when an hon. member talks about our standing together he must take the argument a little further and tell us behind whom we must stand together, and on what basis. Does he want us to stand together on the basis of petty apartheid, which is the cause of the difficulties in which South Africa finds itself to-day? No, Dr. Malan once said something very true, namely that there is a certain type of unity which is much more dangerous than division, and I must say that I regard unity with the Government as much more dangerous to the future of the White man than the differences we have.

The proposition is continually being stated that the Opposition wishes to make “concessions” to the non-Whites, and that “concessions” must necessarily result in the abdication of the White man. I want to ask the hon. member: Is the policy followed by the Government in respect of the Bantu areas not a political concession to the Bantu?

On the basis of apartheid.

Then what about the granting of local government to the Bantu in the urban areas? Is that not the beginning of political concessions to the Bantu outside the Bantu areas? And if the hon. member believes—something with which I do not agree—that making concessions essentially contains the germ of abdication, he is still destroying his own argument because his Government is in fact making concessions to the Bantu in the sense in which he himself refers to concessions. In any case, I do not think that to us it is a question of concessions. The policy of the Opposition is not based on making concessions per se. Concessions are not relevant. What we have to decide in South Africa is not whether we should make concessions here or there, but the question is what we should do to remedy what is wrong in the relations between White and non-White, and what we should do to do justice to everybody—not to make concessions out of the heights.

We continually hear the argument that the Natives will not be satisfied with the policy of the United Party. All of us sitting here surely know that the actual racial problems of South Africa are not situated in the Transkei and in respect of the tribal Natives. The crux of the problem is the large settled urban Bantu population which cannot be removed. Several millions of Natives will remain living in the cities permanently—many of whom have no contacts with the reserves, were not born there, and have or will have no interests there. Does the hon. member want to tell me that they will be satisfied with the formula of the Nationalist Party, of being allowed to vote in a place where masses of them have never been before, will never go and do not want to be?

Furthermore, the Government is always busy comparing South Africa as a country with the new independent states in the rest of Africa. I regard that as quite fantastic. South Africa has 300 years of civilization and development behind her, with a strong economy, with the rich gold mines, with 3,000,000 Whites and 1, 500,000 half-Whites. The conditions and the population here are in no way the same as those in the rest of Africa. One simply cannot compare them. Even in Southern Rhodesia, where there is the largest number of Whites except for South Africa, there are only as many White people as we have in Paarl and Worcester and a few other large towns. In Kenya many people regarded themselves as temporary residents. I met a South African-born woman there who was married to a Briton employed in the public service in Kenya, and who spoke enthusiastically about the prospect of “home leave ”— but “home leave” was the official term used for a holiday in Britain! Apart from that, none of these areas in any case was at liberty to determine its own future. The White man in Kenya did not hold his own future in his hands, nor the White man in Rhodesia, Uganda or any of the other African territories. They were colonies and were subject to the authority of Britain. The position there is quite different. But to go further: What actually went wrong in Africa? The hon. member alleges that partnership failed. I deny that. What failed in Africa is apartheid—“ baasskap apartheid ”. Let any hon. member get up and tell me where “partnership” was fully applied in practice. It was not really applied in any territory in Africa, in any case not timeously. In Kenya I found myself in the company of a Minister from Ghana. That was during the conference there of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and I could not even take this Ghanaian Minister into the club where I stayed to have a meal with me in order that we could converse a little. There was as much apartheid there as there is here. In Rhodesia, with its Land Apportionment Act, they used the term “partnership” but never applied it. In some respects apartheid was applied more strictly in Rhodesia than in South Africa. Partnership has never been given a chance anywhere in Africa, and I say that what has failed in Africa is apartheid. The White man in the rest of Africa has paid a heavy price for enforced apartheid, for “baasskap apartheid ”. There they woke up too late and now belatedly they want to make changes. Unless we in South Africa wake up and have a change of spirit we will also pay a price which will frighten us.

At this stage I should like to move—

I second.