No matter how much I may differ from a political opponent, there is one thing which I do not do lightly and that is to doubt the good intentions of my opposing party. There are of course exceptions to all rules, but no matter how wrong and how detrimental to the country the political actions of some politicians may appear to me, it is my opinion that most politicians and political parties believe that the road which they have taken in politics is in the best interests of the country. Of all the political parties in the country there is, however, always only one whose view of what is in the best interests of the country can be tested against the results of its administration, and that is the political party which is in power and forms the Government of the country. An opposition party may be attacked in regard to what it says it wants to do, but all the accusations against an opposition regarding the alleged results of its policy remain speculation and nothing more than pure speculation. One can try to make comparisons with what has happened in other countries or what is happening there, but that actually makes no difference because in no two countries of the world do we find that the background to things and the circumstances are ever the same. Least of all are South Africa and her population even remotely comparable with any other country on the continent of Africa and the population of that country. I want to emphasize the fact that it is only the political party in power that can be criticized without such criticism resting necessarily upon speculation. The result of its administration are there for all to see. It is therefore on the grounds of the visible and tangible results of the policy of the present Government that a clear and firm rejection of its administration is more than justified. I should like us to look, for example, at two aspects of the picture of South Africa as it has developed and as we find it to-day as a result of the policy and the administration of the Government, and then to look at the attitude and the relationships which have resulted from it.

In the first place let us take the relationship between the White and non-White sections of the population in this country. One can quote reams of evidence from less moderate Black political leaders to show how strongly the hatred, the bitterness, which the Government has created with all the injustices of apartheid has developed in the mind of the non-White. But I deliberately refrain from quoting the extreme political leaders. I want to quote the evidence of a moderate Coloured, a lecturer at the Government’s Coloured University College of the Western Cape—Mr. Adam Small, the Afrikaans writer—in order to prove how embittered the non-White feels to-day. In his book “Die Eerste Steen” (The First Stone) he writes as follows on page 25 (translation)—

He states further on (page 18)—

That is the evidence of a moderate Coloured, a person who is not even in party politics. This is what another important Coloured leader has stated—Mr. N. Kearns, chairman of the Coloured War Veterans’ Organization. I quote from the Banier of July 1961. He says—

The administration, the policy and the legislation of this Government has, in the relationships between White and non-White, created a bitterness in the mind of the non-White which I do not think we will ever be able to eradicate in South Africa. The Afrikaner knows what the Anglo-Boer War did to his soul for generations. I wonder whether the White man in this country will ever overcome the hatred and bitterness against the Whites which the action of this Government has created in the minds of the Coloureds.

The second picture that I wish to paint of South Africa as it is under the present Government concerns the relationship between South Africa and the outside world. It is continually said by members opposite that enmity towards us started in 1947 under General Smuts and the United Party.

But you said that yourself.

Yes, that is true. It is true that in 1947 harsh words were used against South Africa at the UN, particularly by India. The difference is that at that time, under the United Party, the hostility was restricted to a few countries. to-day it is general. The second difference is that at that time, although we had a few enemies, all the important Western countries stood by us. Study the records. Look at all the countries which were still on our side in spite of the few enemies that we had. Look at the friends who actively assisted and defended us. But, in the third place, if a man like General Smuts had remained in power, he would have acted in such a way and administered the country in such a way that he would either have overcome that hostility or else reduced it or at least not have allowed it to increase. I agree that this Government inherited a certain measure of enmity, but its task was to reduce that enmity. After all that is the task of diplomacy. General Smuts did not have the time; shortly after the 1947 session of UNO he was removed from office. Countries always have their enemies and South Africa will also have her enemies. No one imagines that we can win the friendship of the communist countries. America also has strong enemies at UNO. We complain that we are being attacked there by America and Britain are sometimes attacked by the communist countries at UNO even more strongly and unfairly than South Africa is. We are not the only country which is attacked unfairly. But I repeat that, the difference between our position and that of America and Britain is that America and Britain do at least retain strong friends on their side; they do at least have a good case which they can defend and by means of which they can retain their friends. They do at least ensure that they administer their affairs in such a way that they retain strong allies. Our Government, however, because of its lack of diplomacy, because of its unfortunate administration at home, has placed South Africa in a position where we no longer have only a few enemies as was formerly the case, but where the entire civilized world has turned its back on us. Even Portugal which always voted with us has already gone so far as to abstain from voting and is also gradually moving away from our Government.

When we consider our position abroad, we find that over the past years things have gone from bad to worse with us. In reality, we were forced out of the Commonwealth; we are forced out of every meeting in Africa, even meetings of a non-political nature. And who will deny that our membership of UNO is at present hanging by a thread? I personally am strongly in favour of South Africa’s having to play a dynamic role in the community of nations throughout the world and in Africa. Think of the material we have in South Africa! We have Whites of Dutch, British, French and German descent; we have Coloureds, also Coloureds of Malayan descent; we have Natives of Africa races; we have people of Indian and Pakistani descent. If these elements can co-operate, if these elements can find a joint loyalty towards South Africa, if we can harness this talent correctly, if we give this talent a South Africa to which they can all be loyal, then South Africa can play a leading role in the organizations and on the platforms of the entire world—if only we had a Government which had greatness and vision! As things stand to-day, however, I am often inclined to think that as long as this Government is in power, it will perhaps be better for us to withdraw from everything, because wherever it is, its presence creates a crisis and weakens our position and causes greater harm. There is really nothing good that this Government can still do for South Africa in the international sphere in respect of foreign affairs.

The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs returned from UNO not so long ago, and listen to what he reported. Before he left New York, he said in an interview with the New York Press.

This report appeared in the Burger of 10 November 1962. He admitted failure. What was more, he returned to Johannesburg and reported as follows—

This report appeared in the Burger of 17 November 1962, which reported further—

What a shocking report to make! What a position for a country to be in! What an admission of absolute, irrevocable failure: People do not even want to be seen in the presence of South Africa’s representative! And the Government accepts the futility and the hopelessness of its position to such an extent that it does not even try to do what every other country would do with an ambassador who reported such abject failure, and that is to replace him. I think that the time has come when the hon. the Prime Minister should personally begin to sit up and consider the position in which South Africa finds herself. My personal opinion is that the Prime Minister should himself take over the Department of Foreign Affairs and that he himself should take the responsibility of trying to salvage the position. To reassure its own members the Government is trying to do its best to create the impression on the part of everyone that it is the fault of the Opposition that the world has such a terrible picture of the Government. The facts however unequivocally refute such a standpoint. Most of the important countries of the world have their own representatives in South Africa as observers, men who send reports out of the country and so help formulate the opinion of their governments on the other side. I admit that an Opposition member is quoted outside here and there, but that is by way of exception. When people overseas judge a country, they do not judge it on the grounds of what its Opposition states; they judge it according to the actions and the legislation of the Government in power.

Just look at the reports in the overseas Press. They do not deal with what Opposition members say here but with what Government leaders say and do. Take for example a piece of work like “South Africa and the Rule of Law” issued by the International Commission of Jurists, Geneva. 1960. This is only one of many documented accusations against South Africa. If someone wishes to make an attack upon South Africa and seeks facts, he will first lay his hands upon a document of this nature. This is one of the documents which is most condemnating of the state of affairs in our country to-day and it is based, piece by piece, not on what the Opposition has to say here, not upon quotations of Opposition members; it is based piece by piece on laws and regulations of the Government or statements by Government leaders and even upon policy documents of the Nationalist Party. The same thing holds good for all the important statements and books against South Africa. Take even the report of UN on South West Africa. Here and there an Opposition member is quoted—I have also been quoted. I do not mind being quoted as long as I speak the truth. To tell the truth I believe that it is in the interests of South Africa that the outside world should know that there are about 50 per cent of the Whites here who are doing everything in their power to try and bring about a change of Government. My point is this: For every Opposition member who is quoted abroad there are ten Government leaders who are quoted to the detriment of South Africa. The image of South Africa which the people abroad have is the image which is based on the policy and the application thereof and the words and actions of the Government itself. A book has just appeared written by Field-Marshal Montgomery, a friend of the Government, a friend of South Africa. In it he states—according to the Burger of 15 October 1962—

These are our friends who see what is going on here and who speak in this way. This is not the Opposition. One of the best friends of South Africa, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, who has often been in South Africa and knows what is going on said again recently—

These are not the statements of the Opposition but the actions of the Government. I can go on producing proof after proof in this regard. Mr. Willem van Heerden writes in an article in Dagbreek of 18 November 1962 [Translation.]-

And then the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs comes along and complains bitterly because nobody in Africa wants to be friendly towards him! How can the Government expect the people in Africa and the rest of the world to sit with him at one table while he and his Government determine that in this country a Coloured may not even enter by the same door of a post office or a government building as a White man, simply because he is Coloured? How can one expect to make friends and sit down together with others if in our own country they are not even permitted to enter by the same door of a post office as the White man does?

I think that it is high time that the Government put its hand into its heart to see how much of the fault lies with itself. There are few people whose politics have indeed contributed so much towards placing South Africa in an unfavourable light abroad as the Prime Minister himself. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Church clause as an example of something for which the Prime Minister was personally responsible. I have a book here which appeared recently entitled “The Challenge of Change” by Alexander Steward. He is one of the most ardent supporters of apartheid on two legs. He is a follower of the Prime Minister and of the Government. He was chief information officer in London for many years and on page 165 of his book he writes—

Indeed, so serious was the harm caused by this step of the hon. the Prime Minister that our office in London had to make special representations to the Government; and all this because of something which was not necessary. No, Mr. Speaker, if one studies the record of the Government, one finds that it is the petty, silly, unnecessary apartheid which only wounds and solves nothing, which is responsible for South Africa’s miserable reputation abroad. The same thing as happened with the Church clause happened with the removal of the Native representatives from this House. I can mention many other things that the Government did and I repeat: No single politician has contributed so much—and I am speaking about his politics, not about his person—towards creating a harmful image of South Africa abroad by the things that he did as Minister of Native Affairs, and permitted, as the hon. the Prime Minister. Look at the language that the hon. the Prime Minister again used in his New Year message to the outside world. He referred to unnamed nations as “ducktail nations”, ducktail nations which are apparently in control of UN. As a South African I lodge the strongest objection to the use of that language by the Prime Minister of our country. I say that in that way he has done a colossal disservice to South Africa. I have no objection if the Prime Minister wants to attack another government. I would have no objection if he were to say that there is a ducktail government in power somewhere, because there are countries which consider his government to be a ducktail government and say so. However, to malign an entire nation as being ducktails—I think that that is language which is unforgivable. Moreover, if one considers the facts, one finds that no single group of nations always votes together at UN. Even the Afro-Asian group is often seriously divided on certain matters. Therefore, there can be no question of the control of UN being exercised by a single group. Nothing of that nature exists. They are indeed united in regard to the handling of South Africa’s affairs. Yes. in a certain respect America does have control over UN. It is in her hands to allow UN to collapse financially. However, is that what the Prime Minister meant? Did he refer to America when he spoke about ducktail nations being in control at UN, or did he mean all of those which attacked his government? We must remember that India and the African countries are not the only countries which sharply attack South Africa. What about Holland? Does he regard the Hollanders as a ducktail nation? Are the Indians, the people of Ghandi, a ducktail nation? No, I think that it is time that the Prime Minister should rise to tell us what he meant by accusing nations of being ducktail nations. By that statement he has finally made his own position and South Africa’s position in the community of nations impossible and I think that he owes it to South Africa, if not to himself, to apologize as soon as possible -I hope, to-day.

I fully realize the difficulty of the Prime Minister. He wants to leave UN and he is going to leave, and he is making public opinion ripe for his withdrawal from UN. In 1961, when there was talk of our leaving UN he said: South Africa should not leave it now. The newspapers which reported him did not emphasize the “now” but I have here the English text of his official statement and in terms of that statement he said—

South Africa will not leave the United Nations now. That was very significant, to my mind. He himself emphasized the “now". His statement about ducktail nations, the speech of the President, at the opening of Parliament, the attitude of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs when he said yesterday that South Africa would not tolerate her representatives at UN being maligned any longer, all appear to me to be indications that the Government is trying to prepare public opinion so that it can place its final stamp upon the total collapse of our foreign diplomacy. South Africa is a country with great problems, but the greatest problem we have in South Africa to-day is in my opinion the Government we have. I believe that every person and every body which assists the Government and supports it while it is linked with minor apartheid and while compulsory apartheid forms the basis of its administration, makes itself part of the problem instead of the solution. The Government is too firmly enmeshed in its own creations to change its policy. However, I believe that history will not allow it to continue for long with its present course of action and I think that in the meantime it is the duty of every thinking White person, as long as this position continues, to dissociate himself as far as possible from the Government and to fight for a change of Government. I want to see a White Government taking office and a White Parliament which can still take timeous action in South Africa to restore the relationship between people in South Africa and between South Africa and the outside world before it is finally too late.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) said in the beginning of his speech this afternoon that he wanted to discuss only two aspects of the present position in our country. What the two are I still do not know because he had something to say about almost everything without accounting in the least for one of his standpoints. He started in this way yesterday. He stood up yesterday and said that it had been said that partnership had failed in Rhodesia. However, he said, it was not partnership which failed; it was apartheid which failed. Well, I listened most attentively to hear how the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was going to argue in support of that standpoint. He did not touch on it again. He said that what happened in Rhodesia was the failure of apartheid.

May I ask the hon. member this: Is it not true that Sir Edgar Whitehead based his platform on the rejection of apartheid a week or two ago before the election he fought?

That is the strangest reason that I have ever heard. Sir Edgar asks them to reject apartheid and instead of rejecting apartheid they reject Sir Edgar!

As the latest recruit to the United Party the hon. member is setting a complete liberalizing process in motion in that party. All that he actually seeks to prove by that argument is that this system which existed in Africa, the system of race discrimination, of the recognition of racial identity, has collapsed. That is what he wants to tell us; that instead of the system of racial inequality which existed we must now have the system of equality. That is what he has in mind but he does not have the courage to say it.

He also made another point, one of a large number of loose statements. He said: We must not look at Kenya and the other African territories and then say that this is what happened there, and learn a lesson from it. He said that it is totally different in Kenya. There, the people never had the desire to remain permanently in Kenya; they were there temporarily only, or that was how they regarded themselves. Mr. Speaker, there are things which are different and there are things which are the same in Kenya and in South Africa. It is not surprizing that the hon. member should stare blindly at that one aspect which he mentioned. I want to refer to two things of which he is perhaps aware but which he does not wish to admit for his own peace of mind, and those are the things which are the same between ourselves and Kenya, namely, the demands which are made of the White man by the communists, by the liberals and by the agitators. The same demands which are made of the White man in Kenya are made here of us. These are the things which are the same. However, there are also things which are different, and one of them is that in Kenya you had a White population who were there as the outpost of a colonial power. In South Africa you have a White nation which has accepted the challenge of Africa, which has accepted the fact that it is part of Africa and that it has a vocation here. That is the difference, but the hon. member does not share in it; otherwise he would have found his place in our Party because this Government is the bearer of that vocation, of that acceptance of the challenge of Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to deal with the hon. member any further. He said many things which he did not support at all. I referred to him as a person who is seeking to set a liberalizing process in motion in the United Party and in the light of his statements here in the House in the past I actually thought that he would join with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in his accusation against the National Party that we are seeking to treat the liberals and communists as one. I expected him to do that but apparently he is too liberally-minded and they were afraid that he would go too far in speaking about a matter of this nature.

I want, however, to return to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said about the matter because after him the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) and the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) spoke and said the same things which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had said, and that was how the English newspapers reported them. The remarkable thing about this is that what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, namely that this Government was making the mistake of equating Liberalism and Communism, were literally and precisely the words used by Lawrence Gandar, the editor of the Daily Mail, the mouthpiece of the liberals. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition took over that statement of Lawrence Gandar word for word and announced it to the world—he announced it as an accusation against the National Party. I will return to this point later. Let us look now at this statement made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Is it true that the National Party and this Government can be held responsible for the fact that Communism and liberalism are spoken of in the same breath? That is not so. It is not necessary for this Party to link liberalism and Communism with one another or to equate them. That is what takes place daily. It is a reality in South Africa that the liberals and the communists equate themselves daily, they associate with one another, they identify themselves with one another. It is not necessary for us to say it and it is ridiculous for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to say that this Party is responsible for that and that we are making a mistake in trying to combat Communism in this way.

They are twin brothers.

Two days ago the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) stood up in this House—I do not think she will take it amiss of me if I call her a liberal —and associated herself most vociferously with the statements of Mandela who is a communist. If in a political debate one finds that a liberal quotes the evidence of a communist in order to support her standpoint, what does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition call that? What does the hon. member for Wynberg call it? There are numbers of such examples. We know for example what is at present happening in Cuba. Cuba is a communist base, a Russian base, and we know that a number of years ago the communist Castro took over the Government there after the Government had been overthrown and Batista had been murdered. In 1961 when it was quite clear to the whole world that there was a communist dictator in Cuba, an agent of Russia who was in control in Cuba, on 2 June 1961 the Cape Times wrote a leading artical in pursuance of the fall of that other dictator, Trujillo, in the Dominican Republic—

That is how the mouthpiece of the liberals views that violence, that taking over control by the communists—as the start of a liberalizing movement. Liberalism and Communism are therefore linked up in the minds of those people. It is not we who link them up. However, I want to mention another example to you. Here in South Africa we had a man called Patrick Duncan who was and is still perhaps, an office-bearer of the Liberal Party, a man who was editor of the paper Contact which is the official mouthpiece of the Liberal Party. The Cape Times referred repeatedly to him as “the most outspoken anti-communist in South Africa”, I have here an issue of New Age, the communist paper in South Africa which has now been banned. This is the communist mouthpiece in Africa and on 5 April last year they wrote a leading article the concluding paragraph of which read as follows—

That was what the communist mouthpiece in South Africa wrote on 5 April and on precisely the same date, 5 April 1962, in Contact, on page 2, a leading article appeared under the heading: “Let anti-apartheid forces unite”. I will read to you what they say—

Then this—

The only demand which the Liberal Party and the Liberal mouthpiece makes for co-operation with the communists in South Africa is that they must be “truly neutral ”. Then they are prepared to co-operate with them completely. It was perhaps coincidental that it was on the same date that the organ of the Liberal Party and the organ of the communists in South Africa made an identical appeal that the communists and liberals should stand together in South Africa, ostensibly against apartheid, but not against apartheid; against White rule in South Africa. I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition once again whether it is we who are responsible for the fact that Liberalism and Communism are equated. Or is it the United Party which now and again steps into the breach for the liberals the Party and Press of that hon. member? We had the case of Dr. Edward Roux, now Professor Edward Roux. In his own book he described himself as an agitator. We know that under the United Party Government he was sentenced because of his agitation. He was a member of the Communist Party and was named. After this he joined the Congress of Democrats and when Wits made him a Professor, the Sunday Times wrote— remember, this is the newspaper in which the hon. member for Yeoville now and again still receives an opportunity to express his views— that he was only a liberal. He was a self-confessed communist, but they did not want to know it and they said he was a liberal. And then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition blames us for linking Communism and Liberalism with each another. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to accuse us of doing these things and says that they are mistakes in our combating of Communism, he can continue to do so, but then we will also know that he is not doing so because he is in earnest in combating Communism, but that he is doing so in the tradition of his Party in order to intercede for the liberals and nothing more.

I have very little time but I would also like to dwell for a moment on one other matter because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made so much of how wrongly we are trying to combat Communism. He said: “We must destroy the seed-beds in which Communism germinates”, Then he mentioned a number of things which the Government should do in order to destroy the seed-beds of Communism. He said that the Bantu should receive title rights and that there should be Parliamentary representation and exemption from the pass laws. However, his first point was: “You must eliminate poverty”, This was one of the grounds for his accusation against the Government that it was not combating Communism— that the Government could not eliminate poverty. Mr. Speaker, which Government in Africa and which Government in South Africa in the past has done more to combat poverty than the present Government? That is the sort of accusation which is made. However, that is not the point which disturbs me most in this connection. We combat poverty because this Government considers it its duty to govern the country properly and not so much because it considers that in that way it is combating Communism. What worries me more is that this story which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition keeps telling us—that one should not combat the liberals and that one should not adopt measures like the Suppression of Communism Act, but that one should combat poverty—is a tale which returns like clockwork once or twice a year. There was a time when it was feasable to say that one could combat Communism by combating poverty. That was the time when Communism was still making its assault upon capitalism as an economic system and when it was still making its attacks in economic terms. It accused capitalism of being the cause of all economic misery, the reason for the extremes of wealth and poverty which existed in the world. At that time it suited communist terminology to make its appeal to people who were poor, the peasants, the labourers. At that time it made its appeal directly to those people in economic terms because it attacked capitalism in economic terms. However, those days are long past. The hon. member for Yeoville knows that in 1947 the Commintern in the statement which it issued did not even refer to capitalism. It referred to imperialism, particularly British imperialism, and then of course it became senseless to make an appeal to the labourer and the peasant if one wished to attack imperialism. With that change in terminology there was a complete change of front and a complete change in the approach of Communism which makes it ridiculous now to combat it along the lives of methods of a previous decade and earlier. However, that is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is trying to do. The communists have realized that it is far easier to make use of cultural and professional and social frustrations on the part of people who have freed themselves from their communities, people who have been liberalized, like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. They have noticed that it is far easier to influence them than to try to make use of economic frustrations. With that change which has come about, it is not realistic to-day to try to make out that one can combat Communism by combating poverty. One would then be fighting on completely different grounds from those on which Communism operates. I want to give one example of an insight into this reality and I think that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will take note of it and respect it. I quote this to indicate that it does not help to combat poverty if one wishes to combat Communism effectively. This is what Sir Godfrey Huggins, now Lord Malvern, said in June, 1952—

One other point: If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition thinks that with his policy of granting title rights, granting Parliamentary representation and granting exemption from the pass laws he can effectively combat Communism under existing circumstances, as Sir Godfrey Huggins put it, then he is making a big mistake because then he will be trying to combat Communism on communist terms. He will be trying to bid against Communism in the dispensing of so-called rights to these people. He cannot combat them in that way.

One can combat Communism if only there are two basic acknowledgements. The one is the promotion of a sound and true patriotism and a sound and true nationalism. That is the most effective counter to communist infiltration. The second is that one must have a Government which is not afraid of the responsibility of governing; one must have a Government which shows that it is seeking to maintain order, not that it is seeking to maintain order for the foreseeable future only. That is how the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his Party assist Communism best, because they are already informing the communists that they are prepared to maintain this order for the foreseeable future only.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. memberim-who has just sat down, in his deep concern with the problem of liberals and communists, asked the question as to who had done more to combat Communism than the Nationalist Government. The answer to that is quite simple. The answer is that the United Party did more. [Laughter.] And that is not the view of this side of the House only. It is the view of the Minister of Justice’s own former Commissioner of Police, who stated in a public declaration dealing with Communism—

He continued to state that the years 1946 and 1947 were amongst our best years in coping with these people. Those were the days of the United Party government, and his own Commissioner of Police, in dealing with the problem of subversion, admitted that it was under the United Party government that Communism was best combated in South Africa, and that was after his Government had been in power for some 13 years. When it comes to the fighting of Communism, this Government is prepared to play politics; it is prepared to use the fears of the people to try to win votes, but it has completely failed in the real fight against Communism, the real fight which is the eradication of those issues and circumstances which are the field in which Communism thrives. This Government, instead of eliminating the causes of Communism, is creating an atmosphere whereunder Communism can thrive. But all we have had from the hon. member who has just sat down was a long lecture on the equation of communists with liberals, which indicates the obsession which Nationalist leaders have with this question of Liberalism, an obsession which has gone so far that it has blinded them to all other aspects of proper government in this country. And so in their obsession they build up a feeling of frustration and fear which enables them to continue with the present policy of their Government. But not one member opposite has tried throughout this debate to deal with the charges against that policy which we on this side of the House have made.

The first speaker on the Government side, the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee), stated that he had taken three years during which he supported the Nationalist Party and before he actually joined it, and he used that as his explanation of why the Nationalist Party had not made progress recently in the by-elections.

There are two issues I wish to bring to the attention of hon. members. The first is: How do those results compare, not with the previous results but with their forecasts of the day before the Weenen and Florida by-elections, when they were going round offering bets on majorities of 1,000 to 1, 200 in Florida. The same hon. member for Vereeniging was prepared to bet me on a majority of 1, 200. His colleague, the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) actually did take a bet with me on a majority of 900. But after the results came out I hope the hon. members who were so confident before the Florida election, will come to light with their confidence in the hard, material form in which it was couched. At Weenen the votes were actually counted the following day and on the day after the Weenen poll closed, when they knew the percentage of votes polled, their records in the Nationalist Party office indicated a majority of 360 more than it actually was. The point at issue in those elections is that for the first time the people of South Africa were voting against the Government without telling them so. Quietly in their own minds when they come into the ballot box they are making their cross for the United Party, and this Government is unaware of that change because they have not been told about it. Take Florida, which the hon. member for Vereeniging brags about, where the Nationalist Party register 300 more new voters than we have done. So already they lost 260 of their majority, because they should have gone up by 300. No, let them not talk to us about their piffling little gains at Florida.

But I want to deal with another aspect of the speech of the hon. member for Vereeniging. The hon. member stated that he had followed the Government’s policy of total apartheid for three years before joining the Nationalist Party and that it had always been their policy to have these independent Bantustans. It is strange that 18 months before the hon. member joined the Nationalist Party, after he had left the United Party, after he had been expelled from the United Party, he said in a letter—this is not a Press report—to the Argus—

They opposed the Government on these three issues, including total apartheid. But in a speech earlier in this debate that same hon. member said that it had always been the policy of the Government.

What about you changing your mind? It will be a great improvement.

No, I am not of the grasshopper mentality, like the hon. member for Vereeniging. I do not jump about from krantz to krantz.

What about Japie?

I stick to what I believe in, as the United Party has stuck to the traditional policy of South Africa, as we have stood by it consistently, despite losing elections. We have consistently stood for what is right for South Africa and the traditional policy of this country.

But I want to come back to the issue of whether total apartheid is in fact and has always been the policy of the Government. I refer to total apartheid, territorial segregation leading to independent states, and I am not going back into history; I am dealing now with 1959. After the 1958 election, the Nationalist Party in an official party newsletter on 28 August 1959 issued the following statement of policy to its members. It reads—

That is after this Prime Minister became Prime Minister, after he became leader of the Nationalist Party. After he embarked on the road towards independent Bantu states, the Nationalist Party for political purposes said that our claims that these states would be independent were false statements. No, the Government cannot have it both ways. What is happening now is that people are starting to realize that this sort of propaganda which I have just quoted, this claim that it was only United Party propaganda which stated that there would be independent states is not correct. People are starting to realize that the United Party was right and that the propaganda pumped into them was wrong. I believe that both in this House and outside there are thousands upon thousands of people who have a deep and urgent desire within themselves to stand behind the United Party in its policy of moderation, people who are turning away from the policy of Bantustans and are turning back to the United Party. Only one thing so far is holding them by a tenuous thread from taking that step, and that is the attempt which we have seen again and again in this debate to sow suspicion in the minds of the people as to the United Party’s reliability and as to its ability to be trusted with the future of White civilization in this country; and we are getting a little tired of that propaganda, Sir. We on this side of the House, we who throughout the history of South Africa, ourselves and our forefathers, have stood and fought solidly and consistently for the building up of the civilization we know here, we are the last people who are prepared to gamble with the future of our civilization or of the White man. I say here unequivocally and without any shadow of doubt that I believe that only the United Party can give to the Whites and to civilized people in South Africa any hope for a secure and stable future, because this Government and its policy is abrogating that leadership of the White man; it is abrogating responsibility over eight sections of South Africa, and in its running away from its responsibility it is gambling with the future of civilization itself. It is creating jumping-off points for those very dangers which the hon. member for Innesdale (Mr. J. A. Marais) and others expounded upon at such length. It is creating the jumping-off points from which those who wish to achieve what hon. members have been putting forward as the terrible dangers to South Africa can proceed. It is the United Party with its policy of moderation which can give to all the people of South Africa the stability and the security and the steady progress under which the White man can be secure, but at the same time under which the non-White can rise to higher and higher standards of civilization. Sir, we on this side of the House—and the people of South Africa need have no doubt of that—are not prepared at any time to gamble with the security of our standards or of our civilization. We are not prepared at any time to take steps which will endanger the future of the White man. That is why we are so opposed to this Bantustan policy which we believe is the greatest threat which we and the civilized standards of this country have ever had to face, because instead of dealing with these dangers all we have had from Government members in this debate has been the great bogy of fear which they are trying to create, and having created it, which they are trying to sustain, fear that the White man cannot maintain his leadership. It is that side of the House only which is afraid. It is that side of the House which was driven out of the Commonwealth by the Black states. It is they who are not prepared to show confidence in the White man’s ability, and it is they who in their admission of their own lack of confidence in the White man are now seeking to run away from the problem of living together with the non-Whites in one country. That side of the House has admitted that White and non-White cannot live together in one country, and in that admission it is trying to run away from the problem by cutting off separate states. We on this side are not prepared to run away, nor have we lost confidence in our ability to solve the problems of this country justly and fairly.

Finally, Sir, I wish to say that we in South Africa have one overriding advantage over all other African states which makes all this nonsense which has been talked in this House by Government members just the nonsense it really is, and that is the one overriding factor which they have ignored, that we in South Africa have a ratio of one White to four non-Whites. If you take the Coloureds as belonging to the Western group, that ratio becomes one in 2½. You cannot equate a country with a modern industrial structure, with an interwoven and interdependent economy, with countries like Ghana where the White man is in the ratio of one to 1,000, or Tanganyika where it is one to 400, or Nyasaland where it is one to 300, or Uganda where it is one to 590. We are not one to 400; we are one to four, and in addition there are the Coloureds, who are part of the West, blood of the blood of the White man, and with them included we become one to 2½. In addition to that, we have the economic strength of an interwoven, interdependent economy in which White and non-White work together and must continue to work together. Therefore it is arrant nonsense to suggest that because certain things have happened in Kenya and elsewhere we of the United Party will allow those things to happen here under our policy and our regime. I believe that the people of South Africa are turning away from this fear policy of the Government and will turn towards our policy because it offers the only course of moderation which can bring South Africa on a road to a future in which we do not live in fear and trembling and doubt as to what tomorrow will bring.

Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the debate my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition has surely discovered already that his motion of no-confidence is a total failure when viewed in the light of the fact we have a Government which stands so firmly and which has the confidence of the people. His own members could of course make nothing of it, except for the soapbox effect created by the hon. member who has just sat down. It is really a tragedy that a session of Parliament should commence with the type of debate we have just had. I do not blame the Leader of the Opposition for that only. Perhaps he had no alternative. I am beginning to wonder whether the rules of the House should not provide for this not being the only way of initiating a broad general debate. There should be something else than just a motion of no-confidence couched in some form or other. In circumstances like the present, where a comparatively recent election proved that there was tremendous confidence placed in the Government by the electorate, and where there is so much prosperity in the country and so much proof of confidence both inside the country and outside it, it is obviously ridiculous to have to move a motion of no confidence. In that sense I am sorry for the Leader of the Opposition. I think he is a victim of the rules of the House, which I would like to see changed.

In the first place I wanted to say this. In the second place I want to say that I have watched the course of this debate. I did not participate in the debate immediately after the Leader of the Opposition spoke, and I think it should be clearly understood that no duty exists, either on the grounds of courtesy or for other reasons, which obliges the Leader of the Opposition and I to jump up promptly after one another when either of us has spoken. It would be ridiculous if we could not use our discretion as to how we wanted to participate in a debate. I do not expect it of him either. I do not regard it as courtesy on his part always to speak immediately after I have spoken, and I take it that he does not expect it of me either. Then we would in fact be like two puppets bound together by a string, or like two children on a seesaw; now he is up, and then again I! Nobody wants that.

It must also be clear that the reason why I waited until now must have been something else, and certainly something different from what the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) tried to guess. I had the feeling that I should for once wait to see what happens to a motion of no-confidence when this side of the House does not give life and meaning to it by announcing something which is of real interest and which would give substance to the debate. On former occasions it so happened—I cannot really say that the matters concerned were of a coincidental nature—that the Leader of the Opposition by his motion or speech opened the way for me to make announcements in regard to important matters which in the national interest soon had to be tackled. I did not seek a dramatic occasion for such announcements. In future it must be very clear to those who think that we will use a motion of no-confidence every year to make a particular announcement that they are completely wrong. I think it would be a mistake, because then a Government would not be making its announcements objectively and soberly when the time is ripe to do so, but it would be attempting to make merely a debating point of it. Under no circumstances will I lend myself to that. In the past it just so happened, ever since I became Prime Minister, that every year there was something of the greatest importance which had to be done in the national interest and which had to be announced early in the session, so that the motion of no-confidence practically opened the door for doing so. For the rest, the country can be assured that the Government will announce what steps it considers necessary when it considers that the time is ripe for it, whether that is in the beginning or in the middle or towards the end of a session, or even in the recess. When a matter has to be tackled, it will be announced and action will be taken.

After having listened to this debate so far I really seriously doubted whether it was worth while participating in it to-day, bit I realised that my silence would be misrepresented outside, as the hon. member for South Coast already did the other day. Therefore I thought that it was perhaps better for me to participate, even though it was only to say what I think of this debate and of certain other matters. I think that this debate represents the weakest attack imaginable. It is a tragedy that the United Party, which calls itself the alternative government, is not able to make use of such a debate to tell the country what it will do if it can take the place of the Government. If there is one reason why the electorate has confidence or no-confidence in a government it is not because of what it says but because of what it does; and if there is one reason why the voters want to put another government into power it is not because of the way it criticizes the existing Government but because it so clearly indicates something better which it wants to do that the voters elect it to do so.

What have we had during this whole debate? There was only one positive statement as to what they want to do. That was the restatement of the race federation plan. But the race federation plan as an alternative course of action from which would flow the manner in which they would restore better relations with the outside world is something which was fully discussed at the time of the 1961 election and which was then unequivocally rejected by the people. That is the only thing which emerged from this debate as a positive suggestion. Under the circumstances it is very clear to me that the so-called alternative Government is in fact no alternative government at all. At best it is a group of people who take delight in depicting the acts of the Government in such a way that it is obstructed in implementing them. In other words, they are prepared to obstruct the progress of the people for the sake of their attempt to foster so many grievances in the minds of the people that they would want to get rid of the Government, and even to put an alternative government without any policy in its place. An Opposition which adopts such an attitude deserves no confidence and has never received any confidence in any country. As I have said, it was a great temptation to me to keep silent and thereby to emphasize how futile and insincere and unrealistic I regard this motion to be and. in so far as this Government is concerned, how innocuous it is.

There is another reason why I also felt that I should participate. It is that an accusation was levelled which closely affects my honour and that of the party of which I have the honour to be the leader, the accusation that we did not deal honestly with the electorate in the 1961 election. The allegation is that we withheld from them that the policy of apartheid and the policy of creating separate territories may lead to self-government to an ever increasing extent according to the potentialities of the Bantu, even though that should mean that their territories would eventually become independent states. It is alleged that we withheld from them that we were, or would be, taking steps in that direction. That is an accusation which affects my personal honour and that of my party. I therefore want to deal with the question whether there is any justification for such a gross accusation.

When one considers how from time to time we adopted standpoints in regard to our policy, various facts will be ascertained to prove that right throughout from the very beginning we clearly gave the public to understand what direction the road followed. The first example I wish to mention is how we all, myself included, even before 1948 as well as thereafter, used one particular example to state the difference between the policy of the United Party and that of the National Party. The United Party then formulated its policy totally differently, but it still went in the same direction as it does now. It has only progressed further now on that road we said it was following. The example we used was the following. We said that the country stood at the crossroads in regard to its colour policy; one can turn either to the left or to the right. We turned right and we said that the United Party had turned left. We said that there were various stations along that road. The road which had thus far been followed by South Africa was segregation, but it also contained elements of integration. These two roads have become intertwined during the course of time, but now the United Party swings away to develop the principle of integration to an ever increasing extent. The National Party swings to the right to make the principle of segregation its most important guiding principle for the future. We said that there were various stations on the left-hand road. The one is where one still, although one is an integrationist, wants to maintain certain principles of segregation, like certain aspects of social segregation, separate residential areas, etc., but abandons others which one formerly maintained. It was then emphasized that if a party once started to follow that road it would have to continue along it station for station. I said that the end of that road was not what the United Party thought it was, namely equality, but that the end of that road was Black domination. As against that, I said that we were on a different road. I admit that on this other road, particularly the beginning, there are still elements of integration inherited from the past, which we must gradually get rid of. At that stage there was still integration in the universities, to mention just one example. But then, we said, we would make progress step by step away from it, and the end of that road would be total political separation. It had nothing to do with territorial separation. We also said that although it was a long-term policy—and it necessarily must be—in that long-term policy there would be things which, even though we did not like them, were unavoidable. One of these things is that the influx of the Bantu to the cities, in spite of methods of control, would increase until about 1978. Thereafter we would be approaching the turning point as the result of the long-term policy of trying to obtain also further separation, human separation, and even territorial separation. Here, we said, are therefore the two final stages. These policies are perhaps not so clearly distinguishable from each other at this stage because we are still comparatively near the beginning of the separation, but our paths are quite divergent. I want to remind the House of this policy which I propounded throughout the country, together with others, because that is the first clear proof that we did not hesitate to say that total political separation, with the Bantu in control of his own area, was our aim. At this moment I am not talking only of what we said before the 1961 election; I am referring to what we said as early as 1948 and even before that, and on which we won the elections from then onwards. Not a single member of the public was ever misled, and if there were members of our party who are no longer members of it and who, as the United Party alleges, say that they thought we were bluffing, then they were dishonest in regard to our policy, but not us.

I want to mention a second fact to prove that our standpoint was unequivocal and very clear. I want to mention an example of which the United Party is well aware because they continually quoted it against me in an attempt to incite the public against us on precisely this same point. I also mention it because it happened during the time when Dr. Malan was still Prime Minister. The Opposition continued with those attacks even during the time when Adv. Strijdom was Prime Minister. In spite of that, those two Prime Ministers kept me in my post and therefore maintained this standpoint. Our party also from time to time referred in its brochures to these expressions which I am now going to quote and which hon. members tried to use against us so much even during the 1961 election. In these the public was told: This is our policy and we are not frightened by the propaganda made against us.

I am going to quote from one of the pamphlets published in 1959 when these attacks were also made on us and we defended ourselves by again putting into writing what we had in fact said. What I am now going to quote, and various other quotations, emanate from a publication of the National Party which it distributes continually. It is a comprehensive booklet, Skietgoed, in which are incorporated its monthly and other papers which we distribute to our party members. I deliberately quote from it to show that these are the things we told our party and the public.

I quote from the speech I made when addressing the Natives’ Representative Council before dissolving that Council because of its uselessness. On that occasion I used the words which are quoted in this pamphlet. That is the policy as it was logically and practically stated and applied. The passage which was quoted in the party pamphlet emanates from the Transvaler. I was at that time Minister of Native Affairs. The statement was—

And this, as I have just made clear, was subscribed to by the party as a whole and by the Prime Ministers who supported me. Hon. members opposite quoted that against us. They said that I had said it. I never denied having said it; I always stood by it, and the members of the National Party also stood by it. Now I ask: How dare those hon. members then accuse us of having acted dishonourably towards the electorate in 1961, in view of the fact that we had stated this standpoint very clearly ever since 1950? I mention this as a second example.

Now I come to a third example. When the Bantu Authorities Act was being mooted, I discussed the matter on more than one occasion with the then Prime Minister, Dr. Malan. That Act was intended to implement the policy we had laid down, viz. gradually, step by step and in accordance with the ability of the people at that time to continue with forms of self-government. It was our task then to say what the step at that stage should be. We decided that the step which had to be taken then was one which was based on the experience of self-government the Bantu had at the time, on the knowledge the Bantu had of tribal government and tribal laws. That was the time when Dr. Malan used the expression which those hon. members are so keen on quoting, namely that in the circumstances of the time with which he was dealing then, no great progress could be made in regard to apartheid and that there could not be total apartheid. He very clearly let it be understood that we were dealing with a gradual process. On one of the occasions when I discussed this matter with Dr. Malan, he even put the question to me, when we were specifically discussing the Transkei: Why not have a parliament there? My reply was— and peculiarly enough, that was in line with what the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) suddenly admitted the other day—that we would have to lead the Bantu step by step to progress from the methods of self-government he knows, viz. the tribal system and the tribal customs, towards a parliamentary system by the gradual addition of Western elements like election of representatives as and when he becomes ripe for it as the result of the experience we allow him to gain. That is why we then introduced the Bantu Authorities Act. At the same time this proves that Dr. Malan already at that time was prepared for the further stage which came later, viz. in 1961 when the promise of a parliament was given This idea was therefore nothing new; it is one which was stated throughout, not only by one Prime Minister but by all of us. I want to take the case of Adv. Strijdom. In the first place I want to quote what he himself said in public in 1955. Later on the Party again brought it to the notice of the public in its publications, inter alia again in 1959. What he said was reported in the Transvaler of 26/8/1955. He spoke about the object of apartheid, the separation of the races, and then he said—

Hear, hear!

The hon. member should wait a little before saying, “hear, hear” I That would be wise. I quote further—

He therefore said: “and, as they develop, to govern themselves", At the same time I, as Minister of Native Affairs, had specific interviews with Adv. Strijdom as Prime Minister, not once, but at least three times, to give substance to what he had stated in general terms. On those occasions he and I—I am stating this now and the people who want to believe me may do so, and if they do not want to believe me I cannot help it—discussed in detail what the steps should be if the Bantu authority system was to develop to the next step of self-government. On those occasions we discussed the policy, which is to-day known as the Transkei policy, almost in the same detail with which I announced it in 1962. It was evolved and discussed jointly. To the best of my recollection—and I am now perhaps saying it for the first time in this Parliament—Adv. Strijdom was to have announced this policy for implementation in the beginning of 1959. Unfortunately he then died, and when I took over circumstances were such that I could not immediately carry on with what I knew were his intentions in this sphere. Inter alia, shortly thereafter I first had to tackle certain other big tasks which I first had to carry out, namely the establishment of the Republic of South Africa and the provision of a new constitution. Thereafter there was our withdrawal from the Commonwealth and everything which accompanied it. The result was that the implementation of the policy which had already been discussed and formulated and planned had to wait from 1959 to 1962. In 1961 already I could discuss the principles clearly, but I could only give details of the Constitution when the time was ripe for its application. This I was able to do in the beginning of 1962. Hon. members will realize that this proves that right throughout, consistently and unequivocally, the Party adopted a clear standpoint. My own speeches of 1959 prove that clearly, and not only, as has already been proved, my own speeches of 1959 which I will refer to in a moment, but also those I made before and after. These two speeches, namely the one on 27 January 1959 and also the one on 20 May 1959 both made before the 1961 elections, were therefore clearly brought to the notice of the public at the time of the election, the more so because the United Party continued to attack us on this very point. Up to that stage they said that our intentions were not honest. Then they did not say it was wrong; they then said: “If only they would do it, it would be right, but they will not do it After we started they again said that it could not be implemented. Now that we have gone further in the process of implementing it, now that the Constitution is going to be put before Parliament, they suddenly come with other stories to catch White votes, namely that it will be wrong and bad. Now they are trying to incite the public against it from another angle. At that time we were immoral people; now we are people whom they allege to want to sell out the Whites. On 27 January 1959 I said in this House—

A little later I continued—

I even indicated clearly one of the methods of co-operation which I thought could perhaps be implemented practically. I said that for purposes of comparison I took the British Commonwealth, the various constituents of which were not represented in the Mother Parliament, although inside that type of organization there are bonds, economic and other, by means of which there can be co-operation between states and people without ever having a mixed Parliament or Government. I further said—

What is clearer than that? I further stated, on 20 May 1959—

I concluded that speech by saying—

And of course, where we were busy working out either the Bantu Authorities constitution or the present Transkei Constitution (in the latter case also development still takes place under guardianship and it is certainly still true that defence, foreign affairs and other matters remain under the control of the Government of the Republic), we then described as false the propaganda of the United Party that that step (the Bantu Authorities Act of the Transkei Bill) would be one amounting to absolute independence. That is what the hon. member who spoke just before me accused us of and I say again that of course we described that false propaganda of the United Party as being false, and I still say so. Whatever we might say as to what the present constitutions may develop into, if the Bantu is capable of more development and does so develop, there can be no doubt that we are now dealing with a different stage of development. We shall have to guide our Bantu in their self-government of their own areas step by step so that eventually they will still be democratic nations and states and not nations or states which, as the result of the over-hastiness we saw in the Congo or in Ghana, will fall into chaos or become dictatorships.

You are opening the door for it.

I will come to that point later.

Then I want to bring closer to the year 1961 itself this accusation that we did not keep the public informed, that we were dishonest with the voters. I contend that throughout the whole of that election campaign the struggle concerned the question either of race federation, which we attacked, or separation, meaning total political separation, with the right of self-government for the Bantu in his own areas, even if it should lead to independent states later on. In an election pamphlet issued three days before the election, the following words appeared (Translation)—

It was also stated in that pamphlet that we were not being told by the United Party how long it thought the Bantu would be satisfied with White or non-Bantu representatives, or with separate Voters’ Rolls, instead of being placed on communal rolls like the Coloureds. Then there follows as the fifth point this exposition of United Party policy—

That was how the United Party stated their policy at that time. The Bantu would therefore be able to govern themselves, but to-day we hear a different story from the Leader of the Opposition. Finally it is stated in this pamphlet—

There was no doubt whatsoever as to the attitude of the National Party: The White man will govern his country and the Bantu will govern his people, his areas. Thereafter, on the day of the election, the National Party came forward with a clarion call, a clarion call which went out from me personally; the previous one was a document issued on behalf of the Party. This was a clarion call which went out from me personally and in which the following was stated—

Then it goes on to say—

There we stated perfectly clearly what policy we wished to follow—throughout our history right up to the election of 1961. I decry the fact that the United Party, even through its Leader, takes it upon itself to make the accusation against us that in 1961 we brought the electorate under a wrong impression and that then suddenly, on 27 January 1962 we allegedly announced a brand-new policy. It was no new policy; the details of it were not even unknown to the two preceding Prime Ministers. It was the policy which this party had constantly followed and worked out.

Having said that I hope that we will have an end to this type of accusation. I just want to add that all that happened in 1962 was that details were then also given as to what a constitution for the Transkei would have to embrace. In that constitution we were going to do what had been decided upon in principle at the election of 1961. What the electorate did do also in 1961 was to express lack of confidence in the race federation policy, and yet confidence in that policy is asked for in this motion! It was rejected by the electorate and the electorate expressed its lack of confidence in it with an increased majority. What the electorate did in 1961 was to give a mandate to this side of the House to proceed with its policy to the next step of political separation of the races. We are now acting accordingly, and that is why, in the speech of 27 January 1962 I gave the further details as to what the next step was going to involve.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a second allegation—an accusation really—and that is that in this debate we have not been able to controvert the arguments advanced by the Leader of the Opposition. Good heavens, not only did hon. members who spoke on this side effectively deal with various arguments of his but they effectively exposed the nebulousness, the unreliability, of what is allegedly the positive element in the United Party’s race federation policy, to which I referred a moment ago. Questions which were put to them disclosed either that they did not know or that they did not dare to say how their policy would be implemented—this policy which is supposedly going to give the White man protection. Hon. members on this side replied very effectively to the Opposition. But that is not all: I contend that in that speech of his, except for the method of approach and the wording, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition produced practically nothing that was new, nothing that we have not already discussed. In other words, there was in point of fact no case that had to be met. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition simply ignored all the clear replies given in the past, replies that were given to problems that he had raised. He raised those same problems here as though they were brand-new ideas that he wanted to put before the electorate. In order to emphasize that point of mine I want to read out the various questions to which I replied in my speech of 24 January last. Hon. members will realize at once, after having heard just a few of these questions, that the allegations which he made in this debate were dealt with fully and effectively at that time. The first point with which I dealt was this: He (the Leader of the Opposition) submitted that because of the Government’s policy to grant independence to the Bantu homelands, the Republic of South Africa was being fragmented. In other words, I dealt amply last year with his attack on the fragmentation of South Africa. Do hon. members opposite want me to take an hour and a half once again to reply to the same point? The second question was whether these independent Bantu areas would not be a danger to the Republic of South Africa; whether they would not become jumping-off places for the communists? I dealt very thoroughly with that question last year therefore. A further question was whether the Government’s policy in respect of Bantu homelands would not entail terrible financial implications. In other words, it was the same accusation, in a different form, with which he has now come forward and which he also made in the election with regard to the economic retrogression (“planned poverty ”) of this country, but together with question No. 5 it refers to the same matter. The fourth question last year was: Is the United Party’s accusation true that the policy followed by the Nationalist Government has led this country towards isolation, as the result of its withdrawal from the Commonwealth, and is that not the reason also why South Africa is facing threats from abroad? Hon. members will recall that he once again raised this point in the course of his speech. But I dealt with it at length and fully last year. The fifth question was this: Will the economic consequences of the policy of separation not be detrimental to this country? The sixth concerned the United Party’s submission that it was the Government’s policy to suppress the Bantu as far as human rights and the franchise were concerned and that apartheid meant everlasting domination. I do not think that he dealt with this point on this occasion. I take it he was satisfied that that is not the case. The seventh point was that the Government was doing nothing positive for the non-Whites except in so far as housing was concerned. That too is a matter which he has not discussed on this occasion because, after all. his tactics have changed. to-day the accusation is that we are doing too much for the Whites! Actually this accusation comes more from the members on his side. He had to avoid this point carefully therefore. The next point is that last year the Leader of the Opposition stated that the numbers of Bantu migrating to the White cities was still increasing. I therefore dealt also at that time with this whole problem of increasing numbers. His next question was whether this country was not going to experience difficulties because of the fact that the Bantu have not yet acquired sufficient administrative experience for self-government. He then asked whether we were not forgetting the Bantu within the White area in the Republic. I think I have mentioned enough examples to show that the points made by him in this debate were replied to on that occasion. As far as the question of the Protectorates is concerned, I dealt with that question fully on another occasion. I explained why we believed that the incorporation of the Protectorates was no longer practical politics and why it was no longer of any value to South Africa. I also dealt with the dangers which would arise in connection with the Bantu homelands policy but I contrasted that with the dangers which would arise as a result of the policy of race federation, or as the result of any form of Progressive Party or Liberal Party policy. In point of fact, all the points that were made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in this debate were dealt with except for the few new approaches which, as I said, I propose to deal with now.

I want to say candidly that even if hon. members opposite say that I am not replying to his speech—because I am not going to repeat my arguments—I do not propose to do so, but I want to refer the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to Hansard and recommend to him that he should enrich his knowledge with regard to our attitude by once again reading that speech of mine.

There were a few other points in connection with which he had something new to say and to which I think I can refer. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition alleged that the Government was not taking into account the fact that UNO would continue to survive as long as that was the desire of the U.S.A. One asks oneself how long it will continue to be the desire of the U.S.A. that UNO should continue to exist if the U.S.A. has to pour so much money into it and then find that more and more the majority of the newly created states thwart her wishes when the matter is put to the vote. How long will it continue to be her desire to keep UNO going when she can no longer use UNO as an instrument in connection with her own policy and if it does not bring peace in the interests of the world at large, which she is so anxious to serve in this way? If on the contrary it does just the opposite, will the U.S.A. then be prepared to continue to support UNO? I do not know, nor does the U.S.A. know. But that is not really the most important point. What is of great importance is this: What does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mean when he puts a question of this kind? Does he mean that we must take into account the possibility that UNO will still continue to exist for a long time, dominated by the wishes of the U.S.A., so much so that we should be prepared to sacrifice the interests of South Africa to the consequences of the existence of such a body and the consequences of its ideas? Is the inference that he draws that we should abandon our policy of White self-preservation? He says that we should take world trends into account and seek partners; that we as a small state must form alliances. Of course I believe that we should have friends; that wherever possible one should have partners; that wherever possible one should form alliances. But why is it necessary for a state to have these things? In the national interest and in the interests of the nation’s survival. What is the use of a friend, what is the use of an alliance, what is the use of a partner if the price that we have to pay is the downfall of White government in South Africa, a change-over to a multi-racial state and eventual non-White domination? The downfall of one’s nation, the sacrifice of White government in South Africa, is a price which cannot be paid for friends and for partners.

I should like to put this question to the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I know he is going to reply later on and in the meantime he can think this over: Is he prepared to pay that price? But there is one thing which the Leader of the Opposition must understand perfectly clearly. He labours under an illusion—I would almost go so far as to say that he has an idle hope and a self-righteous faith —if he believes that the policy of race federation will always be accompanied by White rule and that the U.S.A. or world opinion will be satisfied with that. It is in this sense that he wants his policy to be understood by the electorate of South Africa.

“ Foreseeable future.”

Yes, that is what he says, but he wants people to interpret it as meaning “for all time to come ”. He wants them to interpret “foreseeable future” as meaning “for all time to come ”. He uses the word “foreseeable” to be on the safe side so as to have a loophole, but he wants the electorate to interpret it as meaning permanent White rule. If he wants to give me his reply now and say that he does not wish to suggest that his policy is not intended to keep the Whites in power permanently, then the electorate of South Africa will believe him even less than they believe him at the moment. That is why I say that he wants to bring the electorate under the impression that his policy aims at White supremacy “for all time to come ”. Would the electorate of the Republic want to have any alliance if it means sacrificing White supremacy? Our attitude is “no ". As a small nation we value the continuation of the White man’s rule at least in what is his legitimate share of South Africa. We value the survival of our White nation as we have it to-day in our Republic of South Africa.

That is what we value. We are not going to barter away any part of our policy so as to gain a so-called friend who, however, wants to push us in an opposite direction. And, as I put it a moment ago, his policy will not succeed either in acquiring friends who would not wish to do so. He must decide for himself whether he wants to pay the price of White capitulation. I am not prepared to pay the price of such concessions; it would plunge our country and our nation into misery.

I want to add that it is not right either to say that we have no friends, that we have no partners, that we do not even have alliances. Friendships, alliances, co-operation with partners, are not limited to co-operation in respect of our colour policy. Outside the sphere of colour policy, that is to say, in the sphere of economic life, in the scientific sphere, including space research, and in the sphere of international common interests apart from those which are affected by colour relationships, we have many friends and very harmonious relationships. There we are able to meet on common ground, to consult each other and to assist each other. Moreover, this assistance is not one-sided; it is not only given to us by the bigger states; South Africa also gives assistance to others, including the bigger states of the world. I contend therefore that we do try to form and that we do succeed in forming friendships and through this friendship in those other spheres a better understanding may develop in due course of events in South Africa. Indeed I believe that that better understanding is already developing. The idea may even develop that our policy, after all, is of importance and is the best not only for South Africa, but also for the world, particularly the White world. Apart from that, if hon. members opposite are so concerned about friendships, why are they so inclined to place obstacles in our way when we try to develop friendships? Let me mention just one example. I refer to the case of Japan. Who was it in this country who tried to ridicule the sale of South Africa’s pig-iron (and the Government’s policy) for Japan’s friendship. We abandoned no part of our policy in our endeavour to establish harmonious relationships with Japan. After all, if in the economic sphere and in other spheres we are able to obtain harmonious relationships with one Asiatic country—and later on with others— with the retention of our policy as a domestic affair of our own, that is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition desires! Is that not the policy too that we should follow in the case of Africa nations? Why does he ridicule such efforts, which involve no abandonment of our principles, by saying that this Government will not get their co-operation? I know that we cannot get it now. But must we because of that behave like an immature state and cease to be ready to co-operate with them when those states change their minds and become amenable to co-operation, without interfering with another country’s domestic affairs? Why do hon. members opposite not rather praise our efforts when we establish good links with countries like Japan, without abandoning our policy and without any danger to White civilization; or when we seek to do the same thing in the case of Africa nations with the same reservations? Why do they belittle our efforts when we enter into links with the Western nations to a greater extent than those existing already, but also with those reservations which are such that we do not destroy ourselves? Is the Leader of the Opposition going to continue with his ridicule and allow his followers to do so? This sort of equivocal attitude is the tragedy of the situation in which South Africa finds herself. And then the Leader of the Opposition dares to come along with reproaches. When the Opposition are really able to do something practical for their country by standing together with the Government, then they do not do so; then they make things difficult for the Government.

It was also stated that the Government did not realize that many of its internal actions were not understandable to the Western world. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Church clause as an example. Again he raked this up from the struggle of the past in order to strengthen suspicion. I accept that it is difficult for the outside world to understand certain steps which South Africa has to take from time to time in order to maintain order and peace here. People overseas do not live under the circumstances under which we live here; they do not have the problems with which we have to contend. I can understand it therefore. I contend, however, that but for the statements made by the Opposition and by the Press and by the liberals in South Africa, there would have been a much better understanding overseas of many of these matters. In particular I want to take the so-called Church clause. What I am saying now is old news but I am compelled to repeat it. The Church clause was a small extension of the ordinary segregation clause which had existed previously, an extension which nevertheless had to be framed in detail in many words in an attempt to obviate misunderstanding. In principle, however, it was just a limited extension of a provision which was already contained in the Urban Areas Act as we had it under General Hertzog and as it was redrafted in 1945 under General Smuts. These restrictions were placed on the Bantu in that Act in connection with various activities but at that time we did not have the problem which began to arise after 1948, namely this endeavour on the part of the agitators of this new period, incited by Whites, to break the segregation policy by suddenly establishing multi-racial clubs and by bringing the Bantu to White churches in White residential areas where they had never been and really had no desire to be. They were sometimes enticed to come; at other times they went there with great ado even though it was not to attend the service but simply to make a noise outside or to make things unpleasant for the churchgoers along the road. All that the so-called Church clause, that is to say, the addition to the segregation clause did, was to stipulate that where, as in the other spheres for which provision was already made in the clause, this would lead to disturbances and unpleasantness in the opinion of the local authority and the State, steps could be taken against it. The Church clause therefore was obviously designed to make it possible for the community to take steps against any interference with the orderly conduct of divine services. This is supposed to be the terrible deed which is not understood in the outside world! Why is it not understood? The United Party is the guilty party. It was the United Party members who started these misrepresentations; they began by even creating the impression abroad that there was a brutal suppression of religion itself. They should read again what they said in this Parliament at that time and they will realize that it is understandable that there were often misunderstandings in this regard in the outside world. That misunderstanding exists because the germ was sown in this country, and to a large extent it was sown by the United Party even in this Parliament. The same applies to many of these matters in regard to which there is misunderstanding.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also stated that we had learned nothing from the Metropolitan states in Africa, particularly in this respect that when a process of emancipation is started, as in the Transkei for example, the Government is unable to control the timetable of the process of emancipation and retain the friendship of the Bantu. We are supposed not to have learnt that lesson! My contention is that we have learned from the experiences in Africa and that we are trying to obviate all the possible evils by acting differently. I am not so sure that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has learned it. What happened in this Africa of ours was without any doubt that the Metropolitan countries which had territories here thought that after World War II they could comply with the demands made upon them by giving a semblance of government to the non-Whites to a limited extent but with the retention ultimately of White government. They realized, just as we all do, that the White man’s ability to govern and his skill were of the utmost importance to the Black man in Africa. They did not realize, however, that thereafter the pressure for Black government in those countries would become stronger and stronger. They did not realize that this process which they had set in motion—this process of giving limited rights, moderate rights to some, to govern together with Whites—would lead to more demands by them and more demands by their unprivileged countrymen until it eventually led to Black independence and sole control. The lesson which Africa has taught us is that where the Metropolitan states tried a policy of appeasement by yielding to a certain pressure—with partnership government, with sham friendship, with some measure of control here and there, or with a measure of control to only a few persons—it had to lead to Black rule and Black independence. That is the lesson of Africa. In the meantime they also thought that they could go on with the then existing measure of segregation. They did yield too in respect of certain segregation measures and in the long run in respect of most of them, but it was never enough. We have this phenomenon therefore that it was this application of a policy similar to that of the United Party which proved a failure. Nevertheless the United Party refuses to admit that it is the United Party which has not learned the lesson of Africa. It does not admit or realize that to her they follow the same policy, the policy of limited joint control, of propagating the Bantu’s right to govern jointly in one multi-racial state, it will mean, just as it did elsewhere in Africa, that those people will make greater and greater demands. That time-table in point of fact is one which he will not be able to control, and that is why his “foreseeable future” is of no significance. It is this time-table of “the foreseeable future” which went awry in Africa— not a time-table with regard to our policy of separate development, because that is something entirely different, namely the road of Africa, an acceptance of people’s right to govern themselves in their own areas.

I also want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the example of Rhodesia is very important indeed. The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) has suggested that the example of Rhodesia cannot be quoted because basically the situation in the Federation and in Nyasaland is allegedly entirely different from the situation here. I should like to know what he means by “different ”? Does he mean that it is different, but like Kenya, like Tanganyika? In other words, does he, a front-bencher of the United Party, mean that Rhodesia must become Black? If he does not mean that, what does he mean by “different ”?

There is a difference in numbers.

Oh yes, the numbers are different, but what must the result be of that difference in numbers? What does he wish me to conclude from that? If we must ignore the example of what happened in Rhodesia, namely, that where because of the difference in the numbers, the policy of the United Party is applied, in principle that numerical ratio leads to Black domination, if we must not come to that conclusion what must we conclude from his statement? There is nothing else. The member for Germiston (District) would like us to believe this: We, the United Party in South Africa will maintain White domination because of our numbers, one to four, under our federation policy and in spite of our willingness to take the non-Whites as partners in the management of the country. But then he must surely mean, and I must say it here, that he does not believe that Rhodesia, with the same policy, will be able to maintain itself because the number of Whites there is smaller in relation. His argument cannot mean anything else. Then I say, if that is the case that he bases his argument that the United Party policy will succeed here, although not there, particularly as far as the example of Southern Rhodesia is concerned, on the smaller difference between the number of Whites and Blacks here, he is building on sand. In both partnerships the Blacks remain the greater majority. The United Party’s policy, namely of taking the non-Whites with them in a common government in one form or another, no matter what the qualifications are, is fatal. The lesson of Africa is this: The Whites cannot maintain themselves in that way.

I want to say this to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: He unjustifiably alleges that we did not learn anything from what has happened in Africa in regard to the time table which you would like to determine or the friendship which you would like to retain. As I said at an earlier stage we admit that there are problems and difficulties. But not only did he himself not learn the lesson in regard to the time table and friendship but he also did not learn that with United Party policy the citizens in the Republic will not even retain control over their own destiny. We with our policy will at least retain control over the destiny of the Whites in the Republic although we will not be able to control the time table of the Transkei, something which I am not even as yet prepared to concede, but which I do accept as a possibility. But we will at least have control over our own destiny.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went further and said that Africa had proved that White control was necessary but that I wanted to remove White control from the Transkei. It is true that you must have the White man to lead the Black man further. We shall therefore continue to do that in the Transkei; we are still at a stage of development where it is very clear that we must do so, although not in the way in which he wishes it, namely, that in the industrial field we should allow White initiative to operate in such a way that as in other parts of Africa, the White man will eventually be regarded as exploiters in that area. Even in the economic field I pointed out how the Whites will indeed be able to take the lead in regard to management and financing without creating that impression and danger. I have explained that very clearly in the past; I am not going to repeat it.

In this connection another argument must be raised with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. What does he mean with “control” when he says the United Party must retain “control”? The United Party wants to “retain control over the entire South Africa”; the United Party wants “to incorporate the protectorates so as to get control over them as well ”. He used the word “control ”. What does he honestly mean the White man must do there under United Party policy? The word “control” is a word which means nothing else than “White supremacy” or “White domination ”. “Control” cannot have any other meaning than domination, supremacy. You can call it what you like. “Control” is domition, domination is supremacy, “supremacy” is domination, “supremacy” is domination. You cannot get away from that, Sir. “Control” means that the White man will remain the real controller. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition sometimes also uses the word “leadership” and “guidance

A leader however, only remains the leader as long as the majority of his supporters want him to. You can only give “guidance” as long as the people are prepared to follow you as guide. When therefore, the United Party talks about offering White leadership— “guidance” to South Africa as long as the majority of the multi-racial citizens, the Bantu in South Africa as well therefore, accept it, South Africa must realize that it will not be “control ”. Then the United Party dare not represent to the country that they are indeed propagating White leadership in the form of White supremacy.

I want to turn to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) in this connection. He is a person for whom I feel very sorry, and I am not saying that mockingly. In my opinion he is a pathetic figure. The reason why he is a pathetic figure has my deepest sympathy. The inhabitants of Natal are rightly deeply worried, and have always been worried, as to what will happen to the White people there. This is a province which I have on previous occasions, with very good intentions, described as a white sheet of paper on which, as it were, a black hand had pressed, with the result that its map is characterized by Black areas with White areas in between. That is how it has developed in the course of our history. It is no good saying that the Whites in that area are to-day still the master of or controllers over those Black areas. To begin with that is the position but will it remain like that? I have just explained how under United Party policy the White man will not even rule South Africa, therefore, not even the White areas in Natal and even less the Black areas in Natal. But Natal has landed in the unenviable position that in addition it has a great number of Indians. In other words, according to the United Party policy Natal should be very conscious of the fact that it is not only threatened by potential Bantu domination, either over this area or over that area, but in addition it is faced with the mighty problem of the number of Indians. The hon. member for Germiston (District) said that the numbers in Rhodesia were the deciding factor. Why not in Natal as well under the United Party’s partnership policy? The result is that the hon. member for South Coast, who is fond of his Province of Natal, who would like the Whites there not only to be the leaders but the rulers, is in this unfortunate dilemma that as a result of political history and his other prejudices, he is fastened to a wrong policy which he must defend and justify. It has grown with him—he is co-responsible for it—but it is a policy which is the most dangerous to Natal of all the provinces. He cannot. He must try to retain the confidence of his public in Natal by continuing to assure them that his policy will lead to White domination, White supremacy and that our policy will not bring that about. He does that by grasping at a straw here and by attacking there. He even clashes with his party on the question of the acquisition of land, for example, because the land which will still have to be acquired is that land which his party decided on in 1936. The only difference which he can grasp at is to say: “Yes, but to-day the Whites are controlling it and the National Party wants to give it to the Bantu to control.” Everybody knows, however, that just as in the case of Basutoland, just as in the case of the Transkei, Zululand was a purely Native area in the past and that it was the intention of generations of Whites that it should remain a Native area. It is also realized that what will be added to Zululand will become Native area. He knows as well as I do that it is fiction to say that the Whites will remain in control forever— no matter under what policy—and that that fiction cannot be maintained. In order to save White Natal for the Whites it will be necessary, therefore, to separate White and Black politically at least. In that case the Whites will at least retain their foothold in those areas which they have to-day and in which they are active.

What are the boundaries?

The boundaries will be as they will be determined but it is clear that they will only be limited according to the will and the power of the White man in South Africa and according to the right which he knows he has to his own land.

I still want to mention a few other matters which were touched upon by the hon. member for South Coast, really to illustrate the trend of thought amongst people, and I want to ask the question whether that trend of thought can instil confidence in the electorate. The hon. member is confused. He has to be, because his most deep-seated belief, his most fervent desires, clash with the policy which he feels compelled to support. He continually reproaches us—that is of minor importance —and says that the people do not know what the Constitution will be. The Transkei Constitution has, however, been made known and it contains all the details which he has asked for. It will also now come before Parliament. Why does he struggle with reproaches which have no substance? He says further that White South Africa will have to defend the whole Republic, including the area of the Transkei. On the one hand he tells us what the dangers are of separate areas like the Transkei and that it can offer landing ground to foreign powers because of its long coast line; on the other hand he reproaches us for retaining the responsibility of defending the entire Republic, including those areas and for retaining the Defence Force in our hands alone. In other words, on the one hand he wants to guard against a danger which does indeed exist (although of course a greater danger will arise if the country gets a multi-racial or Black Government, because in that case the whole country and its Defence Force will fall into other hands), but when we take steps against this danger, he holds that against us as well! That is the trend of thought of people whose heart and party-independence clash.

The same happens where the object of your policy is to accept the Zulus as people with their own human dignity and with their own desire to see it embodied in their own institutions. There we find on the one hand that the hon. member also reveals a feeling for the Zulus and that he prides himself on the fact that he is their representative, as well as the fact that some of them come to him for advice. A minute later, however, the hon. member says: You cannot allow the Zulus to govern themselves because they are as barbarous as they were in 1802. How must we understand these contradictions, this belief of his in the Zulus on the one hand and those ideas against them on the other hand? I can understand that as little as I can understand the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when he argues on the one hand that the Bantu cannot govern themselves, not even as far as the limited powers which they get with the additional assistance of the Whites at this stage, is concerned, and when he says on the other hand that we should develop a middle class and that he wants to take them in as partners. He wants them to have representation although to begin with it will be by means of Whites in this Parliament. He wants them to be able to climb higher and higher. On the one hand he says those people are so good, on the other hand he says those people are so bad! How must you understand people who argue in that confused manner? I repeat that that is the result of their colossal confusion and really of a deep-seated belief that they with their policy will not be able to retain White control.

I now want to deal with what seems to me the crucial point in respect of which this nation must say whether they have confidence in us or in the Opposition, whether they have confidence in the National Party or in the United Party.

I maintain that judgment was given in 1961. Reduced to its simplest form the problem is nothing else than this: We want to keep South Africa White. The United Party also say they want to keep South Africa White. “Keeping it White” can only mean one thing namely White domination, not “leadership”, not “guidance”, but “control”, “supremacy ”. If we are agreed that it is the desire of the people that the White man should be able to continue to protect himself by retaining White domination, one must ask oneself how that can be done. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says it can be done through a race federation, and we say that it can be achieved by separate development.

Territorial separation.

Separate development together with territorial separation. Whether segregated populations are added to it one day or not is not the question at the moment. Let us look at these two directions once more and see what their simplest consequences are. Then the question must be put: Which one can serve that purpose? Let us first take race federation. In the first place it means a political federation of races, and therefore it includes the Whites, the Coloureds, the Indians, the various Bantu groups (both those who are in what we call the White areas and those in the Bantu areas). Everybody must have a share in the government of the country. Those non-Whites must be given a share in the government of the country. In the first place they must have it by being represented in Parliament, either by Whites in the beginning and later by non-Whites, or immediately by members of their own race. The second, of course, inevitably follows on the first if indirect representation is granted as a start. We must therefore surely presuppose that according to this course at some time or other Blacks, Coloureds, Indians, will sit in this Parliament together with the Whites. Let us look at the number of Blacks. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition admittedly says that in the beginning there will be only a few representatives for the Bantu. But for how long will he be able to limit it to a few? And can it in fact be only a few non-Whites?

The Leader of the Opposition also says that there must be a few representatives of the one group, viz. the Coloureds, and a few for the second group, viz. the urban Bantu, and a few for the third group, viz. the Indians, after negotiation. In addition, he also accepted that the Transkei and the other Bantu areas would be governed as Black provinces. (Peculiarly enough, according to him, the Bantu will be able to govern a Black province but are not able to handle the proposed stage of self-government in the Transkei! That is even more than peculiar, but I mention it just in passing.) Therefore there will be such Black provinces and his race federation plan must also include them in the joint government of the joint nation’s joint country. That means that there will be another few non-Whites in the federal parliament. And not only that. The Leader of the Opposition further wants the High Commission Territories to be incorporated, and therefore they must also be represented here. In other words, there cannot be only a few representatives if we include them all! In addition, one has the example of certain African states and of Rhodesia, and then the question arises: When once matters have progressed so far that there is Black representation in this Parliament, can it be limited to small numbers or will those numbers infinitely multiplied, get out of hand? In addition, when once the Republic takes the form of an integrated state, it must be accepted that that State will not be integrated only in the political sphere. The Opposition does not want that only. It wants to have mixed universities in that State—that is part of the whole plan; it wants job reservation to be abolished in the economic sphere, etc. etc. The Bantu and all other workers must be able to rise to any level—sometimes the Whites will be on top and the Blacks at the bottom, and sometimes the Blacks will be on top and the Whites at the bottom. We must all form one intermingled nation. That is part of the process of integration. The Bantu must be able to enter any profession in any place and reach any level. If that is so, the non-Whites must also be able to take part in a single social life. Then we cannot continue to have residential segregation unrestrictedly. In other words, the Leader of the Opposition’s policy seeks to bring about integration in all spheres. Surely he cannot bring together people of all races in this Parliament without their hoping at some time to get into the Cabinet; or can he have them there as equals without accepting them in the public service. If he abandons job reservation in the factories, surely he can not introduce it in the public service. The non-White must be able to climb to any post. Not only that, but the United Party will have to be consistent and say: Not only in the Government of the country, not only in the public service, not only in the whole of our social life and economic life, but non-Whites will also be allowed to be members of our defence force and rise to any post. Can he include them in his Cabinet and accept them everywhere without welcoming them in his army also?

Now the voters of South Africa must ask themselves: Will White government and White control survive along that road? Can it? The other choice is the opposite policy where we say that there will be no mixed society or a mixed nation whose people will increasingly have to mix with one another in all these various spheres. If there is integration, nobody can give the assurance that a numerical minority will retain its domination permanently. What must a nation do then? It can do one thing only, and that is to separate the races, to separate them politically, based on territorial segregation. Give each racial group the area which is its own historically and let each of them then obtain control, if they desire it and can handle it, in that area which historically is its own. Whilst the fullest rights are given to each racial group, let us then try gradually to guide those who are inexperienced and to bring them so far that when they come to full sovereignty they will be used to the White state and to its usefulness and will be well disposed towards it. It can work out that way because the White man and his State have not stood in their way and has guided them to achieve independence and economic progress. Then there is hope for the non-White and for the White man. I do not want to go further into the details of the policy of separation and its benefits. I am just stating clearly that the simple choice lies between the abovementioned policies when the public has to decide whether it has no confidence in the policy of the one party or that of the other. Which of these two plans has the best chance to ensure the continued existence of the White nation and to give happiness to both sections of the population?

I need not say more about this. There can be no doubt about it, and the decision was given in the 1961 elections. In fact, hon. members opposite know how many more people than those who voted for us really believe that their welfare and that of their state and their children lies in our policy.

The final matter one has to consider when it comes to a question of confidence or no confidence is in regard to plans or actions of the parties. It is of little use knowing how people talk; a good speaker can always make a temporary impression on an audience. People should therefore have regard to what the parties do or intend doing. One must study the history of the party which is not in power and take note of what its leaders did when they had the opportunity. If the history of the United Party is considered, one remembers the widespread dissatisfaction of 1948 when the United Party was ousted from power to its own great surprise. The older voters remember the misery and the unfavourable circumstances in almost every sphere which were inherited by the new Government. The electorate then got rid of a government which had proved to be a failure, and the people will think twice before putting such a government into power again, particularly in the light of the history from 1948 until to-day. Let us briefly devote some attention to what the previous Government did in the various spheres.

If one looks at the development of South Africa since the National Party came into power in 1948, one sees that in the sphere of race relations there has been a tremendous improvement. When we came into power die United Party was prepared to allow the Bantu to flow into the cities without applying any control, and it allowed them to live in the foulest squatter camps.

Where?

Everywhere; right throughout the country. The whole of South Africa was one sink of misery insofar as the housing of the Bantu was concerned. There were bad housing conditions in every town and city, without exception, and it was a scandal of the first water. The Bantu flowed in uncontrolled and endangered the jobs of their own people in the cities. The National Party Government vigorously tackled that problem. We were attacked and ridiculed and accused of oppression, but we adopted measures. measures of which hon. members opposite now sometimes boast as being their own!

There are many more Natives here now.

Order! The hon. member for Turffontein has made more interjections during the course of the Prime Minister’s speech than any other hon. member in this House. He should not continually interrupt the Prime Minister.

Everybody knows that conditions were very disturbing. Thereafter we had to tackle the problem of trying to evolve a form of government of their own for the Bantu and to give them prospects of development for the future. We did that. We evolved, discussed and applied certain systems. We have already introduced the one step towards self-government in the form of Bantu Authorities throughout the whole country. We are already commencing with the second stage in one place. Hope has been given also to the other non-White groups by means of the various types of machinery created for their own development.

Amongst us White people a new relationship has been created as the result of certain other great deeds, great reforms, particularly constitutional reforms, and in fact a new nation is growing up. In the constitutional sphere South Africa has experienced a great change. to-day nobody feels unhappy about it any longer. Everybody realizes that the establishment of the Republic of South Africa was to the benefit of the whole nation and of the growth of a new nation. That was one of the greatest changes. We were told beforehand that it would be accompanied by bloodshed, but the way in which a wise Government acted ensured that it came about without clashes or disruption.

The fact that we left the Commonwealth, something which we did not seek for the sake of mutual goodwill, but which we had to accept unless we wanted to pay the price of being dominated by the non-White members of it, and losing White control in the country, took place without too much heartbreak although it was a matter which hurt the feelings of many members of the population. To-Day everybody is gratified to see that the results of our resignation are not what was predicted. On the contrary, South Africa has derived appreciable benefits from it.

Furthermore, we have the economic growth. I have received a detailed report from the section of my department which deals with economic matters in regard to South Africa’s expansion in the economic sphere from 1948 until to-day. I have not the time to-day to submit it to the House, but this review indicates the most colossal progress. There is abundant proof that there has been progress in every sphere of our economic life. The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) said a few days ago that there would have been more progress under a United Party Government and that our economy simply just could not turn the corner! But neither of those statements is true. The only basis on which there can be economic progress is stability. It is the stability of the country and the fact that it has had the same Government for almost 15 years, together with the certainty that it will remain in power for a long time still, accompanied by the definite policy it has and which it follows consistently and from which it does not allow itself to be deterred, which creates confidence in South Africa and makes all these new developments possible. Apart from that, the Government itself has had the courage at every stage during these 15 years to tackle or to encourage new undertakings. There is, e.g., Sasol, which was ridiculed by the Opposition and which has developed into a great undertaking, which is the basis for a big chemical industry in South Africa, including the further development of a rubber industry. There is the development at Phalaborwa in regard to which we were also continually criticized, and which is now giving rise not only to the most valuable fertilizer industry but is indeed also a factor in the possible development of large-scale copper deposists there. There is the further development of Iscor and Escom. In every possible sphere of our economy there is nothing else but a broad vista of growth which opens before our eyes. That is the result not only of the general stability established by the Government, but also the result of direct decisions taken by the Government, and of its initiative and the encouragement it gave. It is also the result of the sound financial management of the country which it has maintained, sometimes, it is true, by means of orthodox methods, but still it was a strong, sound policy. South Africa is becoming stronger in every respect as the result of its economic prosperity. I say that whatever the prophet Jeremiah of the United Party might say, we have already turned the corner. As the result of that growth, South Africa is also able to ensure that its defence is strong, or is becoming stronger. In any case it will be able to defend itself against attack in Africa. I have been told that we should find allies even to protect us against internal unrest—or perhaps the Leader of the Opposition meant unrest in Africa. For that we do not require any assistance from outside. We are strong enough to maintain peace and order ourselves.

Who said that?

I understood the Leader of the Opposition to say that we would require assistance in regard to our internal problems.

No.

Very well, then I will not stress that point. South Africa has grown and become strong. The Government has tackled the most serious colour problems energetically and is well on the way to making the light shine for everybody in future. In the economic sphere it took advantage of all the opportunities. A great future lies ahead of us. The Government is busy consolidating the White people of South Africa, but it is also offering the Bantu and the Coloured and the Indian prospects for happiness. What more does a nation expect of a Government? If the people had to choose between these two alternatives, the tangible creation of prosperity and happiness by the activities and drive of the Government together with the stability of the country on the one hand, and the empty past and the promises of the Opposition on the other hand, how can the public have confidence in anybody else than this side of the House?

The hon. the Prime Minister when he started his speech spent some time in justifying his intervention in the debate at this late stage. We on this side of the House agree that the Prime Minister can use his own discretion when to come into the debate. But what is interesting is the time the hon. the Prime Minister chose, because while he was speaking reports reached us from outside that a strange darkness was descending over South Africa. I do not want to press the symbolism of the darkness outside when the Prime Minister spoke, for he brought light to this House on a very important issue, on whether this dangerous, this crazy policy of creating independent Bantustans out of the living body of South Africa is the traditional policy of the Nationalist Party or not, and whether it was the policy of any other Prime Minister in South Africa except the present one.

The hon. the Prime Minister devoted an hour of his speech in reading from “Skietgoed”, the name of a little booklet he had with him. He read to us from “Skietgoed” to prove, Sir, that since before 1948 the policy of the Nationalist Party has at least been moving towards the creation of independent Bantustans. I want to say with the most profound respect for the hon. the Prime Minister that he is mistaken in believing that. I can prove it by statements from every Nationalist Prime Minister since 1948, including the present one, that it was not the policy of the Nationalist Party. But what the hon. the Prime Minister succeeded in establishing is that within the Nationalist Party there has been a group moving in that direction. That is all, but that group did not succeed until this hon. gentleman took over the reins of government. I would like to remind the Prime Minister of the statement made by the late Dr. Malan in this House on 12 April 1950, when he said that one could have supported total territorial apartheid where practicable. “It would be an ideal state, but it is not the policy of our party and it is nowhere to be found in our official documents. On the contrary, I clearly stated, and I said it clearly on platforms, that total territorial separation was impracticable under present circumstances. Our whole economic structure is to a large extent based upon non-White labour.” Has that position changed in any way since then? If it is now admitted that the policy of the Nationalist Party was changed, why is it not shown that this important circumstance also changed and that our economy, as Dr. Malan told us, is now no longer largely dependent on non-White labour. What was the attitude of the late Mr. Strijdom? He wrote a letter to the late Mr. Brill, the gentleman who later became the hon. member for Mayfair.

[Inaudible.]

On a point of order, Sir, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education made the interjection that that is a false statement and I ask that he be ordered to withdraw it.

I am sorry if I gave the impression that the hon. member deliberately misrepresents it, and I withdraw that, but it remains a misrepresentation.

I am not sure to which remark the hon. the Minister is referring, to Dr. Malan’s or Mr. Strijdom’s, and I am not particularly concerned, but the late Mr. Strijdom used almost the same words as Dr. Malan. He said that total territorial segregation may be the ideal, but in practice it could not be carried out, because of tens of thousands of people using the labour of Natives and Coloureds would never agree to it. In which way have circumstances changed to-day? But those two Prime Ministers are no longer with us. What about the hon. the Prime Minister who spoke to us to-day and accused us of misrepresentations when we suggested that this policy of separate Bantustans has not always been the policy of the Nationalist Party? The Prime Minister was for years a very energetic and dynamic Minister of Native Affairs. As long ago as 1951 we of the United Party warned our hon. friends opposite that this hon. gentleman wanted separate states, but the Nationalist Party repudiated it and accused us of misrepresentation, and apparently brought so much pressure to bear upon the hon. gentleman who is now our Prime Minister that he, too, had to deny it in most emphatic terms. He did so on28 May 1951, in this House, speaking as Minister of Native Affairs. I want to give some quotations from Col. 7815 onwards. The Prime Minister spoke about the Leader of the Opposition and said he repeated the general accusation which had been made outside by the Leader of the Opposition and also by various Press organs of the United Party. He said that the Leader of the Opposition intended winning the Ceres election. There was a by-election at Ceres, and he said the Leader of the Opposition intended winning the election by making the people afraid of the Nationalist policy, as if they were busy establishing a Bantustan. He continued to say—

Then the Prime Minister went on. He referred to the speech he made before the Natives’ Representative Council and said—

Then he went on—

Then he went on in Col. 7818—

But that is how it will be now.

He again said to-day that the development must be in the separate states, but here he accused the United Party of misrepresentation in 1951, and said emphatically that South Africa would remain the ruler in those areas. Sir, he cannot have it both ways.

At that stage, yes.

What now becomes clear? That in 1948 he had discussions with Dr. Malan and he had them in 1950, and later a certain policy was about to be announced by Prime Minister Strijdom, but it was not announced owing to the unfortunate death of the then Prime Minister. It was not told to the people. It was denied, as I have just read out to prove. There was a secret movement inside the Nationalist Party which was not revealed to the members of the Nationalist Party or to the people of South Africa. The people were not to know. When this hon. gentleman became Prime Minister, as he told us this afternoon, he had to set about establishing a Re-public and that is why he did not then make the announcement that this would be the policy. The people were not to know what the state of the Republic would be—eventual fragmentation. [Interjection.] Let the Prime Minister make up his mind. When we said some years ago what the policy of the Nationalist Party would become, what it is to-day, he also said that we misrepresented it. But was the Minister of Foreign Affairs also under a wrong impression when he spoke according to Hansard, Col. 117, on 30 August 1948. and accused the United Party of misrepresentation when we suggested that the Natives in terms of their policy would be removed from the Western Province? Then he said—

Can it be said that the Nationalist Party is consistent in its policy? The hon. member for Durban (Point) quoted from this pamphlet to show that as late as 1959 assurances were officially published by the Nationalist Party that the Bantustans would not be allowed to become independent. What the hon. member for Durban (Point) mercifully omitted was the name of the author of this pamphlet—“ opgestel deur M. C. Botha, L.V.” And so grateful was the Nationalist Party to the hon. member for denying that their policy was one of Bantustans that he was promptly accepted as an expert on Native affairs and was made Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration.

Why do you not read it all?

I did not want to waste time, but seeing that I am challenged I will do so—

[Interjections.]

Is the hon. member prepared to read from the same pamphlet that I wrote in it that if a further form of self-government is to come, legislation would be required for it like that which will be forthcoming in this Session?

Everything written here must be read subject to the words—

Even the highest form of self-government cannot make them independent states. [Interjections.] Then we have the Minister of Bantu Administration. He had no delusions that this was the policy of the Nationalist Party. He spoke in 1955 at the Jeugbond-kongres of the Nationalist Party at Mazelspoort in the Free State and he said that the idea of a Bantustan should be rejected because it is as dangerous, if not more dangerous, than integration. [Interjections.] And then the hon. the Minister went on to say that the Bantu, except for a few misguided agitators, also rejected it. Of course at that time the hon. the Minister was a member of the Native Affairs Commission. [Interjections.]

On a point of explanation, must you put the various ethnic groups there, or must you put them altogether?

Mr. Speaker, eight years afterwards we get this excuse. But the point I want to make is that in the ranks of the Nationalist Party there was confusion about it, to say the least of it. They spoke in two voices. They were reassuring their people, while behind the scenes the hon. the Prime Minister was trying to get the other Ministers to accept this policy, and he almost succeeded.

But I was dealing with the hon. the Prime Minister. Despite all his attempts to deny it, the Leader of the Opposition made certain charges against the Government which shout for an answer, and those answers are not forthcoming. The only answer the Prime Minister gave was that he had heard it before. That may be so. It may be that in previous years and for many years the United Party criticized the Government on similar grounds. Does that prove that our charges are not true? Mr. Speaker, I go to church occasionally. The Ten Commandments were given to us 2,000 years ago and they are still read in my church every Sunday morning. They are not obsolete. Because we continue to sin, we have to be reminded of the Commandments. But the Government continues to sin and the public has to be reminded of it.

And while you remind them of it, more people vote for us.

I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Justice is not here, but it is necessary for me to deal with him. What was his speech? It was an attack on my friend the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell), which was wrong, and he had to accept that it was wrong.

That is not so.

The hon. the Minister of Information must keep quiet because I am coming to him in a moment. [Laughter.] The second thing was that the hon. the Minister of Justice made an attack on someone who cannot defend herself in this House, Mrs. Bertha Solomon. He said that she wrote an article in the Winnipeg Free Press, in which she made a misstatement about the Sabotage Bill, and he wrote to her about it, and as an honest and courageous woman she wrote back admitting it. [Interjections.] The Department of the hon. the Minister of Information also wrote to Mrs. Solomon, and I am sure he knows about it, because surely his Department does not treat him with contempt, and again she wrote back and said the article was months old, and would it be wise to re-open the matter, but if the Department of Information wished it she would write to the Editor and correct it, but she never got an answer. The Minister of Information was sitting next to the Minister of Justice when he made this mistake but he did not help him. This hon. gentleman gave us a lecture on how lawyers should behave to each other. I think he should consider how human beings should behave to one another. I think it is a shameful thing that the Minister of Information should have knowledge affecting the honour of a former member of this House and yet allow his colleague, the Minister of Justice, to make an attack upon this person without giving him the information in her favour. I think he should apologize to Mrs. Solomon because he was in a peculiar position to protect her honour and yet failed to do so. Then the Minister of Justice suggested that we should now stand by him and by his Government in the fight against Communism, having failed to answer the just and trenchant charge made by the Leader of the Opposition that by his methods he was making martyrs of communists and giving them a status they did not deserve in this country, identifying them in the minds of the non-Whites with the champions for the non-Whites, but he never answered that charge, which was true. Then the Minister says we must help him. Sir, we of the United Party will help anybody to resist communists.

And to blacken South Africa.

We consider Communism an unmitigated evil, but if people want our co-operation they must offer us a right basis for co-operation. A basis for cooperation which consists in a denial of the rule of law, in giving undue publicity to people whom they think are communists, people who have not been before the Courts, and in denying fundamental rights, in denying our democratic way of life and by practising methods applied in communists states—to ask us to co-operate on those lines is useless. I say let them take a leaf from a young man who spoke here, the hon. member for Innesdale (Mr. J. A. Marais). He ended by making a very constructive statement. He said that if you want to fight Communism you must not only fight poverty, but you must oppose against it another philosophy, and he suggested that you must oppose against Communism a healthy patriotism. If the Cabinet would accept the advice of that young man and give the non-Whites a stake in this country to make them feel that they also owe a duty of patriotism to South Africa, it will have the unqualified co-operation of the United Party. Then the hon. the Minister persisted with the canard that Communism and Liberalism are equal. I want to say that it does not take a profound study of politics to know the difference between liberalism and Communism. To begin with, the liberal believes in the maintenance of the rule of law, law which is ascertainable to everybody, which will tell the citizen clearly what is right or what is wrong in his relations to the State and not a law determined by the whim of the Minister. The communists deny and destroy the rule of law wherever they take control. The communists believe in the omnipotence of the State. The State can do no wrong. All their efforts are directed towards the interests of the State as a super entity. The liberal believes that more important than the State is the worth and dignity of the individual. The liberal believes in the separation of power, that there should be a separate legislature and a separate executive, which in some cases they concede should be responsible to the legislature, and that there should be an independent judiciary. The communist especially wants the judiciary to be an agent or an instrument to apply the policy of the Party. The liberal believes in a multiplicity of parties, whereas the communist believes essentially in a one-party State. The communist destroys all private enterprise and believes that all means of production should be controlled by the State. Liberalism was created because they believed so much in private enterprise that they furthered the policy of laisser-faire.

One thing is certain, and that is that Alan Paton could not do better.

This is what the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) particularly should appreciate, that the liberal believes in the value of the individual. I want to say that I am not a member of the Liberal Party. I cannot claim to be a liberal, but I can say this, that all of us in this House owe much of our political thinking to liberal doctrines. Sir, when the law was pronounced many years ago that one should love one’s neighbour as oneself, liberalism became an essential part of the creed of Christian people … Even the Prime Minister is subject to liberal influence. The Prime Minister says that the Black people should be entitled in their own areas to exactly the same rights as the White man. That is perverted liberalism, because he puts that qualification “in their own areas". If he said “according to their state of civilization”, I could understand it. The Prime Minister is the most interesting example of twisted Liberalism that I have ever come across. The Progressive Party has certain elements of liberalism. If it would stop the cant of clothing its policy in the pretence that there is in it no racial discrimination, we would respect it very much more. But the Progressive Party believes in it and pays lip service to it, and there is much of liberalism they accept, but in fact they have a policy of a qualified franchise which in practice, if not in theory—and practice is what counts—will discriminate against the Black man as effectively as any policy of the Prime Minister. We of the United Party are subject to certain liberal influences, but they are modified and corrected by practical considerations and commonsense…. We adapt it to the times in which we live. But the hon. the Minister of Justice continues to equate liberalism with Communism, liberalism which has played a part in the thinking of every civilized nation. Then he reads from a book by Mr. Edgar Hoover to show that Mr. Hoover said the same thing, and what was this quotation? Mr. Hoover did not refer to liberals; he referred to people whom he called crypto-communists or pseudo-liberals and I agree with Mr. Hoover that those are the dangerous people. But that quotation certainly did not prove what the hon. the Minister set out to prove. In the same way the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller), who made a very fine speech, issued an appeal to this side of the House that we should join them in the defence of the White man. He warned us that the attacks made on South Africa by so many countries of the world are not attacks upon apartheid but attacks upon the White man, and he said we must help them to protect the White man. We of the United Party are keen and eager and willing to defend the rights of the White man in this country, to defend the worthwhile contributions made by the White man to civilize living in this country and to the improvement of the lot of all our people, and to protect the rewards to which the White man is entitled for that contribution. But why ask us to help to defend the White man but refuse to modify this wicked policy of apartheid? How can they expect us or anybody to accept the fundamentals of that apartheid, to stand with them and to defend this impossible, this preposterous negation of common sense, this petty apartheid? Sir, I wish I had time to show you the folly, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) has done, of some of the petty apartheid practiced in this country, but even the big apartheid, even the brand of apartheid of the Prime Minister— can we be asked to defend White civilization on that basis? It is the most fallacious piece of thinking—that I believe has ever been perpetrated in the political life of this country, that you can satisfy the aspirations of the Black people by giving a minority of them full rights—sovereignty if they so desire—in limited Bantustan areas comprising one-seventh of the surface area of South Africa and then become purblind and deny the aspirations, the rights, the longings of the majority of them who do not live in those Bantustans and will never, while we are alive or our grandchildren are alive, have permanent residence in those Bantustans. And then, Sir, they answer that these people will have political rights in the Bantustans. Although they are born in the White man’s part of South Africa they can vote for a Bantustan government; they can exercise their political rights there. Can any hon. member opposite believe that that is just? Would they support a future government of South Africa who said to the hon. the Prime Minister: “You can live in South Africa, you can make your contribution to our wealth but you can only vote in Holland because that is where you were born?” Would they consider that just? Why then must it be just in the case of the Black man? Sir, never in history has there been an example of a country willing to make itself economically and strategically dependent on a labour force controlled by a foreign government, and yet that is the policy of the Prime Minister. He will not allow White skill or White capital into the reserves. Our industries must be staffed by workers whom he will make citizens of foreign governments, responsible to foreign governments subject ultimately to the control of foreign governments. It was shown in the last war that it took, I think, seven men in industry to keep one soldier fighting. It is estimated that in the nuclear war of the future the number of industrial workers needed to keep one man fighting will be two or three times as many. The Prime Minister wants to make our industrial life dependent on a labour force who are subjects of a foreign government. It is a ridiculous policy, Sir, and I want to repeat what I said at the outset, that it was not the policy of the Nationalist Party until the hon. the Prime Minister occupied the prominent position of Prime Minister and brought force to bear upon their party. [Interjection.]

I do not know where it came from. The Nationalist Party did not want it, the Natives did not want it, the vast majority of the people did not want it. I believe that it is the product of one of the task groups of the Broederbond and that it was imposed upon the Nationalist Party by the Broederbond. I want to say here that in a candid moment even the Prime Minister admitted that he did not want this policy of apartheid. I think he did it in a generous moment. He was Prime Minister; he was victorious; he could stamp aside opposition in the Nationalist Party; he could announce Bantustan as a policy, so he was generous and he said that even he did not want it. This is what he said in this House on 10 April 1961 (Afrikaans Hansard, Vol. 107, Col. 4277)—

Sir, notice who used the word “fragmentation ”—

In other words, what the Prime Minister accused us of he has admitted is the case with him and the Nationalist Party. He tried to formulate his policy with a view to appeasing world opinion, but the Prime Minister in making his announcement here on 10 April 1961 admitted that the Nationalist Party did not want the Bantustan policy. They accepted it under pressure, I believe, of the Broederbond in order to try to appease world opinion. How dare the hon. gentleman make the accusation against us when they are guilty? As we say in Afrikaans: “Hulle self staan agter die deur en nou soek hulle ander daar.”

When one listens to the undoubted eloquence of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), one asks oneself: Why does he not leave a deep impression upon one’s mind when he has finished speaking? Why is there a false note in everything that he says? This reminds one of the biblical words, that one may have the gift of prophecy but if one does not have charity, one becomes as a tinkling cymbal or as sounding brass. The hon. member has become as a tinkling cymbal and as sounding brass. Why? Because his words never reveal faith in his fatherland, love for his fatherland and a patriotic consciousness of his calling. The hon. member acted as a stop-gap this evening, a stop-gap between the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister and that of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who must come to his senses, and also a stop-gap in the sense that he, as a plausible speaker, had to tell a bad story. The hon. member for Yeoville wanted to produce proof that the National Party’s policy of independent Bantu homelands, if necessary, was a new policy. How did he start? A man who is so obsessed with logic as he is, came to light with two completely false arguments, which were not arguments. He produced a quotation from a speech by the late Dr. D. F. Malan, a former Prime Minister, in which Dr. Malan said that total segregation, the complete separation of people, was not the policy of the National Party, and he came to light with a later quotation to show that Advocate Strydom had also said that at that stage total segregation, total separation was not the policy of the National Party. Many hon. members opposite who are more stupid than the hon. member for Yeoville know that this had nothing to do with the point that he sought to argue. He sought to argue that it was not National Party policy necessarily to permit self-government in the Bantu areas, and then he said that it was never the policy of the National Party to remove all the Bantu to the Bantu areas. He was quite right. It has never been authoritatively stated on behalf of the National Party that its policy was to remove all Bantu to the Bantu areas and neither will that ever be said until the time comes when we are in sight of putting it into practice and that is not a stage which we will experience soon. However, that has nothing to do with the argument, and his reasoning on these two points amounts to absolutely nothing—I would almost say, like the speaker himself.

We come then to what to my mind borders on impropriety, namely, the quotation from the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister of 1951. What was the context of that speech? He did not give its background—oh no, not at all. The background at the time was an equally nebulous attack by the United Party that the National Party envisaged bringing into being one large common Bantustan or Bantu Government. He quoted from Hansard what the then Minister of Native Affairs said and, unfortunately, in order to have the context, I must again read what he quoted and then continue. The hon. the Prime Minister, then Minister of Native Affairs, said—

This is in contrast to the idea of one large, common Bantustan. Then he continued—

Mr. Speaker, that is the context, and what the hon. the Prime Minister said here is what he said on the occasion of the announcement of the Transkei self-government plan.

Now to return to the last hollow argument which the hon. member for Yeoville advanced, namely that the hon. the Prime Minister said in 1962: We are not rushing to meet the idea that these territories will of necessity become completely independent. That is the simple elementary truth. The National Party has never said: It is our aim to make those Bantu homelands sovereignly independent. We say: We will not shirk the consequences if that is the only way in which to maintain peace in Africa here; that we will even allow them to go so far as to obtain sovereign independence. The interpretation of the United Party that this party is the creator of an idea that sovereign independent Bantu states must and will be established is surely an untrue one. What this party does say is this: There must and will be a local Bantu government in the Bantu homelands which will give cultural expression, emotional expression to the aspirations of that national group; that there must be a local government which can govern that territory effectively, and if the hurricane which has torn across Africa blows here and if those territories wish to go further than this concept which we have in mind, we will not try to halt it by force and by violence. This homeland policy is interpreted now as a policy which holds tremendous dangers for us. Reference was again made this evening to a few of the alleged dangers. The hon. member for Yeoville dwelt more specifically upon the so-called economic danger in this regard—that the Black labour force in our Republic will live in the Bantu homeland subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign power. Is that so strange in the African situation and in the South African situation? Does the hon. member himself not have an intimate knowledge, and was he at one stage not an employee of a mining house in South Africa? Is our entire gold-mining industry not built on immigrant labour, 60 to 70 per cent of which comes from outside the State jurisdiction of South Africa? When will this proposal which has now been made come into being? Is it a proposal which is going to apply in five years’ time, in ten years or in 15 years’ time? If it does ever materialize, it is certainly an interpretation which will materialize in the very distant future, but here it is described as an excited voice raised in urgent insistence as though we in South Africa would expose ourselves immediately to the danger of having our labour force under foreign political control. The risk in respect of Bantu labour in our industrial life is precisely the same whether the Bantu homelands exist or not. to a very large extent because the risk exists on the part of the industrial workers themselves. If they are incited by irresponsible elements in South Africa, there is the risk of industrial unrest, and if a position is created where they cannot be incited by irresponsible elements, then we will have a position of industrial peace. I want to express it as the conviction of this party that we believe that we have a good chance for permanent industrial peace, also with the Black man, if he finds spiritual expression in his homeland, if his urban population groups have a governmental connection with the homelands and, above all, if we do not make false promises to them, if we do not tell them: We will give you a share of the “ballot box”, as the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) said a few years ago, and then come along with such a small fraction of a “ballot box” that one would be ashamed to offer it to the least of one’s fellow-men! That is what will embitter the Bantu, the false idea of participation in the political life of South Africa by means of which the United Party must either deceive the Bantu or else bring about ruin for the Whites. The only two choices open to the United Party in this policy which they propound are: They are either going to disillusion the Bantu and incur his displeasure, or else they are going to deceive the White man and sell his heritage.

In connection with the criticism of the homeland from the economic point of view, when has it ever been stated that the National Party’s policy implies that at any stage of development the Bantu homelands will be divorced from monetary and fiscal unity with the Republic of South Africa? That has never been done on any occasion.

Full independence.

Full independence can surely be reconciled with monetary and fiscal unity? Is Swaziland not one with us in the monetary and fiscal sphere? Are hon. members not even inhabitants of the Republic, or inhabitants of the world? It is after all a completely general occurence that monetary and fiscal unities reach beyond political unities. The whole conception of our Bantu homeland development has always been that they will remain one with us in the monetary and fiscal sphere and no financial realist can imagine a Bantu government being so stupid as to wish to depart from monetary and fiscal unity with the Republic of South Africa.

Its economy will compel it to.

If South Africa retains financial control, can what has been promised then be regarded as full independence?

My hon. friend does not understand what a fiscal and monetary unit is. The word “fiscal” deals with the common import duty structure and the flow of goods, while “monetary” means a uniform financial and banking system. It has nothing to do with the question of political control.

Lastly then, in connection with the economic aspect of the development of the Bantu homelands which has been raised here on various occasions, I would also like to remove one misconception. The economic development of the Bantu homelands is nothing less than the economic development of an economically backward part of the Republic of South Africa. Economically speaking, the development of a Bantu homeland amounts to the same thing economically as to set a new economic activity in motion 150 miles west of Kimberley or 150 miles downstream from Prieska or even at Prieska. It is simply the economic development of what is still at present an economically inactive part of our Republic, and how it can be suggested that any economic development, no matter where it takes place, is not to the benefit of the country as a whole, is something that I just cannot imagine. It is so completely inaccurate that no Member of Parliament ought to be guilty of saying such a thing. The strongest argument inherent in this point is to say that if capital is invested in an economically active area of the country one often receives a swifter and larger dividend on one’s investment than one would receive in an undeveloped area, but the following is also true: If one does not develop the undeveloped areas, one will never develop the full potential of one’s state.

Before I depart from the question of the Bantu homelands in order to deal with the policy of the United Party, I should like to go back a little into history. The hon. member for Yeoville confined his attack to the alleged changed policy of the National Party to Dr. Malan and Adv. Strydom, when he made irrelevant quotations. Then he made an attack upon the Prime Minister and in this regard he made a partial and accordingly, incorrect quotation. The clearest exposition of National Party policy was given by General Hertzog in 1936 when the Native Trust and Land Act was adopted here in the House of Assembly. On that occasion he spoke in English and I want to refer to Col. 4085 of Hansard of 20 May 1936. General Hertzog said—

A little further on he continued—

General Hertzog, Leader of the United Party, said this in 1936. I have kept this quotation till now because it covers the two points; it covers the point of attack that the National Party policy has been changed, but it also covers the last point of attack of the hon. member for Yeoville that the National Party has a fantastic policy idea, that we want to tell the Bantu in the White areas: You can work here but have your political rights and homes elsewhere. This is the old historical conception that if the Native comes to the White area, he must know that in the first place he is there to serve the interests of the Whites, and if he does not wish to do so, as many of them who desire to do so can stay in their own area. I do not wish to take up the time of the House unnecessarily by quoting too much from 1913 speeches like that of General Botha, but I want to mention the ratio of this homeland policy which was perhaps best given in 1913 by Mr. H. W. Sampson, who later also became a member of the House of Assembly. In 1913, Mr. Sampson said (Hansard, 16 May 1913. Col. 2493) (Afrikaans)—and the hon. Leader of the Opposition should take note of this as being the reason why there is no confidence in his party—

We have to deal here with a simple South African fact. The Whites whom I and we on this side of the House represent will never permit laws to be made for them by the Bantu. History has determined a pattern of life and we are not prepared to accept it. The only solution to the question of Bantu self-expression and government within our country’s borders is therefore the Bantu homeland policy of the National Party.

In conclusion, on this point, how is it that the United Party now seeks to create a misconception and say that a new policy is being followed, that a new policy has been created by the Prime Minister? Why is it that they should come to light with this fantastic idea when every young Nationalist, every old Nationalist, every chairman and secretary of the smallest branch, when every member has known so well over the years, and knows so well to-day, that our policy is that the Bantu must develop to self-determination in their own areas? They know that we will not force the Bantu or push him into a swifter and greater self-determination, but that we will not use force to prevent his going as far as his abilities and aspirations prescribe, because we are Nationalists and we concede to those Bantu the same nationhood and national expression as we want for ourselves. That is the long and the short of the whole matter.

The United Party in this debate put forward their criticism of our Bantu homeland policy. But in this debate the most important matter to my mind, apart from their rushing to the defence of the liberals, was the fact that the United Party, through the medium of its leader, ran way from its own federation policy. We had the phenomenon here that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition told us what his programme would be if he came into power. There would be three stages. The first stage would be the immediate repeal of laws which allegedly affect the personal dignity of the non-White.

Review, not repeal.

Yes, quite right. The second stage would be—

When he speaks of “constitutional and economic reform” I take it that this must also refer to the aspirations of the non-White races; in other words—

And then, after having completed that, they would come forward with their third step—

This is extremely important, Mr. Speaker. It has been put in this way simply because the hon. gentlemen are now running away from their race federation plan. If the disaster should befall South Africa and if the miracle should happen to the United Party that they come into power, they will be placed in the position that they will not have to tackle their impossible race federation plan immediately. That is why the hon. Leader of the Opposition prefaced his statement with these two delaying clauses. These delaying clauses are far more important than they appear to be. Before they start with their race federation plan they are first of all going to satisfy the economic and constitutional aspirations of the non-Whites. In other words, they are first of all going to give the non-Whites certain economic and constitutional privileges. In other words, before race federation, the franchize is going to be doled out, but who is going to determine what the “legitimate aspirations” are? After all, the people cherishing these aspirations are also going to have a say. That is the basis of their theory. After all we as Whites may not come to a decision without consultation. That must take place with consultation. There is not the slightest doubt. Mr. Speaker, that if, as their Leader has promised, the United Party once satisfy the aspirations of the non-Whites in respect of constitutional matters, it will not be that Party which will determine the question of race federation; it will be a completely different and far more ominous figure that will determine the terms of that race federation. They are running away from their own race federation plan; they are running away by means of procrastinating provisions and in this way they have sold out their own race federation idea to the non-White majority.

Then they come forward with the excuse that their race federation concept will bring peace for us with the Western world; it will take the place of minor apartheid (klein apartheid)—a new term coined by small (“ klein ”) people in order to cloud an important issue.

That is the Burger's term.

The hon. member attributes authorship to the Burger when all it did was to use a term coined by somebody else. The author is not the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn)—he is not quite so resourceful; nor would I refer to him as a small person! Minor apartheid—what else is it but the legislative steps which this Government has had to take, in order to make compulsory by legislation what has always been done voluntarily, because of the deliberate and systematic breaking down of the conventional way of life in South Africa by the liberals. Take the simple example of beach apartheid. If it were not for the talk, the inflammatory behaviour of that party and of worse elements like the progressives and the liberals outside, if it were not for the articles in the English-language newspapers, there would be no such problem as beach apartheid to-day. Then each of us would have known where to swim and what our usual customs were. This spirit of unrest, this spirit of rebellion, this spirit of dissatisfaction was created by that element and their allies. One is repeatedly called upon therefore to transform into legislation what does not lend itself easily to legislation. Human practices, human and social customs are from the nature of things not suitable subjects for legislation. They do not lend themselves well to it and it strikes a harsh note in the mind of a stranger who does not know the social situation which it is designed to meet. This whole question of minor apartheid is a necessary legislative reaction which has been instigated by the systematic attitude of the United Party and its allies in respect of the colour problem over the past 15 to 18 years. This is something which has been forced upon us, it is not something which gives one any pleasure.

To suggest that the repeal of these minor measures will make an important international political difference to the status of South Africa is, as has repeatedly been indicated, a gross misrepresentation.

I do not think that I should discuss these particular points any further because they have already been dealt with in full in this debate. Let me conclude with a basic reference to the hon. Leader of the Opposition and his assistant, the hon. member for Yeoville and their Party. It was said recently of the hon. member that he should beware lest he play the part of a General Kerensky. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, when Communism was young and weak, when Bolshevism in Petrograd was young and weak, when a strong hand was unable to destroy it and Lenin, General Kerensky as leader of the conservative majority came along with his stories of liberalism, with his stories of a little compromise and a little deferment and a little concession here and there anticipating that the position would clear up. Eventually he lost that long civil war and a monster was created in Russia and in the world, and nobody can tell to-day where it is going to end. We here in South Africa are faced on the one hand with that poisonous communist power. On the other hand we are faced with the force of Pan-African racism which is just as violent and poisonous. This is not a time for procrastination; it is not a time for half measures; it is a time for faith and action. We must put faith against faith. In the communist world we have tremendous conviction; in the Pan-African world we have that tremendous urge for self-expression amongst the Black nations. We can only maintain our civilization if we believe just as steadfastly and just as strongly: We will and we are going to live and win in South Africa. The method is often of less importance than the will, and I believe that the will and the faith in our case is more important than the ally and the weapon. The trouble with the United Party is that they do not give expression to the will and the faith of the White man in South Africa to remain here at all costs or to fall like men. It is the Kerensky idea of “the danger is not so great; some plan can be made; trouble can be saved by making a few concessions; we can delay things a little”, Do not let the terrible judgment of history be passed upon the hon. and respected Leader of the Opposition; let that Party realize the demands of the times and add its moral support to the support of this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker I am sure that the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) will forgive me if I do not reply to him immediately and if I reply to the points raised by him in the course of the representations I am about to make. Mr. Speaker, the attitude of the hon. the Prime Minister leaves no room for doubt that he and I have totally different ideas as to the purpose and scope of a no-confidence debate. I also think that his opinion differs greatly from that held by most democratic countries in the world. This Parliament did not meet for six months or more. During that time many things have happened in South Africa and in the world outside, circumstances have changed greatly. In my opinion the Opposition has the right to discuss the great principles of Government policy in the light of those changed circumstances when the House of Assembly meets once again. As far as I am concerned, I feel it is no more than right that it should start by means of a motion of no-confidence, because it is the omission on the part of the Government to adapt itself to those changed circumstances which, to my mind, has given rise to the lack of confidence.

The debate has followed a peculiar course. The hon. the Prime Minister quoted certain questions which were raised last year and he said that he was not going to reply to them again. He said that he spoke last year on the question of whether the new Bantu areas would not constitute a spring-board which would be dangerous to the Republic. Did the happenings in Cuba have no affect on the people as far as that sort of thing is concerned? Did the happenings in Angola not influence these hon. gentlemen? Did they not learn any lesson from that? The hon. gentleman said that during the previous discussion I spoke about the economic retrogression. Even the hon. the Prime Minister admitted between the two sittings that had he and his economic advisers realized what the effect would be of what happened in 1961 he would probably have taken other steps as far as the financial position of the country was concerned. Are those not circumstances which should be taken in account by Parliament when it assembles for another sitting?

The hon. the Prime Minister went on and tried to make the House believe that he resented the fact that it was suggested that the Nationalist Party had in any way changed its policy during the past 10-12 years. He made us understand that he has consistently followed the same policy. We had other quotations from the hon. member for Kempton Park to prove the same thing. I just want to say this, Mr. Speaker: If it is true that there has been no change and that the Nationalist Party has always envisaged that these separate Native states should develop and that they should one day develop to sovereign independence, there is not the least shadow of doubt that every Nationalist Party questioner and organiser at every meeting which I have addressed has lied to me. There is not the least shadow of doubt about that because when I made that allegation it was repeatedly denied. What made me come to the conclusion that that was not the policy of the Party, was the course of events in the year 1951 when the hon. the Prime Minister addressed the Natives’ Representative Council and when he was subsequently attacked in this House because of what he had said there. He read certain quotations from the speech which he made at the time. I do not wish to take up too much of the time of the House but I just want to read a few further quotations, quotations which clarified the position to me at the time. This is what he said—

Then he went on—

A question was then put to him by Mr. Robinson—

The reply was—

But surely there was no apartheid then.

Mr. Speaker. I do not think that is of any importance. In that case I must admit that I have never understood the policy of the Nationalist Party as announced by Dr. Malan who, when he wrote to that Canadian parson, said that he expected the relationship between the Native areas and the White areas to develop into a federal relationship; in that case I did not understand the Tomlinson report; nor did I understand the articles written by Dr. Eiselen in which he said that the Native areas would never get greater powers than those of provincial councils.

My charge against the Government in this debate is this, that in its policy it has omitted to adapt itself to the changed circumstances. I do not think it is necessary to say much about that because not a single member on that side of the House has tried to deny that. It is only necessary for me to refer to agriculture and I know the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Sadie) will agree with me. He is the only person who spoke about agricultural matters. He will agree with me that the Government has not adapted itself to the changed circumstances during the past year and that the farmers have suffered as a result. I also know that the hon. the Prime Minister will agree with me when I talk about education because he himself admitted that the Government had omitted to give sufficient attention to technical education in South Africa. Consequently that portion of my charge against the Government has already been proved and admitted by the side opposite. I went further and said that there were certain lessons which they had not learnt. I asked whether it was not perhaps wrong for the Government to base its policy on the hope that UNO would disintegrate. Mr. Speaker, we now find ourselves in a somewhat difficult position in regard to that statement. The Prime Minister adopted a somewhat different attitude from that of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs tried to make the case that UNO had fallen in disfavour with the countries of the Western world. He quoted from a speech by Lord Hume in which he criticised UNO very strongly. I too have here a speech of Lord Hume, a speech made by him in February 1962. I think it is portion of the speech from which the hon. Minister quoted although I was unable to lay my hands on the entire speech—

It was later in the year.

In any case, the fact remains that that was what Lord Hume said at the time and so far there has been nothing to change it—

That was his statement, that we would have to live with it although we did not care for many of the things which happened there. Here is what President Kennedy said on 14 January 1963 when he reported to the nation—

In other words, the President of the United States envisages the continued existence of that organization. What I said was that that organization would continue to exist as long as the United States desired it. What is our attitude towards the United Nations Organization? The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs said something yesterday which meant that he either said too much or too little. He said this—

I then asked the Minister a question and according to my notes he replied as follows—

A further question was then put to the hon. the Minister by the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell)—

The Minister then replied—

Ultimately we get to the stage where the hon. the Minister said—

That is not the way in which to drop such an important matter. Is it the intention of this Government to withdraw from the Organization or does it intend to continue to state its case, to defend South Africa there, to fight the opposition against South Africa and even to try to find friends in that organization from amongst the Western powers, friends who would possibly stand by us if trouble should arise in the world? I think that is a question to which we are entitled to an answer. [Interjections.] The hon. Minister says he has given his reply and we can draw our own conclusions.

He continued to ask questions and then I said: “You can draw your own conclusions ”.

In other words, must I take it then that the hon. the Minister is of opinion that we should withdraw?

You can draw whatever conclusion you wish to.

What is important is your conclusion.

Let us get clarity on this question. Must we take it from what the hon. the Minister has just said that he does not think that we should withdraw from the organization?

I made two statements. The one statement was: We bide our time as regards our future relations and the second statement was in connection with our representatives there, as to whether they would be present to be insulted as has happened in the last two years.

Two statements were made: The one was “we bide our time”, I think we now find ourselves in a position of uncertainty as far as this matter is concerned which is a further reason for a lack of confidence in this Government. Because I regard it as yet another sign towards the direction of withdrawing from that Organization on account of the criticism which is levelled against the Government.

The hon. the Minister also asked whether we realized how many people were hostile to the White man and hostile to South Africa. I accept that, Mr. Speaker. There are many people in Africa who are hostile to the White man; there are many who are hostile to South Africa but there are many who are only hostile to apartheid. As far as the hostility towards the White man is concerned, we cannot do anything about that; as far as the hostility towards South Africa is concerned, we can try to influence that, but as far as the hostility towards apartheid is concerned, that we can change by following a different course. I believe that this side of the House will be able to follow a course which will indeed give our friends in the Western world the opportunity of once again defending us.

The hon. the Prime Minister asked whether I was willing to pay the price, whether I knew what the price was. I wonder what the price will be? From my own experience overseas, in England, in the United States of America and in other countries where I have had the privilege of discussing this important matter with prominent people in public life, I have come to the conclusion that the vast majority of responsible people in the Western world would be prepared once again to seek friendship with South Africa if there were the slightest change of course. [Interjections.! Mr. Speaker, I can read many quotations to prove that. I can quote the Tunku of Malaya. The Tunku who, after the Commonwealth Conference, even said that he would be satisfied had there been only ten representatives in this House.

And when I asked him “for how long?” he replied “As a beginning ”.

How long will the “beginning” be? Do you see, Mr. Speaker, we have this criticism against this Government that we are practically without friends in the most important sphere, the Colour sphere, a fact which is related to possible communist aggression and which can possibly lead to the greatest possible dangers to South Africa.

To what extent did those friends help Whitehead?

As far as I remember they helped him to the extent that he got a great number of votes and that a number of countries abstained from voting. That friendship helped him to this extent that he was undoubtedly in a very much stronger position than South Africa is. [Interjections.] I do not know how Mr. Whitehead can be compared with South Africa. Surely Whitehead is subject, firstly, to the Federation and, secondly, to the British Government. His is not an independent State. The point he had to submit was whether Rhodesia was a self-governing country or not and whether reports had to be submitted to UNO or not. It had nothing to do with friends.

I went further and adopted the attitude that it would never be possible for the State Information Office nor for many of the mouthpieces of this Government to justify the actions of this Government in this country, because misrepresentations and false images were not the reason why responsible people in the Western world had turned hostile towards apartheid, but the actions of this Government.

The Prime Minister resented the fact that I had referred to the Church Clause. He tried to give an exposition of that clause, but during the course of the debate it was repeatedly admitted that that clause had not as yet been put into effect in South Africa since the day it was put on the Statute Book. Why is it there then?

It has attained its object.

The only instance which presented an opportunity of using it, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development used another Act to attain the object.

It prevented those sort of abuses from taking place.

No, Mr. Speaker, this was a clause which could well have been omitted from the Bill without harming South Africa’s reputation in the world outside. It is an excellent example of the harm which this Government has done without there having been any real necessity for that legislation. That applies to a very large section of the petty apartheid which is still to be found in South Africa to-day.

There has been no reply to the allegation that the Government has not learnt the lesson of the disadvantages of economic isolation. We had an admission from the hon. the Prime Minister that once independence is promised, it will be very difficult to retain control of the tempo of development. I wonder whether the hon. gentleman realizes how difficult that will be. That is one of the lessons we had expected this Government to learn and we wonder whether they know how difficult it will be to retain control over that tempo. We wonder whether they realize the danger that those states which they are to-day creating will very probably follow a different course from the one they expect them to follow as far as constitutional and economic development is concerned.

I realize all that, but what about the same thing happening in your case?

I shall deal with that later. The point I wish to emphasize is that we have to-day reached a stage in South Africa where the Native’s tribal connections are being severed, where he has to live an individual life in an industrial environment in South Africa and where we have the position that this can happen in two ways. It can happen according to the democratic system which we uphold and for which we stand or it can follow the course of Communism and the communistic threat. At the very stage where it is so important that control should be retained over that development, particularly in the Native reserves, the hon. the Prime Minister intends withdrawing that control and depriving the Native of it. That is one of the big dangers which we can see in the actions of this Government.

We had statements from the other side of the House, particularly from the hon. member for Kempton Park, that it was his Government which would be able to fight Communism in South Africa. Sir, in 1948 we heard from the National Party that they were the people who would throttle Communism, they would show us how to combat Communism. In spite of that, after they had been in power for four years we were told by the then Prime Minister, Dr. Malan, that the position was worse than it was in 1948 when they took over.

The position has deteriorated over the entire world.

I readily admit that. After 14 years of Nationalist government the position has greatly deteriorated because they haven’t the vaguest idea how to combat Communism in South Africa. That was the reason why I accused the hon. the Minister of Justice of placing liberalism on the same plain as Communism. What did I get from him? I read that he said “The spirit of liberalism is rearing its head here in South Africa, and that is an even greater enemy than Communism ”. When I made that charge against the hon. the Minister he told me that I had obviously done a great amount of reading during the recess, but that he wished I had read a few of the books of J. Edgar Hoover, the head of the F.B.I. in America. I followed his advice and referred to one of those books. I read the following on page 97 of the book “Masters of Deceit ”—

He goes on—

That was one of the reasons why I deprecated the hon. the Minister’s statement and why I attacked him. I pointed out that a South African journalist, Pieter Lessing, who has made a study of the whole position in connection with Communism in Africa, came to the conclusion that this Government was becoming an ally of Russia in its action towards liberalism. The hon. the Minister now comes along and asks for co-operation against Communism. On behalf of this Party I can give him the solemn undertaking that wherever and whenever he fights real Communism in a sensible way and on a sensible basis he will get the full support of this side of the House.

If that is your attitude, what do you have against the Liberal Party

I fight the Liberal Party because I do not agree with their point of view. I shall continue to fight them, just as I fought the Progressive Party, and just as I am fighting the Nationalist Party. I shall, however, fight for their rights to state their point of view although I do not agree with it.

There remains little of importance said by hon. members opposite in connection with this matter which I have raised. Certain views have, however, been expressed in connection with race issues here in South Africa and on the Continent of Africa and I think that before I deal with those matters it will be just as well that I dispose of a few points. Firstly, during the course of this debate, and repeatedly in the past, hon. members opposite have drawn comparisons between the position in South Africa and the position in other African states; an attempt has been made to make comparisons in regard to the * policy of concessions ’ as the Prime Minister has called it. I think there are two important points in that connection. The first is that the numerical ratio differs so widely that it is impossible to make a reasonable comparison. The second is that the concessions that were made in the vast majority of those African states were not made with the approval and co-operation of the local White population; they were made as a result of pressure on the part of the metropolitan powers which intended withdrawing from Africa. That applies to practically every single African state that was mentioned.

Southern Rhodesia?

Southern Rhodesia is possibly the only exception. That was why I said “practically ". I am also convinced, however, that had Mr. Whitehead not felt that unless he made certain concessions, he would never have rid himself of the influence of Whitehall on Native affairs in Southern Rhodesia.

Did he not say that there would be a Black government in Rhodesia within 15 years?

He probably said that, but the question is who placed him along that road. Was it not Great Britain? To try to make a comparison between what happened in Southern Rhodesia and what happened in South Africa, is to make a comparison which is not true and valid. Why are the settlers in Kenya so embittered against Britain to-day? Do hon. members know that there was almost a rebellion amongst the White people in the northern provinces of the Congo when it was announced that freedom and independence would be granted to the Congo? Surely you know the trouble with the then Governor and how they bombarded him with tomatoes. No, had the position been left to the White settlers in Africa the story would have been completely different.

The question is, however, whether apartheid as practised by this Government, would have solved the problems of those African states. Will apartheid solve them in Ghana where there is one White man to every 1,000 non-White, or in Kenya where there is one White man to every 94 Natives, or in Nyasaland where there is one to every 329 non-Whites?

Has federation solved the problem in Nyasaland?

Does the hon. member not understand the difference between a race federation and a geographical federation? Surely we do not still have the position where some hon. members on the other side of the House believe that a federation, such as the Central African Federation, is at all similar to the race federation of the United Party? Now we are wise to the sort of propaganda which hon. members make.

The second point with which I still have to deal is the question which has repeatedly been asked, namely, whether the Native will be satisfied with our race federation plan. Coming from hon. members on the Government side that question sounds strange to me. Did they think the Coloureds would be satisfied when they placed them on a separate Voters’ Roll? Did they think the Natives were satisfied when their representatives were removed from this House? Do they think the urban Native will be satisfied under Government policy where he will not have any political rights in the area in which he lives and will only have political rights in states which he does not know and which he will probably never see? But there is another question which I consider to be of much greater importance: Will the White people of South Africa be satisfied with the dismemberment of South Africa by this Government, once they realise fully what the plan of the Government embraces? My experience is this that the more the White people discover what this plan of the Prime Minister’s embraces, the less will they support his Bantu policy.

Is the difference not this that your partners in government must decide whether or not they want to be your partner?

The hon. the Prime Minister says your partners in government decide with you whether they are satisfied. My reply is this that when it comes to the question of race relations, I do not think a policy has ever been followed in South Africa which has satisfied all the White and all the non-White races. As a result of that the most you can hope to achieve is a compromise which both sides will be prepared to support in their common interests. It is precisely because of that that we gave the assurance that before there would be any extension of the political rights of the non-Whites in a federal Parliament, the matter would be submitted to the people by way of a referendum or a general election. That was the guarantee which we gave the electorate as far as that was concerned. What guarantee has the Prime Minister given the electorate?

Then we find that there are still hon. members opposite who try to prove that General Smuts either had the Bantustan policy in mind or that he supported it and they relied on speeches which he made in the twenties. The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) quoted a speech from which he concluded that General Smuts had moved in the direction of a Bantustan. Unfortunately, however, they forget that General Smuts always said that the Native areas must remain under the supervision of the White Parliament and that he always said that they should have representatives in this House.

No.

I just want to quote from the 1948 speech, the speech from which the hon. member for Ceres also quoted. Unfortunately the hon. member stopped too soon. He said—

The actual position is that General Smuts did not in the least think about the Bantu policy of this Government or that he had it in mind, though it can be said that to a great extent he had already moved in the direction of a race federation. Because in 1947, before the general election, he was giving the Native greater and greater control over their own affairs within their own reserves. In 1947 he made certain suggestions to the Natives’ Representative Council. Unfortunately I have those suggestions in English only—

1. (1) The Natives’ Representative Council should be enlarged and become an all-native elected body, to whom, in addition to their present functions, will also be progressively delegated by the Government an increasing measure of executive authority in respect of the development of the Native reserves. The Natives’ Representative Council will have its own officials and may have its own executive committee for this purpose;
2. (2) The local advisory boards in urban locations and Native satellite towns now arising in urban and industrial areas, will also be mainly elected and grouped into a general conference and linked up with the Natives’ Representative Council.
3. (3) Legislative, executive and taxing powers which may be entrusted by law to the Natives’ Representative Council, will be exercised subject to the authority of Parliament and government who will retain the final say;
4. (4) The general council system will be developed and will also exercise administrative functions as at present provided by the Native Affairs Act, and will do so under the general supervising power of the Natives’ Representative Council.

There will thus be a general unified pattern of Native administration in which the Natives will share under the authority of the Government and Parliament. The working out of a practical plan will be done by the Government and Parliament in consultation with the provincial and local authorities, and will be proceeded with as early as possible but must inevitably take some time.

If you refer to that speech of 1948, Sir, you will find that he dealt further with this matter and that he discussed the further extension of the powers of the Natives’ Representative Council in connection with his own policy. In other words, he was already moving in the direction that each race should have control over those intimate matters where he would not brook interference by members of other races in South Africa. That was what he envisaged for the Native and there is not the least shadow of doubt that as far as he himself was concerned he was of opinion that the White man should retain control over those powers.

Such a central machinery would have been a deadly danger to South Africa.

What we envisage is this that common councils should be established for the various races, possibly for each province, and that those common councils should ultimately have representatives in a federal Parliament.

White or Black?

On the other hand the question has repeatedly been asked whether those representatives will be White or Black and for which constituencies those representatives will be chosen. Sir, I remember clearly the late Mr. Strijdom stating in a Select Committee (and he voted accordingly) that the Natives should be represented in the Senate by Natives. That was 25 or 30 years ago. The idea was that that would solve the entire non-White problem of South Africa. That is why I cannot understand the concern of hon. members opposite. The policy of our party is that Natives should be represented by Whites. We realise, however, that it is impossible to deprive them of the right of being represented by their own people for all time to come, particularly after the promises which the Prime Minister has made to the separate Bantustans.

Do not try to load your difficulties off on to me!

The hon. the Prime Minister adopted the attitude that those White representatives would undoubtedly become non-Whites at a later stage and that if that happened non-Whites would undoubtedly be taken up in the Public Service, in the Army and even in the Cabinet. But, Sir, he has four White representatives of the Coloureds in the House of Assembly. If his argument is correct they must shortly be replaced by Coloureds, and if his argument-is logical and correct, he predicts that they will enter the Public Service, the Police, the Army and possibly also the Cabinet.

If you came into power.

I do not think it is necessary to pay further attention to such an argument because according to the hon. gentleman it only applies to our side of the House and not to his side, and that is ridiculous.

I think our suggestions contain many advantages, because they ensure that every section of the nation will have the responsibility of citizenship and because they confer rights on the individual within his own community; they will create safety for everyone and they will mean the establishment of democratic institutions throughout the community.

But there are other advantages as well, one of which is that South Africa will be maintained as an inseparable whole instead of being dismembered. Secondly, it is fair towards everyone because an individual, no matter his race, will be able to advance as much as his ability will allow him to and the progress of his group as a whole will be recognized and recompensed. Thirdly, it offers an immediate solution to our most pressing problems.

We can start with it to-morrow, we need not wait for the year 1978, or any other imaginary date which the Prime Minister sometimes has in mind when he talks in this House. It will contribute towards an immediate lessening of racial tension because it will make possible a certain measure of participation by all races in the governmental machinery at administrative as well as legislative level. It will promote social welfare, it will promote the economy because it will ensure the best possible use of our labour force. It will create a permanent respect for human dignity.

Compare it with the Nationalist Party and the existing position, and you will realise, Sir, that it will provide us with flexibility as opposed to the sterile rigidity of the policy of the Prime Minister’s. I verily believe that it will ensure us friends in the world outside. I wish to add that I have confidence in the policy because it contains the best of what every section in South Africa has in mind. Those who feel that a new set-up is necessary for the non-Whites in South Africa, not only for selfish reasons, but because they feel it is an act of justice, will find expression in the application of this policy of a race federation, and those who think that they are supporting the Government because they believe that separate development contains the germ of a solution for our problems, will realise that the best which is to be found in the idea of separate development forms part of the policy of race federation. In other words, it will ensure that we progress in an orderly way. It can really give the non-Whites hope for the future and it can give the Western world reason once again to hasten to our assistance. The little experience which I have gained in life has shown me that there are two major principles which are valid in practically all circumstances and in respect of all policies in all countries. That is that there are great moral laws, such as the laws we learnt at our mother’s knee, respect for the individual, honesty, dignity and things of that nature and secondly, we have those multitudes of economic laws. Where a policy clashes with those moral laws and with the economic laws, no matter how long it takes, that policy can never triumph. The major thing that is wrong with the policy of this Government, Mr. Speaker, is that it clashes with the moral laws of the Western world; and it also clashes with the sound economic laws as drafted by sensible economists.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—51: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; De Kock, H. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hourquebie, R.G. L.; Le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M,; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; Van der Byl, P.; Van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Noes—94: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G.F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M.I. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; DÖnges, T. E.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotze, S. F.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. L; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marias, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Mever, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, D. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C .B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van den Berg, G. P.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van den Heever, D. J. G.; Van der Ahee, H. H.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Spuy, J. P.; Van der Walt, B. J.; Van der Wath, J. G. H.; Van Eeden, F. J.; Van Niekerk, G. L. H.; Van Niekerk, M. C.; Van Nierop, P. J.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Wyk, G. H.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

Question accordingly negatived and the words omitted.

The substitution of the words proposed by Mr. B. Coetzee was put and the House divided:

Ayes—94: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Reystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J.C.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotze. S. F.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. 1.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel. J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, D. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van den Berg, G. P.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van den Heever, D. J. G.; Van der Ahee, H. H.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Spuy, J. P.; Van der Walt, B. J.; Van der Wath, J. G. H.; Van Eeden, F. J.; Van Niekerk, G. L. H.; Van Niekerk, M. C.; Van Nierop, P. J.; Van Rensburg, M. C.G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Wyk, G.H.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H.F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

Noes—51: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J.

C.; De Kock, H. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hourquebie, R.

G. L.; Le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker. H.; Van der Byl, P.; Van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren. C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.