. I move—

INTRODUCTION

On the whole, the financial year now drawing to a close has been a satisfactory one. The economic outlook at the beginning was one of moderate optimism based on the expectation of a sustained improvement in the national economy with a favourable influence on Railway revenue. This expectation materialized, but it was not until after the first half of the year that this was evidenced in Railway working results. In the light of this I am satisfied that the conservative attitude I adopted when I presented my Budget last year and measures taken subsequently, were well-founded.

Export and import traffic exceeded the level of the previous financial year as did also general traffic.

The favourable working results were not achieved without optimum effort and, at times, difficult transport problems were encountered. Passenger traffic was heavy during the holiday seasons. The deployment of trucks to cope with seasonal traffic such as perishable products from the lowveld, the exceptionally heavy maize crop and anthracite for export, accompanied by difficulties connected with the bunching of ships, serious washaways, particularly in South West Africa and Natal, called for keen co-ordination of all available resources.

Unavoidable delays did occur, but in general the Railways were able to meet the country’s transport needs. Excellent staff relations and the confidence in and goodwill towards the Railways displayed by the public using our services have contributed in no small way to these achievements.

The target was to give the transport user the best possible service, combined with courtesy and civility to every person who wanted to travel or who wanted to make use of the transport facilities provided by the Railways, the Airways and Road Services. While it is not possible to claim 100 per cent success for our “service plus courtesy” campaign. I am satisfied that the overall results can be described as very satisfactory.

I second.

May I at the outset express gratification from this side of the House for what the Minister has at last done for the pensioners. You will remember that last year the Railway pensioners alone of all the pensioners did not benefit by the bonus additions which were given to civil pensioners. We have always maintained that the Superannuation Fund, standing now at, I think, some R305,000,000, is strong enough to give relief to Railway pensioners. We are glad that the Minister has gone to the help of these people who will be the first to be affected by the increased costs brought about by increased tariffs. Let me also join with the Minister in praising the work of the railwaymen and their General Manager. If anything was justified on the basis of merit and productive performance, it was the wage and salary increase earned by the railwaymen in September. For many years now the United Party has been making urgent and earnest requests to the Minister to yield to the fair demands of the workers. Eventually, as always happens, the Minister has followed our advice. He has given them what he condescendingly calls “concessions”, but which I feel are really what the worker has earned and something for which he has already given real value. It is generally thought by the public that the railwaymen received a 10 per cent increase in salary and wages. That, of course, is not so. Some of them have got considerably less. The increase, as the Minister has stated here in his Budget speech, was accompanied by so-called rationalization on the basis of work determinations to which, as he has said, the staff associations, in separate negotiations, have agreed. The facts are that the White personnel in the Railway service received an annual increase on existing wages and salaries of something like 6 per cent, and of the R21,000,000 extra, which it was estimated that the increased wages and salaries would cost for the full year, the non-White staff will get, collectively, approximately R2,500,000. It is quite interesting to note the Minister’s anxiety to excuse himself in advance for his precipitate increase in tariff rates. The most important question that will arise in this Budget debate will be whether or not it was necessary for the Minister to increase by 10 per cent the tariffs on a wide range of goods carried by the Railways in order to pay for the wage increases. I myself am convinced that the Minister need not have raised the tariffs at this juncture in our economic development. He presumed, and, in my opinion, he presumed without proper inquiry, that the only way to pay for these increases in wages and salaries was to raise tariffs by 10 per cent. He finds now, Sir—as a quick survey of the figures given in his Budget speech will show—that he has already built up a satisfactory surplus. If one adds his estimated deficit of R2,75 million to what he has already earned up to December (namely a surplus of R9.2 million), it means that, already by December he will have just on R12,000,000 more than he estimated he would have. That is sufficient to cover the wage increases except for R250,000. Remember, Sir, that he still has three months to go. He has three good months to go in which to enhance his surplus further. He also should remember (and here I differ from him entirely in interpretation of the function of the fund) that he had £24.4 m. in the Rates Equalization Fund which could act as a back-stop. He could count on Parliament appropriating some of that sum if necessary—and I believe it will turn out not to be necessary—in order to meet any increase in overheads. The Minister approaches this question, to my way of thinking, from the wrong direction. During the course of the year he may have to increase overheads in a number of ways in either purchasing equipment or paying more for labour. In theory Parliament may not accept his reasons, but the Government majority ensures him getting it. The fact remains that the Rates Equalization Fund exists so that, in spite of increased overheads, rates need not be raised. This fund can be used, and should be used, for that very purpose. That was what Parliament intended it to be used for. The Minister has told people outside that it would be illegal to use the fund for this purpose. Of course it is illegal to say: “I am going to take this increase in salaries and wages from my Rates Equalization Fund.” But that stage need not have been reached. The Minister had increased overheads, and the Rates Equalization Fund can, by parliamentary appropriation, be used for the purpose of avoiding an increase in rates.

No one would have subsequently blamed the Minister—least of all this side of the House— if he had delayed that rate increase for a month or more to see the trend of events; to see whether quickened business, increasing transport demands or larger railway profits would not have covered the cost of the wage increase, as indeed they are going to do, and by more than the Minister estimates. Intelligent caution, Sir, might have led him to abandon altogether the thought of a 10 per cent increase in rates as he saw his surplus accumulating or might have induced him to have a smaller increase, say 5 per cent. I wonder whether his statisticians, whether the Railway Commissioners, whom, I am sure, he must have consulted frequently, did not perhaps suggest that a smaller increase would have been more than sufficient for his purpose? The figures which he has given us to-day reveal that up to the month of December he had an accumulated surplus of something like R9.2 million, in spite of a December deficit. That means that he had on hand just over R12,000,000 more than he had estimated for. As I have said, he has three months to go, and he knows that during the last three years these last three months have brought in appreciable increases to his surplus over and above what had been estimated. In 1960 they gave an added surplus of R7.3 million; in 1961 R4.3 million and in 1962 R5.9 million. So that, if one even takes the lowest of these surplus figures and adds it to his 1963 figure, he ought to show a minimum surplus of about R14,000,000, which is well over what he estimated for originally and what he estimates to-day. The Minister said that if he had not had increased tariffs he would have had a deficit of R2.6 million. Let me remind the House that he estimated a deficit of R2.75 million for the financial year. So that he did not need to raise rates to carry out his own previous undertaking. To achieve his own estimate, it was not necessary for him to increase rates at all. He has now given us a new estimate of R10.4 million surplus for this year. He has already got R9.2 million, and he has the three months to come which, as I have pointed out, average about R5.6 million per month. So it seems to me, Sir, that he is again under-estimating. It seems to me that he is going to sit very pretty with a larger surplus than any of his side ever anticipated. We, on this side, have learned to distrust the accuracy of the Minister’s estimates made even one month before his financial year closes. [Interjections.] I am asked: “What happened?” I will tell you what happened. In 1960 his estimates given in March were R12.3 million out by the end of that month. In 1961 they were R4,000,000 out, and in 1962 they were R5.7 million out. In other words, he gave the House his estimates early in March and, by the end of that month, he was out by the amounts I have stated. So I say we have every reason for thinking that the estimates which he has given to us to-day are wrong, and that they will be materially enhanced by the end of his financial year, if the Minister runs true to form. Then, of course, he will tell us that he keeps on the rails.

One thing, Sir, is definite to me. There is one thing which his own figures prove. Namely that he need not have raised railway rates in September in order to meet the wage increases he introduced. I am sure, Sir, he owes an explanation not only to this House, but to the man in the street and the woman in the home who will be affected by the higher living costs which will come about. He owes an explanation also to commerce, industry, the marginal mines and the economists whose advice he spurned. I said a few moments ago that the Minister had raised tariffs without proper inquiry into the probable far-reached effects on the cost of living and on our economic development. As Minister of Railways, as distinct from Minister of Transport, he has many virtues. Not least among them is that he is an out-and-out railwayman; a man who is devoted to his railways. But, Sir, these virtues are outweighed by one distressing vice. He always tends to think in terms of the narrower interests of the Railways rather than the wider interests of South Africa. W know that it is difficult to estimate and forecast economic or business trends. We know that it is doubly difficult if one scorns the very idea of consulting with businessmen or economists, even those, Sir, who are specially appointed by the Prime Minister to give advice on economic affairs. The other evening in what the Minister described as “straight talking” to the Federated Chambers of Industry he is reported to have said, not unaggressively—

Now that Council, Sir, is presumably handpicked by the Prime Minister, I should think they must be a very helpful body. I think they must be authoritative. Or does the Minister not trust the Prime Minister’s economists? In any event I am sure they would never attempt to “dictate” Railway policy. But disdaining even to ask the advice, which might have been freely available, of competent economists may yet prove to have been a very arrogant error; may yet prove that the Minister has not been as careful as he should be of the true interests of South Africa. During the course of this debate we will probably prove that to be a justifiable reflection on the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the debate I would like to say that there is one more pleasing feature, besides what he has done for pensioners, in this Budget. I refer to the acrobatic somersault by the Minister in relation to the pipeline project between the Rand and Durban. We first raised it in 1951, I think. We raised it frequently since then and in 1958 finally it was brought before this House and this is what the Minister said on that occasion—

It seems strange to me that even when technological advance brings about economies in transport costs no part of those economies or savings are passed on to the consumer. It seems strange that, in this era of economic development, some part of such cost savings are not taken off the price paid by the consumer. The Minister thinks that the motorists who drive about over week-ends in cars perhaps as big as the luxurious cars he himself uses, should be prepared to pay for the privilege. But it is the distribution costs of goods that are increased by an increase in the price of petrol. A lower price for petrol would lower distribution costs which are R for R almost as high as manufacturing costs. A reduction in the price of petrol would have a beneficial effect on living costs. The Minister said in 1958 “the price of petrol to the motorist inland will probably remain the same”. He says so again to-day. “Is that clear?” he said to us. “Hon. members can put that in their pipe and smoke it.” A charming, charming little pun. May I ask him to revise his ideas and to put the interests of South Africa first …

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT; Where is the somersault?

The somersault is that the Minister put off a consideration of the pipeline, I think, for ten years. [Interjections.] I am corrected. He said" I won't consider it for seven years ”. He has now revised his opinion; he has now changed his mind; he has somersaulted. We are pleased that he is now practising what we have been preaching for so long.

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with custom I now move—

1 second.

Agreed to.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, the Bill now before the House is the logical development of the pattern and the policy of the people of South Africa in respect of our colour problems, a policy which was not created as the result of political chimeras or ideologies, but one which sytematically grew out of the experience, the knowledge and the actual facts which have faced the people of South Africa over a period of more than 300 years. It is based on the simple but fundamental principle of human happiness and human relations, namely that every man is happiest in his own family circle, every family is happiest within its own community, and every community is happiest within its own national circle. This principle applies to all people irrespective of race or colour throughout the world. In fact, Mr. Speaker, this is the only basis on which sound race relations, national relations and human relations can be established. It applies particularly to the Bantu because every anthropologist of repute will confirm that this is one of the basic characteristics in the social structure of the Bantu. In addition it should be remembered that the approach of our nation to its colour problems is not the result of the vagaries of world opinion or of political convictions. It is the result of its deep Christian national philosophy of life, its predominant principle of live and let live. Hence our colour policy in general is founded on such a moral basis that we need not be ashamed in the eyes of the world—something which can be said of very few nations in the world.

Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to deal briefly with a few of these outstanding principles. (1) Our people never enslaved the indigenous races although we had every opportunity to do so. (2) Our nation saved the indigenous races from destroying one another on a large scale, and also created order out of chaos for the Bantu. (3) We recognized the homelands of the Bantu groups and protected their homelands even against infiltration by the Whites. (4) We protected the riches of the Bantu areas against all exploitation, particularly against the exploitation by the Whites, and preserved them for the Bantu, with the result that those potentialities are still there to-day. (5) To the best or our ability we assisted them to develop spiritually and materially, as can be seen from the following: We made available to them what is best in Western civilization; no nation in the whole word has done as much, in proportion to its numbers, for the prosperity and progress of its indigenous peoples as did the South African nation, and I challenge anyone in the world to deny it. Our churches to-day spent proportionately more on missionary work than any other church in the whole world. (6) We did not follow a policy of denationalization in regard to the Bantu and thereby make ourselves guilty of human erosion. If there is one thing I find despicable it is that. It is in this respect that the world perhaps does not always understand us. Our policy is in fact designed as far as possible to prevent people from losing contact with their own national communities. On the contrary, it is aimed at enabling every national group to utilize the best services of its sons and daughters for their national development in every sphere of life. (7) We respect the language and the culture of every national group, and thereby we give recognition to human dignity, perhaps to a larger extent than any other nation in the world. We recognize the dignity of the human being in his own national circle. One of the basic principles to-day is the recognition of human dignity, and not this cheap fraternization practised by so many people to-day. (8) We believe, Sir, that they should always be entitled to enrich themselves from what is best in Western civilization. We should never deprive them of that opportunity. (9) We refuse for our own selfish reasons to allow them to become mixed up in a Congolese confusion, and we do not allow any split to take place in the unity of their national communities to suit our own convenience. (10) We have always believed that they should be systematically guided towards running their own affairs.

You therefore see, Sir, that the whole basis of our policy is that we grant to the Bantu in his part or parts of South Africa that which we demand for ourselves. We are prepared to defend this principle against the whole world. If we look at the chaotic confusion which prevails in Africa to-day and also in other parts of the world, where they have other so-called principles, then we are more convinced than ever before that we are on the right road, because where in many parts of Africa peoples are being assisted in the name of democracy and in the name of freedom, we see that there is more chaos than ever before. I say we are convinced that we are on the right road. Whereas in other parts of Africa to-day there is economic deterioration, we have economic stability and growth. Whereas in other parts of Africa there is chaos, we have peace and good order, in spite of a small group of White people who try to cause trouble. I am referring particularly to the communist and the Liberal elements. I shall have an opportunity later on to deal with this matter in greater detail. The fact is that whereas in other parts of Africa the Black man and the White man are at each other’s throats, we in South Africa to-day have the greatest degree of co-operation between White and Black, a fact which was proved once again when we discussed this legislation with them.

There is another important matter. This Bill also affords the clearest proof that apartheid is a serious matter to us, in regard to which we are honest and sincere. When we tell the world that we grant the Bantu that which we demand for ourselves, this Bill proves that this is not mere lip-service, but that we are in fact implementing in a practical way the policy we are following in South Africa to-day. White South Africa, as it behoves a genuine friend to do, is also prepared to assist the Bantu in this respect, to give him advice and guidance, to assist him administratively and financially to make a success of this matter. I will frankly admit that perhaps it took many years—some of these promises were made 100 years ago …

No, no!

Do not reveal your ignorance so soon. In order to implement those promises, a very firm foundation was necessary. That foundation had to be laid in the course of time, and that is where South Africa rendered a great service to its Bantu population. The great objection of hon. members opposite is that by means of this Bill we are cutting up South Africa. I want to reject that statement with the contempt it deserves. I want to state immediately that this Bill is truly in accordance with the traditional policy of the people of South Africa as it has been applied and formulated throughout the years. This Bill really gives expression to two great principles in our traditional policy in regard to which there was no difference in the past, not even between English-and Afrikaans-speaking people. It is quite clear—no one can argue it away—that the White population of this country, both English and Afrikaans speaking, had two fundamental principles. I just want to pause to deal with that for a moment. The first was that the Bantu should have his own homeland, a homeland which should be reserved and protected for him. I do not think there was ever any difference of opinion in that regard. I should now like to hear the sneering remarks of hon. members. [Interjections.] It makes no difference what you call them; you can call them protectorates or reserves or homelands or heartlands …

Or independent States.

… but, Mr. Speaker, just do not call them Bantustans, because Bantustans are the derogatory creation of the United Party, and particularly of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). I wish he would once again read that book written by a professor on the Witwatersrand, that book for which he wrote a foreword. That professor fled to Canada a little later, and I think he will also be on his way to Canada one of these days.

I want to plead that we should not adopt this derogatory attitude towards the Bantu. This sort of thing only wounds the honour of a nation, and the Bantu is also sensitive. It simply creates enmity.

The second principle was that the Bantu in his homelands should be given an increasing measure of self-government. Now I challenge hon. members again to make their sneering remarks. In regard to this matter there has never been any difference of opinion in the past between the English-and Afrikaans-speaking people. It is true—and I shall come to it— that there were differences in regard to the method and the degree and the time for granting self-government. There was. for example, a difference of opinion on the question of whether it should bear a purely Western stamp, or whether it should be a further development of the traditional Bantu system of government. But I can say without fear of contradiction that there was never any difference of opinion as to the Bantu being given self-government in his own areas.

We should also be agreed on one other thing, and that it that where these two basic principles are conceded in favour of the Bantu, we dare not wait until the second Ice Age before giving it to the Bantu. I think that would be dishonest. As I say, these two principles run like a golden thread throughout the history of South Africa.

In support of my statement that these two principles are the corner-stones of the traditional policy of South Africa, I just want to mention the following few facts. All Governments in South Africa, including the British Governments, honoured these two principles. Will hon. members again laugh at me in this regard? I want to adduce proof for this. The first is—

1. (1) That the Bantu area of the Ciskei between the Great Fish River and the Great Kei River was demarcated by the British Government in 1878 already;
2. (2) That the present Transkei was already regarded as a purely Bantu area from the very earliest times, and that it retained its identity as a Bantu area even after its incorporation into the Cape Colony in 1879;
3. (3) That the Voortrekkers in 1839 already commenced demarcating areas in Natal and that this was continued by the British Government from 1843;
4. (4) That separate areas were demarcated and awarded to the Natal Native Trust in 1864, whilst what is really Zululand was incorporated into Natal in 1897 but retained its identity;
5. (5) That in the Transvaal the granting of land to the tribes began in 1853 and that a Standing Native Location Commission began in 1861 to define these areas; and
6. (6) That the Free State also recognized the principle of separate Bantu areas and granted Witzieshoek in 1867 already to the Mopeli and Batlokoa tribes, whilst Thaba ’Nchu was set aside in 1884 for the Barolong.

Apart from smaller splinter areas, towards the end of the nineteenth century the following main areas were occupied by the various Bantu national groups; Vendaland in the far northern Transvaal by the Venda; portions of the Letaba area by the Tsonga; Sekhukhuneland in the northern and the north-eastern Transvaal by the North Sotho; Bechuanaland, including portions of the north-western Cape and the western Transvaal, by the Tswana; Basutoland, including Witzieshoek, and portions of the northern Transkei, by the South Sotho; Swaziland, including portions of Barberton, Piet Retief and northern Zululand, by the Swazis; Zululand and certain other areas of Natal, by the Zulu; and the Transkei, together with portions of the Ciskei, was inhabited by the Xhosa.

We therefore see that this matter was clearly defined then already. Then in 1910, with the establishment of Union, the British Government decided that the three Protectorates— Swaziland, Basutoland and Bechuanaland— should be kept out of the Union in order to preserve them as Bantu areas. They comprised one-third of the area of British South Africa and were kept outside the Union.

But the Union Government was not slow in taking action. True to its policy of justice and fairness, it proceeded in the legislation of 1913 to entrench the Bantu areas; in other words, it laid down that the Bantu areas were to be kept for the use of the Bantu themselves. But the Union Government went further. Later on it added another 7,250,000 morgen to those areas.

Let us deal with the Transkei for a moment. Since the earliest times the Transkei has been regarded as Bantu territory. We know that certain areas in the Transkei were annexed by force of arms, but those are small areas. By far the greatest portion of the Transkei was placed under British protection at the request of the tribal chiefs in that area. They asked for this so that their land would be preserved for them and their descendants.

But this principle was also recognized in our Native Trust and Land Act of 1936. It is a principle which has been honoured throughout our history. It was also provided that the land to be purchased was to be purchased for the moral and material welfare of the Native. I can say here therefore that the Transkeian territories were never intended for White occupation. In the course of time Whites settled there, but this influx was stopped to a large extent. Apart from the small number of Whites who are in the Transkei to-day, we can say therefore that in fact the Transkei was kept intact for the Bantu. This was done at the request of their chiefs; the history in that regard is perfectly clear and nobody can deny that. Since the Bantu of the Transkei asked at that time that this land should be held in trust for their descendants by us as their guardians and since they now say to us, “We have reached the stage where it is our desire that you should hand over that land to us so that we can control it ourselves ”. I want to ask hon. members whether we are doing anything wrong in complying with that request.

Will it remain part of South Africa?

I shall come to that later on. Since they have put forward that request, are we not doing the right thing in complying with it? That request has come from them after a period of almost 100 years, and now we say to them “that it is only right: we will give it to you so that you can control it yourselves ”. Are we doing anything wrong? Are we doing the wrong thing in acceding to their wishes? In my own mind I am convinced that if we refused to do so we would be committing an immoral act; we would be breaking the solemn pledge that we gave them; we would practically be making ourselves guilty of claiming ownership of that Bantu land unlawfully.

I say again that as far as this matter is concerned South Africa has a clean and a fine record. We have protected the Bantu areas to the best of our ability and we have succeeded, we have undertaken the necessary developmental work there for the Bantu as far as it has been within our power to do so. We must never allow the honour and integrity of the White man to become suspect. That is why we have no right to adopt a stupid attitude towards the Bantu and to say, “You are not ripe at all yet to manage your own affairs; you must simply carry on until we think that you are capable of doing so but nobody knows when that day will arrive.” We dare not make ourselves guilty of that. Because this is a matter of conscience, of a Christian outlook, as far as we are concerned, we are determined to give to the Bantu what is due to him in South Africa.

Now I want to put this question: Why are we being accused of fragmenting South Africa? After all, these Bantu areas were clearly demarcated by historical developments; our forefathers recognized the Bantu areas as such. Why then are we being accused of fragmenting South Africa? Surely that is an unreasonable accusation, to say the least of it.

I come to a second important principle with which I want to deal for a moment, a principle which has always been generally accepted by our nation and its recognized leaders, and that is that the Bantu should be given self-government in his own homelands. Nobody who knows our history would dispute this statement. It runs like a golden thread throughout the whole of our history. I admit that those have conflicting statements and that in many cases the policy has been given effect to sporadically, but on the principle itself there has been no difference. In this connection I just want to emphasize a few historical facts—

Here I just want to refer to the very fine relationship that existed between the old South African Republic and Swaziland. When Swaziland stood with the old South African Republic, full self-government was granted to Swaziland, and a Commissioner-General was even sent to Swaziland. But I want to mention a second historical development—

And I wish the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) would study that policy a little more closely, then he will not make such irresponsible statements. The policy of Sir Theophilus Shepstone was designed to promote the development of self-government in those Bantu areas, but there was also a very fine example in the Cape Colony—

Under that Act self-government was given to the locations and districts and that was later extended to the Transkei and eventually it led to the establishment of the United Transkeian Territories General Council in 1930.

Since Unification we have also had a series of Acts which recognize this principle and of which perhaps the most important are the Bantu Authorities Act of 1951 and the Bantu Self-government Act of 1959.

It will be seen therefore that this principle of giving the Bantu self-government in his homelands runs like a golden thread through the whole of our history. Indeed it is as much an accepted part of our traditional Bantu policy as the recognition of separate homelands for the Bantu.

I stated yesterday that all Governments of the Union since 1910 had honoured this principle and that this promise had been made to the Bantu in South Africa. Hon members on the other side greeted that statement of mine with jeers and laughter. I want to deal now with just a few of the outstanding facts, and I come to General Botha in the first place. During the second-reading debate on the Native Land Act of 1913, the then Prime Minister, General Louis Botha, made the following significant statement—

Now hon. members can sneer again if they want to. but this is a principle in which the late General Louis Botha believed throughout his life.

Read on.

Anybody who has read the history of his life will admit that that was always his attitude. Hon. members over there who are laughing now cannot prove the contrary.

But General Smuts too believed in this principle for the greatest part of his life. His views are best summarized in his Savoy Hotel speech on 22 May 1917, in London, when he said the following—

Then he goes on to say—

A clearer statement than that one cannot get. I admit that after World War II, General Smuts also held other views in this regard. So, for example, he came forward with a plan just before the 1948 election under which he wanted to give greater rights to the Natives’ Representative Council. He even wanted to give them legislative powers. At that time he wanted to bundle them all together in one group. But what was the outcome of this changed view of General Smuts? In 1948 his party, the strongest party that we had had in this country up to that time, was defeated and the National Party was placed in power as the result of this change in General Smuts’ attitude. But again I say without fear of contradiction that for the greatest part of his life General Smuts also held this view. I would advise hon. members to read the biography of General Smuts which has just been published. I wonder how many members on the other side have read it?

Then I come to General Hertzog, probably one of the keenest students of Native affairs that South Africa has ever had. On 3 December 1925 he made a speech in Pretoria in which he set out his whole philosophy, which ran like a golden thread through the whole of his life until the day he died. This is what he said—

Clearer language than that one cannot get, and that is the language of South Africa.

In 1948 the policy of the National Party, under the chief leadership of Dr. Malan, was stated perfectly clearly in the manifesto of the National Party, and I want to quote a very brief extract from it—

Very clear language. On 25 August 1950 Adv. Strijdom addressed the Congress of the Natal National Party at Vryheid, and I can vouch for the fact that the proposition which he laid down there is the principle for which he always; stood. This is what he said—

This is the attitude that he adopted throughout his entire life.

I do not want to read out quotations from speeches made by the present Prime Minister. He stated his attitude and policy so clearly that it is not necessary to quote him, but one thing is certain, and that is that all that he has done so far has been to concentrate on the logical extension of that policy, without deviating either to the left or to the right.

You will see, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that the great principle of this Bill is deeply and firmly anchored in the history and the experience of our White population in South Africa, both English speaking and Afrikaans speaking.

Since coming into power, the National Party Government has faithfully and systematically implemented its policy. It has often been attacked from within and from outside, but the National Party has not allowed itself to be deviated from its course. It has steadfastly followed and carried out that old traditional policy for which South Africa has stood over the past 300 years. I do not have time to deal with this at length. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, we have not come forward with a different policy every six months; we have not even had a “sixpenny” policy. The National Party issued its manifesto in this regard years ago, and it is still systematically carrying out those principles to-day.

The principle of baasskap?

One of the deplorable things that hon. gentlemen on the other side did—I would say one of the crimes that they committed against South Africa—is that in season and out of season they distorted the words of the late Adv. Strijdom by constantly beating on the drum of “baasskap ”. Why? Simply to sow hatred in the hearts of the Bantu. They derived no benefit from it for their own party, because every Nationalist is sufficiently au fait with the facts not to believe them, but the result was that many of the Bantu believed that story. One of these days I shall have to tell the Bantu that that story of the United Party about “baasskap” is not correct. [Laughter.]

But there is another extremely important point that I want to emphasize, and that is that to a large extent to-day the Bantu in South Africa is accepting the policy of separate development, because the Bantu still has his national pride; he is not anxious to disappear as a national group, and he realizes that this policy also holds out hope for him for the future. As various Bantu have said to me in recent times: “Previously we knew where we came from, but we did not know where you were leading us; to-day we not only know where we come from, but we know what awaits us in the future and what we are heading for under the Government’s policy, and for that we are grateful to you.” They say that they realize to-day that under our policy they have a future. Those elementary aspirations which stir in the depths of the soul of every national group in the world, be it White or non-White, must be satisfied and met, and that is what we are doing in this Bill. The Bantu realizes to-day that in every sphere of life this measure opens up possibilities for him. It is no wonder that certain hon. members have already accused us of doing too much for the Bantu and that they beat this little drum whenever the opportunity presents itself.

But I want to deal with another matter and that is that this Bill that we are discussing to-day gives effect to the desire expressed by the Bantu himself. The hon. member for South Coast comes along and in season and out of season in this House and outside states that the Bantu have not asked for this, that the Bantu do not want it, that they are too stupid, that they are too underdeveloped, etc, and that it is the National Party that has forced this upon them. I want to say to the hon. member that a responsible leader, and particularly a person who knows the Bantu as he knows them, ought not to say such irresponsible things. I do not think it is fair. He is an individual who knows the Bantu and he ought to reveal greater honesty in connection with this matter, He knows what the reaction is to such irresponsible statements. Statements of this kind injure their national pride. Mr. Speaker, the Bantu asked for this measure. That request was put forward when the Territorial Authority of the Transkei met in May 1961. I can say with a clear conscience that not one of our officials had anything to do with it, nor did I or anybody else. A motion was put forward spontaneously in the Assembly of the Territorial Authority that the time had come when a measure of self-government should be given to the Transkei. They felt that they had had a measure of self-government for years and they wanted to move a step or two forward. I readily admit that this may have been inspired by certain people but it was not inspired by my Department. This request came from the Bantu, and in putting forward the request they showed a great measure of responsibility. They said: “We must see first what the implications of self-government or of a greater degree of self-government are going to be before we take a final decision,” and they then appointed a Recess Committee consisting of responsible Bantu to go into the implications of such a step and to report at the next meeting of the Territorial Authority. A Recess Committee was appointed consisting of 14 Chiefs and 13 ordinary members of the Council. After they had given their attention to this matter for a few months they asked for permission to see me, and I saw fit to ask the hon. the Prime Minister to be present and to help to guide them. The executive committee of the Territorial Authority then came to Pretoria to discuss certain problems with the Prime Minister and me. We thought that these meetings would last perhaps two or three days but they did not even last a full day. The hon. the Prime Minister made a few recommendations there, with which I shall deal in a moment, and they then returned to the Transkei. It was in December that they met us in Pretoria. They then returned to the Transkei and on 31 January 1961 they met in the Transkei and discussed the matter further, and they then asked that certain officials should be present at that meeting. My instruction to those officials was that they had to be careful to act in such a way that they did not stand in the way of those people, and the officials were faithful and carried out my instructions, for we believe that these matters should emanate from the hearts of those people themselves. They formulated a number of principles there and they were submitted to me; I once again requested the Prime Minister to be present when they discussed the matter with us. Certain principles were submitted and certain recommendations were made to which I shall refer before long, and there the Prime Minister in particular did this important thing. They recommended in the first place that the vast majority of those Members of Parliament should be the traditional representatives, in other words, the chiefs, and only a small percentage should be elected members; but the Prime Minister then said he thought they were making a mistake and added that he would like to see a larger percentage of elected representatives. They then adjourned to reconsider the matter, and they then decided to adopt a formula which more or less amounts to what it is at present, namely 60 per cent traditional representatives and 40 per cent elected representatives.

But the Prime Minister made a further request of them. He said: Go along now and discuss these matters fully with your people and not only with your people in the Transkei but also with the people in the urban areas, and they then suggested that they had their representatives in the White areas and they could summon them to the Transkei to come and discuss matters, and that is what was done. Most of the chiefs discussed these matters with their people. About 60 recognized representatives of the Xhosa from various parts, of the country went to the Transkei and discussed these matters, and eventually this report was approved by the Recess Committee, and it was unanimously signed by all the members of the Recess Committee. If anybody were to say it was not done voluntarily, then I say it is an absolute untruth. They then once again submitted this matter to us, and asked us to draft a Bill in the light thereof. It was once again discussed at the meeting of the Territorial Authority, and there it was approved almost unanimously, so they asked that it should now be drafted in Bill form. It was handed to the legal advisers and they then drafted it in legal form; it was then returned to them and it was once again thoroughly discussed by the Territorial Authority, and that Bill was then approved virtually unanimously in that form.

I should like to add this. It was our important principle that we did not wish to draft a preconceived Bill and then force it down the throats of the Xhosas. We hold the view that every nation should formulate its own political philosophy according to its own ideas. Every nation is entitled to draft its constitution according to its convictions and its. views and its conscience, and we know they are capable of that; and that Bill is their work in the first instance. That Bill is the creation of the Bantu of the Transkei. Now I should like to say this, that I readily admit that there are a few points in it that might not be quite consistent with the pure principles of Western democracy, and I admit that that constitution bears a Bantu stamp and it has a Bantu soul, but that is consistent with our views, for we hold the view that they should build their constitution according to their own nature. That is why I should like to dwell upon some of these matters, but before doing so I should just like to say this, that the manner in which the Bantu dealt with this matter commanded my respect and esteem. They revealed a sense of responsibility that was most striking to me, and I think they deserve the greatest praise for it.

I should like now to dwell upon some of the salient features of this constitution. In the first place you will see it is a unicameral system, and you will be surprised to learn—the hon. member for South Coast will not believe me—that they themselves formulated a number of matters as to how this Parliament should be constituted. There was a proposal that it should be a bi-cameral body, and that the proletariat should be gathered in the House of Assembly and all the Chiefs in the Senate. But after a full discussion they unanimously rejected this idea, and decided to have a unicameral system, and I should like to give a few reasons for that.

The first reason is that in accordance with Bantu tradition it is proper that the Chief and his subjects should meet together to pass resolutions on national matters. The Chief-in-Council according to Bantu law is the legislator of his people, and therefore he should have a voice in the Legislative Assembly itself. The chiefs are the traditional rulers of the people. Among the Bantu they decidedly have the greatest experience of matters of government and the exercise of authority. As in the past, therefore, they had to be in the very forefront of matters of government. It was realized that the chiefs have always been the greatest pre-serving factor in the life of the Bantu. For a long time there were attempts to abolish the chieftainships, but it did not work, and they were once again reinstated and to-day we see the value of their guidance and experience. Experience elsewhere has taught us that where the chieftainships have been abolished, as in Ghana and other places, you might have had a form of Westernization, but under that one of the cruellest dictatorships developed, such as we have in Ghana at the present time. I am convinced that it is in the interests of democracy that these principles contribute towards the furtherance of democracy.

But the second important feature is the constitution of the legislative assembly. I have said that the original idea was that it should consist of the chiefs mainly, and it is here that the Prime Minister appealed to the people to see to it that there should be a larger number of elected representatives. We have to have regard to the development of democracy. Then this formula was devised, which at the same time is a guarantee that there will not be chaos among the Xhosa as long as this system exists there. It is an improvement with which many people might not be in agreement. As all the existing chiefs have separate tribal units, and the people have great faith in them, it was felt that all the chiefs should be included in this legislative assembly, and there are 64 of them altogether; and so the ratio of 64 chiefs to 45 elected members came about, which leaves the requisite opening for the development of elected representatives, should they some day resolve to do so. In this regard I need only refer to Nigeria, which achieved the greatest success in Africa in this respect because they are one of the few countries who retained the system of chieftainships. These 45 elected representatives will of course be elected by all the citizens of the Transkei in or outside the Transkei.

Then there is a third interesting point upon which they decided, and that is that the chief minister and his ministers should be elected by the members of the legislative assembly. In their view two great principles were involved The first was that it was consistent with the Bantu system of government, and in the second place because they thought that greater confidence will be created in that way, not only as regards themselves as members of the legislative assembly, but as regards the Bantu of the Transkei. It is in splendid accord with the Bantu system of government. I repeat that some of these conceptions do not fit in with Western ideas, but I want to say at once that in this system there is nothing that in any way endangers or undermines the democratic system. On the contrary, this constitution is a splendid contribution to the constitutional development of not only the Transkei, but of all the African States in general. I am convinced that this system will still be adopted by many other states. Indeed this system ensures that we shall be preparing the soil so that the democratic system may take root firmly. Not only the Prime Minister, but I also, have so frequently stated that the Bantu should develop along his own lines and from his own soil to his highest form of self-government. That is why you have seen, Mr. Speaker, that we are here also creating a separate citizenship for the Bantu of the Transkei, and that again is consistent with the views of the Bantu in their various national groups. Here we are giving them the privilege of developing that sentiment for their own fatherland. So their own citizenship is created, and that particularly relates to the taxes that will be imposed and to the franchise, etc., but at the same time, as they are a part of South Africa, they will still always be citizens of the Republic of South Africa for external purposes. I wish to say at once that as a result of this creation, nothing will be lost to them in the Republic of South Africa. They are not foreign Bantu in the sense that others are foreign Bantu. I shall just now dwell upon this matter a little more. By this Act we are really rendering South Africa a beneficial service, and I repeat it is the creation of the Bantu themselves.

Now I should like to deal with a few of the clauses, for I think I owe it to the House. I think I should give the general picture. Clauses 1 to 3 deal with the area. Clause 1 makes it clear that the Transkei will be a self-governing area within the Republic of South Africa. Now I should like to talk politics briefly. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has told the people outside that once this constitution has been passed, it will be the end of the Transkei; it will have been whittled away from the Republic, and the hon. member for Trans-keian Territories (Mr. Hughes) has scared the people in the Transkei to such an extent that they now just want to flee from the Transkei. But it continues to remain a part of the Republic of South Africa.

For how long?

I should like to predict here to-day that I have so much faith in the discretion of the Bantu of the Transkei that I believe that for many generations it will always remain a part of the Republic of South Africa. [Interjections.] It is obvious that they will have to decide about that, for even if there were to be a race federation such as the United Party desires and they decide they do not wish to remain in that federation, what will the Leader of the Opposition do? Will he shoot them to remain in the federation? Here we are dealing with human beings, and not with animals. What has happened in Nyasaland now? I repeat, they will have to decide about that, but I believe that for generations they will remain a part of the Republic of South Africa, for they realize what is good for them. In Clause 2 the area comprising the Transkei is defined. It is stated clearly that the Transkei will consist of the Bantu areas of the 26 Bantu districts referred to in this clause. Therefore the White parts of these districts, and also the so-called White spots comprising mainly the White towns in the Transkei, do not form part of the Transkei over which the Bantu will have powers of government. Furthermore, the area defined here corresponds precisely with the area over which the existing Territorial Authority now already has jurisdiction. So when henceforth we refer to the Transkei in this Bill, it should always be construed as the Transkei as defined here in Clause 2.

Clause 3 provides for consolidation in future, and provides that Bantu areas may be added to or excised from the Transkei, but in every case only after both our own Parliament as well as the Transkeian Legislative Assembly have agreed to it. So this clause gives a clear guarantee to the Whites outside the Transkei, as well as to the Bantu of the Transkei, that no boundaries will be altered arbitrarily or unilaterally or without the consent of the elected national representatives.

Then I come to the flag, the national anthem and the official languages. In Clauses 4 to 6 provision is made for their own flag and national anthem in the Transkei, and it is provided that English, Afrikaans and Xhosa will be the official languages of the Transkei. It also provides for their own national anthem. Now the hon. member for South Coast last night again passed such an ugly remark. He told people that this national anthem of theirs “N’kosi Sikelele Afrika” amounts to this: We take Africa. But I should like to say this. This national anthem is the creation of a Xhosa himself, and that is why the Xhosas feel it is their creation, for one of their sons composed it. That is why they feel they want it as their national anthem, and very rightly so. But I should just like to ask the hon. member for South Coast this: The hon. Senator Fagan years ago made a beautiful translation of “N’kosi Sikelele Afrika” and I ask him to go and read it. Then he will not talk in that vein, for it really is a prayer that amounts to this: Lord, we pray for your blessing for Africa. It is one of the beautiful national anthems; the Sotho and the Tswana also have their national anthems.

Then there is the question of citizenship. Clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill deal with this. I do not wish to dilate upon it, but firstly a separate internal citizenship for the Transkei is created. All Xhosa-speaking Bantu in the Republic, both inside and outside the Transkei, and also the Sotho-speaking Bantu of the Transkei and the Bantu related to them, as well as the other Bantu born in the Transkei or who were lawfully domiciled there for more than five years, become citizens of the Transkei. As regards Xhosas, the only exceptions are those who belong to another homeland, such as *e.g.’ those in Rustenburg and a few other small places. We wish to preserve the national units of the Bantu because it is a profound desire of the soul. No nation in the world has the right to split a national unit into two parts. A nation is a unit, and you cannot deprive them of it. That is why we preserve the principle that this national unit of every Bantu group should be retained in South Africa. That is where the United Party wanted to do the Bantu an injustice, but we cannot permit it because it is the deep-felt desire of the Bantu himself. The citizens of the Transkei will enjoy and exercise all the civic rights and privileges conferred upon them by this Bill, such as *e.g.’ the franchise in the Transkei, and they will also be subject to the duties and responsibilities of citizenship imposed upon them by this Bill in the Transkei. However, because they are citizens of a self-governing area that is part of the Republic of South Africa, they will not be regarded and dealt with as strangers in the Republic. They are therefore being placed upon a different footing from the Bantu from outside the Republic. Furthermore, because the Transkei is not sovereign or independent, and their citizenship accordingly will not be recognized internationally in accordance with international law, they will for all external purposes still be regarded as citizens of the Republic of South Africa, and so they will enjoy the full protection of international law. I just want to repeat that in sub-clause (4) the assurance is given that no existing rights, privileges, duties or responsibilities will be taken away merely in consequence of the provisions of this section. The Xhosa will not be deprived of that. So no injustice of any description will be done to them. Clause 8 of the Bill further contains only the usual provisions on loss of citizenship namely that such a citizen of the Transkei loses his citizenship when he becomes a citizen of another country or of another self-governing Bantu area.

Now I come to the Cabinet. In Clauses 9 to 22 provision is made for the vesting of the executive authority in the Transkei in a Cabinet which at its inception will consist of a chief minister and five other ministers. Attention is drawn to the following provisions of the Bill relative to the Cabinet: (1) the Cabinet will be vested with executive authority in respect of all matters assigned to it and in respect of which legal powers are conferred upon the legislative assembly; (2) at the outset (in the first Schedule) six departments are established in the Transkei but the State President may by proclamation transfer further departments to the Cabinet, and extend the Cabinet to a maximum of nine members; (3) the chief minister, as well as the other ministers are elected by the legislative assembly; (4) the period of office of the Cabinet is similar to that of the legislative assembly, that is to say normally five years, but the Cabinet or any member thereof may be removed from office by the State President at the request of the legislative assembly; (5) provision is made furthermore for the administration of an oath to the Cabinet, the functions of the chief minister and for the transfer of functions and powers to the Cabinet. That is one of the five things. The Bantu themselves of their own accord asked that when a law has been passed, it shall only become law after it has been assented to by the State President. That was one of the five requests on their part. It did not come from us, but it came spontaneously from their side, and it will help to promote co-operation between White and non-White in South Africa.

Then I come to the legislative assembly. Clauses 23 to 42 contain provisions relative to the legislative assembly. Clause 23 provides that the legislative assembly will consist of the four Paramount Chiefs of the Transkei, the 60 existing chiefs and 45 elected members. Clause 26 provides that the territorial authority areas will be the constituency for the election of the 45 members.

The next important clauses are Clauses 37,38 and 39, which deal with the transfer of legislative powers to the legislative assembly. The method adopted here in the Bill is firstly, that in Clause 37 provision is made for the transfer of legislative power in respect of all matters referred to in the First Schedule to the extent of and subject to the limitations indicated in the schedule itself. But it should always be read in conjunction with Schedule 4. Clause 38 empowers the State President, with the approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament, to amend the schedule by the addition of further matters. Clause 39 then contains the list of matters that will not be transferred to the Transkei, such as defence, external affairs, railways, harbours, national roads, post and telegraphs, immigration, etc., which are reserved to the Republic and will not be transferred to the Transkei, unless the Act is first amended. That also is one of the fine phenomena to me. Those people have said: We cannot go ahead too fast; you must help us. There has already been a unanimous request that they do not as yet wish to take over health services. They do not wish to take over this and that at this stage already, for they do not have the personnel for it and they say: First give us an opportunity to undergo the necessary development and then we can discuss these matters at a later stage. They have shown a great degree of responsibility in this connection.

Clauses 43 to 47 deal with the powers, duties and functions of chiefs and headmen and the personal status of the paramount chiefs and provision is made for the disestablishment of the Transkei Territorial Authority and the transfer of all this body’s powers and all its possessions to the Transkei Government, and it is laid down here that in due course the legislative assembly may change things as it shall deem fit.

Now we come to justice. In Clauses 48 to 50 the following provision is made with regard to courts in the Transkei, namely: (a) that the existing inferior courts, that is to say, magistrates’ and Bantu Affairs Commissioners’ Courts, may be transferred to the Transkeian Government, and that Government will also, wherever necessary, establish courts in accordance with the provisions of the Magistrates’ Courts Act and the Native Administration Act, or if it prefers to do so, it may pass legislation to establish its own courts, but with the reservation (i) that in the White spots it cannot establish or disestablish courts without the consent of the Department of Bantu Administration and (ii) that the Republican Government may, where necessary, establish and maintain its own courts in the White spots to hear cases that may arise in such White spots or to hear cases in which people who are not Transkeian citizens are involved, (iii) that the jurisdiction of courts that may be established by the Transkeian Government under its own legislation, may not be higher than that of the ordinary magistrate’s court in the Republic; and (iv) that the Attorney-General of the Eastern Cape Division of our Supreme Court retains his authority to transfer cases in accordance with Section 59 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1955, from one court to another, whether within or outside the Transkei.

In Clause 50 provision is made for the establishment of a High Court for the Transkei, with powers and functions similar to those of a provincial division of our own Supreme Court, while sub-clause (3) provides that an appeal shall lie from this High Court to our own Appellate Division.

Then I come to finance. Clause 51 of the Bill provides for the establishment of their own Transkeian Revenue Fund, into which shall be paid all revenue, and Clause 52 provides which revenues will accrue to the Transkei; briefly, it amounts to this, that the Transkei will receive (i) all the personal tax paid by Transkeian citizens, those inside the Transkei as well as those outside, and such other taxes as the Transkeian Government itself may impose. Here the fine principle is maintained, for the Xhosa to-day feels that he is depositing his taxes in the pockets of the White man, and now they feel that their money goes to their own country; (ii) also the income-tax payable by the Transkeian citizens and private Bantu companies within the Transkei go to the Transkei; (iii) all administrative revenues, fines and charges arising from matters administered by the Transkeian Government go to the Transkei; (iv) an annual amount paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and based on the present expenditure of the Republican Government in the Transkei; and (v) such additional sum of money as Parliament may annually vote. Provision is further made in this part of the Bill, inter alia, for (i) parliamentary control of all expenditure, that is to say, control by the Transkeian Legislative Assembly of all expenditure; (ii) drafting of estimates of expenditure and appropriation legislation; (iii) the manner in which moneys may be withdrawn—also by way of special warrant; and also (iv) for the auditing of the Transkeian Revenue Fund by the Controller and Auditor-General and for the application of the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1956 until such time as the Transkei has made its own provision in this connection. In this respect also the request emanated from them that we should help them to manage the control. That is the degree of responsibility they have shown in the matter. These were not Bandas who were talking here, in spite of the sneering remarks that have been made about them. It is important also to note, in regard to the financial arrangements, that in general we have adopted the principle that liability for taxation is linked with citizenship.

Clause 59 of the Bill provides for the transfer by way of proclamation of land and other public property in connection with matters in respect of which legislative powers are vested in the Transkeian Legislative Assembly, to the Transkeian Government subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.

Clause 60 which mainly relates to the White spot towns in the Transkei, and makes provision for the gradual taking-over thereof by the Bantu, is of particular interest to Whites in the Transkei. The clause makes provision for the zoning of these towns from time to time and for the proclamation of areas in these towns in which the Bantu may settle. It makes provision for the orderly take-over of these towns so that it may be done systematically, but in this regard there will always be the closest co-operation with the Whites of the Transkei.

As regards the transfer of the administration and staff matters. Clauses 61 to 64 in broad outline make the following provision: (i) Bantu officials presently employed in the Transkei will go over to the Transkeian Government; (ii) such officials may however retain the pension benefits they are now enjoying in our Public Service and the Second Schedule to the Bill makes full provision for this; (iii) because the Transkei at the present moment does not have a sufficient number of trained Bantu to occupy all the posts in the Departments that are transferred to it, White officials will be placed at the disposal of the Transkei to render these services, (iv) However, these White officials remain in the employment of the Republican Government and are also remunerated by the Republic; (v) these White officials will gradually be replaced by Bantu. The last very important part of the Bill on which I should like to say a few words is the First Schedule in which all the matters have been included in respect of which the Transkei in terms of the provisions of the Bill are vested with legislative as well as administrative powers. Hon. members will note that even at this very initial stage already a large number of matters have been handed over to the Transkei. more matters even than those in respect of which at the present time Provincial Councils are exercising control in respect of the provinces. So, e.g., there is handed over to the Transkei, inter alia, (i) Bantu education as a whole; (ii) agricultural, forestry and veterinary services; (iii) all roads and works except national roads; (iv) labour and all welfare services; (v) control over all inferior courts as well as certain police services; (vi) control over all subordinate governing bodies; (vii) lands, land control, deeds and survey services: (viii) matters such as estates, succession, births, deaths and marriages.

To summarize, it may be said that virtually all the work that at the present time is done in the offices of the Bantu Affairs Commissioners in the Transkei—and even more—is transferred to the Transkei.

In regard to the schedule I should also like to draw attention to this, that in every paragraph, against every item, the area within which the powers may be exercised is mentioned. I do not wish to keep the House much longer, and I think hon. members should rather look at this schedule themselves. I have now merely given a brief review of the provisions of the Bill. I could have dwelt upon it much longer, but I am afraid hon. members might object if I were to dwell upon it too long. However, it is my duty, for to-morrow or the day after I shall be reproached for not having given the full details.

I should like to conclude now be expressing one thought, which is my own thought. I should like to conclude by stating the following few brief propositions in which my philosophy of life—and I think also the philosophy of life of the majority of the Whites in this country, in respect of the racial issue is implied: (1) Since the White race settled here at the southern tip of Africa more than 300 years ago and made their homes here in areas that at the time were as yet wild and uninhabited, they established the Western civilization here, and introduced the Christian doctrines into the country; they tamed the country itself with their sweat and their blood; here they preserved their identity as a White race and built up their own nation; and they converted the country in respect of agriculture, industry, mining and economics—in every sphere of life indeed—for the benefit of White and non-White—into a something glorious of which we can justly be proud on the Continent of Africa. (2) As our ancestors were, so we also to-day are firmly determined to safeguard the continued existence of the White man in South Africa. That is why it is a matter of the very greatest earnest to us in South Africa to pursue a policy that will also safeguard the right to exist and the vital security of the White man in South Africa, side by side with that of all other racial groups in the country, and which will ensure the greatest degree of harmony, peace and development for all national groups in the country. (3) We, the established White people in South Africa, both Afrikaans-and English-speaking people, during 300 years of co-existence with the Bantu in this country, have built up a knowledge, an approach, an attitude to life and a practical policy in respect of the racial question in a multi-racial country that is not shared by any other White nation in the world. (4) This philosophy of life of the White man is reflected faithfully in our policy of separate development, and this Bill we are dealing with now, caps all our apartheid legislation, and points the way to the manner in which Bantu national groups may achieve self-rule in their own homelands, yet may still share in the benefits and responsibilities of a common fatherland. We are convinced that along these lines we are not only securing the future of the White man in White South Africa, but are also creating an opportunity for every Bantu national group to achieve its loftiest ideals in its own homeland. We sincerely trust that these homelands will acquire a sionistic significance for the citizens of those homelands, as true national homes that will offer them numerous opportunities of development politically, administratively, materially and culturally. (6) We believe that the greatest degree of racial peace can be achieved in a multi-racial country only along this course of separate development according to which every national group can develop in accordance with its own nature and capacity, and where the one national group grants to another that which it claims for itself. In this way alone peaceful co-existence and good neighbourliness can be ensured and we believe that South Africa, which is being vilified to-day—precisely because of this policy—has a message for the world, and that in the future South Africa shall still be lauded as the creator of a policy that may profitably be applied elsewhere also in the interest of greater harmony and world peace (7) We in South Africa are children of faith and it is with the greatest faith and confidence in the future of my fatherland that I am proposing the second reading of this Bill.

I think we have all been very interested indeed to hear all the explanations in respect of this Bill from the hon. the Minister. I think we have been particularly interested because although this is one of the most important Bills with which this Legislature has ever been faced, it has only been available to us since this morning. I am well aware that there is another Bill under the same name on the Order Paper. There are in fact two Transkei Constitution Bills on the Order Paper. I presume we shall never reach the second one. But, Sir, there are certain very interesting changes in the second Bill when compared with the first, and I think it is more of a pity that the arrangements by the hon. the Minister should have been such that the new Bill has been available to us for such a short time.

The changes in the Bill from the original Bill are very interesting, firstly because it seems that there has been a change of policy, a complete somersault on the part of the Government compared with the first Bill the intention of which was that Xhosa should be the sole official language in the Transkei regardless of the rights of the two official languages of the Republic. Then there are other changes concerning the manner in which Bills will be enrolled and signed and matters of that kind, which make it quite clear that there has been a change in the policy of the Government, forced on them, I believe, by the attitude of this side of the House in the debate on the Constitutional Amendment Bill. The hon. the Minister has made certain statements in the course of his speech which we anticipated, but he made one which I did not anticipate. He told us that if ever there was talk from this side of the House again that baasskap was the policy of that side of the House, then he would be forced to tell the Bantu people of South Africa that that was not true. Sir, I wish he would direct that admonition to his own Deputy Minister. Not so long ago that Deputy Minister got up and said that baasskap had not been abandoned by the Nationalist Party; baasskap was now going to be stronger than ever because it was going to be the baasskap of the White in a White area. He omitted to add that in the White area there would be more Blacks than Whites. I feel that that administration is due far more to hon. members on that side of the House than to members on this side.

The other points made by the hon. the Minister, I think, were without exception anticipated by us. and I do not think the hon. gentleman will take it amiss if I deal with them in the course of the remarks I have to make instead of dealing with them separately, but I must say to the hon. gentleman that the whole trend, the whole tenure of his speech this afternoon justified to the hilt the warnings which this side of the House has given the nation from time to time since the first statements made by the hon. the Prime Minister in 1959 as to the direction in which he hoped to lead the nation in respect of his non-European policy. Because, Sir, the provisions of this Bill, which the hon. the Minister has been at pains to explain to us, make it clear, even if the unequivocal statements of the hon. the Prime Minister did not make it clear to us, that this Bill is part of a pattern of legislation which is designed ultimately to lead to the fragmentation of South Africa. The fact that this Bill contains provisions, one of which the Minister said was purely a political provision, namely that the Transkei still remains a part of the Republic of South Africa; the fact that there are provisions in the Bill that they will not be allowed to have their own army and to make treaties with foreign countries, will not serve as a cloak to hide the fact that this is another step on the road to ultimate sovereign independence of the Transkei and every other Black area in this country. If there has been any doubt on the subject up to now, that doubt would have been cleared away by the provisions of this Bill which provide for a separate citizenship for members of the Transkei, separate citizenship as set out in Chapter III to which I shall return later. Sir, I think in embarking upon this Bill the Government has made it perfectly clear that it is now finally setting us on a course on which co-operation between this side of the House and that side of the House on the limited objectives in Native policy becomes impossible. Indeed by introducing this Bill, this Government is really giving notice to this side of the House and to the nation that they do not want co-operation. What they want is capitulation, complete capitulation.

Like Frankie.

I want to say that as far as we are concerned we are not prepared to capitulate; we cannot accept this policy which the Government is putting forward. It is regrettable, Sir, that things should have come to such a pass on a matter as vitally important as Native policy in South Africa. We wished it otherwise, as the record shows. In 1958 I, on behalf of this side of the House, after the general election, offered the Government of the day co-operation in the development of the reserves. It was turned down by the Prime Minister of the day, the late Mr. Strijdom; it was turned down most violently by the present Prime Minister, then Minister of Native Affairs, who said that as far as he was concerned there was no prospect of co-operation when the objectives which we had differed from, the objectives which they had even though at that stage we wished to see the same thing, the development of the reserves.

But what were your terms?

In 1959 we offered a Joint Select Committee to consider the whole question of Natives’ representation in Parliament; that was turned down. Only last year when the Prime Minister agreed that White capital, White skill, White initiative, under very severe limitations, could be used for the development of the Native areas, I said that I believed that this side of the House and that side had come closer on that issue than at any other time since I had been in Parliament, and I wondered whether it was possible for us to work together at that stage. I think it was made perfectly plain by hon. members on that side of the House that because their ultimate objectives differed from ours there was no prospect of co-operation in this sphere.

Incompatibility.

The hon. the Chief Whip has stated it, Sir. He often rushes in even where the Prime Minister feared to tread. The Prime Minister puts these things in a more statesmanlike manner—much more carefully. The Prime Minister has taken his choice; he has chosen against a united South Africa on this issue; he has chosen the policy of fragmentation, which the Chief Whip says is incompatible with the policy of this side of the House.

That is so.

I think perhaps the hon. the Chief Whip, perhaps like the French President has put the matter a little brutally and revealed his inner thoughts in a way in which we did not believe he would do at this time. Sir, is not the recognition of a separate national anthem for the Transkei designed to undermine loyalty to the Republic and to develop instead a loyalty to the Transkei? There is no suggestion that this anthem shall be sung at the same time as the anthem of the Republic. You will remember the time, Sir, when there were two anthems in South Africa. Did not the people on that side of the House say that it led to divided loyalty? Did they not say that those who stood for two anthems were not true South Africans? Now there is to be one anthem in the Transkei, not the Republican anthem but the Transkei anthem—a separatist move, a move designed to develop a separate loyalty to and a separate nationality in the Transkei.

What is wrong with that?

What is the object of a provision for a separate Transkei flag even if it is to be flown side by side with the national flag of the Republic, save to engender a separate loyalty to the Transkei, different from that to the Republic? Sir, I remember the squeals from that side of the House when the Union Jack in South Africa was flown alongside our national flag as witness to our gratitude to Britain for making South Africa free, as Dr. Malan said. Sir. how they protested, how they objected! Oh no, they only wanted one loyalty to South Africa. What is the loyalty going to be now? One loyalty to the Transkei, one loyalty to South Africa. The hon. gentleman by these measures is doing everything in his power to develop a separate nationality, a separate loyalty to a new Transkeian state in conflict with loyalty to the Republic of South Africa. Then, Sir, there is an oath that the hon. the Minister said nothing about, an oath which is going to be taken by the Transkeian Legislature, an oath which differs from the oath taken by members of this hon. House or by members of the Provincial Council in the Republic. It is a completely different oath. What is its object? It is a separatist object. The hon. the Minister in this Bill is laying the foundation for the separation and the sovereign independence of the Transkei, and he knows it. These little provisions in the Bill, providing that it is part of South Africa, I would describe, if I am allowed to use the word, as so much eye-wash; it means nothing. This is the foundation which is being laid by that side of the House for the sovereign independence of Bantu states. Does this oath mean that members of the Transkei Legislative Assembly have a lesser loyalty to the Republic than we have? If not. then why the difference in the oath? What is interesting too under Section 37, as amended—I think I understand the amendment correctly even though it has not been possible to study it as fully as I should have liked to do, but may I say at once how grateful I am to the hon. the Minister for assisting me in picking up the changes in the two Bills; I appreciate that—under Section 37 the Legislature to be created in the Transkei can in matters entrusted to it make laws to amend the Acts of this Parliament, and it can make laws repugnant to the Acts of this Parliament in the matters entrusted to it. a power which is given to no Provincial Council in South Africa. It is not even given to the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa. It is a brand-new power. In those matters they can legislate repugnant to the laws of this Parliament. Sir, what is even more surprising is that this Transkeian Legislative Assembly, in making laws applicable to Xhosa-speaking people living outside the territory, in the Republic of South Africa, can make laws in conflict with laws hitherto applicable to them emanating from this Parliament. In other words, that Assembly has powers to legislate repugnant to the laws of this Parliament in the Transkei on certain matters, and it has power to legislate in respect of the Xhosa-speaking people outside the Transkei, also repugnant to and in conflict to the laws of this Parliament. Aliens from Europe or aliens from America or Asia living in the Republic of South Africa are controlled by this Parliament. This Parliament is supreme. It makes laws which govern those people’s lives, but in future citizens of the Transkei may find in many matters that they are controlled by laws made by the Legislative Assembly in the Transkei which can legislate in conflict with the laws of this Parliament. Perhaps most important of all in this development of the spirit of separatism, which is provided for in this Bill, is this idea of a separate Transkeian citizenship to be enjoyed by the Xhosa-and Sotho-speaking people, who apparently at the same time will enjoy the duties, the obligations, the responsibilities, the rights, the privileges and the benefits of existing citizenship of the Republic. In other words, they are going to have a dual citizenship. Here in embryo is the development of a separate citizenship, of a separate state, for which the hon. the Minister is laying the foundation with this Bill. The objectives of this Bill are not just as set down on paper in the Bill; the objectives of this Bill are far more far-reaching than that. The objective of this Bill is to lay the foundations for a sovereign independent Bantu state, and it is going a long way along that road already. Can there be any provision more likely to undermine allegiance to the Republic than making people citizens of a separate Bantu state? Sir, were there any people who supported you more strongly than members on that side of the House who even when we were in the Commonwealth would not accept the idea of Commonwealth citizenship? Sir, all the arguments that they used can now be turned against them, because in what they are doing they are laying the foundations for what they hope to build in the future.

Sir, one does not need to reply any more on the past statements on the hon. the Prime Minister. One does not even need to rely on the statements of the hon. the Minister that this legislation was part of a pattern of legislation; it is so evident from the provisions of the Bill. We are now quite clearly embarking on a dangerous road, a road which must lead to the dismemberment of South Africa and, we believe, the destruction of Western civilization as we know it here. I think that the provisions which I have outlined are indicative of the course the Government is following. It must be evident to every thinking man and woman who has studied the development of the emergent African states that it is only going to be a matter of time before the citizens of the Transkei will want to see these symbols of independence which we have granted them made into significant reality. We have had experience in this House of how important members on that side have regarded these symbols of nationhood from time to time and perhaps it is because they realize how important those symbols are that they are creating them in the hope of hastening this process. What is so interesting is that the whole trend envisaged by this legislation is the breaking off of contacts and the machinery for consultation between European and non-European.

Like in Rhodesia.

No, Sir, not like Rhodesia; completely different from Rhodesia. I wish the hon. Minister would go and study the position in Rhodesia; then he will not make these stupid remarks. Everywhere there is the breaking off of the machinery for consultation. One would have thought that in the face of the threat of Pan Africanism— and a very real threat it is becoming—on the Continent of Africa any sensible Government would have followed a policy designed to establish common loyalty to the Republic; a policy designed to establish a common patriotism and a common ideology opposed to the appeal of Pan Africanism. [Interjections.] The objective of Pan Africanism is one man one vote and I have suggested that what the Government should put up is a policy opposed to that. I do not know whether the Minister does not listen or whether he just says one man one vote because he has nothing else to say. It is tragic, Sir, that we should have this sort of approach to a matter as important as this. Here we have this threat and what is the Government putting against it? One would have thought that a sane Government would cherish every possible point of fruitful contact between the races in order to establish a strong ideology, a strong loyalty, which would be opposed to Pan Africanism. Instead of which they are playing into the hands of the Pan Africanists; instead of which they are setting on a course which is possibly of the greatest possible assistance to Pan Africanism within the bounds of the Republic.

Why do Pan Africanists vote for the Transkei leaders?

One would have thought that this Government would have profited by the experience elsewhere in Africa, that they would have learned that one of the vitally important things to set against Pan Africanism is a higher standard of living in the territories which they are controlling and administering. One would have thought that they would have been prepared to make use of the opportunity to make use of European skill, European enterprise and European capital in the development of the Native Territories in order to raise the standard of living and in order to get those people to look at things from a different point of view. Even the United States of America are seeking economic co-operation in Africa in an attempt to destroy the influence of Communism upon the African states. At this very stage what is this Government doing? This Government is abdicating its responsibility in those areas and trying to hand them over to the Native people. I have said before, Sir, they have helped to combat disease, they have helped to maintain law and order, but when they are faced with the third problem, which is the greatest problem of Africa, that of combating poverty, what do they do? They abdicate; they hand over to the non-European. I wonder whether members of this Government realize that Pan Africanism is the most dangerous force with which we are faced at the present time? Do they realize that it is being exploited by Communism throughout Africa? Do they know, Sir, whether they like it or not, that we are part of Africa? From the Zambesi to the Mediterranean we have seen European colonial rule disappear and the few remaining bastions are beginning to crumble alarmingly. I think the Africa of to-day would be unrecognizable to a Rip van Winkle who went to sleep only 20 years ago. On this changing face of the African continent you have the Russian and the Chinese communists vying with each other to exercise influence upon the Bantu people of the continent. I would have thought that against that background it would have been statesmanship to maintain healthy contacts …

On a point of order, the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) is giving a running commentary all the time. We cannot hear what the hon. Leader of the Opposition is saying.

On a point of order, this hon. member is telling us to shut up. We are getting tired of that.

Order!

Why should we make the mistake that has been made by the colonial powers in the other parts of Africa? Surely we should benefit by their experience. Surely we should retain our position and try to help to combat the poverty and the penury which is making these states so easily accessible to the communist agitator and the infiltration of communist ideology. What do we find, Sir? What is the hon. Minister doing in this Bill? He is opening the door to the Trojan Horse of Pan Africanism in the Transkei. He knows it very well. I know that the hon. the Prime Minister believes that he and his Government will be able to control the speed of development and the direction of development in those areas. But surely he must have realized from the experience in Africa that once you start abdicating power you lose control of the timetable. That has been the experience of every state in Africa, of every colonial power. Once they promise independence, they lose control of the timetable. How many of the states, once they got independence, have continued in the direction in which the original metropolitan power felt was desirable for them. How many of them have maintained the democratic institutions which were left behind by the metropolitan power? The Minister talks about one man one vote, usually it is one man one vote for one election and thereafter it is a dictatorship. Nobody knows it better than hon. members opposite.

You are right.

They know it, Mr. Speaker. They are creating conditions in the Transkei where exactly that can happen. It will be no good their being wise after the event. They may be faced with just that difficulty in the Transkei—one man one vote for one election and what then? [Interjections.]

I want to appeal to the Minister of Information to give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a chance.

When one examines the proposals which are before the House, there are no grounds for hope that the development in the Transkei will be any different from what it has been in any other part of Africa. In fact, Sir, those developments may be more difficult because, through its ineptitude, through its refusal to face reality, the Government is creating in this very Bill not only the opportunities but the machinery for conflict between the Transkei and the Republic of South Africa. Let me give you some examples, Sir. Let us look at Clause 14. Clause 14 requires the consent of the President to any legislation which is passed by the Transkeian Legislative Assembly. The Minister has told us that the Territorial Authorities have asked for that and that the Recess Committee have been consulted. They asked for that. In giving that assent whose advice does the State President take? Does he take the advice of the Cabinet of the Republic or the advice of the Cabinet of the Transkei? Or does he act on his own? What happens, Sir, if the President refuses his assent and sends the legislation back to the Assembly and having had the further information from the President they are unimpressed by it and they pass the legislation again, and the President refuses to assent once more? What happens then, Sir? The hon. Minister says they asked for this. When the time comes when they say: “Please take this way, we do not want it any more; we want the State President to act on the advice of the Transkei Cabinet, not the Cabinet of the Republic”, will he be prepared to concede that? Because if he is not, Sir, he is creating a source of friction, a source of dispute, a source of hostility between the Transkei and the Republic of South Africa. This Bill contains no provision for resolving such a deadlock, no provision whatsoever, and apparently there is no convention that the President is expected to assent. We have agreed that the President acts on the advice of the Cabinet. What is the position now? This is a piece of legislation which has not been rounded off, it has not been thought through. Here is an opportunity for dispute and conflict which may lead to very bad relationship indeed.

Look at Clause 20. In terms of Clause 20 the Legislative Assembly may petition the State President for a dismissal of the Transkeian Cabinet. When he receives that petition he may be advised by the Republican Cabinet not to dismiss the Transkei Cabinet and he may insist that they retain their Cabinet which has lost the confidence and the support of the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei. One can well imagine the ill-feeling that will result. One can well imagine the bad relations that can be built up when you have a provision like this in the Bill. Who is going to make the decision? There is a third point. In terms of Clause 52 (1) (d) a sum of money is to be appropriated annually by the Parliament of the Republic to be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the Transkeian Revenue Fund for the due performance of the services and duties assigned to the Transkeian Government in terms of the Bill. How big is that sum going to be? Who is going to decide? Obviously the Parliament of the Republic is going to decide. The hon. Minister says, “Of course, of course ”. Now that Parliament is going to find that it cannot do what it wants to do, it has not got the money to meet the requests and demands of its people. Why? Because the Parliament of the Republic is not giving it the money. You know what will happen, Sir. For everything of which they are short, for every trouble they have, every difficulty, they will blame the Parliament of the Republic and that will create ill-feeling between that Parliament and the people of the Transkei. People in unfortunate circumstances always seek external agents to blame for their misfortunes, and they are going to do just that. Can there be a more unwise provision in a Bill? It seems to me that with a measure of this kind—I have only given you three examples, there are many more—there is very little hope of good relations remaining between the Transkei and the Republic of South Africa. We must never forget that these angry feelings, this friction, which are being created by this Bill, will accompany their development to independence. If the Government has its way it may poison our relations between an independent Transkei and the Republic in future.

There are two other provisions which have puzzled me a little. They are changes in the Bill. First of all it seems that the State President, in terms of Clause 70 (a), is going to have the power to make laws not only for the first election in the Transkei, as in the old Bill, but for all elections. Is he going to retain that indefinitely? Are all elections going to be controlled by provisions laid down by the State President on the advice of the Cabinet of the Republic? There is another provision, a change from the former Bill. Under this Bill it would seem that, whereas in the past a member standing for election had to be qualified to be registered as a voter, now he has to be registered as a voter in the division in which he stands. I am reading it correctly, am I not?

Yes.

Why? It would unseat half the Cabinet; they do not live in their constituencies. I do not know whether the hon. Minister lives in his constituency. Why a provision of that kind? I think I have said enough already to show at its best that the Government is running grave risks to cause strife and disunion amongst the races in South Africa and why is the Government taking this terrible risk? What advantages are there flowing from this policy? I think first of all we want to ask what will be the benefits to the White people in South Africa. Secondly what will be the benefit to the Bantu people and thirdly, what will be the benefit to South Africa as a whole? [Interjections.] My friends are getting interested. Let me ask straight away what are the benefits in this Bill to the Whites in the Transkei?

[Inaudible.]

He does not even know where the Transkei is.

Under this Bill the licensing and control of trade falls to be dealt with by the Transkeian Legislative Assembly. What is the position going to be of the 600-odd White traders who are already protesting and who are already feeling that there is a Kenyan policy being applied to them …

I challenge you that I know my country better than you do.

I would be grateful if you would be quiet for a moment; challenge him outside if you do not mind.

Order!

I challenge you.

Order! The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) must maintain order.

Now that the challenging is over, Sir, perhaps I can challenge the hon. the Minister as to the future of the 600-odd White traders in the Transkei. Of what benefit to them is this Bill? They are going to be placed under a Black Government now. The Kenya policy is being applied to them. What guarantees have they got? The commission appointed to investigate their position made certain very interesting statements. The commission said that they would be necessary for another 50 or 100 years but we have had no report from them. We do not know what the policy of the Minister is; the traders do not know what the policy of the Minister is.

And the Minister does not know.

Sir I would not say that, Sir. I think the Minister does but I do not think he is prepared to tell us at this stage. Because I believe that what he means to do is to get rid of those traders. I do not believe he is going to protect them. When I ask of what value is this Bill to them and to the White people in the Transkei it is quite clear that it is of no value at all. What is going to happen to the White spots in the Transkei under the provisions of this Bill? It seems to me that genuine vested interests are sorely unprotected under this Bill; there is a system of creeping paralysis in one of the clauses of this Bill that can be applied which will result in the Whites having to leave that area. They will be placed in a very difficult position. The Prime Minister has told us that he will not abandon the Whites in the Transkei. The British Government said the same about the Whites in Kenya. I wonder, Sir, where the guarantees are? We have not heard a word on that subject from the Minister this afternoon, not a word, but he knows what a furore there is in the Transkei; he knows how many petitions there have been and how many statements to the Press, how they have appealed to the rest of South Africa to come to their rescue. And what happened, Sir? Of what benefit is this policy going to be to the Whites in the Republic? Is it going to free us from the constant demand of Native leaders and the Minister of Information of one man one vote or are they going to go on just the same as in the past? Does he think for one moment that he is going to satisfy them with this Bill? Are political and racial tensions to be made any the less by the completely artificial creation of a Transkeian citizenship to millions of Black people who have long ago lost all connection of any kind with that Territory, Bantu who have broken off their tribal association? Are they going to be satisfied with this? Are our industrialists, our entrepreneurs going to thank the Government for transforming a large portion, by far the major portion of their labour force into citizens of a foreign country? Are our consciences as White South Africans going to be made any easier by the pretence that the Bantu amongst us who are made Transkei citizens will have significant political rights in the so-called homeland that they have never visited and probably never will visit? Is our position as White people in South Africa going to be made any easier before the forum of world opinion by this legislation? We know the outside world regards it not as a relaxation but as an intensification of the apartheid policy which is absolute anathema to them. I do not believe it will Sir. It is not merely I who says so, but it is the very Natives themselves whom the hon. the Minister seeks to impress. I wonder whether the hon. Minister has thought of the possibility that this Bill will give Transkei citizens a locus standi to go to UNO and present petitions against the Republic Government? Does he know that the Leader of the Opposition in Basutoland went to UNO and sought to give evidence before the Committee? Does the Minister realize what he is doing by taking a step of this kind? Does he realize the danger of this area to which the Minister is now giving a measure of self-government being accepted as a non-self-governing area, in terms of the Charter of the United Nations, and then demanding to supervise its administration?

There is being created for the Natives in the Transkei a hybrid Parliament in which chiefs and elected members will sit together. The hon. Minister has told us that they asked for it. He has given his reason for accepting a provision of that kind. Surely the hon. gentleman has looked to examples in other parts of the world. Surely he realizes that in a Legislature composed in this way the seeds of conflict are going to lie very shallow in very fertile soil? Does he not remember that the same experiment was made in India where princes and commoners were put in one House? Does he not remember what happened? Even in the Mother of Parliaments you have a division between the Lords and the Commons. Does he really think that this hybrid House is going to work? Does he really think that these hereditary chiefs are going to be satisfied to be dictated to by elected members? What is happening, Sir? Under this Bill we are handing over a struggling, and for the most part a primitive agriculture, a non-existing industry, to an administration which is going to lack all the skills, the techniques, the capital, the revenue, the know-how even to begin to deal with the problem with which it will be faced. The Minister knows—I need not tell him—that this Territory is so poor that its only export is its human resources for labour. The very structure of this legislature is such that it is going to find it impossible to deal with the most vital of all issues namely the future system of land tenure in the Transkei. The Minister knows it and he knows that unless it is dealt with there is going to be disaster in that area. One of the papers which supports the Nationalist Party spoke of this legislation as being an attempt to insulate poverty. It may not be as bad as that, Sir, but it certainly cannot claim to be a measure for the immediate or for the long-term advantage of the peoples of the Transkei. Let us ask ourselves what advantage it is going to be to the Bantu in the Republic. Those who do not live in the Transkei are going to be given Transkeian citizenship and political rights in the Transkei. Of what advantage is that going to be to them? They are given a hollow citizenship, political rights which mean nothing to them, they become citizens of a foreign state, of what possible advantage is that to them? No rights, no say at all in the country where they live, where their children are born and where they and their children will probably die for many generations to come. Because the Minister knows that the number of Natives in the Republic is increasing year after year and will continue to do so. It is going to turn these people into ex patriates, into exiles, into people with no attachment to the country in which they work, no attachment to the country of which they have been made citizens, no prospect whatsoever of becoming even third class citizens of the country in which they are going to live and work and exist throughout their life time.

The hon. the Prime Minister is in the habit of asking me how long I think the Bantu will be satisfied with the limited representation in this House we suggest they should be given under our race federation policy. Let me ask the hon. the Minister and hon. members opposite how long the Bantu inside the Republic of South Africa will be satisfied with these fictitious political rights and who is going to be in the strongest position to demand something more, the Bantu deriving from the Transkei under this arrangement where they are going to be supported by independent sovereign states on our borders which can be used as bridgeheads to make things difficult for South Africa, or the Bantu under the policy which we propose? You only have to put the question to see how much safer is the policy of the United Party.

You have not got the faintest idea of what history tells us.

The hon. member is accusing me of not having the faintest idea of what history tells me. I wonder whether he remembers that there was once an “Uitlander” problem in the part of the country where he comes from. He knows what the results were. I wonder if he remembers the difficulties before the last war over German citizens in certain areas outside the German Republic. Talk about history, Mr. Speaker, that gentleman should go back to the Kindergarten. He does not know what he is talking about. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Ventersdorp must now stop talking.

It is tragic that at a time when Europe is seeking to form a Common Market, with closer political associations, when age-old differences are being forgotten in the common interests of the entire European community, we in South Africa cannot benefit from their example and that we should be moving in completely the opposite direction. Instead of moving towards a greater unity, a greater understanding, a greater “saamhorigheid” (I cannot get the English equivalent), a greater homogeneousness, we in South Africa are making the mistake that was made in Europe 50 years ago when Europe was Balkanized and the seeds of two world wars were sown. It is a tragic situation that that should be the position. It is strategic folly, because we are creating areas which can be an absolute menace to South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister tells us that under this policy Whites will govern Whites, Blacks will govern Blacks. He goes further and says that ultimately there may be a Commonwealth of Black states and the so-called White state in which the Whites will rule and in which we will all work together. What hope does he think he has of remaining a member of that commonwealth? What hope does he think he has of remaining a member of that commonwealth when pressure from all those Black states will be brought upon this White state to give rights to the citizens of those states who are living and dying in White South Africa where they outnumber the White population, but to whom we are not prepared to give any political rights of any kind? That is one source of friction.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

No, I think this gentleman has done enough talking for one day despite the fact that he was not on his feet.

Sir, the question of boundaries is settled only temporarily by this Bill. Does the hon. Minister not know what difficulties can arise over boundaries, how many wars, how much friction, how much trouble has existed in the past because of boundary disputes? Sir, I can see no benefit which this Bill will bring to the Whites in the Transkei, to the Whites in South Africa, to the Bantu outside the Transkei, and I am very doubtful indeed as to any benefits which it will bring to the people of the Transkei itself. I believe that the acceptance of a measure of this kind is reckless folly and I see nothing but dangers awaiting us as a result of the road on which we are going to go.

I think what one may well ask is: Who wanted this policy? Who asked for it? Who was it who asked for ultimate sovereign independence for the Native homelands, for the Bantustans? Did it come from the Whites? Did it come from the people in the Transkei? Where did this request come from?

It did not come at all.

The hon. member is quite right. The hon. the Prime Minister thought it up himself and he has tried to force it upon these people.

That is not at issue now.

Now, Sir, we hear from the hon. the Minister that this policy is the traditional policy of South Africa. It is the traditional policy of the Nationalist Party. In fact, Sir, the hon. the Minister, if I understood him rightly, in an earlier debate seemed to indicate that fragmentation had been the traditional policy of all South Africans under all Governments. He was telling us of the promises made by previous Prime Ministers.

Do you want to deny that?

Well, Sir, it was certainly not the policy of our first Prime Minister, General Botha. The hon. Minister read an excerpt from a speech General Botha made in 1913, when the Native Land Act as passed as a temporary measure. The hon. Minister quoted part of the late General Botha’s speech, but he left out the important part. He referred to the law as regards the ownership and occupation of land in the Union relatively by Natives and by persons other than Natives so far as that could be done without imposing undue hardships until Parliament should make another provision. General Botha made his own attitude very clear (Hansard, May 16 1913)—

Now here is the part that was left out—

May I ask the hon. member a question, please to read the next sentence?

Order! The hon. member for Vereeniging can read the next sentence just now.

What is so interesting is that General Botha uses two words “afskeiding” and “afsondering ”. He says “afscheiding zal niet goed mogelijk zijn”. “Ascheiding means secession. “Afscheiding” means what the Government wants to do now. That is their object. It was condemned by General Botha as the wrong thing. “Afzondering” is what he wanted, not “afscheiding”. “Afzondering” is separation. And, Sir, we have heard from hon. members opposite that General Hertzog was a champion of “fragmentation”, I think, however, everyone will remember with what sincerity General Hertzog believed in White guardianship, in White trusteeship. Speaking of the Native territories on 20 January 1913 he said according to the Press of that date—

General Hertzog throughout his political life believed in one common political unity. He put that point very clearly in 1936 when he said that one thing was very clearly felt and that was that we could not go on and have a large element of millions of Natives in our midst without them also having their interests represented in the legislative body of the country.

Then we had quotations from the hon. Minister about General Smuts’s views. I really was surprised at the hon. Minister, because I have had to correct him on this very issue before. I am now going to read to him from “Africa and some World Problems”, General Smuts’s Oxford Lectures in 1929—

Then he deals with the historical situation. He quotes Lord Lugard, he deals with the solution offered by various other people, and here is where he puts his own credo, here is what General Smuts believed—

We all remember General Smuts’s speech in 1941, in the City Hall in Cape Town when he told us that segregation had fallen on evil days and told us how impossible it was to carry it out. Yet. the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development gets up and tries to quote General Smuts as a supporter of this policy, and he speaks of the powers that he wished to give to the Native Representative Council. Mr. Speaker, General Smuts was prepared to give to the Native Representative Council legislative powers in the same way as we on this side of the House would be prepared to give a communal body legislative powers over the more intimate matters of that particular race. In other words, his thinking was directly in line with the thinking of the party to-day in respect of the race federation policy. But he was completely opposed to this policy of breaking up South Africa, of dismembering our country. He believed we should all remain subject to one sovereign Parliament.

I go further and I want to quote Mr. Strijdom in 1955, according to the Trans-valer—

The late Dr. Malan believed, as expressed in the letter he wrote to that Canadian minister that there should be perhaps a federal relationship between the areas that were to be developed and the so-called White portion of South Africa.

There are speeches of this hon. Minister himself in which he spoke of the dangers of independent Bantu states, in which he said that only a few Black agitators really wanted that sort of thing, and in which he said that that sort of development was more dangerous even than the policy of integration.

I think this claim that fragmentation is the traditional policy of the Nationalist Party, or for that matter the traditional policy of South Africa, cannot be sustained. And what was so interesting was that when this matter was raised once before in this House, there was a most interesting leading article in the Burger shortly afterwards. Now you may not know it, Mr. Speaker, but the Burger does support this Government, and the Burger said—

Therefore I say that this Bill is part of a pattern, is the continuation of a policy which is foreign to the thinking of the people of South Africa and foreign to the traditional policy of the Nationalist Party itself. It is something for which the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Prime Minister alone must accept responsibility. They must not try and blame their party for it, or their predecessors; they thought it up, they are the people responsible for this new policy, this new trend which is completely divorced from all the old traditions in South Africa.

I know that it will be said that the Native people have asked for this policy, that this Bill is before the House because the Native people of the Transkei themselves have for some time demanded such concessions to satisfy their national aspirations. I believe that I am correct if I say that not one single Native in the Transkei has ever demanded complete independence. I do not believe that it was ever asked for by them. I believe the idea was sedulously planted in their minds by this hon. Minister and by the hon. the Prime Minister. Even when these ideas were before the Transkeian Territorial Authority in the form of this Bill, I do not believe it was the result of ordinary Bantu thinking. I do not believe the Minister went to those people and said to them: “You can have independence. now design a measure which, if passed by Parliament, would give you that independence and enable you to govern yourselves”. I believe, Sir, that these people were in a large measure given a ready-made constitution by the hon. Minister and his Department, and I believe that this whole scheme of independent Native states had its origin in the mind of the hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of Native Affairs. I think proof of that fact is the bewilderment and confusion which still exist in the Nationalist Party about this very policy. Why is it that there are so many old members of the party that are protesting against this policy? Why is it that for so long a large number of the members of the Cabinet would not admit that this was the policy, even when the Minister of Foreign Affairs was pleading for it at the United Nations Organization? Why was it that I had to challenge the hon. the Prime Minister himself to repudiate those Ministers and come out in support of Mr. Eric Louw, the Minister of Foreign Affairs? I know we are going to be told that the Transkeian Territorial Authority accepted the situation now before us. I wonder to what extent the hon. the Minister thinks that the Transkeian Territorial Authority is representative of the mass of the people in the Transkei? I wonder whether it is representative of all of the hundreds of thousands and more than the 1,000.000 Natives who derived from the Transkei and under the new Bill apparently are “related” to the Transkei but who are outside that area? I wonder to what extent the Transkeian Territorial Authority represents them? You see, Sir, the Department of the hon. the Minister issues a little booklet called “Bantu Affairs”, and in that brochure it wrote of the Territorial Authority—

That was the judgment of the Department of the hon. the Minister on the Territorial Authority and its representative nature. I know that in the Transkei a few were subsequently elected, but the hon. gentleman knows as well as I do that they are not representative of the vast mass of the Native people in the Transkei and that they are in no way representative of the Native people outside the Transkei.

If I may summarize briefly: I believe we are faced with a measure to-day which is unwanted by the Whites of the Transkei, which has not been asked for by Bantu representative of the masses of Bantu in the Transkei, which is rejected by Bantu leaders outside the Transkei, and that it is not generally understood by Bantu in the mass, either inside or outside the Transkei. I believe that if it were remotely understood by all the Whites in South Africa as regards its dangers and the inevitable consequences, it would be rejected by a big majority of the electorate.

What are the dangers? First of all this measure is a deliberate step towards the completion of a pattern of ultimate fragmentation. The hon. the Minister says that he does not believe that they will ask for independence. He believes that they will like to stay a colony of the Republic. To be fair, he did not use the word “colony”, but that is what it amounts to. He believes they will want to retain their present relationship, or something like it. That is the belief that has been held by virtually every metropolitan power in Africa. And where are they to-day? I go further: I believe that by this policy, the hon. the Minister is opening the gates to the flood of Pan-Africanism, and I believe that the end situation which is going to be created, for which the foundation is being laid by this Bill, is an ultimate peril which must be avoided at all cost. But I believe there are other perils involved in it as well, and one of them is that our labour force will become foreigners, the other is that there is going to be created out of the single economic unit of South Africa, flourishing despite 15 years of Nationalist Government, a series of economic units, certain of which will have the greatest difficulty in surviving. I believe that this policy means a total disregard for considerations of defence. And I believe that we run certain international dangers by carrying out a policy of this kind. I want to be fair. The hon. the Prime Minister on many occasions has admitted that his policy has dangers, many dangers. I believe that he underestimates these dangers. But I am quite satisfied that nobody would follow as dangerous a policy as this one if there was any alternative which was offered to South Africa. Unfortunately, hon. members on that side of the House seem to have become blinded by their own propaganda. They believe that there are only two policies in South Africa. The one policy they say is complete separation, and the other policy, they say, is complete integration, complete equality, one man one vote.

Tell us how you are going to stop that?

They believe that these alternatives involve greater dangers for South Africa. It is precisely on that issue that I want to challenge the hon. Minister. Let us look at the alternatives. I do not think we need to discuss in this House the alternative offered by the Liberal Party, even if we do not all suffer from the delusion of the hon. the Minister of Justice who equates Communism with liberalism. I think their policy is anathema to both sides of this House, completely unacceptable to us. I do not think it is even necessary to discuss the policy of the Progressive Party. I believe the fact that they only have one representative in this House is clear evidence of the judgment of the people of South Africa in respect of that policy; and for all practical purposes I believe there is only one alternative to the policy of the hon. the Prime Minister. There I agree with the hon. the Prime Minister, there is only one alternative, and that alternative is not the “one man one vote” alternative which they speak about when they try to frighten the electorate in South Africa. It is an alternative, I believe, in which the White people of South Africa indicate their willingness to share their civilization without being prepared to sacrifice it. For too long we have heard from members on the other side of the House that there are only two roads in South Africa: Complete separation on the one side, complete equality on the other. What is so interesting is that while they claim that to be on the road of complete separation and while they claim that to be the only alternative road to the one we are supporting, they stand for a policy, the result of which is going to mean more Blacks than Whites in the White area of South Africa. And they call that complete separation! Having been guilty of this colossal misrepresentation they still seek to persuade the public that the only alternative to that policy is complete equality. But they know as well as we do that that is not the policy of this party and that the policy of this party has always been the maintenance of White leadership as the guarantee of civilized standards in South Africa.

I want to suggest to-day that we try and get away from the world of make-believe, that we try and get away from the propaganda which the Government is making, the Government and its servile Press that is trying to frighten the people of South Africa with their propaganda. I want to suggest that we try and come down to realities.

Hear, hear!

I want to suggest that we should try and discuss the situation as it really is, and I am going to suggest that we try and balance the dangers inherent in government policy, dangers which the hon. the Prime Minister admits exist, against those involved in the policy of the United Party. I am going to suggest that we try and do this in a realistic manner, in a sensible manner, and let us try and decide which of the two policies in the end will create a situation in which there is the greater chance of the maintenance of South Africa as we know it to-day, the maintenance of civilized standards, the maintenance of the way of life which we over 300 years have tried to build up in South Africa. I believe that when we do that, when we try to evaluate the policies of the two parties, we see in my view the certain doom of civilized standards, the certain termination of the way of life as we know it, of the very existence of the White man, as an inevitable result of the policies of the Prime Minister. Now no one can imagine that separate Bantu states in which separate loyalties, separate nationalities have developed will ever rest content while their citizens in the so-called White portion of the Republic have no political rights whatever in the Parliament which controls their destinies. No one can imagine that, no one can imagine for a moment that those citizens, which will form the majority of our labour force, which will outnumber us—will outnumber not only the remaining portion of the labour force, but will outnumber the entire White population—will be persuaded to be loyal to us in the event of a challenge to South Africa from outside, based either on those independent states, or based perhaps in protectorates given their independence by a beneficent British Government. What hope can there be if this policy of the Government is followed of stemming the tide of Black Nationalism which has already overwhelmed the emergent states of Africa and is already putting out feelers into the Native areas that exist at the present time and to which the hon. the Minister is now proceeding to grant some measure of self-government?

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Before business was suspended I had suggested that we should balance the dangers of the policy being followed by the Government against the dangers which might exist in any policy outlined by this side of the House.

If any.

I am sorry my hon. friend says, “If any". They know that we have been consistent. [Laughter.] We have been consistent in the policy we have followed, for 15 years. They know very well, as the hon. the Minister showed this afternoon, that we have been consistent in following a policy the seeds of which were planted by General Smuts in 1947 and 1948. No one knows it better than they do. In balancing the dangers and the advantages of one policy against those of the other, and seeking the dangers in the one policy and in the other, I indicated that in our opinion the Government policy will certainly lead to the doom of civilized standards in South Africa and to the end of the Western way of life as we know it, and even to the end of the very existence of the White man in South Africa. I believe that that is so because no one can imagine for a moment that separate Bantu states and separate loyalties and separate citizenship, that the people who have those things will be prepared to rest content while their citizens in the so-called White Republic are given no rights, because I could not imagine for one moment that a Black labour force consisting of foreigners would be loyal to South Africa in times of difficulty, and because I do not believe that what the Government is offering will stem the tide of Black Nationalism and Pan-Africanism here in South Africa. I believe that the result of all this will be that the very base from which Western civilization must be defended, the so-called White portion of the Republic, in which apparently there will always be a majority of Black men, will be threatened and weakened, not because it is the base of the civilization of the West but because as the result of what this Government is doing it will be threatened and attacked because it is the base of the civilization of the White man.

Hear, hear!

Would it not be a necessary consequence of the destruction of that base, of that civilization, that the White man himself must be destroyed or chased out of South Africa because of the hostilities and the enmities that are being created? The hon. the Minister of Justice and the hon. the Prime Minister are becoming daily more conscious of the Pan-African threat in the Republic. I think they are daily realizing how great the dangers are involved in that threat, and I think hon. members opposite are realizing that nothing which the Government has done up to now has stopped that flood or turned it back.

Do you not see any danger in your policy?

I do not think you can stop that flood with this Government’s policy. [Interjection.] The hon. member opposite says we cannot stop that flood. That is completely defeatist. They cannot stop it and turn it round and restrain it or limit it or contain it with a policy of this kind. In fact, all the indications are that the solution which they are offering is tending to increase rather than to lessen the dangers and the inevitable consequences of this new force on the African Continent. I believe that you can only meet that force, as I believe you can only meet Communism, by putting in opposition to it an ideology which is more attractive and which has a stronger appeal and which can be developed into a stronger force than either Pan-Africanism or Communism. What the Government is offering can never have that appeal, because they are abdicating; they are handing over; they see no way of meeting it. I believe that appeal is a very simple one. It is one which through the centuries has proved itself stronger and superior to any other appeal. It is the simple appeal of a broad South African Nationalism as opposed to Black Nationalism or any narrow group Nationalism of the kind we see opposite, an appeal based on a common loyalty amongst all our peoples to one State, the Republic of South Africa, which will be large and generous enough to recognize the diversity of the human beings within its confines. We believe that 300 years of history, 300 years of contact between Black and White, 300 years of the enjoyment by the vast majority of the benefits of Western civilization by the non-Whites, have not created a situation in which the overwhelming majority of the non-Whites believe that their future is dependent on the Black man taking over in South Africa. In fact, the very opposition to this Bill from the ordinary man in the street, from the ordinary Black man in the Transkei, from the ordinary Bantu outside the Transkei who will be affected by this Bill, the many hundreds of thousands of Bantu related to the Bantu in the Transkei, is evidence that they still have faith and still desire the help, the guidance and the leadership and the association with the White people of the Republic of South Africa. We believe that that guidance and association can be afforded on a basis which would make it possible for Western standards to be maintained, which would make it possible for White leadership, merited and earned, to be the vehicle for the maintenance of those standards.

For how long?

We believe that for such a situation to arise it will be necessary for us to accept certain fundamentals and to move forward from one position of strength to another with the support and the approval of the majority of the electorate obtained either by way of a referendum or by way of a general election. I have said many times in this House that you cannot govern people without consulting them and I believe that one of the first and most vital steps is the creation of machinery for consultation at all levels. I have also said time and again that I believe that that consultation should be provided for in this the highest forum of the land, so that when we make laws for the non-Whites we have some idea of their feelings, something which is lacking to-day. The Government has never accepted that. They believe that they can satisfy the non-White community by making laws without consulting them. Yet the extraordinary thing is that they pay a sort of lip-service to the principles for which we stand because they still have in this House four representatives of the Cape Coloured people in the Cape Province. When I view that situation, I cannot help asking myself whether those representatives are there for merely historical reasons, merely as a stop to those who previously had greater rights, and as a temporary measure preparatory to taking other steps which will give them limited self-government over their own affairs and amongst their own people, but no say in respect of the matters which affect the entire nation. I have put that to the hon. the Prime Minister in this House before. He has told us that he has no intention of removing those representatives. I accept his word, despite some of the extraordinary things he said about the state within a state. But if the logic of his reasoning that these people must have some representation is to be accepted, surely it flows from that same logic that those members of the Bantu population who are permanently settled outside the Bantu areas, here in the big industrial White area, must also be consulted by some means of representation in this House. Either there is some logic in the representation of the Coloured people or there is not. If there is, it must apply to the Bantu who is permanently removed from his Bantu areas and who has broken off his tribal affiliations.

And the Indians?

My hon. friend talks about the Indians. I am not afraid of that. I do not know why he is afraid. He used not to be. He voted for it once. When I put it this way, I think I am putting it at its lowest. I do not think it is necessary to put it any higher, for if one retains the vision of one united South Africa it is inescapable that the Bantu, like the Coloureds, must have representation in this House. What that representation should be, what its nature should be, is something we can argue about in the future. [Interjections.] The members of the Nationalist Party are terrified that one day Black men will represent Black men in this House. Look at them, Mr. Speaker, that is the one nightmare they have. [Interjections.] They know it is not the policy of this party. The policy of this party is stated very clearly. The Bantu will be represented by Europeans.

For how long?

We stated very clearly also that we realize fully that it will be impossible to withhold indefinitely from the Bantu the right to be represented by their own people after the irresponsible promise made to them by this Minister. [Interjections.] They have been trying to outbid us and to offer more than we were prepared to offer. I want to say very clearly that if I am to weigh up on the one side the danger to Western standards, and to the White people as the vehicle of those standards, of limited representation of Bantu by Bantu in this House, after consultation with the electorate by way of a referendum or a general election, as against the dangers inherent in the policy of the Government, then I have no hesitation in saying that as far as I and this side of the House are concerned the dangers involved in the policy of the Prime Minister are far greater than any which one can envisage even in one’s wildest nightmares.

I believe also that one of the fundamentals of the policy for which we stand is that there should be a ready, a willing, a generous recognition of the dignity of every human being as a human being within the confines of the Republic of South Africa. It is because we on this side of the House have that belief that we have had to oppose so much of the ideological legislation of this Government, which has impinged upon the dignity of the non-White just because he is a non-White, and not because it was necessary to maintain Western standards in South Africa. [Interjection.] The Minister and the Prime Minister and that party over there cannot see that. They do not appreciate it. They are afraid of contact between the non-Whites and the Whites. They believe that in some strange way contact will result in friction and in the Whites becoming conditioned to sacrificing their leadership. We on this side do not see things in that light. We see things very differently. We are not as frightened as hon. members opposite. We have a great deal more confidence in our civilization and what it means and in our ability to maintain ourselves as a White people here in South Africa. We believe that the necessary contacts can only lead to better understanding, to more harmonious race relations and to a greater appreciation of the responsibilities and the contribution which the White man is called upon to make in South Africa, and, Sir, it is a very great responsibility and a very great contribution, because on us depends whether Western standards will be maintained here in the southern-most portion of Africa, or whether they will disappear entirely.

I do not propose to deal in detail to-night with the sort of arrangements which could be made to maintain White leadership, to afford proper consultation, to recognize the dignity of the individual, to share our civilization without sacrifice. I am merely indicating signposts on a road which is running in a general direction, and I am doing it for a very simple reason. Many years will pass before we need travel far along that road if we tackle the problem courageously and realistically at the present time. That is what is needed. Do not let us be carried away and stampeded by what is happening in other parts of Africa where the population ratio is so different that you cannot compare them with the position here; they provide no real parallel. Do not let us start galloping down that road because we are stampeded by fears as hon. members opposite are, by fears and stresses engendered elsewhere, when a realistic appraisal would indicate that we need only walk, and walk with circumspection. Let us realize that every signpost we plant is one that affects human relations and it must be considered and reconsidered and evaluated against the background of the stage of development which has been reached. My nationalist friends are showing their uneasiness already. They are terrified of where that road is going to lead to. They want to know what the end of the road will be.

No, we only want to know the beginning.

The trouble with them is that we are not on the road they think we are on, just as they are not on the road they think they are on. They think they are on the road to complete separation, but they are on the road where we will still have more Blacks than Whites in the White area for all time. They are wrong in both cases, both as to our road and as to their road. If I am asked, as I know I shall be, what the end of that road is, then my answer is that it is a road which I believe will end where we intend it to end, in a semi-contractual relationship between the peoples of South Africa to share the power, and at the same time to maintain Western standards as we know them, by according ultimate power to the civilized and by offering every means of consultation to all our peoples, even the most lowly amongst them, to give them some administrative responsibility and some functions in the machinery of government, especially in their own affairs. I think that the fundamental difference between the Government and ourselves is that the Government is lacking in confidence. They are so ridden with fear that they do not believe it is possible for White and non-White to co-operate for the common good in the Republic of South Africa, while we on the other hand believe that there are loyalties, there are aims and there are objectives which transcend the differences and the standards of development and the racial differences between us. Now I know I shall be asked, as I have been already by way of interjection, how long will the Bantu be satisfied with eight representatives or with anything less than one man, one vote. I think the answer to that is very simple. If the hon. the Prime Minister really thinks that he can keep the entire mass of the Bantu population living permanently in the Republic without any representation at all in the Parliament which controls our destinies, how can he deny that we can do something much smaller, something much less, and restrict the representation that we intend to give them in Parliament? Our policy at least has a safety valve. It gives a degree of representation which, I believe, will be acceptable to the responsible Bantu.

For how long?

The hon. member asks for how long. How long are the Coloured people going to be satisfied with four representatives in Parliament? If the Government is right in its reasoning that we cannot control the demands of the Bantu for more representatives, how long will it be before they give the Coloured people more representatives? I think there is logic in the argument. If they can control the number of representatives of the Coloureds, then surely we can control the number of representatives of the Bantu. If I am asked to say what I believe will be the most dangerous, then my answer is that eight representatives of the Bantu people in Parliament will be far less dangerous than eight sovereign independent Black states.

I know that I will be asked a second question. To keep the reserves means a Black South Africa, and therefore get rid of them. Rather a small White South Africa than a Black Government for the whole of South Africa. I know that story. Is it not simply self-delusion to believe that the remainder of this dismembered Republic will be White and to turn the reserves into colonies in order ultimately to let them go? Does that not mean the creation of springboards for the liberation of their citizens in the Republic? As against that, to treat them as communal units in the Republic, with a measure of representation in the Central Parliament, gives us without doubt a far better prospect of controlling the situation. It is because I believe this policy of the Government is so dangerous, because I believe it is fatal to the future of White civilization in South Africa that I want to state very categorically to-night, because I want the public to realize it and I particularly want the Bantu people to realize it, that this side of the House does not regard itself as bound by the promises of ultimate independence which have been given by this Government. It must be realized now. That is one of the reasons why we are opposed to this Bill and why we are making it absolutely clear where we stand now, because we believe that there is still some hope of keeping South Africa together as one integral whole and maintaining the loyalty and the patriotism of all our people for one Republic of South Africa.

One man, one vote.

You know. Sir, during the war I was a prisoner of war for three years and I had some very unusual experiences. [Interjections.] Yes, I know where hon. members opposite were. But towards the end of my time I was moved to a new camp and I have never forgotten being by myself, waiting for an interview with the German Commandant, and meeting a Black man from South Africa who, when he saw my uniform, rushed over wreathed in smiles. He stood to attention and saluted and said: “Sir, you do not know what a joy it is to see another South African.” I want to tell you something else, Sir. That man stole food because his White South African officers were starving, and he knew the penalty for that step could have been death. But he did it because we were both South Africans, because his White officers and he owed a common loyalty to one state. The policy being enshrined in this Bill means that that situation can never happen again. We shall be foreigners. We shall have separate loyalties and separate patriotisms. We will never be able to stand together again for one South Africa. That is one of the reasons why I am moving here to-day the following amendment—

I second.

Mr. Speaker, the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition really amounted to this that he asked a number of questions: He raised points sporadically to which I shall not reply at the moment but to which members on this side will reply later on. I just want to reply to one of his questions in passing and it is this question of his: To what benefit is this Bill to the White man in South Africa? The benefit to the White man is, in the first instance, that he is doing what is right and just towards a nation which has never had that privilege before but which can now constitute itself into a nation and which is receiving the right to govern itself, and as a result of that act of justice and reasonableness the White man is at least taking one step which justifies his continued existence; secondly, that as a result of his policy of separation the White man will be in a position to govern this fatherland of his alone, and this is the only way of doing it. I just wanted to reply to that one question. The other questions will be properly replied to, but because I am not privileged to have two hours at my disposal—the Rules do not allow that—I prefer to make my own remarks in connection with the Bill.

I think that at this stage we should consider all the policies and all the statements and all the problems which have come to the fore in South Africa from time to time and which have given rise to this Bill. In order to do so properly, I think I should use as a yardstick the opinions of those men who were most concerned and who were in the thick of the problems with which we are dealing to-day. I think that in this respect we should consult the people of South Africa, the electorate, and ascertain what they think about this question which has been brought to their notice over so many years from platform to platform. Since 1946 the will of the people has continuously been consulted as far as this matter is concerned. Nobody who knows all the points which are at issue at an election will disagree with me when I say that the colour policy has been the great question on which, the National Party has received greater support at all elections, and grown from strength to strength. The policy of separation, of segregation, of separate development, of apartheid, has not only been subscribed to by the people to an increasing extent, but is regarded as essential to-day and it should be made a reality as soon as possible, as we are doing in this Bill. The will of the people can be accepted, without fear of contradiction, as flowing from and as being the result of social, economic and political requirements and as such it is the deciding factor as far as public opinion is concerned. There cannot be any doubt about this question, therefore, namely that the people of South Africa, who has the power to put a Government into power and to whose decision our laws are subject, have without any doubt subscribed to this measure from time to time. What is of importance is that since Union till to-day, without any exception, all Prime Ministers who were all closely associated with and committed as far as questions of policy were concerned, expressed themselves, unambiguously and unequivocally on numerous occasions, in favour of the policy which is to-day embodied in this Bill.

Let us start, for the sake of chronological accuracy, with General Botha who made the speech in 1913 to which reference has already been made and to which I shall also refer in passing. But General Botha made one statement before that date, namely at Union, at an interview in Europe when the question of the political franchise for the non-White, more particularly the Bantu, was under discussion. These were his words—

I do not know whether you will find a more definite statement in connection with segregation than that, Sir. He then dealt more closely with the subject in his capacity as Prime Minister and he said—I do not apologize for quoting it here; I must for the sake of argument, bring it into perspective so that these quotations can assume meaning. Remember this was his recipe for solving the colour problem or the Native problem as he called it, and he said the following in 1913—

In other words you should place the Xhosa in his area, the Sotho in his area and the Tswana in his area. General Botha then continued and referred to the Commission which subsequently became the Beaumont-Commission, and he said this—

As the hon. member for South Coast is saying to-day—

Where did he say that?

Hon. members want to know the source of these quotations. I hope they will give me time to give it to them.

Read it to them in English; they cannot understand Netherlands!

I want to quote what General Hertzog said about the same problem. I am doing so in order to point out that one Prime Minister after another expressed themselves in favour of this measure. As early as 1913 General Hertzog said the following in respect of this problem—

On a later date he said the following—

That is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to do—

That is what the present Minister is doing to-day by means of his Bantu Development Corporation and with his border industries. General Hertzorg went on—

That is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not realize—

I now want to say this to the Leader of the Opposition: Here General Hertzog already says that they have awakened. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition should take that to heart: You cannot suppress Nationalism and the awakening of a nation; you cannot absorb a nation in a federation or any form of government; you must recognize a nation’s ambitions and honour. You should not try to dam it as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to do. On the contrary, it should be given proper scope so that he can use it as a means to develop his own national identity. Only then do you awaken a sense of honour in such a nation and not enmity. That was also the recipe of the late General Hertzog.

As Prime Minister General Hertzog said the following in the House of Assembly in 1925—

In another speech made on 3 December 1925 he said the following significant words to a number of Natives at Pretoria—

That was the very thing for which General Smuts pleaded in 1926 at a joint sitting. He used the identical words namely that a constitutional political platform should be established for the Native statesman. We are now doing that by means of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, as you know we also had a Joint Sitting in 1936 and I now want to request hon. members, particularly hon. members of the Opposition, to read the speech which General Smuts made at the time on the occasion of the second reading of the Bill they were then discussing. He said at the time that he was not speaking on behalf of his party but that those were his personal opinions. Having studied the problem for a life-time he said, not as a politician, not as leader of a party; he said, and there he agreed with General Hertzog—that that problem was the greatest problem all over the Continent of Africa; that the question of the franchise would in future have to be faced by the entire world, etc. He was expressing his personal opinion and he said that there were circles within his own party who belittled the Native—exactly what is happening to-day, therefore. He insisted, however, that the establishment of a Native Council was the most important suggestion because that would provide the progressive Native with a constitutional platform. General Hertzog also said that, namely that you could not indefinitely suppress the leaders of a nation, or the leaders and citizens of a nation, no matter how small it was. Nevertheless that is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to do. When General Smuts was asked at that time whether the Natives were to have legislative power he replied that that would not happen at that stage because he regarded the granting of legislative power at that stage as premature, “but”, he added, “that will come later”, And we are now taking that step. General Smuts furthermore made this important statement, namely that the Native problem was not a party problem, but that it was a national problem which should not be solved by a political party.

Ten years later, that is in 1946, Dr. Malan spoke to General Smuts about that opinion. General Smuts wanted to extend the system of communal franchise to the Indians at that time. Dr. Malan suggested that the whole question should be argued before a Select Committee on a non-political basis but General Smuts, under the pressure from his own party—he admitted it—said that it was a problem in regard to which only the nation could decide from time to time. Upon that Dr. Malan said that he challenged General Smuts before the forum of the people and in 1948 the matter was indeed placed before the nation. And General Smuts, in spite of the glory and honour which he enjoyed in the eyes of the world and even in this country, suffered a defeat from which he could never recover. He did not suffer that defeat because of his personal attitude, but because of the revolver which was held to his head in 1946. The irony of the whole situation is that the person who took the lead in 1936 and who voted against communal franchise because he maintained that it was not a quid pro quo for the right to vote on the Common Roll, was the same man who held a revolver to the head of General Smuts ten years later and said that if he pegged the Indians he would be giving them communal franchise in this House. The very thing which he voted against in 1936 he demanded in 1946. It was General Smuts’ lot that that should have happened to him. There can, however, also be no doubt about it that General Smuts said in 1936 and it could be that the time would arrive when it would be possible to separate the White Parliament from the Native legislature. In what other way can it be done than the way in which the hon. the Minister wants to do it here? You can definitely not do it under the federation policy of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. That will be physically impossible.

So I can go on and quote further. I have already quoted General Botha and General Hertzog to show what their views were. When General Smuts said in 1946 that this was a matter on which the people had to decide and when Dr. Malan challenged him to go to the people and when we did indeed go to the people in 1948 we gained a victory for the first time. Since then all the elections, not only elections for the House of Assembly but also Provincial Council elections were fought mainly on the policy of this Government in this connection, namely separate development and Government for the Bantu—which is to-day embodied in this Bill. Since we came into power in 1948 something else has happened which we must not lose sight of. The world, more particularly UNO have taken up arms against us. I do not wish to blame General Smuts in this connection, although I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in the discussions on the 1936 legislation, General Smuts continually referred to the Natives’ Representatives who would be coming here as “separate representation If you read his speeches, Sir, you will notice that he never uses the words “communal franchise”, but that he spoke throughout about “separate representation ”. I wish all those who have made a study of this problem to think about the following: That was the origin of the misunderstanding of apartheid, because you can well imagine, Sir, that if the entire world sit in judgment over us and they link apartheid with three representations for the Bantu in this Parliament, they will ask “Is that what apartheid means ”? In that case it is obvious that we will be condemned. I wonder whether that was not the cardinal reason why General Smuts, when he appeared at UNO, came up against a stone-wall of prejudice. Those were his own words. Even his former friends were bitterly opposed to him. I wonder whether that was not as a result of the use of the words “separate representation ”. I am not referring to this in the spirit of reproach, but I mention it so that every hon. member who has made a study of this problem can think about it and decide whether that did not perhaps make the first impression on the world as to what apartheid was, although according to our conception, it was not separate representation because we did not regard it as separate representation when the White man represented the non-White in this Parliament.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, as well as some of his prominent followers, made the point time and again that they were afraid we would reach a point of no return. Let me say this as far as that is concerned: A point of no return was reached in 1936 when the 7,500,000 morgen of land which still had to be acquired was set aside. It was embodied in legislation that certain areas would belong to the Bantu. It was there that we reached “a point of no return” and in spite of the fact that the United Party is to-day opposed to that legislation they would not dare to pass a resolution at a congress for the repeal of that legislation. They will not do that. Nor will any person in the political life in South Africa, who is in his right mind, dare to reverse that decision. When talk therefore about “a point of no return” that 1936 legislation marks that “point”.

We have now reached the second “point of no return” now that we are giving the Bantu parliamentary representation in his own area. We must now immediately reply to the question why the communal representation which the Bantu had in this Parliament was such a failure. Why did it not last? The late Dr. Malan said at the time already that he was afraid that agitators could enter this House. Do you know what the result was of the three representatives who were given to the Bantu in this House? The Bantu lost all interest in the Native Council in their area. As a result of the agitation which was started here in the White man’s Parliament the Bantu did not want to have anything to do with the Native Council, as it was sometimes called, their whole attention was focussed on what the three representatives were saying in this House. These representatives did not concern themselves at all about what was being said or moved in the Bunga. No, they were continually bidding higher and they were nothing else than a nuisance in this House. The result was that the Bantu representations in this House was a complete failure. In future, however, the Bantu will have a voice in his own Parliament; that will give him an interest in his own Parliament and not in the Parliament of the White man. That is the big difference. Unlike to-day, the position at that time was not that the Bantu areas were developed; there was no Bantu Development Corporation or border industries at that time. That places us in a position to say to the Bantu that not only has he a political home of his own, but that he also has a home where he can seek refuge. That is the big difference and the fact that it was not there in 1936 and thereafter is the reason why the representation which was then given to the Bantu failed. That was inevitable.

Apart from the judgment which the nation has given at various elections and apart from the fact that all the Prime Ministers of this country at one stage or other strongly supported this policy, I want to give the House further evidence in the form of the evidence which was given at the time before the Select Committee by Mr. Elliot of the Natal Agricultural Union. Listen to what he said—

I would have liked the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to hear this, but unfortunately he is not listening. In any case, Mr. Elliot continued to say this—

He then went on to say this—and he is saying this to the hon. member for South Coast—

I have now indicated to the House what the different opinions of the various Prime Ministers were and also what the will of the people was. I have just indicated what a non-political body already said at that time. Mr. Elliot is a responsible person. Let us look at the straws to-day to see in which direction the wind is blowing. I now want to quote from a journal called “Southern Africa” in which there is an article by Mr. Alan Gray. “Southern Africa” is a journal which, ever since its inception and since the inception of the National Party, has been fighting every National Party Leader on this issue. In the issue of 8 February 1963 Mr. Alan Gray said the following—and he is saying this to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition if his followers would only allow him to listen—

The English Press writes a lot of rubbish, do they not? [Laughter.]

I can understand why the hon. member for Yeoville does not want to listen to what I am reading but he will not put me off my stroke with such absurdities—even if they organize a whole box and dice of inebriates they will not succeed in doing that. In any case, Mr. Gray went on as follows—

This is of importance, Mr. Speaker—

That, Mr. Speaker, is the opinion expressed by a journal which previously always fought the Government on this point. That is why I say, and we cannot lose sight of this, that having consulted the people, once the Bantu concerned are completely satisfied, once the responsible persons in the highest political circles have also indicated that that is the direction, and when it also comes from a nonpolitical body that that is the only way in which White South Africa can be guaranteed for all time to come, I say that this measure is one whereby we can exercise our guardianship in such a way so as not to make enemies out of the Bantu, as General Hertzog also said. Before they reach the point where they want to force things on to us, against our will, we are giving it to them because we look upon them as human beings who, like us, are equally entitled to a language, to a government, to a tradition, to a flag and to a religion … not “religion”, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw that word and I say “national anthem”, In view of the deceit which was once again perpetrated here in Cape Town yesterday, something which was only done out of malice, I want to read this national anthem to the House, as translated into Afrikaans. I did not translate it; experts did—

God seen Suid-Afrika

Laat sy Regering ontwikkel Luister na ons gebede, En seen ons, Kom! Kom!

Kom Heilige Gees

En seen ons, ons sy kinders.

That is something different from what the public heard from platforms in the Peninsula yesterday! I hope that no further gross misuse will be made of the National Anthem of a nation, whose birth we are witnessing here to-day. There are few matters in regard to which I am facing the future with such confidence as this matter to which I give my support.

Mr. Speaker, I am unable to congratulate the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. I. van den Berg) on his memory because I think I can remember most of those political propaganda circulars from which he quoted so voluminously. In fact, I could probably have quoted better than he did. He had to read most of it. It is just a mass of propaganda from his own political party. There is, however, one point in his speech with which I should like to deal. The hon. member and other hon. members on the other side, are now beginning to quote what was said by the late Generals Botha and Smuts. One would almost come to the conclusion that they had become national heroes for the opposite side. The hon. member for Krugersdorp, obviously with approval, quoted from a statement which was made by the late General Botha in the early days of Union, to the effect that—

The hon. member can correct me if I quoted him incorrectly. But what about it, Mr. Speaker? There is no Union to-day! The Natives did not bust the Union! The Nationalists broke Union, Sir! The hon. the Minister may very well blush with shame to think that he is one of the destroyers of the Union. He did what no Native could have done.

The hon. the Minister and some of his political supporters have become such ardent advocates for this policy of theirs—the policy of fragmentation of the Union …

I thought you said there were no Union!

I beg the hon. member’s pardon, Sir. “The Republic ”. They have become such ardent advocates of that policy, that they are rapidly reaching the stage, as was borne out by the hon. the Minister’s speech last night, where when there is as far as they are concerned, a conflict between their concept of the Bantu and a White political opposition, then it is the White man who is wrong—the Black man, right, the White man, wrong. That is the attitude which they are adopting now.

Because I will have more time now than I had last night, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he ought to be ashamed of himself on account of the attack which he made yesterday on my hon. friend, the member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes). He should be thoroughly ashamed of himself. The hon. the Minister had ten minutes to deal with the first reading of this Bill and spent several minutes of that time in going for my hon. friend as though he was guilty of something worse than picking pockets. The hon. the Minister may laugh, Sir! I should like to take that smile off his face. He is too fond of laughing about serious matters such as these. What right did he have for attacking the hon. member by saying that he was spreading discord in the Transkei? What discord did my hon. friend spread in the Transkei, Sir? Why does the Minister not bring his evidence to show what discord was, in fact, spread? When did my hon. friend ever do or say anything which had the effect of spreading discord in the Transkei? Is the Minister blaming him on account of one or two public speeches he made? Let us see, Sir, whether the hon. the Minister will recognize the following speech, words used by my hon. friend—

Was that stirring up trouble, Sir, may I ask the Minister? That speech was not made by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories. He quoted it but it was made by the Prime Minister in this House in January, last year.

What is the point?

Hon. members opposite are accusing us of saying that this is the Kenya policy of the British Government. The Prime Minister used it himself in January last year. And when my hon. friend quotes that speech in Pondoland the hon. the Minister says he is stirring up trouble. The Minister wants to know what right has he got to go and speak to the traders in Pondoland in terms of those sentiments, when in fact he was only quoting the Prime Minister.

He is stirring up trouble in other respects too.

Order! I think the hon. member for Ventersdorp has interjected enough.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, my time is limited. As I say, the hon. the Minister made this attack on my hon. friend here. He made an attack on the one section of the White traders. He said that if they had to look to him for their salvation they would get nothing from him. He went on to say that fortunately there were others who were working with the Government and so the Government would graciously do something to help them in their troubles.

Will you march them to Cape Town?

The Minister need not try that funny stuff. I have already said that we were dealing with serious matters here. I want to come back to this question of raising trouble. Here is a Minister, Sir, —I dealt with it for a moment yesterday; I propose to deal with it longer now—who, when he was inaugurating the Ukukhanyakufile Tribal Authority, as reported in Bantu, 1963, was the man who referred to his fellow Whites as wolves and vultures. Who was he talking to, Sir? He was talking to a big gathering of Bantu when he referred to his fellow Whites as wolves and vultures.

I was referring to the communists.

Was that not stirring up trouble among the non-Whites in South Africa? When my friend quotes the speech of the Prime Minister, the Minister says he is creating trouble. Who is the man who expressed those sentiments and who has repeated them over and over again? This hon. Minister, Sir. This Minister coined that phrase and he has never stopped using it. [Interjections.] He admits it, Sir. The result was that his henchman, the Commissioner General for Zululand, Mr. Corrie Nel, at that same meeting, thought that that was a good opportunity to copy the Minister and at that same meeting of Bantu he proceeded to attack me. Whether he attacks me or not is quite beside the point. The Bantu were quite prepared to accept it from whence it came, they accepted the allegations which he made from whence they came. What I am concerned with is this Sir: The Minister and his party in their fervour, in their unlimited enthusiasm to imprint the idea of independent sovereign Bantu States in the minds of the Bantu, refers to any White man who disagrees with them a vulture and a wolf and the Bantu have to be warned against him. He says that is not creating trouble but when my hon. friend quotes a speech of the Prime Minister it is said that he is stirring up trouble amongst the Bantu. If the hon. the Minister does not go fast enough for Kaizer Matanzima he will find that he is one of the wolves and vultures, because he is not giving them fast enough what they think is their proper meat. May I say that he will be a most honourable wolf and an honourable vulture.

A wolf in a sheep’s kaross.

What happened in regard to this Bill, Sir? It was thought out by the hon. the Prime Minister in January last year. A few months before that he made it clear that the Government was not to be hurried, it would not be hurried. But suddenly on 23 January the Prime Minister came with this announcement, just a few days after we had met here in Parliament. He came with the announcement that if he could he would have introduced this Bill last year, but he was afraid it would be in 1963. He set out in great detail precisely what powers he had to give the new Government in the Transkei, the precise nature of the constitution he was proposing for them and so on. He set it out in very broad outline and he took a very long time to deliver his speech. Why does the Prime Minister suddenly change his tune like that? He did it because of pressure from overseas. We have to face it The Prime Minister was not intending to give self-government to the Transkei in 1963 but his hand has been forced. This idea that he was following a timetable that he has mapped out over a long time in advance is nonsense. That timetable has not been mapped out like that. The Prime Minister, only a few months previously, had said that these people were not ready for self-government; that they had to be trained and educated up to it. What training and education did they get over the last six months of 1961? Where is the training that they have had up till now, Sir? What education have they had? Is it conceivable, Sir, that we could have had a more unpropitious time than this particular moment for the Government to come with this Bill? The Minister is sitting here under the protection of Proclamation 400 which prevents a gathering of more than ten people at any one time in a territory to which he is proposing to give self-government. He stands up here and in the most flowery language he paints a picture of the Bantu waiting with open arms, smiles all over their faces, waiting to get this great gift of independence. They have asked for it and he is conveying it to them! And Proclamation 400 is hanging over their heads. Can you imagine anything more incongruous than for the Government to be holding the lid down on part of the Transkei?

You are talking nonsense.

The police and the army are in there at this very moment.

That is nonsense.

Well, Sir, if that is so, will the hon. the Minister tell us that he is prepared to withdraw Proclamation 400 tomorrow? I am going to test it, Sir: Will he withdraw Proclamation 400?

Consult the people of the Transkei.

The people of the Transkei did not apply Proclamation 400, this Government did, and the responsible Minister is the Minister of Bantu Administration.

They asked for it.

Will the hon. Minister withdraw the Proclamation? Will the Minister show us the evidence that the people of the Transkei asked for it.

But you believe no evidence.

Therefore you won’t give any.

I have given it over and over.

Sir, this picture of the Bantu population of the Transkei waiting with open arms to receive their independence from the Minister is just a big cock and bull story.

There you are!

You know it is not true.

There is not the slightest tittle of evidence …

You cannot say that.

Order! The hon. member for Heilbron cannot say that; he must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon. the Minister has once again come with the story which we heard to-day and which we have heard several times in this House about the Bantu asking for this Bill. There is not one tittle of evidence that the Bantu of the Transkei have asked for it.

In other words, what the Minister says is not true.

You have had your chance to make your speech.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the Minister said that he had given an explanation in this House that it was the case that they had asked for it. Must the hon. member not accept his word? Can he continue to say it is untrue?

Is there any evidence of that?

I have evidence that he is speaking the truth.

On a point of order, Sir. We have to withdraw it on this side when we say “You know it is not true ”. The Minister said very clearly this afternoon that that was what was asked for. Now the hon. member says that is not so; it is a cock and bull story. In other words, what the Minister said here is not true … [interjections.]

Order! Those are matters which did not take place in this House. The hon. member may proceed.

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister gave that explanation in this House. He said a few moments ago that he gave it in this House.

Order! It concerns matters which happened outside this House; they did not occur in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I am entitled to injury time. Sir, who put in the Clauses dealing with finance—Clauses 51 to 58 inclusive— Did the Transkei Authority put those clauses in? I want an answer. This is part of the Bill. Clauses 51 to 58 deal with the financial relations.

What is the use my answering if you call it a cock and bull story?

Sir, does the hon. the Minister seriously suggest that Clauses 59 and 60 dealing with matters relating to the land, were put in by the Bantu Territorial Authorities? He must have the minutes of their meetings; he must have some evidence that he can produce to this House to show that they had something to do with it. From the direct contact which I have had with some of the main actors in this drama I believe that they had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Has the Minister got some record, has he got their minutes, has he got anything to show that those people had anything to do with this? Or was this simply produced by the legal draughtsmen of the Government on instructions from the Minister and presumably the Secretary for Bantu Administration and Development. The same applies to the clauses dealing with Public Service matters, the same with the whole of the latter portion of this Bill which we have before us, I await any evidence whatever that the people of the Transkei originated any of that part of the Bill, or even approved of it with an understanding of what was happening. I say they never even understood it. There is no concept in respect of which they can understand what is being given to them.

Sir, I said that the Prime Minister was forced into this by the pressure of outside opinion. He rushed his fences last year. He hurried on with this Bill which he knew was inopportune; he knew the time was not ripe; he realized the disorders which were taking place, particularly in Pondoland. At the time he made his speech in January last year the disorders had already started.

Who started them?

Proclamation 400 is not there by accident. The Minister has no intention of withdrawing it, whatever anybody may say to him. He is keeping it there, because that is screwing the lid down on the pot. He has got to do that. All the troubles, particularly in the Bizana district, have already flared up, blood has been shed, all those troubles were there when the Prime Minister rushed in last year. Those troubles have not ceased yet. We had witness of that the other day. Let us just look at the background of this Bill for a moment or two in so far as the people of the Transkei are concerned. There are two groups of people to-day who are responsible for the tumult and for the bloodshed which is taking place and so forth. There are the people who from the beginning were absolutely opposed to the Government’s policy of Bantu Authorities, of the tribal Chiefs again taking over the powers which have heretofore been vested in White Native Commissioners and magistrates. That is point number one. They resented it and they resented it bitterly. They objected in the strongest possible way to the White magistrates in whom they had complete confidence, and the White Native Commissioners, having their power taken away from them and handed over to the tribal chiefs. The start of the trouble on that score was because those chiefs then began to use the new powers conferred upon them by the Government. That, in turn, led to complaints against the Government for having done what it did. The mass of the tribesmen now began to reproach the Government because it was responsible for taking away the authority from those White magistrates and commissioners and handing it to the Native chiefs. I want to repeat what I said yesterday: Nowhere in the whole of the Republic have we had a more law-abiding section of the Bantu people than the 3,500,000 who come from the Transkei, who lived there and who derived from there. Right from the time of the annexation, even in 1906 at the time of the Bambata rebellion when the whole rebellion came down to the border of Pondoland, when even the man who claimed to be the chief of the Xhosa tribe, which the Minister visited the other day, had to be banished because he was prepared to take part in the rebellion, the Pondos and the Transkei Natives stood absolutely loyal and firm. What is the position to-day of the loyal and firm Bantu of the Transkei who have stood with the White man right throughout the years? He is being told to-day by the Minister to say: “I want independence; I do not want anything to do with the Whites. I want a Black Government for Black people only here in the Transkei. The Prime Minister has told me to say that the White spots must go; even Umtata must go later on. I did not think that up; the Prime Minister told me to say that and the Minister of Bantu Administration is continually telling me to say that.” If the Bantu in the Transkei had said that in 1949 or 1950 they would have been had up for high treason. Now they say: “We want our own Government in the Transkei; we do not want anything to do with White people.” If Kaizer Matanzima had made the statement which he made the other day about demanding an all-Black Transkei and an all-Black Parliament, he does not want co-operation or any multi-racial government for the Transkei under the new constitution, in 1949 and 1950 he would have been up for high treason. Who taught him to say that? He never thought that up for himself. The Minister taught him to say that.

Now, Sir, I come back to the second wave of trouble. The second wave of trouble is because the Government has been instilling in the minds of some of the Native leaders, the more prominent Bantu, the idea that they will get political power once self-government comes about in terms of such a constitution as this. The Government is holding out this tempting bait of political power to many of those Native political leaders to-day. They are the people who will get the political power handed to them and to what has that led? It has led to another wave of unrest and further trouble because the tribesmen do not believe that those tribal leaders, those political leaders, are really and honestly supporting the wishes and the desires of the mass of the tribesmen. They believe that they are simply Government stooges. They believe that those political leaders who are now accepting what is looked upon as this great reward that the Government is offering, the reward of political power, are just Government stooges. So they are taking it out on those people whom they believe are Government stooges. The Minister will not deny that, Mr. Speaker. When he gets up to reply I hope he will tell us what the strength is of Kaizer Matanzima’s personal bodyguard to-day. Who gave Kaiser Matanzima the right to arm some of his bodyguard with revolvers, with firearms?

You said he was going to be killed.

Mr. Speaker, what wonderful prescience the Minister had some months ago to arm Kaizer Matanzima’s bodyguard because I was going to say yesterday that his life was in danger. The Deputy Minister know absolutely nothing about it. The less we hear from him the better. The Minister knows perfectly well why their lives are in danger. He knows why he has allowed them these personal bodyguards, why they are allowed to be armed.

Because of your White wolves.

Now we have it, Sir; you see what I mean? Here is the best evidence possible. That is not something I read in a book, Sir. Here is the Minister now in Parliament accusing his fellow-White men of being the wolves and of being the cause of Kaizer Matanzima’s life being in danger.

And you protect those people.

I can see another Select Committee being asked for very shortly, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.] I think the hon. the Minister, on reflection, will withdraw that I do not think the hon. the Minister should say that. He should not say that I am protecting people who are trying to take the life of Kaizer Matanzima. I think the hon. the Minister should withdraw that, Sir …

On a point of order, Sir, the hon. the Minister said: “You are inciting them ”.

He did not.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member accused me of attacking my fellow White people when I referred to the communists who incite the Bantu, and when I said that they should take action against these “vultures” he is now accusing me of inciting the Bantu against my fellow White man. Now I hurl that accusation at him and I say that what he is doing is simply to encourage that type of person. [Interjections.]

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister has said, “You are inciting them ”.

He did not.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister can have a look at my Hansard and I think on reflection he will withdraw what he said. I know what he said and he knows what he said.

That is a cock and bull story.

Order! The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) should observe the Rules of the House, otherwise I shall have to take action against him.

The hon. the Minister is now talking about Communism. There is his speech as reported in Bantu. There is not a word about Communism in it from beginning to end anywhere.

On a point of order, Sir, the hon. member knows enough about Bantu to know that I referred to the communists as vultures. It is well known …

That is not a point of order; you are wasting time.

Order!

In this tumult, the Government now comes with a proposal of this kind which is going to lead to what? It is going to lead to an increase in the trouble in the Transkei, it is going to continue, it will build up. It will only be kept subdued as long as there are White police and White troops in the Transkei to maintain order. Neither the Minister nor any member of the Government would dream of allowing the White police and the White troops to come out of the Transkei because it is in a peaceful condition where everybody is living in harmony. They will not remove Proclamation 400 but they will not withdraw White policemen and White troops. The tumult is only kept in check because the White policemen and the White troops are there. Take them out for 24 hours and you will probably have civil war breaking out in the Transkei. That is what you will probably have. [Interjections.] It is no use hon. members making remarks like that, Sir. They have never been to the Transkei, they know nothing about it. The hon. member talks about incitement, you say I am inciting …

You are inciting them now.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

And quickly.

Order! If the hon. member for Hillbrow says that again I shall ask him to leave the Chamber. He is not in this House to maintain order. I do not require his assistance. Next time he will tell the Chair to remain quiet.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Against that background, Sir, the Government is pushing on recklessly with this legislation. Is the whole scene set when once this is passed? When once this Bill is on the Statute Book it is then going to be enforced. Is everything then set fair, will all our troubles then clear up? My hon. leader this afternoon, in one of the finest speeches which I have ever heard in Parliament [Interjections]—yes, a great speech by a great Member of Parliament—referred to the fact that at a later stage there was going to be much more trouble because the Government was passing this legislation before one fundamental issue in the Transkei had been settled and that was the question of land. Fancy talking about giving self-government to an area where you have communal tenure of land, apart from the isolated White people and the White spots, the towns and villages and a small group of Bantu who have acquired certain rights to individual lots. For the rest, in the main, there is communal tenure. The ownership of land is the basis of the real wealth of every civilized country in the world. If you want to raise capital, Sir, you raise it by way of a bond over your land, over the soil. That is not the case in the Transkei. The only people where the real wealth is held in common is in communist Russia. And the Minister and his Government are providing precisely, presumably, the same economic setup for the Transkei as communist Russia has got because they have not settled the question of the private ownership of land. I think we are entitled to ask the Minister, when he replies, to tell us whether the Government of he Republic is going to settle this land question before this legislation is applied to the Transkei so that the Bantu of the Transkei will not have to battle with that thorny problem right at the commencement of their tenure of office, with their new Parliament, their new Cabinet and their new first Minister, and so on.

What about this boundary question? You see, Sir, this question of boundaries has been a source of trouble all along because when you look at the White traders in the Transkei to-day you realize exactly the perilous position in which they are placed. People who have been there for hundred years are now being put in a position that they have to sell out for what they can get. They will be lucky, if they get anything. They have to take what they can get and get out. That is the position. There is not a Cabinet Minister or Member of Parliament on that side who will buy a few trading stations in the Transkei and vests his trust in the word of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development that he will have his interests taken care of. The traders of the Transkei will be lucky if they can get out of the Transkei with what is on their backs. This is the Imperial Government’s Kenya policy to which the Prime Minister referred in his speech last year being applied to the Transkei. Do you wonder, Sir, that White people who may be inside or outside the borders are very concerned indeed where the borders will be. What did the hon. the Prime Minister have to say about that last year, Sir? He said in Col. 87 of last year’s Hansard—

He continued—

What will the position be during the time that elapses after the Government has created a self-governing Bantustan and the time when the boundaries are going to be fixed, which must necessarily now bring in White areas adjacent thereto? We will have the whole of the border population in a ferment in case they are going to be added in. What is going to be the position of East Griqualand? When one looks at the map which was photographed in the office of the Minister the other day, through the kind permission which he gave to an hon. member on this side of the House —he took a photostat copy of the only map apparently in existence of the Transkei as a whole—you see all the little White spots dotted all over it, little White spots which the Prime Minister says have to go. You see all those big Black areas and the vast Black area over on the Umzimkulu side with Kokstad and the Matatiele area practically completely shut in the Black pitches. What can their future be, Sir? Where are the Bantu Governments of the future to demand that an adjustment of their boundaries take place? How is Port St. John’s going to be kept White? The hon. the Minister says the Bantu never owned the Indian Ocean, so it cannot be said that that little area along the beach is part of their tribal heritage. That is just playing with words, Sir. Because it belong to them, it is part of their tribal system. That particular area roundabout St. John’s was partly the reason why there was a civil war in Pondo-land years ago. The White filibusters of Pon-doland, just after the annexation, were there because there was an argument about the ownership of that White land, the land from St. John’s up the Umzimvubu River. That was the whole source of the trouble. [Interjections.] Of course it was agreed to; the Bantu agreed to it when they sold it to a shipload of German immigrants who pulled into St. John’s, and that led to the annexation. The Minister must learn his history about Pondo-land.

I know my history.

It was part of the tribal land and the tribal chiefs were disposing of it and Cecil Rhodes stepped in and annexed it so as to prevent the possibility of any Government such as the German Government getting a foothold there. We are not going to have certainty as to the boundaries; it will be a long time before that is settled. And the whole of the area adjacent to those boundaries will be kept in a ferment because the Minister cannot make up his mind where the final boundary is to be. I say that the whole of the trouble that has come about in the Transkei has been brought about because this Government has instilled new ideas into the minds of people who were perfectly happy to stay as they were and work in conformity and loyally with the White people of this country. We have never had any trouble with them. And this idea of self-rule or independence—call it what you will—is something which comes entirely from the Government and the evils that flow from it must therefore be laid at the door of the Government. I hope that we are not going to be mealymouthed about it when the time comes, as surely it will, when we have to deal with the consequences of the Government’s action in bringing a Bill like this before Parliament to-day. The consequences are inevitable, Sir and White police and White troops, or no White police and no White troops, the consequences are inevitable and when we deal with them let us not be mealy-mouthed about it but let us say to the Minister and to the Prime Minister and the Government: “You are responsible for what is happening in the Transkei, because you are the people who started to turn away from this happy, contented loyal people who have worked in harmony with us for a hundred years.”

At the outset I want to protest against the way in which the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) tried to suggest here that the hon. the Minister was dishonest, that he was trying to mislead the people; that he was giving wrong information; that the Xhosas were never consulted. Hon. members opposite now want all kinds of proof as to what has been done and they are not prepared to accept the word of the hon. the Minister. I want to tell the hon. member that this hon. Minister is not in the habit of announcing one policy to-day and a different policy to-morrow. I want to lodge the strongest objection to the way in which the hon. member tried to suggest that the hon. the Minister was being dishonest.

He turned a somersault the other day.

I cannot understand why hon. members opposite continually harp on the fate of the White traders in the Transkei and suggest that the White traders in the Transkei are now suddenly faced with the same problem with which the British faced the Whites in Kenya.

Why cannot you understand it?

Because that is not so. I want to ask: Why is there contentment in the rest of the reserves? Why is this unrest not discernible in the other reserves?

Which law gives independence to the other reserves?

Those traders know what our policy is. They have said to me frankly: “We know what our fate will be there one day.” They are not there by right but as a privilege.

Why a privilege? Who gave them that privilege?

I want to know from the hon. member why this unrest has arisen so suddenly in the Transkei only? Why do we not find it in the other reserves? Why is there contentment in the reserves falling within my constituency? One does not find this sort of thing there. The hon. member for South Coast wants to blame the Government for the unrest in the Transkei. The hon. member now suddenly wants to know what the strength of Matanzima’s bodyguard is. Why does he want to know that? Should we not protect Matanzima if his life is threatened? Should this Minister and the Minister of Justice not protect him? I say that the hon. member made a very nasty insinuation here to-night when he said: “As soon as the troops and police are withdrawn from the Transkei there will be no more law and order there.”

Who is threatening Matanzima?

The hon. member for South Coast says that if disturbances occur it will be the fault of this Government. I can tell him who will be very pleased at that statement of his this evening. It will not be the Whites in South Africa nor the traders in the Transkei; it will not be the Xhosas but the communists and those who take pleasure in creating unrest in South Africa. Those people will be pleased and will welcome his speech but the Whites and the non-Whites will not welcome it. I want to tell him that what he has said this evening has not been to the advantage of the White trader in the Transkei. He does not want to protect them. If he wanted to protect them, he would not make remarks of that nature. He would not add grist to the communist mill by means of that sort of statement. They are now going to say: “Here we have an Opposition in Parliament which will not accuse us if disturbances break out; they will accuse the Government. The hon. member is giving them a free hand. By means of his speech he has given the communists and the inciters a free hand in the Transkei. He made a shameful speech.

The hon. member wanted to prove that the Xhosas supported the White man during Mbabata’s rebellion. Why did they support the White man? If anything this proves the wisdom of this Government and of its policy of not wishing to group the ethnic units together but to keep them apart. Mbabata was not a Xhosa and the Xhosas were afraid that if he entered their area there would be clashes. They merely protected themselves. This is not an argument that the hon. member can use. What the hon. member said has given me the opportunity of illustrating the wisdom of the Government’s policy of keeping the ethnic groups apart and not allowing them to mix.

The hon. member says that we have been forced to pass this legislation through Parliament. But here again we have proof of the wisdom and farsightedness of the Government. Here we have a nation which probably has the longest experience of governing the non-Whites in South Africa, and the time has come now to place them on the road to eventual self-government. This is the proper time to do so, the climate is right. But the hon. member resents the fact that the Government is taking that step. We have now listened to two speeches from the United Party and we can only come to the conclusion that they are playing a dishonourable game. I want to prove that. The United Party, or a large section of the United Party, supports this policy of ours. The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) let the cat out of the bag this afternoon. When the hon. the Minister said that it was our policy to have separate homelands for the Bantu and that they should eventually govern themselves, the hon. member for Hillbrow said: “The hon. the Minister has told the truth now for the first time, but we differ as far as the tempo is concerned ”. In other words, they agree with the principle but they do not agree with the rate at which the policy is being applied. I say that there are people on their side who support this policy wholeheartedly. The hon. member for South Coast is an ardent supporter of this policy. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) does not, of course, know what is going on in this House and he will not laugh in that way when he hears what I am going to say. There was a time, not so very long ago, when the hon. member for South Coast made it a principle of the United Party that the Bantu should merely be a visitor to the White area; that he should have his own homelands and that he should stay there. That was his policy and he said most emphatically that the Bantu was a visitor here and that we should not make the mistake of giving the Bantu title rights, property rights in the White area, because then we would be placing the Whites in our country before the same problem that we now have in connection with the Indians. Those were his words. That is why I say that there are members opposite who are in full agreement with this policy. They cannot resent it if I say that they are playing a dishonourable game in this debate.

It has been proved in this debate that they are not in earnest in opposing this legislation. At the beginning, members like the hon. member for Hillbrow went from platform to platform and said: “Apartheid is a phantom; it is a shadow; nobody understands it”. Now that we are applying it, he and the hon. member for South Coast say that we are Liberals and that this is the application of the liberal point of view. First of all it was a phantom and now this side of the House has turned liberal!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a speech here to-day which consisted chiefly of questions. He himself gave the answers which suited him and he built up his whole case on a number of suppositions. What I resent, however—before I analyse his questions and suppositions for a moment—is that at the outset he accepted as an accomplished fact that Xhosaland, the Transkei, would be hostile to the Republic from the start. But from the start, if his party ever comes into power and is able to implement its policy—which of course will never happen—then the Transkei and all the Bantu will be friends of his party and of the White man in South Africa! Because this Government is in power, he simply accepts that at the outset the Transkei will be hostile to the Whites and to the Government of this country. Where does he get that from? Let me tell him this: There was a time when the Bantu in South Africa were hostile to the National Party. But that was not a feeling which arose spontaneously; that feeling was created by people who had the opportunity throughout South Africa of making malicious propaganda amongst the Bantu against the National Party. But since the hon. the Prime Minister and the present Minister of Bantu Administration and Development have been entrusted with Bantu Affairs the Bantu have gradually changed their opinion of the National Party and of the White man in South Africa. They have repeatedly asked when they have been addressed, and they have also asked me personally: “Why did you not tell us these things a long time ago and why did you let loose the crocodiles and the wolves amongst us?” That is the question that the Bantu chiefs put to us. It is a pity that there should ever have been a period during which the relationships between White and non-White deteriorated but, in his ignorance, the non-White was incited by malicious Whites so that for a long time he wanted nothing to do with the National Party. I do not want to mention the hostility which arose. Fortunately, that hostility has been overcome and to-day the only hope of the non-White lies in the National Party and the policy which it is following. Mr. Speaker, it is my custom periodically to inform the older Bantu in my service and who stay on my land about the policy of the Government in regard to the non-Whites. They heard, or propaganda was made amongst them, what was going on in North Africa, and when they bade me goodbye when I left for Cape Town, they said to me: “Sir, we do not care what you do down in Cape Town, but in heaven’s name never leave South Africa ”. They heard that the White man might perhaps leave South Africa. I asked them where they had heard some of those propaganda stories and some of the slogans about which they told me. One old Native said to me: “Do what you want to; but in heaven’s name do not leave”. I then asked him why he felt that way. He said to me: “We cannot exist without your guidance and without your help and without your protection”, They realize that. They realize the danger in which they will be placed. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition accused this side of the House of not wanting to learn the lesson of the North, that we did not want to learn from what was taking place in Africa. But it is not we who have not learnt that lesson. It is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his Party who have not learnt that lesson and they do not want to learn it. I ask hon. members on this side to remember the spectacle that we had from the other side when the hon. the Minister was speaking. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that we had never had legislation as important as this before Parliament but I saw no sign of earnestness on the faces of hon. members opposite; I did not see righteous indignation pictured there. They were like a group of street urchins enjoying themselves; they laughed and they made a noise and they tried to distract the hon. the Minister with their repartee. They were not in earnest at all. That is why I say that they cannot resent it when I say that they are not in earnest in their opposition to this Bill. They have not learnt the lesson of North Africa. I want to quote to them what appeared in to-day’s Argus—

I want to tell hon. members opposite to give a little thought to the Congo, to Tanganyika, to Kenya and also to the Rhodesias and Nyasaland. I also want to ask them: Why have they not learnt their lesson, why do they still want to continue with this plan of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition? He admitted this evening—and they realize it—that if the Bantu are given representation in this House, we will not be able to prevent their demanding more. If he realizes that then he must not tell us that we have not learnt the lesson that Africa has taught us. He knows that once we have given the Bantu representation in this House, after we have said, “we cannot stop you if you demand more”, and after we have told them, “What you ask for we will have to give you”, once they have been brought into this House, they will demand more.

Where did we say that?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said it. They realize that the Bantu cannot be stopped if they demand more representation.

No.

He was referring to the Coloured Representatives.

If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that he did not say that, then I want to tell him that if he introduces Bantu representation in this House and gives the Bantu the franchise here in South Africa, he will not be able to prevent the Bantu from demanding more and more.

How do you prevent it in the case of the Coloureds?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must exercise a little patience. When that Vote comes up for discussion, the matter will be fully discussed. He must not try to put me off my argument. I say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that his policy is tantamount to suicide. If he gives the Bantu representation in this House and gives them the franchise, he will not be able to stop the Bantu demanding more. In order to stop the Bantu he will have to turn the cannon on them and then it will be too late.

What about the Coloureds?

We are not politically dependent upon the Coloureds as the United Party is upon eight Natives.

The policy which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is holding out to the people as a sugar-coated pill is the road to certain death. But I want to tell him this: The opposition from hon. members on the other side to this legislation is simply an exhibition. They know that they have lost the confidence of the people. Elections have proved that and the recent by-elections bear witness to it. They have lost the confidence of the people through their policy and that is why they are now trying to make the Government out to be a group of Liberals; that is why they say that we want to give the Black man more and more, that we want to do nothing for the White man and that we are neglecting the White man and placing him in danger. They are trying to collect votes, particularly on the platteland, by means of this exhibition. But they will not succeed in doing so. I will prove why they are not going to succeed. When the Government made known its plans, does the hon. member for South Coast remember how he again called upon the whole of Natal to stand together against this Government as never before. How many came forward to stand by him? Not one appeared—his was a voice crying in the wilderness. While he was still crying for followers who were willing to take a stand, the ranks of the National Party were swelling. The United Party will not gain one new follower by means of this display to-night. They will only strengthen the hand of this Government more and more.

Do not forget Weenen.

Mr. Speaker, will you permit me to reply to that?

No.

If I have the opportunity to speak during the Budget debate I will reply to the hon. member.

What about Virginia?

There is another point that I want to deal with which was strongly emphasized by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and which worried him very much indeed, and that was that since Bantu homelands were now being brought into being, we would be saddled with a large number of foreign Bantu making up our labour force. But what is happening at present? Do we not have a number of Basutos, do we not have a number of Bechuanas and do we not have a number of Swazis? They have been working here for years and they are foreign Bantu. They would not have been here if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his Party had not put their foot down in 1953 and said to Dr. Malan, “As long as you govern the country we will never ask the British Parliament to transfer the Protectorates to us ”. We might perhaps have had those Protectorates under our control to-day if it had not been for the Opposition, but they did want to give us their support and they told the Bantu in advance not to trust this Government. They told us: “As long as we sit here and you are there, the Protectorates must never be allowed to be incorporated into the Union.” The hon. member is worried about this but over all these years he has not been worried about the Bantu from Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland, and about the number of Shangaans working here. He has never been concerned about them and they are not citizens of our country but foreign Bantu. Now suddenly they make use of these arguments. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition tells us in advance that the Bantu cannot trust the White man; that they will be the enemies of the White man. That is the most irresponsible statement that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has ever made and it is the most effective way of disturbing racial peace in South Africa by creating suspicion against the Whites in the minds of the Xhosas and against Xhosas in the minds of the Whites. And then they are surprised when the hon. the Minister becomes annoyed at the language they use and the kind of speech that they make! I want to tell them that that bubble of theirs has already been pricked. Their arguments will find no favour with the people and we know in advance that this exhibition has been given here simply to enable the United Party to hide their political nakedness.

Mr. Speaker, this must be the strangest grant of independence ever known to any country in the world. Never before, to my knowledge, has a constitution been introduced in a country virtually under martial law. The preamble to this constitution says—

“The peoples of the Transkei ”. The peoples have never been properly consulted. While this constitution was being considered and even now, Emergency Proclamation No. 400 makes it illegal for the future men and women and teenage voters of the Transkei even to get together to consult with each other about the constitution …

That is not true.

Does the hon. member not know that? Emergency Proclamation No. 400 makes it illegal for more than ten people to gather to discuss anything like this at all. It seems to me that it is impossible to say that the people were properly consulted or that the people understand what they are doing if they are not allowed to discuss in meetings what is happening, or what is proposed. I say that if they had discussed this proposed constitution or if any of us had attempted publicly or privately to discuss it with them, the Special Branch would have stopped such a meeting, and the people present might well have been banned or banished or placed under imprisonment without a trial. What an atmosphere in which to introduce a new constitution! It seems to me that all the promises that were made to the people about a proper consultation, and all the statements that there has been proper consultation are quite untrue.

Why are the Xhosas of the Transkei being granted independence, partial independence? I think there are two reasons. The first is that this Government by giving, at the start, some form of limited independence hopes to satisfy South Africa of its sincerity without giving away too much control. It wishes to make it appear to the public that it will and can carry out its impossible promise to separate the races of South Africa and at the same time satisfy the Transkei Natives. It is to try and persuade its followers in White South Africa that they have a policy, I use the Prime Minister’s words, “which ensures that the Bantu will gradually be spirited away from the White areas” to the oblivion of a Bantustan. It is to try and convince South Africa and the White voters that this “comforting” thing could actually happen. Believing that in a multi-racial state, there can never be any peaceful progress the Nationalists are about to create one purified White state which will have within its borders an undefined Coloured state and an Asiatic state; and outside its borders 7 neighbouring Black states. The Transkei is to be the first of these Black states. Sir, I think the hon. the Prime Minister actually believes in this cuckoo land conception. He believes he can “spirit away” the millions of useful Black labourers out of so-called “White” South Africa. He is serious about his Bantustan policy and does not seem to be perturbed by the fact that this process, if it ever could take place, might take 1,000 years. He believes that he will soothe the intellectual conscience of SABRA and others of his followers. It seems to me that the mesmerized Nationalists close their minds to all logical argument, which proves that this whole conception is a fantastic impossibility. However fast the Bantustans develop, whatever drastic action is taken to expel Africans from “White” South Africa, the Transkei could never absorb all of the people who belong to the Xhosa nation. With the developments which the Government has on hand, developments which, we are told in government “Fact finding Papers”, will mean the investment of R4,000,000,000 over the next ten years in industry in White South Africa, it must inevitably mean an addition of at least another 1,000,000 Africans to the 1,200,000 who have come into “White” South Africa since the “apartheid” policy started. Their policy of total “apartheid” is a pretence because they know it can never happen. But it is a pretence which is dangerous as I shall prove in later stages of the debate. They have made wild promises which they do not intend to keep, and this will inevitably stir up resentment and discontent amongst the Bantu peoples with whom they think will remain as peaceful neighbours.

The second reason why the Nationalists propose to try and carry out or pretend to carry out this Bantustan policy is to mollify world opinion. They want to try and persuade the people overseas that in fact Mr. Patrick Wall was wrong when he said “apartheid is morally abominable, intellectually grotesque and spiritually indefensible’. Those were the actual words used by this British delegate to the United Nations. Our Minister of Foreign Affairs said something which makes one realize how serious this allegation is. He said “This was not stated by Mr. Wall in the heat of the moment; this was a cold, deliberate planned phrase ”. Now this Government feels that they have a policy which may appear to be genuine to the outside world, and in order to persuade the world of the honesty of their intentions in order to persuade the United Nations to keep their hands off South West Africa, and South Africa, the Government have indulged in a world-wide propaganda campaign of advertising. Their aim is to persuade the world that all of the aspirations of the Africans in this country can be satisfied: that the Africans are being given a quid pro quo elsewhere, in a Bantustan, which justifies the practice of baasskap-apartheid in “White” South Africa. I think I will be able to prove, Sir, that the Government tells to the outside world an entirely different story from that which they have for home consumption. The Prime Minister’s description of this Bill in his overseas advertising deserves repeating to-night. We have been told by one of the last speakers that there is a serious movement overseas to study at first-hand the situation in the Transkei. I think it was the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) who said it. Now let me quote some of the statements made in the overseas Press and alleged by the State Information Office to be quotations from the Prime Minister’s speeches. Dr. Verwoerd said, to aid those who wished to study Transkei affairs and this Constitution Bill in particular—

Another advertisement starts off thus—

And listen to this—

The hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development says “There will be no autonomy ”. He said “Where do you see it in the Bill?” But the Prime Minister said that “the democratic experience and ability of the Xhosa nation has justified this major step towards sovereign independence ”. That is published overseas—that is what appears in advertisements in the U.S.A. and Great Britain as authoritative statements by the Prime Minister. Any reasonable person, I maintain, reading the advertisements would either assume that the Transkei was getting real independence now or that full autonomy was just round the corner. Does this Bill in fact, I ask the hon. Minister, live up to the high promise of these advertisements?

I move—

1. (1) that the hon. member for Orange Grove had put the Question on the Order Paper—
   1. (a) with the obvious intention of championing the cause of Lowenstein in his campaign against White South Africa, and
   2. (b) with knowledge of the contents of Lowenstein’s book; and
2. (2) that in doing so the hon. member for Orange Grove had aligned himself with Lowenstein, Michael Scott, Kerina, Konzonguisi (referred to by the hon. Minister as an avowed communist), Oliver Tambo and other leaders of subversive Bantu organizations;

the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.

On Tuesday, 5 March, I put a question to the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs. In reply he made certain statements which have persuaded me, of my own free will, to move this motion.

Sir, allow me to say with emphasis, right at the beginning, that the hon. the Minister’s accusations are gravely wrong in their facts and false in their logic. I deny the charge that I ever, in any way, put the question with the intention of championing the cause of the person in question, Mr. Lowenstein. I reject equally the statement of the hon. the Minister that I put the question with knowledge of the contents of Lowenstein’s book. The only intimation I had of its contents was a partial and most incomplete one based on the few paragraphs in the report of the Sunday Times. Neither do I know, nor have I ever met Mr. Lowenstein. I have also never seen nor read the book, although the Department of the Interior informed me that it is not on the banned list.

I further firmly deny, deprecate and reject the allegation by the hon. the Minister that in putting the question on the Order Paper, I have aligned myself with certain reputed communists and leaders of subversive Bantu organizations. I have on several occasions stated my views on Communism in this House. My party and I reject the evil and obnoxious creed of Communism on the grounds both of the nature of its methods and the errors of its creed. To state, as the hon. the Minister does, that I was, through my question, aligning myself with communists, is as grotesque as it is heartless, as farcical as it is unfair. It is a pity indeed that the hon. the Minister did not make that accusation outside the House, unprotected by its privilege.

So much for the accusations being wrong in fact.

I submit, Sir, that the accusations are also wrong in logic. The hon. the Minister has used a time-worn and long-discredited weapon of politicians of less exalted status than his, namely the imputing of guilt by association. The hon. the Minister even goes so far as to discover such alleged association along the devious path of a letter, through a book, by way of a newspaper, via a question in this House.

I shall not burden the House long with this fallacious argument, with this fallacious reasoning contained in the Minister’s reply. Suffice it to say that his argument can be reduced to the following syllogistic form:

1. (1) A person aligned with communists had said that Mr. Louw has made improper use of a certain document;
2. (2) Mr. E. G. Malan had alleged that Mr. Louw had made improper use of that certain document;
3. (3) Therefore Mr. Malan had aligned himself with communists.

Anyone acquainted with the laws of logic will immediately recognize that the hon. Minister has been guilty of the famous “fallacy of the undistributed middle”, which Aristotle pointed out in his famous work “Organum” 24 centuries ago. Anyone acquainted with the law of logic will immediately recognize … [Interjections.]

Order!

A certain treatise on logic mentions the following instances of this unsound form of reasoning. A speaker once argued: (1) That the Fascist Government of Germany was anti-communist; (2) the British Government was anti-communist; and (3) therefore the British Government was Fascist. Put in this way, the Minister’s fallacy is so glaringly obvious that I need not press the matter any further.

Now I should like to deal with the question itself. It is clear, particularly from paragraph 7 of the Minister’s reply, that he believes himself to stand accused of having made deliberate use of a document improperly obtained … [Interjection.]

On a point of order, an hon. member here, while the hon. member is addressing the House, said, “That is a cock-and-bull story”, and I ask that he be ordered to withdraw it. I submit that is most improper.

Who is the hon. member who used those words?

I did.

The hon. member must withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to have your ruling on this before I withdraw it, although I am prepared to obey the Chair.

The hon. member must withdraw those words.

What must I withdraw?

The words that it is a cock-and-bull story.

But is that unparliamentary?

I ordered the hon. member to withdraw those words.

I withdraw the words. [Interjection.]

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs keeps on saying that I used the same term. Should he not withdraw it? [Interjections.]

Order!

I believe that the hon. the Minister, it may be through a too-hasty reading of the question, has made an honest mistake. I say so for the following very good reasons.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, as a member of this House I should like to have your ruling as to whether the term “a cock-and-bull story” is unparliamentary. If it is I am prepared to withdraw it, but the term was used repeatedly yesterday and on previous days by the Opposition. I am prepared to respect the Chair but I should like to have your ruling.

I have already given my ruling, that the hon. member should withdraw those words. In the present circumstances and in this debate it is unparliamentary.

On a point of order, I think we are entitled, when an injustice is being done to an hon. member, to make an attempt to protect him. The hon. member made a certain statement. He is quite entitled to do so. He makes it in the open House. Any member may say that he does not accept that statement. He asks for a Select Committee to investigate the merits of the matter. Is any hon. member of this House not entitled to say, in the way in which he prefers to say it, that he does not agree with it? And one way in which he can say he does not agree with it is to say that it is a cock-and-bull story.

Order! The hon. member may get up to make a speech and tell the House that.

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration made a speech yesterday which is accepted as the absolute truth and he was accused by an hon. member opposite of telling a cock-and-bull story, and that was allowed. With all respect to the Chair, I am now under the impression that the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan), in terms of the language of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell), is telling a cock-and-bull story, and now I am being called to order. I should very much like your ruling on this matter.

Yesterday the term “a cock-and-bull story” was used on both sides of the House, and I allowed in the circumstances of that debate. Order! If the hon. member does not want to listen to what I am saying he must resume his seat.

Mr. Speaker, with all respect, I was under the impression that if you rose I had to sit down. I shall sit down if you order me to do so. But I am merely seeking protection because I used an expression here which was generally used yesterday and was then allowed. I was not trying to embarrass the Chair or to conduct myself in this House in an unworthy manner, and I apologize for that.

The apology is accepted. The hon. member may continue.

As I was saying, I believe that the hon. the Minister, through a too-hasty reading of the question, has made an honest mistake, and I say so for the following good reasons. My first reason is based on the wording itself. The hon. the Minister, I maintain, has read paragraph 2 of the question without giving due regard to the other paragraphs. Paragraph 2 reads: “What is the name of the person from whose possession the letter had been removed?” I may say in passing that the word “theft” or “stolen” is no way used in the question. Indeed, under our statutes it is quite lawful, under certain circumstances, for the police to remove a letter from the private possession of a particular person.

What is more important, however, is that the hon. the Minister did not read paragraph 2 together with paragraphs 1,3 and 4. Had he done so, he would have realized that paragraph 2 was referring to the allegation in the article itself, without any additional implication as to its truth or falsity. In fact, paragraph 2 simply asks, in a more concise form, the following question: “What is the name of the person from whose possession, according to the article, the letter had been removed?”

After hearing the Minister’s reply to my question in this House, I was somewhat mystified by his obvious sense of injury and I took steps to ascertain whether my question could be interpreted in the way suggested in his reply, and I received the necessary assurances. Indeed, Sir, the rules you have laid down—and rightly so—in regard to hon. members’ questions are very strict. No allegation of improper conduct by a member is allowed, no name may be mentioned and no actual detailed information given in a question. If my question had erred against any of these or the other rules, you, Sir, would have been the first to disallow it and I should have accepted your judgment unreservedly. In fact, Standing Order No. 47 specifically permits you, and this also includes anyone acting on your behalf, “to amend any notice which contains unbecoming expressions or offends against any Standing Order of this House”, The fact, therefore, that this question was allowed by you is a clear indication to me that it did not offend against your own strict rules in regard to questions. My faith, Sir, in your judgment in these matters has always been and is so unbounded that I have always made it a practice to accept without qualification any changes ever suggested in the form of my questions. For these two main reasons, namely (1) the actual context of the question, and (2) the permission given for the question to appear on the Order Paper, I submit that the hon. the Minister has not read the question in its right context.

However, it could be that the Select Committee decides that a cursory reading of the question might unintentionally have left a wrong impression. If that were to be the case, I would naturally be the first to express my regret at the misunderstanding, but I should then, in all fairness to myself, have to add the following.

Before I do so, I must state that I have the fullest and most unqualified confidence in the distinguished officials we have in this House, and that I believe they acted in this as in all other cases with complete bona fides in all that they have done, and I support them. Having said this, I must now point out the important and vital fact that the wording of the question as it appeared on the Order Paper was in several respects different from the wording of the question I sent in. Inter alia, the wording of paragraph 2 is not mine. I am, for my part, convinced that the change was purely an administrative one and there was absolutely no intention to alter the import of my original question. Indeed, as I have already stated, I do not believe there was any substantive change.

I now want to read to the House the question as I originally sent it in, and I ask the hon. the Minister and hon. members to compare what I am going to read now with the question as it appears on the Order Paper on page 336, on the English Order Paper. I am not sure what the page number is on the Afrikaans Order Paper, as I did not have the time to check it, but it is the Order Paper of 26 February. I now read the question as sent in by me originally—

1. (1) whether he did quote him at UNO;
2. (2) what the substance of his quotation was;
3. (3) what the source of his information was;
4. (4) how the information was obtained;
5. (5) from whom it was obtained;
6. (6) when it was obtained;
7. (7) whether he took any steps to ascertain the correctness of his information; if so, what steps and, if not, why not.

After the question had been sent in it was pointed out to me, correctly I submit, that I was not permitted under the rules to use the name of Lowenstein in the question itself. The rule, as hon. members know, is that the name of a person, if required in a reply, must specifically be asked for in the question. To comply with this it was agreed that a small administrative alteration should be made, namely that I should delete Lowenstein’s name from the question and substitute the words “a certain individual”, and then add a new sub-paragraph (1) which read—

1. (1) Who was the individual?

You will observe, Sir, that this wording is not the same as that to which the Minister now presumably objects, namely that of paragraph (2) as it appears on the Order Paper, which reads—

1. (2) What is the name of the person from

whose possession the letter had been removed?

If you consider again, Sir, the question in the form in which I handed it in, the following should now be clear and indisputable. Firstly, I had read a certain newspaper article and been prompted by the contents to seek clarification and further information from the hon. the Minister. This is an undeniable and unquestionable democratic right of any Member of Parliament in this House, and I shall not be denied that right. Secondly, I referred the hon. the Minister to the article and asked him for a statement on the matter.

Now let me say at this stage that in the British House of Commons that would have been all that would have been necessary. If one consults the British Hansard, one finds that most questions are put in a short and informal almost chatty, way, the questioner placing full reliance on the Minister involved to give as reasonably complete and non-evasive a reply as possible. In our House, however, the practice has grown up for questions to go into much greater detail so as to compel the Minister in practice to answer all aspects of a query. I am not going into the reasons for this, or the desirability thereof. Suffice it to say that such is the case. In this particular instance it is fortunate that our system is what it is, for the rest of the question clearly and without any shadow of doubt indicates the following: Far from making an accusation against the hon. the Minister, I was seeking information from him. Far from accusing him of having quoted from a misappropriated document, I asked whether it was true that he ever even quoted the writer at UN and, if so, what had the Minister said? I even went further and asked, not told, the hon. the Minister where, when and how he had obtained the information. In that form, Sir, my question was perfectly legitimate and allowable.

In view of this, Sir, I maintain that not only the substance but also the intention of my question was to seek clarification and to get the facts.

Nonsense!

Perhaps the hon. member who says this is nonsense would agree to appear before the Select Committee so that counsel can put questions to him. At the same time the hon. the Minister was also being given an opportunity, and quite a good one, of refuting any charges made by Lowenstein against him. My only sin, if sin it is, is that I have probably “scooped” my good friends and colleagues of the Sunday Times in obtaining a reply which they had hoped to get for themselves. I have therefore, Sir, no hesitation in asking for the Select Committee. Whether it will fall within the province of the Committee, I do not know, but I hope that the Committee will also see its way open to investigate the whole tone and nature of the hon. the Minister’s reply with particular regard to (a) the relevance and (b) the permissibility, under our parliamentary rules, of some of the language used. To me both the tone and the nature of the reply seem most curious and unusual.

In conclusion, I have to refer to an incident in this House yesterday, which I feel should be recorded for future generations. When an hon. member rises in a democratic, sovereign Parliament to ask for a commission of inquiry of this nature, it is an occasion of great moment. It calls for respect for our ancient institutions and for the dignity that the event demands. So it has always been in all the great Parliaments of the Western democracies. But yesterday, in the Parliament of our own country, I had hardly begun to give notice of my motion when my words were drowned in shouts in which nearly every member on the Government side participated.

Order! I must call upon the hon. member to come back to the motion.

Very well, Sir, I assure you that I always have the greatest respect for our Parliament and its institutions, its rights and its privileges, and one of these rights is that a member shall have the right to appeal to his peers if he feels that an injustice has been done to him. Realizing full well that the Select Committee may contain a majority of members who do not agree with me politically, I nevertheless have no hesitation in placing my case in the just, the capable and the impartial hands of the members of the Select Committee I now ask you to appoint.

I second the motion. In seconding this motion, I would like to ask hon. members opposite to remember that when a motion affects the honour and the dignity of this House through a member who has been assailed, it affects not only the dignity of the member but that of this House. [Interjections.] I hope that hon. members will give me the opportunity of talking quietly and without interruption, because I regard this as a most serious matter.

The motion which has been moved and which I have the privilege of seconding is one which affects the honour of a member of this House who, as I read the statement of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has been assailed in a reply given to a question. His honour has been questioned, and as I conceive the duty of this House, when the honour of a member is in question, I believe it is the duty of this House to appoint a Select Committee, as the rules provide, for that matter to be inquired into.

I want to make a special appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House. Where it is a question of the honour of a member, it is my submission that there is a very heavy duty on the majority in the House to see that the privileges of all members are maintained, and this question which has been raised by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) is one which directly affects his honour in that the implication, as I read the statement, is to accuse him of disloyalty to his country. In those circumstances I very sincerely hope that this House will unanimously agree to the appointment of a Select Committee and that the matter be left in their hands for judgment according to the evidence and the facts laid before them. It would be utterly wrong, in my view, if this House were to arrogate to itself, without having heard any evidence, the right to give a final judgment against the hon. member, and I do not believe that that will be done. I have sufficient confidence in the fair play of the Leader of the House to believe that he will accept the motion and give the hon. member for Orange Grove an opportunity of clearing his name and his honour.

I do not propose to go into the merits of the matter. The hon. member for Orange Grove has dealt with it very fully, but I must say that I personally regard as a very serious imputation of the hon. member a statement such as the following, which is part of the reply of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. There is reference to talks in New York with Michael Scott, Kerina and Konzonguizi, an avowed communist. He has directly laid a charge against the hon. member that he supports this person Lowenstein who is referred to in the reply. I think it is beyond question that if the hon. the Minister’s reply stands unchallenged, it reflects most seriously upon the hon. member, and I again submit that he has the right to have his honour cleared by an inquiry by an impartial Select Committee of this House. In seconding the motion I again express the hope that the majority on this occasion will use its majority with this side of the House to ensure that steps be taken to inquire into this matter and to decide whether the claim made by the hon. member for Orange Grove that his honour is impugned by the statement of the Minister is justified. The matter can then be inquired into and a report submitted to this House. I would point out that this is the only recourse that an hon. member has in respect of anything said in this House, because there is no recourse before the courts of the land. I am sure that in fairness all members opposite will agree that an unanswerable case has been made out for a proper inquiry by a Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker, in ordinary debates it is the prerogative of Mr. Speaker to see to it that the honour of hon. members is not impugned, and it has always been left safely in his hands. But circumstances arise which are outside the scope of the powers of Mr. Speaker and in which an hon. member may think or feel that his honour has been impugned, and the usual practice in such cases is that he then asks, as was done here, for a Select Committee to investigate the matter and to decide whether his honour was impugned or not. We have had a number of similar cases already. In this case the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) feels that his honour has been impugned by the reply given to him by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs to a question put to him. If that is the way he feels, he surely has the fullest right to ask this House for an investigation to be instituted by a Select Committee as to whether that is actually so or not. In view of the fact that he asks for that protection which every hon. member has, I and this side of the House would be the last to say that such a Select Committee should not be appointed. I think it should be appointed. If an hon. member feels that his honour has been impugned, the matter must be investigated.

I just want to pass a few remarks in this regard. The first is that the hon. member for Orange Grove discussed the previous history of the matter here. I just want to explain that we are concerned only with the question standing on the Order Paper, and if that question has been changed by one of the members of the staff then the member takes responsibility for the question as it appears on the Order Paper. That is quite clear. In fact, the question was on the Order Paper for several days. Another matter is this. When the hon. member for Orange Grove got up he had, I think, to make out a prima facie case for such an inquiry. Personally, I think it would have been sufficient for him to have said that he felt his honour had been impugned and that he was asking for an inquiry; because I do not think that this is the time to go into the merits of the matter, in view of the fact that we will be appointing a Select Committee. I think that would be quite wrong. We cannot participate in a debate here in which members must decide on the merits of the case when those same members will later have to decide the matter on a Select Committee in a judicial capacity. I think the hon. member for Orange Grove has perhaps gone a little too far; I also concede that he could have gone further, but I regret that the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker), for whom I have great respect, also overstepped the mark somewhat in this regard, although I know that his motives are always very honest and sincere.

In the reply given by the hon. the Minister to the question, he made it very clear that in that question he saw an innuendo against himself, and whereas the hon. member for Orange Grove feels that his honour was impugned by the reply given by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister again feels that his honour was impugned by the question put to him. He approached me and told me that he felt that way, and therefore I think that this Select Committee should investigate the complaints of both members, that of the hon. member for Orange Grove and that of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I therefore want to say that we are quite prepared to accept this motion for the appointment of a Select Committee; that we will do so unanimously, as requested by the hon. member for Germiston (District), and I also assume that this wider investigation which I am going to propose will be accepted by the House unanimously as well. I therefore move the following amendment—

1. (1) the alleged innuendo contained in the second paragraph of the Question put by the hon. member for Orange Grove to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs on 5 March 1963, to the effect that the hon. Minister has used a document at the United Nations which, according to a statement made by Lowenstein, he knew had been stolen; and
2. (2) the following allegations made by the hon. Minister against the hon. member for Orange Grove in replying to the said Question, namely— ”.

The alleged innuendo.

That is something for the Select Committee to decide.

You are prejudging the issue.

I am willing to alter it to read “alleged innuendo ”. That contains the whole case that has been put by the hon. member for Orange Grove. As I have said, I hope there will be no more discussion now. There are two aggrieved parties. The one aggrieved party has asked that this motion should be unanimously accepted and we are quite willing unanimously to accept a Select Committee to go into this question of the allegations against the hon. member if hon. members opposite with equal enthusiasm will help us to see that the name of the hon. the Minister is also cleared.

I second the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to, viz.:

That a Select Committe be appointed to inquire into and report upon—

1. (1) the alleged innuendo contained in the second paragraph of the Question put by the hon. member for Orange Grove to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs on 5 March 1963 to the effect that the hon. Minister had used a document at the United Nations which, according to a statement made by Lowenstein, he knew had been stolen; and
2. (2) the following allegations made by the hon. Minister against the hon. member for Orange Grove in replying to the said Question, namely—
   1. (a) that the hon. member for Orange Grove had put the Question on the Order Paper—
      1. (i) with the obvious intention of championing the cause of Lowenstein in his campaign against White South Africa, and
      2. (ii) with knowledge of the contents of Lowenstein’s book; and
   2. (b) that in doing so the hon. member for Orange Grove had aligned himself with Lowenstein, Michael Scott, Kerina, Konzonguisi (referred to by the hon. Minister as an avowed communist), Oliver Tambo and other leaders of subversive Bantu organizations;

the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.

Last night in speaking on certain aspects of the Transkei Constitution Bill I had gone some way in dealing with the Nationalist Party’s “double-think” habits at home and compared them with their “double-talk” techniques abroad. I will continue to-day from where I left off. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has made great play of the promises of independence made to the Bantu by a succession of Prime Ministers. He said that these promises made by the White man were sacred and must be honoured. He said he had also made promises and “What I have promised I shall give Sir, I wonder if his followers in this House, even those who now sit closely clustered about him, realize just what promises have been made to the Bantu on behalf of his party and by the Prime Minister on behalf of the White man. Let me tell them. Listen, Sir, to the home and away voice of the Prime Minister. His “home” voice tells this country “only partial independence is asked for, the Transkei will be under our firm control; it is within the Republic; we control the purse strings; there is a veto by the State President; our police and our army and our emergency regulations will ensure that control is tight; all is safe, all is well; the White nation will be purified and eventually all the Blacks will be siphoned off into these Bantu areas, away from the White man and will conveniently disappear into thin air—be spirited away ”. Now listen to his “away” voice, Sir. I will read from advertisements published in U.S.A, and Britain, on which, I believe, over R2,000,000 has already been spent, to give you some idea of what the voice of Nationalism is saying overseas. Last night I got as far as quoting some statements made by the Prime Minister. to-day I will give you more. He sits over there now listening to me and he can deny what I say if it is not true. I quote him as saying the following in overseas advertisements—

Sir, I make the point that any reasonable man reading that statement would naturally presume that “complete sovereign independence” was just round the corner. Does this Bill which we are considering in fact live up to the high promise of that advertisement? Does this Bill give anything like the autonomy promised to the Transkei? How does the statement made in this advertisement, published overseas by the Department of Information, compare with what is being given in this Bill before us? Do the two voices not indicate that there is a different voice abroad from the one heard at home? Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that the Transkei should be trusted with complete autonomy at this juncture. Hon. members know very well from the statement of our Leader what our policy is in this matter. What I am saying is that it is very wrong to give the world the idea that we are giving sovereignty to the Transkei and to promise the Xhosa people complete autonomy soon if there is no intention of carrying out that promise for 100 years, if ever. Sir, in unfulfilled promises of that kind lie the seeds of future trouble from outside and friction from inside the Transkei and the Republic. In other overseas advertisements we see bold headlines announcing the Government’s policy. These advertisements appear in Europe and the United States, and they occupy big half-page spaces. They appeared in the Christian Science Monitor and in the New York Herald Tribune amongst other papers which I collected during my recent visit overseas. In large headlines it is announced, “First Bantu state established within South Africa”, and the Prime Minister is quoted by the Information Service as saying—

and listen to these words—

He was not even sure whether they will or not. They will “presumably” and “for the time being” remain in the Republic. Surely these words indicate a quick transition to complete freedom from any form of control by the Republic. It seems to be clear that it was meant to give that impression overseas. I ask the Minister: Is this story true? Does he intend to live up to the promise of that advertisement? The Prime Minister’s statement goes on—

and mark these words—

Sir, any ordinary reasonable man reading that advertisement must come to the conclusion that the Prime Minister promises that the tempo of transition from partial self-rule to complete autonomy is in the hands of the Transkei and that other Bantu nations will get complete independence as soon as “they may feel the desire to have it”. The Minister himself has said to them, somewhat emotionally and I hope sincerely, “you will have freedom to choose whatever form of government lies nearest to your hearts ”. Did he mean it? Does the Prime Minister mean what he says overseas or what he says here? It seems to me that there are two voices and each contradicts the other. Remember that when the Prime Minister says things like this to the outside world they are published in every country and they come back to South Africa. They come back to the leaders of the Xhosa people and those leaders will ask why these promises are not being kept. They will demand that the tempo of development to complete autonomy be hurried on. Dr. Verwoerd continues to talk to the world, thus—

These are the important words—

and this must be carefully noted—

Is this really true? Does the Government in fact, within the foreseeable future, envisage giving the Transkei exactly the same type of independence that Ghana has or that Nigeria has or all the newly independent states of Africa? I ask him to explain this statement when he replies to this debate. Is this a true statement or is it for foreign consumption only? Remember, Sir, this Government has accused other nations of giving their African dependencies independence all too soon; of giving independence all too quickly to people who are incapable of understanding the true workings of democracy. They are making a solemn promise and saying that they intend to give self-rule “to the utmost extent possible” to the Transkei “in the same way as all other new African and Asian nations have received it”.

Sir, I would now like to deal with contradictory statements which have been made by this Government to the Africans and the White people about the position of the White trader in the Transkei. In order to convince the world of his sincerity, the advertisement goes on to quote the Prime Minister as saying—

At this juncture one might well consider what the position is going to be of the White man, the White trader, in the Transkei and examine some of the promises and counter-promises which have been made to him by this Government. As far back as October 1955, the Prime Minister, then Minister of Native Affairs, making a speech at Ngoma in Natal, said—

In a Government fact-paper of December 1950 the Prime Minister is reported as saying—

I presume over the Black man—

presumably over the White man in the Transkei. Another passage refers to the future Bantu towns and cities that will arise in the reserves in conjunction with Bantu industries, and the Prime Minister said this—

Sir, that may prove his sincerity, but how do these statements compare with the assurances given in the name of the Government by the Government’s own commission, the Holloway Commission, when it visited the Transkei in November of last year to examine the position of White traders and White men in Black Transkei? Judging from what commissioners said, the Government had no intention at all of passing over economic responsibilities to the Transkei for many generations. The chairman of the Commission is reported to have said—

Another Commissioner, Mr. Fleming, said—

This sort of picturesque phrase has never been mentioned in overseas advertisements. And do we in fact see anything in this Bill which entrenches the White man’s position or is “stiff with protection”? Has this promise been kept? In spite of the assurances given by the Holloway Commission the White man in the Transkei remains anxious about his future. Mr. Speaker, I remember a time when the Prime Minister thought that Mr. Macmillan was heartless when he suggested that in Kenya the White man was “expendable ”. Yet exactly the same thing is being said about the White man in the Transkei. He is told that he is “expendable ”. Let us remember that the White South African who went into the Transkei to settle went to what was a part of his own country to build his home and to rear his family and to found his business. He settled in his own country and not, like the Kenya settler, in a foreign land across the seas to take his chance with the future. What is more, that Transkei White man to-day, in so far as he can be consulted, indicates that he is quite content to stay there and to try to make the Transkei, as he feels he can make it, a happy, harmonious, prosperous, multi-racial country. Sir, I believe that we are doing an injustice to them. Although compensation is being airily promised there is nothing in this Bill that guarantees it. I do not trust this Government to carry out its promise in a way which the Transkei traders or inhabitants or businessmen will necessarily accept.

I would like to examine one other significant statement made in these advertisements published overseas by the Government. This statement would amuse if not sadden many of us Members of Parliament. The significant statement I quote is taken from an advertisement that appeared in the Christian Science Monitor and I presume it has also appeared elsewhere. This is what the Government says—

In consultation with this Parliament, with us, with the Opposition also, for we are part of this Parliament? We are now assembled here in Parliament to consider this new Constitution. Have we had any consultations with the leaders of the Xhosas?

You are being consulted right now.

With all due deference to the Minister and even were he dressed in his best leopard skin, I do not regard the hon. the Minister as one of the Xhosa people or as a Xhosa leader who has been sent to discuss the matter with me. Sir, this advertisement makes it all sound idyllic. It all sounds Utopian. But if I did wish to consult with the leaders of the people in the Transkei, if I went up there to discuss matters with them, even on a limited scale, I would surely be breaching the emergency regulations. I could not call a meeting of more than ten people. The audience whom I might address could be banished or banned or imprisoned without a trial because Proclamation No. 400 of 1960 forbids me to go there and to do these very things. The fact is that consultation only took place on a very limited scale with Government representatives and behind closed doors. The Assembly which met to consider the Constitution was harshly told and roughly that they should take what the Government was offering, “if they were wise ”. They were informed, amongst other things, that any idea of a multi-racial Parliament was out of the question. If any of them had any doubts about what they could demand, the treatment of Chief Sabata would have been a lesson to them. They were not even allowed to consider the idea of a multiracial Parliament. Yet I believe many of them wanted such a Parliament and I presume many of the White people would not have been averse to it. I say there has been no consultations with us and it is untrue to say that this Parliament is now engaged in the process of “working out the detail of their new Constitution in consultation with the leaders of the Xhosas ”. That is not a true statement. Nor are the other statements from which I have quoted from overseas newspapers. Yet these statements are read closely by our political enemies. I think it must make them more determined than ever to see that these promises are kept. When the Transkei becomes semi-independent, or partially independent, it becomes what will virtually be a Colony of South Africa. The Prime Minister in another overseas advertisement shows an unusual liking for the Commonwealth idea. He says—

Another advertisement says—

I think this Constitution which we are now examining cannot, by the longest stretch of imagination, be interpreted by the Xhosas as meaning that they will soon become absolutely independent members of a Commonwealth. I think if they are becoming anything, they are becoming satellites in an Empire controlled by White South Africa. Or else, if the Minister would prefer another analogy, becoming a member of a Soviet Union in which the “White baas” State, with its police and its army and its emergency regulations will control it like a Soviet. Sir, I say that United Nations will now keep a more than watchful eye on this Government to see that it keeps its promises, made in the Press of the world, within a reasonable time. Having said what they have said to the outside world, and having set up what is really a Colony subservient in many respects to a Colonial power, will the United Nations not consider that the status of the Transkei comes, as my Leader has said, within the purview of their Colonial Committee? UNO may claim some justification now in agitating to ensure that the tempo of development of the Transkei to complete self-government should, according to our promises, be left in the hands of the Bantu people. I am sure that the leaders of the Bantu, when they realize what these promises are, will react to outside pressure. They will be encouraged to hasten the process of development to complete sovereign independence, which the Prime Minister has promised they will get soon. The rate of development will be taken out of the hands of this Government by the very ill-advised statements which it has made overseas in an effort to persuade the world that “apartheid” is a democratic development

We are still their guardians.

You think you will still be the guardians! Is Britain still the guardian of Kenya? How can we remain the guardian of a sovereign independent nation? Did your race itself not object to guardianship? Do other men, because they are Black, not have the same aspirations and the same demands for freedom and sovereignty as you have? You have passed the point of return. They will now make the pace. The Government has committed itself to a step which, I believe, is ill-advised and which will lead to endless struggle and strife. We had hoped that it would not be too late to draw these people of Transkei within the orbit of one common allegiance and loyalty and patriotism to one South Africa. We know that if it had been left to the United Party we could have united these people with us in a common loyalty to a common fatherland and each would have contributed to the other’s welfare and prosperity and that together we could have built a harmonious and a great and a long-lived nation in South Africa such as the world would not willingly let die. But it seems now that that grand design may never be.

The hon. member who has just spoken in my opinion to some extent contradicted his hon. Leader who spoke last night. The hon. member contends that this Bill now before the House does not fulfil the high expectations that were aroused; that this Bill falls far short of the promise of sovereign independence to which he referred here. On the other hand, his Leader last night based his whole argument on the contention that this Government is inexorably moving in the direction of granting sovereign independence to the Transkei. He virtually stated that we should merely go around the corner and we shall be there. to-day the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) charged us with not being anywhere near that, and that we really do not intend to move in that direction.

Typical of that party.

It seems to me that the Opposition on the one hand wishes to inflate this Bill to a size that is much larger than it actually is, and on the other hand they want to deflate it to a size much smaller than it really is. I think the Opposition has only one object with that, and that is to sow confusion in the country, to create wrong impressions among our people outside, and to create confusion among them, so that they may derive political gain from it. In this debate we shall try to put the various principles of this Bill as closely and as clearly as possible, so that the country may know very clearly what it provides, and so that we may compare with it the principles and the policies of the Opposition. I should just like to refer to what the hon. member for Wynberg has said about the traders. I should like to say at once that I admit that the traders play a very important role in the economic life of the Transkei. They fulfil a very essential function there. They also play a very important role in the economic life of the border towns around the Transkei, and

I know that the trade that has been built up around them there, both the wholesale and retail trade, inside and outside the Transkei, is of great value to those parts. In my opinion they also are indispensable for the future development of the Transkei. That is why I wish to reassure the hon. member for Wynberg. He need not worry. The Government will not leave those people in the lurch.

The hon. member also towards the end of his speech referred, as did his hon. Leader last night, to the new pressure from UNO to which we shall now be exposed. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will permit me to say that he did the same thing last year too. Last year he did so on two occasions and he then said that the risk now is much greater that we shall be exposed to such pressure. He said that we would then have to submit a report in respect of the Transkei. The hon. the Leader will recall that he then said that the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) would produce proof. The hon. member for Germiston (District) spoke. He gave us a résumé of Article 73. He particularly referred to Article 73 (e) which provides that reports will have to be submitted in respect of the social, economic and educational progress in those areas and then the hon. member said that because we are a member of UNO we shall have to submit those reports. That was the sum total of the proof the hon. member adduced. The hon. member then mentioned two examples. He mentioned the examples of Alaska and Hawaii. Now I should like to say this: The hon. member did not in the slightest degree come to the point—nor did his hon. Leader—of proving that the Transkei will be a non-self-governing area in terms of Article 73. The hon. member did not tell this House that since the days of the old League of Nations they struggled to decide what a dependent territory really is. They were unable to do so in the days of the League of Nations, and in 1946 when they met, the members of the United Nations could not do so either. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition ought to know that. Because they could not do so, they passed a resolution that was quite correct and quite in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and with Article

2 (7). They resolved to leave it to every member of the United Nations to itself produce a list of such territories. That resolution was correct, and what lists were then produced? Permit me to mention a few: Australia submitted reports on the Cocos Islands; Belgium submitted reports on the Belgian Congo; France on Madagascar and others; New Zealand on Cook Island; Britain on Bechuanaland, Basutoland, Cyprus, Hong Kong, Zanzibar, etc. All of them colonial territories, all of them overseas territories that either by conquest or cession or being protectorates or being protected territories were under the control of the mother countries. They were all territories whose relationship to the mother countries was not a constitutional one but in accordance with public international law. Not one of those territories was comparable with an integral state area such as we have in the Transkei to-day. In 1946 it was left to the members of the United Nations themselves to decide whether they were going to submit those reports. That both the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Germiston (District) knew. It was left to the discretion of every State; no obligation was imposed upon them. Subsequently the question of reports arose, with the two examples mentioned by the hon. member for Germiston (District), viz. Alaska and Hawaii and later on Malta. Then the question arose whether, once you have submitted reports, you have the right unilaterally to discontinue submitting reports. The matter was dealt with on that point. Once you have submitted reports, have you the right unilaterally to discontinue submitting reports? That the hon. member also knew. But you cannot take those examples, and they are not precedents that you can follow, when you have territories in respect of which no reports have as yet been submitted. Only the 1946 resolution still stands. The case of Malta also is a case where Britain had submitted reports voluntarily, and because Malta’s constitutional position had altered, Britain discontinued the practice. Subsequently Britain had to resume the practice of submitting reports when Malta again came under its control. That resolution by UNO also provided, as the hon. member also knows, that if you formerly submitted reports on any territory, and the practice has been discontinued, those reports have to be submitted again once the constitutional position of that territory changes. I do know that certain Committees of UNO once again investigated the matter. I should just like to say that the last Committee, in its resolution of principles adopted by it in 1960, did nothing that derogates from what I have said here to-day. In principle that resolution specifically repeated that the original object was that reports should be submitted in respect of colonies. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I feel that because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Germiston (District) have never really adduced real proof in this House, it is really a line of thought and a line of reasoning that we should rather expect, with respect, from the Afro-Asian states, than from the United Party. For we are absolutely not obliged to submit reports. There is no precedent for it; not under the Charter; not under the resolutions of the United Nations. Anyone who to-day compares this territory, which forms an integral part of the Republic of South Africa, with the overseas empires the mother countries have built up in the course of centuries, makes a big mistake and I think does an injustice to this House.

We have heard much and we shall be hearing much in the form of quotations of what the leaders of the various parties said in the past. In that way the impression is created that we on this side of the House have thrown overboard old policies and that we have in two-two’s accepted new policies. I should like to say that I am not surprised that with the fine comb of politics one could go and dig up portions of speeches in which the utterances of a leader to-day might differ from utterances of leaders of the early days. Nor will it surprise me, Sir, if you were to find utterances of a leader of to-day that might differ to a slight degree from the utterances made by the same leader on former occasions. I should like to state that the precise thinking and the formation of those ideas on this great question of ours surely must change with the times. It cannot remain static. We in this House surely are aware of the fact that tremendous changes have taken place in the world. Surely we are aware of the terrific new demands of the times in which we are living. That is why it is only natural to me that the one leader will go further in the exposition, and the development and the execution of the same basic policy than a predecessor of his 20 years and even ten years ago would have gone. It is very understandable to me that the hon. the Prime Minister and this Government in the year 1963 will speak differently and do and think differently to what Dr. Malan and his Government would have done in 1948; no more than Dr. Malan and his Government in 1948 could have thought and done the same things that we are doing in 1963.

The Opposition also have changed. The Opposition no longer adheres to the 1936 legislation as the beginning and the end of Bantu representation. The Opposition have rejected segregation in favour of integration. The Opposition have rejected a unitary form of government in favour of a semi-federal state. The Opposition have moved from the Union Constitution via the Graaff Senate plan to racial federation. The Opposition no longer thinks, acts or talks as it formerly did. They also have changed considerably. That is quite natural to me, Mr. Speaker. I do not blame them for it. The fact that they have done so is to my mind merely the manifestation of a normal urge to adaptation present in them too. It is the desire and the necessity to have regard to and keep pace with the times in which we are living. It is only the growing pains of Africa that are manifesting themselves in them. The result they arrive at may bother me, Mr. Speaker, but the fact that they have changed does not bother me.

What is your attitude regarding the protectorates?

That adaptation of the Opposition also was for the sake of adaptation to the world. I need not prove it, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has frequently said in this House that the point of view they are adopting will satisfy the Western world. So their policy and their point of view from time to time was a process of adaptation. That is why I repeat that these leaders of to-day will and shall have to go further in the exposition and development and in the execution of the same basic policies, than their predecessors.

Now I should like to deal briefly with a second matter. I represent a constituency that is close to the Transkei and where people may perhaps in these days be discussing these matters. I should like to refer to the dangers of which we have been hearing so much. I should like to say this, that one should clearly divide those dangers into two parts. The first part comprises these immediate dangers that we are concerned with to-day, these ugly things of which we have been reading and hearing in recent times and with which we have become acquainted, not only in the Transkei but also in other parts of the Republic. The Opposition are now trying—and I think they are trying for the sake of political gain—to link those things with the Transkei development. The fact of the matter is that it is the manifestation of extremistic Pan-Africanism in South Africa. The fact of the matter is that those emotions, those profound urges and desires of people are being abused; they are in fact being abused at the present time to try to shipwreck this development in the Transkei. But those people are not by their actions aiming at the heart of the Transkei; they are aiming, and that is their intention, at the heart of South Africa. That is why I say that these things really are irrelevant to this Bill before the House, to this development we are concerned with to-day. It is concerned with other things that are much greater than the Transkei.

The second part of the danger that is presented to us. as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did last night again, is what I shall call the long-term dangers. One of those longterm dangers, as indicated by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, is the danger of “one man, one vote, one election ”. But, Sir, surely that is not so. Surely it is not so that under this Constitution you can have “one man, one vote, one election ”. We can have “one man, one vote” but where does the “one election come in? Do the Opposition now wish to proclaim from platforms in the country to the people in the country, that this is going to be an outcome of this Bill? Then we shall be able to meet them very easily on it.

They also say that as one of those longterm dangers we shall get alliances between the Transkei and other states. That is one of the dangers we shall be faced with, alliances with foreign communist states. Can we have that under this Bill now before this House? Why then does the Opposition say it is a danger that will flow from this Bill? That surely is not a danger that can arise under this Bill? They say these people may even become hostile to us. Mr. Speaker, all these are things that may happen some day. It is possible. It is possible if you adopt a certain point of view, but it cannot occur under this Bill. We have to be very clear on that.

If you say now these things are going to happen, if you try to scare people now with these things, what are you doing? I say then you are showing very little faith in those people to whom this Bill is going to apply. Then I ask the Opposition two things: I am asking them: Is that the way in which we in South Africa should build up confidence or trust between us and the people beyond the colour line? Is that the manner in which you build up friendships when you are continually telling your people: Beware of that man; beware, this will happen and beware, that will happen? The second question I wish to put is this: If those people inherently are capable of doing these things, if they are going to do all these things, then they are weak. Are those then the people whom the Opposition wish to accept as a necessary component of their race federation? If that is what the hon. Opposition think of them, what will be the value of that race federation then, for then it will be built absolutely on sand on the one side. There are many ugly things, but I do not yet see my way clear to building up my policy on the ugly things; nor do I see my way clear to abandoning my policy because there are ugly things, for I personally still believe in my fellowmen. I know there are bad people, Among all of us there are bad people, but the bad are far fewer than the good. That is why I see my way clear to tackle this matter on the basis that there is sufficient good in life, and sufficient good among those people to establish reasonableness among them, to achieve a good disposition on both sides of the colour line, and on that basis to work out something that will be to the good and benefit of all of us.

I should like to deal with one other matter, and that is this: I am sorry the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not here now, for I should very much like us to have clarity on this matter. Mr. Speaker, I had rather thought that with this Bill we were really to some small extent taking the same course that the Opposition proposes to take. In this Bill we are dealing with a certain area, namely the Transkei. I think that in respect of that area our roads run together for some distance. I should just like to read what the Leader of the Opposition said last year (Hansard No. 2, col. 293)—

He then proceeds and refers to South West Africa, saying—

I think that is conclusive proof that in respect of that area the Opposition under its race federation scheme envisages something similar to what we contemplate in this Bill.

Next I come to the powers and the authorities granted to that area under this Bill. I need not quote them; hon. members have them before them. But I contend that it corresponds to a considerable extent with what hon. members opposite propose to do for that area under their scheme. I should like to quote what the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) wrote in the Sunday Times on 21 January 1962. In referring to the third stage of the federation, he says this—

I repeat that word: “a true devolution of power to each race” and on the grounds of what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said, we could also substitute “area” for “race ”. Then he continues—

The hon. member for Yeoville was fairly kind to us and he went into details. He mentioned the matters he thought should be allocated to that race or to that area. He mentioned licensing. He mentioned education. He said everything that may be classified under the law of persons would be allocated to them. He mentioned the administration of justice in regional courts; he also referred to the broadcasting services and posts and telegraphs. Next I come to this second point, that in respect of that area, we agree, and in respect of the powers that should be conferred upon that area, we also agree. Now if that were all, the Opposition could have accepted this Bill; they could have voted for it and whenever they come into power, surely then they would already have a very good springboard for their own race federation scheme, which would then already be in operation in that part of the country. Now the Opposition is going to set the whole country agog. They are sowing the cyclone, they are invoking the hurricanes of heaven, and all the time they themselves are in that same storm.

What objection have they then to this Bill? They can have three objections to it, as I see it. Their one objection can be that this Bill does not provide that the Transkei shall have representation in the Central Parliament. That is an objection they may have. I wish to be very clear on this point, and I should very much like them to correct us if we are wrong. That representation in the Central Parliament they are referring to, and the answers the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has given to the Prime Minister in that regard, where in those replies he stated that it should be White representation, they meant the first stage of the race federation plan, and they meant it to be in this Parliament. That is still before the Federation is established. Hitherto they have consistently replied that it should be White representatives. But I should like to put it very plainly, it is White representation in the first stage of the federation scheme, and it is in this Parliament in which we are sitting to-day. Then all the races and all the groups and all the areas will be represented here, and then this Parliament, they say, this Parliament representative of all of them, will devise the race federation. Thereafter we shall then have the Federal Parliament which will be something different from this Parliament, and every race and every area, even the Transkei, will be represented in that Federal Parliament. As regards the Federal Parliament, I should like to make this submission to-day, to put it clearly, that in that Federal Parliament every race, every area, will be represented by its own people and not by Whites.

Of course, if it were necessary, I could read quotations to prove certain matters. Reference has already been made here to that article in the newspaper in which the hon. member for Yeoville said—

Now when the hon. member for Yeoville refers to “responsible opinion in the United Party”, surely he can only be referring to his Leader and to his Provincial Council leaders.

Then Mr. Horak, the Chief Secretary of the United Party, also wrote an article in the weekly. I should like to quote an extract from that also, because it reminds me a lot of something the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said last night, but I shall come to that later. Mr. Horak writes—

Then he does the same thing the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did to the hon. the Minister last night—

He makes excuses sheltering behind Dr. Verwoerd in the same way that his Leader did so last night. He is not courageous enough to preach his policy openly; he has to shelter behind someone. He says “if the party’s race federation policy is to hold out any attraction to the Bantu, representation by their own people cannot be withheld from them indefinitely

Another complaint against this draft constitution is that the urban Bantu, the urban Transkei Bantu, if I may call him that, is linked up with the Transkei under this Bill. I shall not dilate upon that. It does not fit into the scheme of hon. members. But they can rectify the matter when they come into power. I should merely like to state that if the Opposition do come into power, they will reinstate the Native Representative Council, and that they will give the urban Bantu representation in that Council, and that they will confer executive and legislative powers upon that Council.

I should now like to come to the point they call the “point of no return” and that saying of theirs that “freedom once conferred cannot be revoked ”. I should like to tell them that the point of no return does not lie in paper, it does not lie in words, it lies in the hearts of people. If they come into power, this Bill does not go so far that, in spite of the objections the hon. the Leader of the Opposition last night had to the citizenship of the Transkei, and the flag and the national anthem, which he called the symbols of independence, if they could gain the goodwill and the cooperation of the Bantu, they cannot incorporate them in their race federation. I say he will not go that far, and that is why the hon. the Opposition will be rendering itself a disservice if it attempts to represent something to the country that is not altogether true. I do not say that our courses are concurrent at the present time, but I do say that their course with their race federation and the Government’s course with this Bill to-day are not very wide apart. The Government has said so very clearly. We have said so everywhere in the country. I have said so personally and all my people know that. If things go well henceforth. then when the people are ripe for it, we shall move further in this direction, if it can be done in an orderly way and if it is in the interests of our country, and eventually it may possibly lead to sovereign independence. But if the Opposition were to succeed in coming into power and so govern the country, and if that were to happen in the foreseeable future, they will still have the opportunity to work in the direction of a race federation from this point onwards. That is why I do not understand why they are trying to give the country a wrong impression and to throw dust in the people’s eyes.

I should like to conclude with this point of “freedom once conferred ”. That of course is an old adage. I should like to ask hon. members who have a sound knowledge of British constitutional history where this thing originated. Great Britain has never given full freedom at once to any country. They always started in a small way at the bottom with the first steps of constitutional development. But once you have undertaken the first steps, you have to assume it will go all the way to the top and you will have to take further steps later on. Just take the federation plan of hon. members opposite for a moment. I am merely taking the legislative and the executive powers they now wish to confer upon the urban Bantu. Surely that is also only “freedom once conferred ”? Why then will it not also apply to them? We admit 100 per cent that it applies to us and our policy.

My time is running out. I do not wish to preach, but I have great faith in our future in South Africa. I find that on this side of the House, and I am prepared to seek it on the opposite side also, we are imbued with a tremendous mass of goodwill towards everybody in our country. What we are doing here to-day is something that fits into a great pattern. In South Africa we have economic prosperity; we are sharing that to the fullest extent with all the people in our country. We are trying to educate them; we are trying to help them socially. We try to share the benefits of our civilization with them. With this Bill we are now dealing with, and other things we are engaged upon, we are showing them that politically also we have not put them in a cul-de-sac. And in everything we do, also with this Bill, we are working not only for the White children, we are working also for Brown and Black children in our country. In that spirit and in that attitude of mind I have no hesitation in supporting this Bill in all its logical and full implications.

I intend in my speech to deal with the position in the Transkei, the area which is directly affected by the terms of this Bill. During the course of my address I will deal with a number of points raised by the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Loots), but those points that I am not able to deal with will be dealt with, I can assure him, by other members on this side of the House.

I have no doubt that even the most ardent supporter of the Bantustan policy—if there is such a person—feels some sympathy for me and the other White people living in the Transkei who are now to be sacrificed on the altar of apartheid. But let me warn the House that the sacrifice of approximately 20,000 Whites in the Transkei in the belief that the remaining millions can be saved is a fallacy. It may succeed as a short-term policy, but in the long run it will fail, and if the policy is to be continued after this first step has been taken here to-day, every citizen in this country. White, Coloured or Black, will be as disastrously affected as is every White and Coloured man, woman and child in the Transkei to-day. The Title of the Bill before us is “to confer self-government on the Bantu resident in the Transkei and to deal with matters affecting the Bantu related to those in the Transkei”, The term is “to confer”, not “to promote gradually ”. Clause 1 provides for a self-governing territory within the Republic. It does not provide for a measure of local government, which is the policy of the United Party. And this is my reply to the hon. member for Queentown when he asks if the United Party and the Nationalist Party are not now on the same road. If we intend giving them a measure of self-government, he asks, why cannot we support this Bill and go along with this government? And then he continues that if we take over the government one day, we can stop the progress where we like and we can put our policy of race federation into effect. I wish to point out to him, Sir, that, although this Bill proposes in its clauses only to give a measure of self-government, it is quite clear from the Title what is intended, and it is quite clear from speeches made by the Prime Minister and others what is the principle behind this Bill. And that is where we, in the United Party, differ fundamentally from the Nationalist Government, namely in respect of the ultimate goal. The hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development will never deny that the ultimate goal of the National Party is to give the Bantu in their areas self-government as sovereign independent states. And last night he replied to me that that step would come when the Bantu themselves ask for it. They will decide when they wish to get self-government.

As I say, the Bantu have been promised that they can develop to sovereign independent areas and the Title of the Bill substantiates that.

When the Minister of Bantu Affairs visited the Transkei a few years ago, Chief Tutor Ndamasa, the heir apparent of Western Pondoland, said to the hon. the Minister at Nyandeni: We want self-government in 1963, and we will talk about complete independence later. He is being given now what he asked for. The hon. the Prime Minister anticipated the general election in the Republic by two years, because, he said, he did not want the Whites to be at each other’s throats in the year 1963, the year of freedom. The African Nationalist Organization have made it clear that 1963 was to be the year of freedom. If the hon. the Prime Minister’s policy now is allowed to be carried out to the full, the African Nationalists will have carried out their boast that 1963 would be the year of freedom, because the first step towards final domination, not only in the Transkei, but throughout Southern Africa, will be taken when this Bill is passed by this House in the year 1963. It is interesting to note that when the motion for self-government was first considered by the Tembuland authority in 1961, an amendment was suggested to apply self-government, not only to the Transkei, but to all the Bantu areas in the Republic. Sir, this move will not stop in the Transkei.

The hon. the Prime Minister has said that this development is not what he desired. He says that he has been compelled to carry it out because of pressure from overseas. Every member here knows that this measure will have far-reaching effects. All hope for good, but all fear ill. I want to deal with this measure as it affects the White and Black people in the Transkei, and I first want to deal with the position of the White people.

The first question I want to put to the hon. the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Bantu Administration is: Why were the White people not consulted before this step was taken? There might be some excuse for the Prime Minister saying as he did last year, that it was not his duty to consult the Bantu, that that was the duty of the Recess Committee to do so. But there is absolutely no excuse for his neglect of the Whites. To tell us that it was up to the Recess Committee to consult us if it chose to do so, was the most flagrant neglect of duty by a Prime Minister to his people that I have ever heard of. Sir, the Nationalists and the Prime Minister are very critical of lack of sympathy shown by the British Government to the Whites in Kenya and the Rhodesias, but the British Government has at any rate consulted with both White and Black, and only then were changes brought about in the constitution, and those consultations, as the Minister knows, have in fact gone on for years before major changes have been brought about in the constitution. They are still negotiating in Kenya as to what the constitution is to be and they are endeavouring to get agreement between the Africans and the Whites. It is true that the Prime Minister met a deputation of Whites and as a result appointed the Heckroodt Commission to inquire into their position, but that was only after he had promised the Bantu self-government, and although he agreed that a liaison committee should be appointed, he in fact never consulted that committee at all on the constitution to be applied to the Transkei. The attitude of the Prime Minister, a leader of a party which is pledged to maintain White interests, is incomprehensible. It cannot be that he overlooked us or forgot our presence, because the position of the White man in the Transkei has been raised year after year in this House, and one would have thought that he would have considered the full implications of the implementation of a policy of granting self-government before making the dramatic announcement in this House last year. It seems now that the announcement was made almost in a state of panic in reply to a motion of censure moved by the Leader of the Opposition, without proper consideration of all the implications. One would have thought that he would have been able to tell the White inhabitants at the same time what protection he was prepared to give them, but he was not in a position to do so, and only later, after he had committed himself, did he appoint a committee to make recommendations to him as to what he should do for the White people. Sir, the question is not only asked by the Europeans in the Transkei, but is being asked by Europeans throughout the country: What is the Government doing for the White people in the Transkei? That question was put at the Nationalist Party Congress at East London. There were several resolutions on the agenda there, and the Prime Minister in reply told the Nationalist Party Congress that he was not doing to the Transkei what Britain did in Kenya. He said that the White Kenyans were worried that the British Government would not fulfil its promises of compensation. Sir, we in the Transkei have had no promise of compensation. Early in February, when the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration landed at the D. F. Malan aerodrome, he gave an interview and there he said that he would give compensation where warranted. Now what does that mean “where warranted ”? We want to know when it will be warranted. We are left in the air. We have had no definite promise of compensation, which presumably the Whites in Kenya must have got, if the hon. the Prime Minister is correct. The hon. Prime Minister went on further to say that in Kenya the value of the property of the Whites was deteriorating continually. What does he think is happening in the Transkei? Ever since 1952, when he made his first policy statement on the Transkei, property has deteriorated in the Transkei, and it is no good telling us, as he did the other day, that he will not leave the Whites there in the lurch. We have got to be looked after now, not when we are finally removed. Because there are people who want to move now; there are people who have to move, not because they want to go voluntarily but because of illness or death in the family or for various other reasons. They cannot get out. The hon. Minister said in this House yesterday in reply to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) that he knew many White Kenyans who would be prepared to buy White properties in the Transkei. I do not want to doubt the honesty of the hon. Minister, but I am sure that he was not considering fully what he was saying. If he has got some names of people in Kenya who want to buy property in the Transkei, I wish he would give us their names. He must know that there are heaps of properties for sale in the Transkei at the moment, but the people cannot get buyers. I hope the hon. Minister will get in touch with the White Kenyans who want to buy in the Transkei and there will be plenty of properties for sale.

Your property too?

I am not trying to sell my property across the floor of this House, I am not making a deal across the floor of the House. I am interested in my constituents who are living in the Bantu areas. The hon. the Prime Minister also said that we would keep our citizenship in the Republic and that those living in the towns and villages would not fall under the jurisdiction of the new government. But what of the traders in the rural areas? Every one of them will now virtually be a foreigner in a foreign land. They live on property which they or their forebears acquired. They are not birds of passage. The White traders settled there over 100 years ago, and some families had been in ownership of trading stations for over 80 years, and they have been handed down from father to son. And, Sir, their business is a specialized one. I would like to read what the Chamber of Commerce put up to the. Heckroodt Commission in regard to the business of a trader—

As I say, their calling is a specialized one, and they cannot merely establish themselves elsewhere now. The hon. the Prime Minister said at Goodwood the other night when addressing office-bearers of his party that he would help them to re-establish themselves in the White areas. But they have never been in the White areas; most of them have never lived in White areas; they only know one calling. I would like to know how the Prime Minister is going to establish them in the White areas. He should tell us how he intends helping the White people.

I have not enough time to go into the history of White settlement in the Transkei and the sacrifices made in the past and the services rendered to the Bantu and to the administration which the hon. the Minister will readily admit. I have frequently addressed the House on that score in the past. We are continually told by officials that the White traders will be required in the area for a long time. For obvious reasons. The hon. the Prime Minister knows that is the position, and the officials know that if they should leave the area at once, there would be chaos and there would be a complete collapse. That is why they have got to be kept there, and if the Prime Minister and the Minister wish to keep them there, they must make it attractive enough for them to stay there. Sir, what is their position in the rural areas? They will in fact become little Berlins, as I have said before. The very roads to their trading stations will be controlled by a foreign power, their licences will be controlled by the new government. Chief Kaiser Matanzima said in an interview with the Dispatch that the Bantu wanted a monopoly of the trading rights. What easier way would there be to get a monopoly than to deny the trader access to his station or by refusing a renewal of his licence, or by increasing his licence fees on a discriminatory basis, or by reducing the value of his assets by allowing over-trading? Fears as to what the new constitution will hold in store for the traders was somewhat allayed by the appointment of the Heckroodt Commission and reference has been made to statements made by the commissioners in Umtata and other places. Paragraph 68 of the Report of the Bantu Recess Committee recognizes that the traders were entitled to facilities for realizing their assets, and they said that provision should be made for compensation. When we discussed the matter in this House we were reassured by the hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration that the Whites would be looked after and he referred specially to the recommendations by the Recess Committee. But no mention at all is made in this constitution of the White man, no protection is given to him at all. We have not even had an assurance from the Prime Minister or from the Minister that the recommendations of the Heckroodt Commission would be accepted if they are satisfactory to the Whites in the area. All we are told by the Prime Minister is that he will not treat us as the Whites in Kenya have been treated. The hon. the Prime Minister in order to allay fear throughout the country as to what he is doing to the Whites, puts up a lot of nine-pins and then knocks them over himself. He told his office-bearers at Goodwood—

Now when did the White people in the Transkei ever ask to “verower” the trade of the Black man? He went on to say—

We are not asking him to establish new White spots in the area. All we are asking him to do is to keep these trading stations under the jurisdiction of the Central Government. He said—

Now who asked him to stop it? The traders are quite happy to compete with Native traders. The White traders are quite happy to sell their trading stations to the Bantu and they do not mind other Bantu coming in in opposition to them. He says—

Nobody has asked him to withhold those rights from the Bantu. To reassure the office-bearers of the Nationalist Party the hon. Prime Minister put up a lot of nine-pins and then proceeded to knock them down himself. What assurances have we had that the White man will be looked after? As I say, the hon. the Minister said in the interview at D. F. Malan Airport that compensation would be paid when warranted. He said that the White traders in the Bantu areas would be foreigners in another state, but that the Government would look after them. We do not want to be foreigners in another state. The hon. Minister accused me of inciting hostility between the White man and the Black man by defending the rights of the White man. I deny that suggestion. I am entitled and it is my right and duty to protect the rights of the White man as far as I can. I have had no contact with the liaison committee at all.

Hm!

Is the hon. Minister doubting? I challenge the Deputy Minister to bring any proof that I have discussed this matter with any member of the liaison committee. We were told that this matter was confidential. Politics were not to come into it. I purposely did not consult with them because I wanted to keep politics right out of it, because knowing this Government, I knew that hon. members would say that I was responsible for any hostility that might arise among the Europeans against the constitution. But what I did think was that if everything was going to be treated so confidentially, somebody must be being led up the garden path, either the White man or the Black man. Otherwise why could not the Prime Minister come out in the open and tell us what was happening? We saw in the Press the other day that the liaison committee had received a letter. I thought it was from the Prime Minister, but I see from the Sunday Times that it was a letter from the Minister of Bantu Administration. I do not know whether that letter was in fact sent by the hon. the Minister and whether he saw the letter in the Sunday Times, the reporter said that he managed to get access to the letter. But in that letter it says that the Minister wrote—

Later in the letter he said—

We, Sir, are to be foreigners in our own country.

You are now.

That is a typical remark from the other side. I suppose that, because I am English-speaking, I am a foreigner in this country. That is typical of the Nationalist Party that the country only belongs to Afrikaans-speaking people.

He did not say that.

What then did the hon. member mean by that remark?

“Boerehater.”

Sir, I will admit that I have addressed public meetings and warned people of the dangers in store for the White people if the Government’s policy is carried out. Once before the Minister accused me of starting a whispering campaign by the Natives against the Bantu Authority plan. When we challenged him, and asked him for the proof, he read from a paper that I addressed a public meeting in the Umtata Town Hall, and he also said that I had done the same thing in this House. Sir, everything I say, and all my criticism of the Government, is done in public, and I am not afraid to do so, and I will continue to do so. There is no need for me to go behind anybody’s back.

The Government’s policy is that the White people have no future in the Transkei, that White people will not be encouraged to develop interests in the Transkei. I say that if the hon. Minister has read what has happened in Northern Rhodesia recently, he will realize what an injustice he is doing to the Black man in the Transkei by stopping development there. He will have seen that money is flowing into Northern Rhodesia. Lusaka’s seams are bursting.

What capital is flowing in?

White people are bringing capital in and their own initiative. They are allowed to do that in Rhodesia, but they are not encouraged to do so in the Transkei.

How did this Bill come about? Who is responsible for this Bill? The hon. Minister and Nationalist members are at pains to tell us that this constitution is the work of the Bantu. They tell us that it is at their request that self-government is being given, and the Minister bases this claim, I take it, on the fact that the request for self-government was made by the Territorial Authority in 1961. Now, Sir, we all know how the Territorial Authority came to be established. First we had the Bunga before the present Government took over. The Bunga was operating as a local government, but the Prime Minister wished to do away with the Bunga because he wanted his system of Bantu Authorities to be accepted, and so he made it attractive to the Bunga to ask for a Bantu Authority to be established in the Transkei, and they did so under the understanding that they would get more powers. They did not realize that all the powers they are getting under this Bill could have been given to them under the old Bunga system. But the Prime Minister wanted his system of Bantu Authorities established. He did not apply it in the same way as it was applied in the rest of the country. He issued a special proclamation in which he allowed a certain degree of election of members in the lowest Bantu Authority, the Tribal Authority. The Bunga, of course, was mainly an elected body, members elected through electoral colleges. Sir, the Bantu Authority was so unpopular in the Transkei that eventually the Bantu broke out in revolt and the Van Heerden Commission found that that was the result of the corruption by the chiefs in that area that this revolt took place.

That is not true.

Of course that is true. The hon. member cannot deny that; he cannot deny that they found that there were allegations of corruption against the chiefs, that allegations were rife.

Allegations, but no proof.

If the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) is so keen on protecting the Bantu Authorities, I must say it is rather peculiar that the two chiefs who became chairmen of that Authority both had their bodyguards whilst the other two paramount chiefs, who by chance or design avoided the chair, could move about freely without guards. No, there is no doubt about it that the system of Bantu Authorities is unpopular, and the hon. member knows it, and I contend that this is one of the reasons why this self-government scheme is being proceeded with. The Government wants to get rid of the Bantu Authorities in the Transkei. Now, Mr. Speaker, how did this appeal come to be made for self-government?

If we read the Blue Book for 1961 we find a motion was moved by a certain councillor which said that, in order to ease the situation of uneasiness in the Union of South Africa, and in view of the Government’s policy of separate development, and the fact that the Bantu people in the Union have no representation in the Union Legislature, this authority asks for certain things. Later again another supporter of the motion said this—

It is clear that these requests were made because of the Government’s policy of denying them representation in this House. Another member said: “I remember an occasion when our representation was abolished in Parliament. It was abolished before we could even consult our people. I remember an occasion when we accepted the Bantu Authorities in principle and we did not consult our people.” When the matter was discussed at the last session of the Territorial Authority, Chief Kaiser Matanzima even referred to the fact. He said that the basic principle was that the Bantu of the Republic of South Africa had no share in the making of the laws of the country and I submit that was the reason why this motion was introduced, because their representation in this House was taken away from them. That is why they asked for self-government. But there was no request from the Bantu to have separate states. They were forced into it by this Government. The Secretary for Bantu Affairs in fact told the Territorial Authority that it was part of the principles of democratic government that there should be no taxation without representation. I wish he was able to make policy for this Government, but the point I wish to make is that they have asked for this self-government now because of the policy of the Nationalist Party in taking away their rightful representation.

When the recommendations of the Recess Committee were first considered in May, there was some confusion about the procedure and argument as to whether certain vital clauses had been accepted or not. But before the discussions started the Secretary for Bantu Affairs addressed the members and he said it was not open to them to ask for any type of constitution they liked; it was a matter of contract between them and the Government. This is what he said—

So that when this Territorial Authority did meet to discuss the constitution, it was made quite clear to them that they would only get what the Government was prepared to give, and they had to bear that in mind in considering the constitution. Certain suggestions were made. Certain of the members—and important chiefs they were, too—suggested that they should have a multi-racial parliament, but it was made quite clear to them by Chief Kaiser Matanzima that they would not be able to get that because it was contrary to Government policy, and he pointed out that the Natives had no representation in this House and therefore the Whites should have no representation in that House. I am pointing this out so that hon. members will know that this constitution is not necessarily what the Bantu as a whole wanted and I say again that the Bantu were not consulted. A few of the chiefs and headmen were consulted and the Minister is quite right when he says that they were consulted, but when you read through the minutes of the proceedings you will see that several chiefs, two chiefs in Western Pondoland, one of whom was Victor Poto’s son, a chief in Eastern Pondoland, i.e. a Sigcau, and chiefs at Willowvale, and chiefs from other areas appealed that this matter be held over until they had a chance of consulting their own people, but it was not held over. If the members had understood this constitution, it would be a different matter. The Minister may be quite right in saying that they drew up this constitution themselves, but it is quite clear from the remarks of Chief Kaiser Matanzima that they did not understand it, because at one stage he objected and said: You have had this constitution in your hands for a week and if members did not understand English, they could have got interpreters to translate it for them. I think it is shocking that this constitution should have been handed out to them a week before the time that the authorities sat, and no matter what the Minister says I refuse to believe that the members of the Territorial Authority understood it, let alone the ordinary tribesmen.

I would like to point out also that although Matanzima says they could have got interpreters to interpret it to them if they did not understand English, the Secretary for Bantu Administration admonished them on the first day they met, because he said some information had leaked out to the Press, and that this constitution was confidential until the Commissioner-General opened the conference. Well, whom could they consult if the constitution was confidential? I submit they did not understand it and it is senseless for the Minister to pretend that they do. The mere fact that several of the chiefs asked for permission to consult their people, and not only Chief Sabata—he was the only one who got publicity—shows that the people do not understand it. And I still say that the Bantu living in the urban areas were not consulted at all, no matter what the Minister may say. I know a few of them were invited to go to Umtata, but I say that is not consultation. He has not replied to me as to whether he saw these people in the Cape who asked to meet him. At D. F. Malan Airport he told the Press that he would not give the details of his meeting with Sabata till after the constitution had been discussed. That is most unfair. We are entitled to know what discussions he had with Sabata while we are discussing this Bill, and not after the Bill has been passed. Why cannot the Minister tell us what he discussed with Sabata? Why does the Minister not give us all the facts?

Well, so the Republic of South Africa is about to become a colonial power and it is promising a new state constitutional development and eventually complete independence, hoping that the South African Government will be able to dictate the rate of progress, despite the lessons which should have been learnt from the experiences of well-intentioned metropolitan powers in their colonies in the rest of Africa, where every one of those powers had the firm intention of handing over a well-ordered government. But the Government hopes that Chief Kaiser Matanzima will become the first chief minister, and that a cabinet which is in sympathy with Matanzima will be elected. But the Government cannot be sure of that. The Government does not know who is going to take over there. It does not know how the elected members will vote. The Minister shakes his head and agrees with me. I just want to point out that although Matanzima accepts the Government’s policy that the Whites must get out of the Transkei, the other chiefs do not agree, and I want to know what will happen if one of the other chiefs takes over and they decide to encourage White people to come in to open up that wonderful coastline to tourist traffic and to build up a tourist trade for their people to get extra finances? What will the Government do then? The Government hopes that Matanzima will take over and he said he would fight Communism. I quite believe that he is anti-communist and that he wants orderly government and will not allow the communists to take over. I am sorry the Minister of Information is not here, while we are talking about Communism and the threat to the new states. In addressing a public meeting in Durban he said that if any foreign power tried to establish itself in the Transkei the South African Government would take the same steps as America did in regard to Cuba. Well, he is the Minister of Information. I hope he will let the communists and Chinese know that we have large stocks of atomic bombs with which to deter them. What absolute nonsense! We know what has been happening in Ghana. I fear we are in for a rude shock. This Bill applies to the Transkei, but it will be the pattern for future constitutions for the remaining six or seven Bantu homelands and it will probably soon be applied to the Ciskei because there is already a move afoot, both in the Transkei and in the Ciskei, for the two territories to join. It is said that although the step we are being asked to take to-day has its dangers, it is the only solution to our problem. I deny that. This is no solution to our problem, and it is no solution to the millions of Natives living outside the Transkei. [Time limit.]

I am pleased to hear members of the Opposition groan because I think they are preparing themselves for what they are going to get. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) dealt at length with the so-called critical position in which this legislation would place the Whites of the Transkei, particularly the traders. He tried to create the impression that the Government was throwing the Whites to the wolves. I want to say to-day that with his irresponsible statements in this House and his actions outside he is trying to create unnecessary panic and unrest among the Whites in the Transkei. I am aware of the fact that the Whites in the Transkei are his constituents and that he has to create the impression that he is looking after their interests but I think he is only doing them a disservice by acting in that way.

As far as the Whites in the Transkei are concerned, we can sin in two directions. Firstly, we can do what the hon. member for Transkeian Territories is doing namely to frighten those people and to say that they must immediately leave the Transkei, that their rights are not being protected and that property will become Bantu property. On the other hand I also want to warn against it that you may sin by informing the Whites of the Transkei that they can remain there for all time and that their rights are absolutely safe and that the position will never change. Neither of these two statements is true. I want to say immediately and unequivocally that the sojourn of the Whites in the Transkei is, as far as I am concerned, as temporary as the presence of the Bantu in the White areas is, namely merely to give service and that the Whites will always be in the Transkei in the capacity of rendering a service and not as a settler to make that his homeland. Because every business that is transferred, every bond or business that is registered must be approved of by the State President and that shows you that it is Bantu territory and that the Whites are only there by act of favour. That was the position in the past and that is the position to-day. As long as the Bantu needs the White man, so long can he remain there, but he must never think that he can settle there and make that area his homeland. Once the White man’s services are no longer required there he will have to be repatriated just as the Bantu will have to be repatriated to his area once his services are no longer required in the White area. This applies to both the inhabitants of the White spots and the traders. However, although their sojourn there is of a temporary nature, it must be admitted that they have to a great extent become settled there because they have been rendering a service there for such a long time. I also realize that they are serving a real economic purpose. I realize that without the traders the economy of the Transkei will suffer greatly. For this reason alone it is necessary to protect their interests, that is essential, and I also want to do that in order to see what the effect of this legislation will be on their position.

Let us first deal with the position of the towns in the White spots and their inhabitants vis-a-vis this legislation. Clause 2 of the Bill states very clearly that it will only apply to those areas of the Transkei which are Bantu areas, whereas Clause 73 clearly defines the Bantu area. It is clear from these two clauses, therefore, that the inhabitants of the towns in the White spots do not at the moment come under the scope of this legislation. That being the position, there is no reason for the inhabitants of those towns to believe that they will always be allowed to stay there because Clause 3 provides that the State President may by means of proclamation declare that any area be included in or excised from the Transkei. That is clearly notice to them that they are there temporarily. As a matter of fact, in paragraph 15 of its report, the Recess Committee makes provision for the transition period and Clause 60 provides how that transition is to take place. While they do not fall under this legislation at the moment, therefore, they will not remain outside it for all time.

I now come to the position of the traders. It is a pity that the hon. member for Transkeian Territories did not go into this matter properly. Clause 64 provides that all laws which immediately prior to the commencement of this Act, were in force will remain in force until repealed by a competent authority. Therefore the position of those traders will remain exactly the same after self-government has been conferred on the Transkei as it is to-day. What is their position to-day? There are two types of trader in the Transkei. There are those who own a trading site by “deed of grant”; that is to say they have right of ownership there. Then there are traders who occupy a trading site by way of concession. The owner as well as the one who occupies a site by way concession, are both protected by Proclamation No. 11 of 1922 which makes it quite clear that the property of those who have a right of ownership cannot be alienated except for public use. The position is the same in the case of those who occupy sites by means of concession, because paragraph 7 of the contract between them and the State says that they will not lose that right unless it is expropriated. These rights will continue to remain as they are to-day.

Who denied it?

You are denying it and suggesting that all of them will be thrown to the wolves to-morrow. The licences of those trades are equally well protected by Proclamation No. 11 of 1922. They have to comply, in the first instance, with the Trade Licences Ordinance of the Cape Province and furthermore the chief magistrate of the Transkei has to approve of any renewals. How does this Bill change that position? As far as the “deeds of grant” are concerned are they suggesting that the new government of the Transkei will expropriate all property by way of legislation? Do they think it is possible that a government will pass such a drastic measure whereby all private property can be expropriated? Certainly not. Why do they spread these scare stories then and why do they try to create panic?

Otherwise they have to approve of the Bill.

Is the hon. member also saying that if there is a new government it will not only expropriate all private property but that it will ignore all contractual rights? Because all those who have no right of ownership have the right to be there by concession, and that is a contractual right. Are they suggesting that the new government of the Transkei will simply cancel all contractual rights? Surely it is ludicrous to think that. All the hon. member succeeds in doing is to insult the Bantu leaders of the Transkei. He is engaged in a campaign which will stir up the Bantu in the Transkei against the Whites, and unnecessarily so, because so far they have acted very responsibly. They asked for far fewer rights than the Prime Minister was prepared to give them. Those people who have acted in such a responsible manner will now act in this terrible irresponsible way towards the Whites! Is that what they think about the Bantu?

I want to refer to the Heckroodt Commission to which reference has so often been made. They say the commission has not as yet submitted its report and for that reason we should continue with this legislation. But what are the terms of reference of that commission? It is nothing but a red herring which they are dragging in here. This is the instruction—

In other words, the position of the Whites is not affected. They will have to face up to certain problems which will arise as a result of the new position and that is to investigate the results of the step which we are taking here. The report of the Heckroodt Commission is not a result of this step, but this step is the reason for its existence; it only has to investigate certain results. Why do they continually rub this Heckroodt Commission under our noses?

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories said: “The Whites were not consulted.” Mr. Speaker, all the White people in the Transkei form part of our voters corps in South Africa.

We have not been consulted.

Did you not take part in the elections in this country? Since 1948 four elections have been fought on this policy and what we had in mind for the Bantu has always been stated very clearly. During the last election in 1961 this question was specifically raised. The question was then raised in the Transkei and all the Whites of the Transkei form part of the voters corps in South Africa and they were consulted during that election; they also read the newspapers; the hon. member must not tell me that they were not consulted or that they no longer read their newspapers. The Whites of the Transkei have always been well aware of the fact that it was Bantu territory. They know it from the manner in which they enjoy property rights, because none of those rights may be ceded without the approval of the State President and that is not the position in White areas. They have, therefore, all these years been fully aware of the fact that it was Bantu territory and that they were not ordinary settlers; that they were only there to render a service.

They also complain and say that the Government did not consult the Bantu and that the majority of the Bantu in the Transkei are opposed to this legislation. I want to state the contrary, namely, that this legislation is the creation of the Transkei Bantu themselves and that we are merely putting the legal stamp on it. I want to say immediately that the Bantu were fully aware of the fact that it would be the Government’s policy that would be carried out here and that policy was held out by the Opposition to the Bantu and the world outside as a bluff, as a party slogan; they also presented it to the Bantu as such. Let me just go into the history of the matter, Sir. On 21 April 1961 a representative from the area of Chief Victor Poto moved a motion at a meeting of the Transkeian Territorial Authority in which he asked for self-government for the Transkei. When he asked for that, the Opposition was jubilant because they said: “Now he is calling the Government’s bluff.” They pretended that we were in an awkward spot. That motion was not on the agenda of that meeting at all and notice was only given of it two days before it was discussed on 19 April. No one was aware of the fact that the motion would be introduced; it was quite unexpected. Many of us thought that others had incited the mover to move the motion. A headman from Butterworth, Monokali, moved an amendment and do you know what his amendment was, Sir? His amendment was: “That item 101 be referred back to the people.” That appears in the minutes of the Transkeian Territorial Authority. Because the hon. member for Transkeian Territories always has such a great deal to say about what Chief Sabata is supposed to have said I just want to illustrate what Sabata’s attitude was. This was what Chief Sabata said about consultation with the people—

That was what he moved, namely, that they should immediately vote on the matter. On a latter occasion he went even further. I just want to say that I am also aware of it that it was Sabata in 1961 before Sabata fell victim to the liberals in the Transkei. The result was that Monokali’s amendment that the matter should first be discussed was rejected as a result of Sabata’s representations. In terms of that motion three things first had to be investigated by the Recess Committee; firstly, whether they were financially in a position to govern themselves and the second instruction to the Recess Committee was that it should be a Bantu state. The third point which they emphasized in that motion was that the system of chieftainship should be retained. That was stated in their motion. I think it was Tutor Ndamase who moved the motion in that form, and after he had moved the motion he said that and that differs from the story which the hon. member for Transkeian Territories told us here this afternoon—

because he had already said it two or three times—

Why do you not quote what was said in connection with consultation with the Whites? He asked that the Whites should be consulted.

I shall come to that in a moment. As a result of this motion consultations took place at Pretoria. As a result of those discussions the hon. the Prime Minister made a statement a little later in this House in January 1962. That Recess Committee then drew up a report which was circulated amongst all the regional authorities in the Transkei in order to obtain their views. The views of the Bantu in the urban areas were also obtained. The views of the Bantu throughout the Transkei as well as those of the Bantu outside the Transkei in connection with self-government were indeed properly sought. When the report was considered nobody, Sabata included, complained that the public of the Transkei had not been consulted. The Territorial Authority considered the report of the Committee in May 1962. Paragraph after paragraph was taken and disposed of. On that occasion Kaizer Matan-zima expressed himself as follows—

Sabata concluded—

He went further and he said that there were still certain Judas Iscariots active in the Transkei, and that was the time when the liberals laid their hands on Sabata, because from that moment Sabata adopted a different attitude. The report was adopted with a few minor amendments in regard to the composition of the Legislative Assembly. It was suggested that the representatives of the Chiefs should be fewer in number than the elected members, but that motion was rejected by 70 to 3, and Sabata was certainly not one of those three.

There are two other points which are as plain as a pike-staff in this report. It is clear in the first instance that it must be a Bantu state. I just want to quote what George Matanzima said (page 9 of the report)—

Nobody supported that. This Bill was considered by the Territorial Authority on 11,12 and 13 September at a special sitting. It was again considered clause by clause. It is very clear that not only were all Bantu consulted by their Territorial Authorities and their tribal authorities, not only were the Bantu outside the area consulted, but all representatives were agreed.

I want to conclude as far as this report is concerned by saying that three things become unequivocally clear from it: Firstly, that the request for self-government came from the Bantu; that the Bantu themselves drew up the report of the Recess Committee on which this Bill is based. They had this Bill for more than nine months. The fact, therefore, that the Bill has been before us a week before the time makes no difference because all the provisions of the Bill were already contained in the report of the Recess Committee which they had already had for nine months. It is also clear from this report that the Bantu were free to make any recommendations which they thought proper. They did not make any extravagant recommendations. As a matter of fact it is very clear from a speech which is recorded in the minutes that Matanzima said that the Prime Minister had insisted that all the representatives should be elected representatives and that they had said that they were not prepared to accept that; that they then went back and consulted their people and returned to the Prime Minister and told him that they wanted the ratio to be 60 chiefs against 40 elected members. It is very clear from these facts that the allegation made by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories that the Whites were not consulted, that the Whites were being thrown to the wolves, the allegation that the Bantu were not consulted, is a “cock and bull” story.

I now want to come to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. So far one thing has become crystal clear in this debate and that is that the United Party accept the Bantu in the White area as a full-fledged citizen of the White area, a citizen to whom civilian and political rights must be granted in the White area. The Leader of the Opposition has thereby abandoned two cardinal principles which governed race relationships in South Africa in the past. In the first place he has abandoned the principle of separation and differentiation between White and non-White and in the second place he has abandoned the principle of White guardianship over the non-Whites. The Leader of the Opposition stated—

That is his policy to-day—

In other words, the United Party is striving to achieve a “common loyalty” to one single nation consisting of Black and White. That does not only mean equality; it means even more; it means total integration of the White people and the Black people into one single nation— “a common loyalty with one nationalism”. Where that is the position that they accept one nationalism, one “common loyalty”, there can no longer be any suggestion that the Black people should be treated differently from the White people, nor can the White be placed above the Black or the Blacks above the Whites. That is the logical consequence of his statement that there must be a “common loyalty” to one nation. The Leader of the Opposition also realized that very fully because he went on to say—

In other words, he envisaged Black people in this House to represent the Blacks. Those were his own words. If he takes that idea of “one nationalism” further, it also means that they have to be here in the ratio of Blacks towards Whites; in other words, for every one White representative there will have to be five non-Whites here. It means that the Bantu will be represented in this House by Bantu; it follows logically that the Bantu will be represented in this House on an equal footing with the Whites. He may say that he does not want that at this moment. I know that he does not want it but they have never as yet considered anything thoroughly. We have already considered the logical consequences of all these questions. We think that his policy will lead to one Black Parliament in the long run as is to-day happening in the northern areas of Africa. That has become crystal clear in this debate. The Leader of the United Party objected in particular to the flag, the anthem and the official language of the Xhosas because he said those were the symbols of a separate nationhood. He does not even want those symbols of a separate nationhood because he wants one nation. He also objected to the legislative powers that were being given to the Transkei. He says that the Legislative Assembly and the State President are sovereign in respect of the powers which are granted to them. It is true that the legislators of the Transkei are sovereign in respect of those powers and privileges which are granted to them. We do not deny that. We ourselves have thought about it and we know that that is the position. It is that which distinguishes it from a provincial council. This Legislative Assembly will not be a glorified provincial council. As a matter of fact they will constitute a separate state. It is really this separate sovereignty with separate political rights for the Bantu in South Africa which destroys the idea of a race federation in South Africa because it will no longer be practical politics to talk about a race federation in future, unless you want to destroy the Xhosa nation and the Xhosa state. Does the United Party want to start an imperialistic war and deprive those Xhosa of their State after this?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also had something to say about Xhosa citizenship. We want to give them this separate citizenship. We have thought about all these matters. Last night the hon. the Leader of the Opposition held out a whole string of bogeys to us. He thinks that we get frightened at everything. We have considered the extreme consequences of these matters and we are not afraid to face up to those consequences.

I regard this Bill against the background of the two-stream policy of the late General Hertzog. We who have been sitting in this House over the past decade have had the unique historical experience of taking part in the climax and in the end of the bitter constitutional struggle in which the two main White groups of our nation have been involved for approximately a century and a half. That struggle ended when we became a Republic, a Republic which is to-day giving birth— I say it is giving birth—to a significant reconciliation between the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking sections and a new White unity. The Whites are now fighting this new White unity by conjuring up new fears. That is the policy of the United Party to-day. This White unity is made possible by the two-stream policy of General Hertzog which he announced at De Wildt under that lonely “karee” tree. To-day that has yielded good results. On that occasion General Hertzog also laid down his policy of segregation and his segregation policy was also a two-stream policy, a two-stream policy of Whites on the one side and non-Whites on the other side. I believe that as in the case of the two White groups the two-stream policy has led to White unity, the two-stream policy in respect of White and non-White will also lead to new racial harmony and to the solution of our colour problems in South Africa. It is against that background that I see this legislation.

I want to conclude with this thought: This legislation which crystallizes that two-stream policy of Whites and non-Whites also establishes a new Black State in South Africa. It is based on the principle of separate development, and it is a hard blow between the eyes of the world outside, particularly other African States because a State is being created here which is founded on separate uni-racial development. The Bantu of the Transkei have set an example with their moderate demands and self-control. I pay tribute to them for that. An alliance is for the first time being forged, an alliance which will last and which is honest. I believe that history will prove that the candle of civilization was correctly lit in the southern corner of Africa. This legislation in reality puts into effect the motto: ex Africa semper aliquid novi.

The hon. member who has just sat down has in my opinion made about the most ruthless, heartless and unsympathetic speech I have ever heard in this House. That speech will go down in history as a scandal. The Transkei Whites are to be treated in the same way as Stalin and Hitler treated enemies they overran and made them displaced persons, displaced persons with no home and with no security in their own land. He said that the Whites wanted to be kept as sojourners in the Transkei; that they are merely there to serve the Bantu. Sir, if that is what they are wanted for there, then the Government should hire civil servants who will get a pension when they are forced out or when they have to leave the Transkei and go back to their own country. You cannot go and use our ordinary South African storekeepers in the Transkei for that purpose. He said that they are to be repatriated—repatriated out of their own country! Who ever heard of such a thing. Sir, it is scandalous I hope that his speech will go down on record so that future generations shall know who sold the White of the Transkei for their own ends. Sir, these people are to be offered up on the altar of Nationalist Party ideology. The hon. member has now let the cat out of the bag. Later on in my speech I will refer to another cat that he let out of the bag. Now we know why the Government is not prepared to tell these people in the Transkei what compensation they are going to arrange for them because they do not want them to have a chance of getting out; they want to keep them tied down there to serve the Bantu so long as the Government wants them to do so. Sir, this is the Government who are supposed to be fighting for the interests of White South Africans. The speech made here by the hon. member shows that they are the enemies of White South Africans when it suits them.

The technical side of this Bill was fully debated by my Leader when he made his magnificent speech after the second reading had been moved. I propose to deal with it from another aspect. I asked myself in the first instance why has this Bill to inaugurate the Bantustan policy been introduced, and in seeking the answer I must go back into the past for a few moments, as the hon. the Minister did earlier on. Throughout history it is tragic to see how ambitipus politicians and parties have sacrificed basic principles to expediency in order to gain power, regardless of the eventual cost to their countries and to their own people. The Bill before us is an example of this. Before 1928 the Nationalist Party were friendly towards the non-European, and the “swart gevaar” cry that was raised in that year was simply to create an emotional cry to win the 1929 election. It proved so successful that it was developed over the years still further till the policy of “algehele apartheid”, which the Bill now proposes to create, was brought out in 1947 in order to win the 1948 election, and once more this cry was successful. But these dubious tactics to gain power was one thing, but to carry it out—once the people had been swept off their feet to believe it—was another. The Government found itself in a trap it had originally set and it had to face world hostility. To get out of their immediate difficulties, this Bill has now been introduced. Unless they were going to lose face the game must be played along and apartheid became more rigidly applied. Sir, Dr. Malan realized that this policy could not be pushed too far. When he tried to back-pedal a bit by saying that “algehele apartheid” was unrealistic and not the policy of the Nationalist Party, and had he been alive to-day he would have said that this Bill was unrealistic. But the Government party had become too deeply involved and Dr. Malan’s wild extremists threw both him and the moderate Mr. Havenga overboard and went ahead, not realizing that world opinion was changing very rapidly and that World War II had altered the standing of the non-European races entirely and for ever, and that soon the Government would be faced by a hostile world, in which the apartheid policy, as applied by the Government could not be carried out indefinitely without coming to a show-down. The Bantustan policy was therefore advanced to try to soothe world opinion for the time being. They did not realize that former great world powers and particularly great colonial powers were on the decline, and what had been lesser powers now had the say in world trends. Furthermore, they did not anticipate the growing influence of the non-White nations in world politics, a fact which Dr. Malan in his wisdom had seen coming. That was why he repudiated the idea of “algehele apartheid” (or Bantustans) before they really became an issue. The extremists, however, led by the Prime Minister, instead of trying to slow down the process, stepped on the throttle whenever elections were in the offing. Then, when there could be no reversal policy (without complete loss of face, from their point of view) the fertile brain of the Prime Minister invented Bantustan with the result that we now see in the Bill before us. That is the background of this Bill. The hon. member for Heilbron who spoke just now let the cat out of the bag. Speaking to the Institute of Citizenship he said this—

In other words, they were merely trying to put the thing off so as to save themselves from their immediate difficulties.

The Prime Minister, however, miscalculated two serious aspects: firstly, that the world would not accept the idea and be diverted, from the way apartheid was applied to the Bantu, who were to remain in the White areas after the establishment of Bantustans; and secondly, the Prime Minister completely misjudged the time factor. He had made all sorts of wild promises of sovereign independence under the impression that 50 to 100 years would pass before his bluff is called and before he would have to implement it fully. I want to be perfectly fair; I think the Prime Minister and the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development both honestly do believe that they can push this thing through, but I want to say that no Nationalist member sitting on that side, nor any Nationalist in the countryside thought that for one moment that the Bantustans were going to get this form of self-government, or that a Bill such as this would ever be brought before the House. The whole thing was nothing more and nothing less than an attempt to gain time in order to obviate a loss of prestige by back-pedalling in the face of—or to divert—rising world hostility. In short, it was base expediency and a colossal bluff (or taking evasive action) to avoid a head-on collision with international opinion. But all that will be eventually achieved, will be to get South Africa deeper into a morass which, if carried to its final, logical conclusion, must endanger the very existence of our White civilization here in the Republic. That is the important factor.

Sir, let us look at the ultimate result, of which this Bill is laying the foundation. The Prime Minister is creating nothing more or less than a galaxy of Black colonies on our borders at a time when “colonialism” has become an international swear word. Remember, Sir, if the Bantustans are not going to get sovereign independence then they are nothing more or less than colonies of the Republic of South Africa. Here is the Prime Minister actually in the process of bringing into existence an organism, such as Britain was (surrounded by her Colonies) a century ago, regardless of the fact that a great power like her is to-day being forced by circumstances and world opinion to liquidate the whole set-up. He is starting to build an organization which has already been shown to be unworkable by the hard facts of reality. Does he really think that he will succeed where great powers like France and Britain, and lesser powers like Holland and Belgium and Portugal have failed; and have had to liquidate their colonies? Does he think that he is going to succeed in building up this galaxy of colonies at a time when everybody else is disposing of their colonies as quickly as they can? As General de Gaulle said the other day, there is a limit to human intelligence but there is no limit to human stupidity and that is what we see here to-day. He told the House that South Africa would be a commonwealth. What did he mean by the term Commonwealth? It is obviously an English word to represent or to describe the old initial British Commonwealth or Empire, an Empire consisting first of colonies, graduating step by step to self-rule, responsible government, Crown colony government, dominion status and eventually sovereign independence. What is the definition of sovereign independence. We had it in 1926 from Lord Balfour—“all equal in status; none subordinate to the other ”. If that is the intention of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Bantu Administration then these Black states are going to be equal in status and not subordinate to the Republic exactly as Britain was in relation to her Dominions. There can be no going back on that promise once the policy has been brought to fruition and while this regime remains in power. In short the seeds are being sown for a diminished Republic containing some 6,000,000 voiceless Bantu in our own White area, hemmed in by six to eight independent Bantu states which may, and which probably will, eventually become hostile to the Republic. That has been the experience of every other country that has given its colonies self-government in the Black states of Africa. Strong foreign pressure will be brought to bear on them to become hostile to us. Obviously Russia, China and all the Black states of Africa are going to work on their feelings to make them hostile to us; and equally strong internal agitators will try to influence those Bantustans to become hostile to us. Up to now our representatives at UNO have been able to claim that under Article 2 (7) of the Charter non-interference in our internal affairs. But once these states have even a limited form of self-government that falls away. In fact the position might well be reversed. You will find these Bantu states saying: “It is not UNO interfering in your internal affairs but it is you interfering in the affairs of a self-governing colony.” They will say we have no right to interfere with them. Within a few years South Africa will find her right or claim to interfere in the internal affairs of these Bantustans, as this Bill provides for, challenged. I know it says in this Bill that nobody is allowed to interfere with them but that will be challenged. Black leaders will send their representatives, legally or illegally, to UNO possibly to join the hostile Afro-Asiatic group who will welcome them; who will let them speak, whether they are accredited or not. I remember how—I forget what that man’s improbable disgusting name is; oh, yes, Michael Scott—Michael Scott, who had no standing whatsoever, went to UNO and spoke against us about South West Africa. He had no right or mandate to do so but he was welcomed there. The same thing will happen when agitators inside or outside these Bantustans will go to UNO and say they represent those Bantustans. The Bantustans will demand to appoint foreign representatives and receive accredited diplomats from hostile communist countries. I am fully aware that as this Bill now reads they are not allowed to do it and technically the Government can veto it. But does anybody, other than a bird-brain, really believe that this development can be long delayed, Bill or no Bill, exactly as we see in British colonies to-day? Does anybody honestly believe that once they have this first form of self-government that it will be long before they demand their own diplomats and accredited representatives? Hon. members and Ministers opposite are constantly declaring that the Bantustans will have complete independence. How can the Government refuse such a development after the Prime Minister’s promise of sovereign independence, of Commonwealth relationship and all the rest of it? What must all this lead to? Obviously the infiltration of communist diplomats into these States where, with diplomatic immunity, these legations will be nothing more or less than schools for communist agitators, schools to teach the local people how to commit acts of sabotage, how to terrorize and intimidate, and how to break down the Government in those countries, to judge by what we see throughout Africa to-day. We have seen it in the case of Cuba. We see it happening all over the world to-day. The Government think they can control these States by economic pressure. Can’t they see that all the economic aid that these emerging States may require will be supplied by foreign countries hostile to the Government’s form of apartheid, by China, by Russia, and even by friendly countries like the United States of America and by Britain? They will be supplied with all they want by anybody who is hostile to this Government’s form of apartheid. As an example, we have Nyasaland where, before she has even got self-government, American commissions are already going there to see what aid they want, what technical knowledge, what know-how and what other assistance they require. That is already happening there.

What is the communist technique? That is a question we have to ask ourselves. Communist technique is to set up organizations in foreign countries that will discredit whatever government is in power at the time and further, which is still more dangerous, discredit and bring into contempt the form of government existing as laid down in their constitution. Then, through locally trained agitators, launch a campaign of terror, sabotage and intimidation. That has been the applied technique in every country up to now which the communists have decided to suborn. The whole idea is to create chaos. What happened in Algiers? Anybody who reads his newspapers will know what has happened there and in other parts of the world. These terror gangs may well be organized in these very Bantu states and from there operate in the Republic; teaching sympathizers there how to carry on the same type of campaign. If the communists really get a foothold there these Bantustans might well become a festering sore on our borders in 10 or 20 or 30 years time. It is likely and possible that terror gangs will operate from the Bantustans, returning to their own areas after a raid. That has been the technique in Angola. There they have come over from the Congolese border, cut throats, raided, burnt huts and then slipped over the border back to their own areas when things became too hot for them.

We have been reading in the Press recently about the Snyman inquiry. Evidence has been given before that Commission to the effect that they think something like that is already happening and that people are slipping over the border of Basutoland—whether it is true or not I don’t know—into the Republic moving back after a raid. The Minister of Defence has said that the Bantustans will eventually be allowed to have their own armies. In other words, trained and armed Bantu with modern weapons. Once a Bantustan has accredited foreign representatives within its borders, the communists will supply the officers and men to train, and the weapons to arm, such forces. I know this Bill provides that they cannot do it, but do members opposite think that that will hold water for any length of time once they get a certain form of self-government? Has any such veto been effective anywhere in the world? It is no use hon. members opposite saying that this Bill provides for the very prevention of this, because once the Bantustans have some measure of self-government, the vetoes provided for in this Bill will not be worth the paper they are written on. They will be no protection whatsoever. We need only think how this Government got around the entrenched clauses, the sacred word of the Afrikaner and Englishman, by a very dubious method to get the Coloureds off the roll. If they can do that then this Bill has simply been drawn up without the consultation with or the consent of the people in the Bantustans. Do you think these non-entrenched clauses will stand for one moment once these people get their form of self-government? In short, once the door is open by as much as a crack, natural national evolution will develop along these lines. That has happened throughout the whole world.

And you trust them.

If the hon. gentleman would stop chattering and get up and make a speech once or twice in this House we would be only too pleased to hear him but he has not got the guts to do so. But suppose the Government decides to enforce the provisos of this Bill? How will it do this once the Bantustan has self-government? Will it wage war against the Black government that breaks the terms of this Bill? Will they send a punitive force into this self-governing country with the entire world opinion against it? What will the world say if they do that? What will the reaction of the Western World be apart from communist countries? I am not thinking of the present, I am thinking of the time when I will be dust. I am thinking of what the younger members here and my children and my grand-children will have to face in 10 or 20 or 30 years time; what they will have to face because of what this Minister is doing here to-day in this country. The future generations will have to pay. I will be dust but there are many young members in this House who will have to pay. Suppose a foreign state like Russia sent a military mission to the Transkei at the request of an independent government there? What will happen if a Black Prime Minister says to Russia: “Please send us a military mission”? Will our Government send a force to drive them out? Have we the power to react as America did over Cuba? [Interjections.] Oh yes, but he talks rubbish at any time. Cuba is only 90 miles off the American coast and America is the greatest military power in the world to-day. Russia is thousands of miles away but yet she constituted such a danger to America in Cuba that America was prepared to risk a Third World War because she saw what was going to happen if she did not turn the Russians out of Cuba. Now we are creating what may become Cubas all along our borders. They may not be dangerous to-day or to-morrow but what will the position be in 20 years time when the communists have been working on them? We have not the power to do what America did to Cuba. Can the Republic indefinitely prevent a self-governing state receiving economic, military or other aid from a foreign country, if the Prime Minister administering that country asks them to send it to them? The Government’s policy is that these Bantustans shall have one man one vote to elect its government. [Interjections.] The Government’s policy in the Bantustans is one man one vote. I am pleased that the hon. gentleman made that interjection. So the governments in these States will be elected by a majority vote of the electorate in those Black States. Therefore eventually—and the operative word is “eventually ”—such Black States will be ruled by a democratic government elected by the votes of its Bantu citizens, regardless of the conditions laid down in this Bill. They will not take the slightest notice of this pseudo-government which the Government are creating for them in this Bill, this House of Lords consisting of chiefs which are not elected by the people but appointed by the Government? Our Government at present envisages a Bantu government ruling a Bantu State which will do what this Government and this Minister wish them to do. That is what they think is going to happen but they have not got a snowball chance of that happening. What must eventually happen, unless human nature changes completely? The “outs”, those people who are not in power in the Bantu States will want to be the “ins”, the people who have the power. When they see the power, the money, the influence and the position that these people hold, they will want to have that and what will they do? What would anybody do in their position? I am putting this question to members opposite. Those Bantu States will emulate the Nationalist Party of South Africa and find an emotional appeal to stir up the electorate against the government that is in power at the time. They will do exactly that. The cry most likely will be: “Away with the parental control of the South African Republic” on the same lines as the Nationalist Party years ago raised the cry of “Out of the Commonwealth; away with British connection. Let us have a republic". Every single thing that those Nationalists did to get into power those Bantu will do.

If there are any old men in the House like myself they will remember the Burger's cartoons of “Die Bobbejaan aan die paal ”. We had those cartoons year after year from 1913; the bobbejaan was South Africa, the “paal” was Britain and the “chain” was the British connection. Does it need much imagination to see in the future a cartoon in the (say) Bantu Umtata Daily Mail, except that the “bobbejaan” will be black and “die paal” will be the White Republic, and the chain will be this Bill. Surely hon. members opposite, knowing how successful they were in gaining power by emotional appeal, must realize that the ambitious Bantu politician will follow the same methods of propaganda which have been so successful throughout the world, and not only throughout the world but here in South Africa when the Government opposite was in Opposition and they wanted to get into power. They raised every possible emotional cry. The National cry was “Die Swart gevaar ”. The Bantu agitation will be “Die Wit gevaar ”. I can give a dozen examples of how the future Bantu politician will react but I do not want to labour the obvious. We have seen it happen in India, we have seen it in French North Africa, in Kenya, in Tanganyika, in the Near East and in the Far East, in fact all over the world.

Many hon. members opposite are very intelligent men. I give them that. They are South African patriots just as we are. [Interjections.] We have shown our patriotism in both wars, and I am not making a cheap debating point by suggesting that they are not true South African patriots as we have shown ourselves on this side of the House to be. Surely they must see how events must develop once this Bill lays the foundation for independent Bantustans. Surely they must see that for their Government the die is cast and the result must be sure as night follows day. Any intelligent member should be able to see that. They must see where the road which they are following must lead to and they must realize too how they are being led up the garden path by the Prime Minister. If the present Government’s policy were a race horse I would describe its breeding as “by expediency” “out of hyprocrisy” and all we are trying to do is to make it a non-starter by scratching it before it goes up to the post.

Order! I think the hon. member must withdraw the word “hypocrisy ”.

I withdraw it and apologize. Sir, we are always being accused by that side of the House of not standing for the interests of the White man. I can remember the Minister of the Interior, when his Job Reservation Bill was before the House, turning round and saying jeeringly: “Do any of you ever think of the interests of the White man?” I ask him now is he thinking of the interests of the 20,000 White people in the Transkei? The hon. member for Heilbron showed this afternoon that they did not care a hoot about them. Those people have R13,000,000 invested there, those people have been there for generations, they were there for generations before this Prime Minister came to the country and they have no other place but now they will have to clear out and leave what they built up from father to son. And those are the hon. gentlemen who tell us that we never think about the interests of the White man! The Whites of the Transkei are being discarded for this mad dream of the Prime Minister’s, a dream that might well turn into a nightmare. This Government and this Government alone has brought our White civilization into grave danger by this Bantustan policy. If ever our White civilization is to be destroyed there opposite sit the leaders who will have done that. They may well be creating the Trojan Horse that will let the communist enemy into the citadel of the White areas of the Republic. There is only one thing that can save White South Africa and that is a complete change of Government before the Republic is too far committed. We want a strong United Party Government that would reverse this policy before it is gone too far and so maintain the Republic as an integral whole where the Central Government will have the right and the full right to send police, the army or anything else, wherever there is trouble into any part of the country in order to quell disorder. A government that will be able to say to the people: You must obey the law, we will give you a certain amount of representation, but we will not allow you to have your own army; we will not give you that self-government which will enable you to destroy from the outside the White Republic from the inside. We want a change of government, we want a strong United Party who will absolutely repudiate this legislation which is being introduced in South Africa to-day.

I listened with interest to the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl). He is a member for whom I personally have always had a high regard. I am sorry he lost control of himself this afternoon and that he conducted a tirade against this side of the House. The hon. member for Green Point pretends to be the champion of the White man in South Africa but I do not think he is politically honest.

The hon. member cannot say that.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. I just want to read from the Cape Times what the hon. member for Green Point is supposed to have said at a meeting here in the Peninsula. I quote from the Cape Times of 7 February 1962—

The report goes on—

I want to point out to the hon. member for Green Point that where he chided the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) for having made a scandalous speech—I thought it was an excellent speech—what the hon. member for Heilbron said cannot in the least be compared with what the hon. member for Green Point said here. However, I leave it at that. I am at least pleased to see that the hon. member has calmed down because he is laughing again.

Sir, we are on the threshold of a new setup this evening with this Bill. We are living in serious times. We have in reality come to the cross-roads, the cross-roads where White South Africa must choose between a White South Africa and the integration policy of the United Party because there is no middle road as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday. There cannot be a middle policy because that will be nothing else than an Imperialistic policy, as the hon. the Prime Minister put it the other day. In that case you will have to maintain that the Bantu should always be suppressed to a certain extent in South Africa and that they should only be used for a certain purpose. It is a new setup which is based on the traditional policy of the South African nation, a policy of separate development and one which this side of the House has at various elections been asked to carry out. My constituency is very closely associated with the self-government which is now being granted to the Transkei. From the very nature of things the White people along the border are already very greatly affected because a stigma usually attaches to border areas but in this case the Whites are satisfied with the development there and there is a measure of co-operation between the White man and the Black man in the border areas. Nobody envisages any danger for the future. During the past two years we had two elections in the constituency of Aliwal and both were fought on the principle of separate development. When the first election was held in 1961 the hon. the Prime Minister had not as yet announced his policy in regard to the development of the Transkei. He made his statement of policy in January of last year. Just after that, on 22 February, we had a Provincial Council election in my constituency. On that occasion all provincial matters were set aside and it was fought on this issue, this right to develop on their own which we are going to confer upon the Transkei. On that occasion the United Party suffered a defeat as never before. They cannot say to-day that the people outside are unaware of what is happening. On the contrary everybody is well informed.

Aliwal is a constituency which stretches for at least 150 miles along the Transkeian border. Everything is all right in that area; there is nothing wrong. All the Whites know what is coming; all know what to expect.

Did they not ask to join Natal?

The hon. member would probably like to have us at Danskraal but we shall not join them. Only the other day we had a Provincial Council by-election at … [Interjections.]

May I ask a question?

The hon. member has just entered the Chamber and she is making so many interjections.

Only the other day we had a Provincial Council by-election at Virginia where the election was fought on the same basis; it was fought on this question of the separate development of the Transkei and what was the result? Another crushing defeat for the United Party. The Nationalist Party realize what difficulties await our country in the future. We realize what the dangers are. Fortunately the National Party has never yet recoiled from facing the problems of South Africa, particularly her racial problems, squarely in the face and from trying to solve them. The National Party is not cowardly and does not recoil from world opinion. The National Party believes in the policy of “South Africa first with no concessions of any kind whatsoever to the Black man in the White area The Transkei is an area which borders on the Eastern Cape Province and it has all these years been regarded as a predominantly Black area. During the days of the old South African Party, in 1913 already, there was a prohibition on all White property rights (I am not talking about the small towns, but about the platteland) and no White person could purchase land. As far as traders were concerned their property rights were curtailed. Those who had property could retain it but those who did not have any property could only acquire trading rights. From that time already, therefore, the White man has practically been conditioned for to-day’s position.

I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Loots). We realize of what value the traders are to the Transkeian territory, we know what contributions they are making there and we also know what contributions they are making to the adjoining territories and we believe that if nothing goes wrong they will still be there for many years in order to make their valuable contribution.

For always?

You cannot predict what will happen centuries ahead. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) said last night that there was martial law in the Transkei and that Proclamation 400 was in operation throughout the Transkei. Section III of Proclamation 400, namely that section which controls the movement of people, is not in operation in the Transkei. There is only a prohibition on meetings without the consent of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. Unfortunately the hon. member for South Coast is not here but does he want to go and hold meetings there? Unfortunately I have to inform him that in future the United Party will no longer be able to put up candidates there because the Black man is going to have one man one vote there. The hon. member for South Coast also referred to the borders. Fortunately, not only the Nationalists there but many prominent members of the United Party are all very pleased about the border arrangements because everybody realizes that the border has now practically been consolidated. Perhaps a small section will have to be straightened out here and there in the interests of both sections. The Whites in that area are informed and they know what is happening. They also accept it that it will be possible in future to eliminate points of friction. Reference has been made to the fragmentation of our fatherland South Africa, but when self-government was conferred on Basutoland which is situated in the very centre of the Republic of South Africa was there any objection from the other side of the House or did their newspapers refer to it at all? Did their Press contend that Basutoland would constitute a danger to us? Never. Did the United Party Press ever object to the fact that there were more Basutos in the White Republic than in Basutoland itself? Now we are told every day that there are more Bantu, that is Xhosas, in the White Republic than in the Transkei. It is very clear that they are exploiting that point. We never heard about that in the past. They say that we must develop the Transkei with White capital. Do hon. members want the same position to arise in the Transkei which arose in Swaziland, for example, where 43 per cent of the land is owned by Whites? But did we ever hear about that? That is never mentioned, but it was Britain who did that. “Zoos de oude zonge, zo piepen de jongen” (children imitate their grown-ups). On the contrary we on this side of the House believe that we want to do unto others what we want done to ourselves and we want to give the same rights to the Black man in his own area as we demand for the White man in his area.

There has been tremendous development in the Transkei during the last few years. Under the efficient administration of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development the Black man has already reached certain heights. I believe that the standard of living in the Transkei compares very favourably to-day with that of any Black man in any independent Black state in Africa.

They murder people there.

The hon. member does not know the Transkei as well as I do and that is the position. Not only are the people in the Transkei satisfied but those around the Transkei as well. Herschel is also satisfied with the development that is taking place there. The little disunity that there is due to the underhand actions of the agitators who come there from outside and who sow discord amongst the people. I think I should ask the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration the following: A few years ago there was a number of stock thieves in the Tsolo area and the police could do nothing. Something similar happened two years later in the district of Mount Fletcher. Bantu people went and burnt out those stock thieves in the Tsolo district. They had to run for their lives. The same thing happened at Mount Fletcher. They had to run for their lives. I predict to-day that the same thing will happen to the so-called Poqo. They will run for their lives and the Black people will live in harmony and peace in the Transkei. Do you not think so, Sir?

Just as our Dutch forefathers built dykes at Zeeland to keep the North Sea away from their fatherland, we are to-day constructing traditional dykes round South Africa to keep out the Black hordes. At the moment, however, the waves of communist philosophy are breaking against those walls, the waves of liberalism and defeatism and that is the defeatism which hon. members of the Opposition suffer from. Fortunately it is not so noticeable on the platteland but there is an attitude of defeatism in this House, an attitude which the Opposition would like to seep through to the electorate on the platteland in order to impress them, an attitude which they like to adopt to see if in future they cannot incite certain elements against the National Party Government. They also adopt an expectant attitude as far as overseas pressure is concerned so as to try to prey on that and thus to come into power in South Africa. Not only is the Opposition fighting us hysterically to-day but their Press is also fighting us and besmirching our policy in the Transkei. Why are the United Party and their Press so embittered against us?

They are a lot of Boer haters.

Fortunately or unfortunately the composition of the House of Assembly is such to-day that we on this side of the House represent predominantly Afrikaans-speaking constituencies. All the Opposition members represent predominantly English-orientated constituencies. In the past English-speaking South Africa, with a few exceptions, have always pushed the responsibility of solving South Africa’s racial problems on to the shoulders of Afrikaans-speaking South Africa.

Did they?

Yes, what contribution did you make? That is not good for South Africa. That is an evil day for South Africa but why is that the position? Because English-speaking South Africa has always been making use of international English Press facilities. Just as Afrikaans-speaking South Africa in the early days put their hands deep into their pockets to establish their own Afrikaans Press, I think the time has arrived for English-speaking South Africa to come forward and to establish their own national English Press that will be pro-South African to assist in solving South Africa’s racial problems.

The United Party is opposed to us for this simple reason, that they realize that they have lost their influence over the White voter of South Africa and they are to-day seeking new grazing fields with their race federation policy where they can get votes in order to plough their fellow White South African citizens under. Is it not a fact that if the United Party should ever again come into power that will be our position? In that event no White party will ever again have the privilege of coming into power in South Africa. They will plough us under with those Bantu representatives whom they want in this House of Assembly and that will be the end of White South Africa. How long will the Black man tolerate that? They will not be satisfied with a few representatives. The history of Africa has taught us what happens and we are following a policy which will give us security. We realize the implications of the danger but we are at least sure that we are maintaining White civilization in South Africa. We are told that we are encouraging Pan-Africanism with our Transkei legislation. Are they not prepared to establish a race federation with Pan-Africanism and in addition are they not prepared to give them representation in the highest forum in the country, in the White Parliament, where they will have a platform from which they will be better able to make their propaganda and their Pan-African objectives than they are to-day. I wonder how many White people realize to-day that it is only this side of the House, this small number of people with the support they get from outside, who are standing between us and the Black masses of Africa? It is only us who are keeping South Africa White. The side opposite is adopting an attitude of defeatism. They are tired, finished, they want to integrate. But the gods be praised for the support of such a strong leader as our beloved Prime Minister and for the power of imagination of young South Africa, not only to keep our White home but also to safeguard it for the generations to come. Young South Africa is on the march. Positive proof was given of that recently when test checks were taken at Michael house and St. Andrews at Bloemfontein where over 50 per cent of the English-speaking students indicated that they really supported the policy of this Government. [Laughter.] Hon. members do not know what is happening in the country. I just want to say this to that hon. member who is laughing that that is the death-rattle of a party that was. We know that everything will be well not only as far as the future of White South Africa is concerned, but that this legislation will also afford the Black man the opportunity of assuming responsibility himself.

The hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. H. J. Botha) told us with confidence how the White people in the areas adjacent to the Transkei felt. I heard him talk about Aliwal North, and Aliwal North and again Aliwal North and then he spoke about Herschel. I did not hear him speak about two constituencies in East London and about Albany and King William’s Town and constituencies of that nature which not only border on the Transkei but also on the Ciskei, but perhaps he has not yet travelled as far as East London. May I say that his whole speech was a jumble. He accused the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) of political dishonesty and I want to accuse him of …

Order! The hon. member for Aliwal had to withdraw it.

I also withdraw, Mr. Speaker, but then I want to say that he spoke such a jumble of political rubbish with some nonsense thrown in, that it is difficult to sort it out. He said that the White man and the party opposite could not see centuries ahead. But I thought that was what they were doing every day. I thought they were predicting what would happen to our country if the United Party came into power one-day. They predict what will happen to the country centuries ahead if the United Party come into power. Unlike us they are not prepared to say: We shall do this and after that, if other things have to be done we shall go to the electorate and again have a chat with them. They are not prepared to do that. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Aliwal also said that the English-language Press had remained quiet about the Basutos who lived outside the borders of Basutoland and who exceeded the number of Basutos inside Basutoland. I thought that we were pointing out to the Government party every day that we did not even have a sufficiently strong labour force in this country to set the industrial and agricultural machinery in motion and that it was necessary to import 750,000 Natives from other areas, Shangaans for the mines, Basutos for the Free State, Xhosas for other parts and Swazis, and even from Nyasaland. The hon. member also made a comparison with the Protestant dykes. I do not think he used the term “Protestant” but he spoke about our Dutch forefathers. I wonder whether he knows what happens every now and then to dykes and that the dyke is going to break over the Government and flood everything? He also accused the United Party of defeatism, Mr. Speaker. If there are Whites in our country who display a sense of defeatism to-day a great many of them sit on that side of the House, Sir, members whose soul is not in this legislation. I notice the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration laughing heartily, but their soul is not in the Bantu policy like they tell us. There is no sense of defeatism on this side of the House. This side of the House is prepared to view the position of the Republic and to say: We have always been prepared and able to manage race relations and we still see our way clear to do so and to control the position. While I am on that subject, we never hear the end of what is happening in the Congo and what is happening in Kenya and in the Federation. Do let us analyse the position for once and state that in the Congo it was a question of 2,000 non-Whites against one White, in Kenya it was 200 against one, and the Federation 20 against one, in Southern Rhodesia eight against one and in the Republic it is 3½ against one. It is all a question of relativity. Is it fair to compare a position where there are 2,000 against one or 25 against one with a position where it is 3½ against one? I ask that question pertinently. [Interjections.]

Shut up!

On a point of order, Sir, may the hon. member tell another member to “Shut up ”?

Order! It is not a decent expression.

I withdraw the words “shut up” and I ask him to remain quiet.

Hon. members opposite pretend that they are holding the Afrikaner banner aloft in this country. As if the party on this side is not doing so. I now ask them this question: Has there ever been an occasion on which the farming community was not prepared to face up to a ratio of 3½ non-Whites to one White? Are there members on that side of the House who want to tell me that we are not able to control the position and that we shall not be able to control it in future? [Interjections.] Must we always talk about the states north of us and what has happened there knowing that the ratio in our country is what it is? We have improved that ratio from what it was 300 years ago when the ratio was actually more in their favour than it is to-day. Surely that is a point. Then the hon. member for Aliwal spoke about the United Party Press. Where is it? I know that the Nationalist Party has a Press, a mouthpiece which speaks the voice of his master throughout the Union. I do not know of any such United Party Press. [Interjections.] At the beginning of his speech the hon. member for Aliwal spoke about the new set-up which we were embarking upon. There I heartily agree with him. It is a set-up which differs from that of the past. We differ, for example, from the Minister of Bantu Administration who said in his speech that this policy of the Nationalist Party was the policy which all the Prime Ministers of the past had advocated. What was the policy of the Prime Ministers of the past? I always thought that their policy was to keep the boundaries of the Republic as intact as possible and to try to incorporate the protectorates and to strengthen their hold over the mandate over South West Africa and to retain it in the interests of the White people there in order to protect their interests and to establish the best possible relationships with the Whites in Rhodesia so that we, who constitute the White nation on the Southern tip of the continent, could maintain ourselves. They are our people; 40 per cent of the Whites in Rhodesia are Afrikaners. I thought that all previous Governments and former Prime Ministers always tried to ensure that the best possible relationship existed between us so that when the opportune time arrived the Whites who lived in Southern Rhodesia or in the Federation could work with us for the continued existence of the Whites in Southern Africa. What do we find to-day? What is the policy of the Government? As far as the protectorates are concerned we have already had the statement that there is not a chance of their joining us. We do not want them. We have already had the statement that unless the Rhodesian Government changed its policy and applied apartheid there, there was no possibility of co-operating with them.

Surely that is not true.

We go further than that. We now want to divide the Republic as we have known it and hand over pieces to other language and colour groups. That is what we want to do with the Republic. Then the hon. the Minister says that that has always been the policy of all the Prime Ministers we have ever had! That is the policy against which this side of the House is fighting and against which it will continue to fight, this policy of cutting up and dividing the country and handing over parts to colour and language groups who have helped the economy of this country where it is to-day, those 15,000,000 or 16,000,000 who helped to develop the industries, the mines, agriculture and commerce; that group of people who is now being divided into language and colour groups. Where will that end? If we want to recognize one language and one colour group how many more will we still have to recognize in future?

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

When the debate was adjourned, I was refuting the statement by the hon. the Minister that the division of the Republic of South Africa was the policy of all previous Governments. I am not going to dwell upon that any longer. We on this side do not believe it was the policy of all previous Governments. We believe it is a pipedream of the hon. the Prime Minister and an attempt in the eyes of the world to obtain credit for the fact that the right of self-determination is being given to at least a section of the non-Whites. I shall revert to that just now, and indicate how impossible it is to satisfy world opinion by trying to do that and by creating a hotbed of dissatisfaction for the other and superior sections of the non-Whites living in our midst, because we have done this other thing. We have so often heard that we have a Prime Minister of world format, that he is a Prime Minister of granite, but we do know that the granite image has feet of clay, for when the challenge came on the principle of the language question, the image of granite on the second or third day already retreated on that basic principle. But on this side of the House the Prime Minister is known as the most generous Prime Minister any country has ever had in all the world. In history we have never yet read of a Prime Minister who is prepared, in a country where peace prevails, and where there is a population of 16,000,000 people, to excise pieces from the heart of that country and to apportion it left and right to national groups speaking a different language and having a different colour.

I should like to leave it at that, and I should like to return to a constituency that borders on the Transkeian area that will now receive its own Government, and I should like to describe the misgivings of the White people living there, the people who know that they are on the borders of the Transkei and that within the foreseeable future they will border on the Ciskei; who know they will become a corridor state, perhaps a Danzig, and hope the same lot will not befall them. Those people are worried for very good reasons. Where at the moment it is the policy of the Government—and it is no good making a lot of noise; we just have to join in—to remove the Bantu from the Western Cape, if possible, then the natural direction they will go will be to those areas. [Interjections.]

Order I should like to appeal to hon. members to afford the hon. member an opportunity to make his speech.

The natural direction they will go will be to the Transkei, and if they do not enter the Transkei, they will remain on the borders of the Transkei, in parts that already are overcrowded, and then the prejudicial evil of it arises that as labour migrates from here, the farmers and the industrialists here again try to attract labour from the east. Where we live in an area where there are as many Coloured as Bantu, we are already finding that lorries are running around to bring the Coloureds here, as they did for years to bring the Bantu here and so they are now also uprooting the Coloureds. People living there are uprooted and drawn back to the Western Cape. [Interjections.]

Order! Surely I have appealed to hon. members.

The people are becoming tired and we are becoming tired of a Government that says where groups of persons and single persons have to live, how they are to be educated, and in what language, what they may be and what they may not be, where they may move and where not. And that is not a solution. Or is it a solution to attempt to apply apartheid in this way? I should like to analyse that and say that if it is a solution that 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 people are made independent in Bantu areas, if not now, then later, for we are heading in that direction surely—the Government admits that we are heading in that direction—and if we do our duty, and if we do as we say and help them to make a living in those areas, if they become independent industrially, commercially and agriculturally, they will still feel like returning to the Republic to come and work here; and if they do not return, and we have to do without those millions of labourers, 800,000 male workers in agriculture and at a conservative estimate 4,000,000 living within the agricultural areas, and 2,000,000 living in the industrial area if he can proceed to an area where he can have independence and liberties and rights he does not have here, and he fares well there, is he going to remain here? If he is not going to remain here, how are we going to carry on our farming operations and our industries? Can we have such a wonderful immigration scheme that we shall be able to replace them with Whites? Have we succeeded during the last few years in getting enough immigrants under our subsidized immigration scheme? We gained 14,000 to 16,000 and lost 6,000 to the Northern territories. I would admit readily that during recent years we have had more success with immigrants than in the previous years, but will that satisfy the requirements of the country, with all the industries we are encouraging from day to day? [Interjections.] If this thing were to be a success and we achieve our object—the Government says they are sincere with this Bantustan policy, and it wishes to educate them for self-rule and it wants them to be independent—and we lose 7,000,000 that return to the Bantu homelands, what is our object? Do we want to make the White Republic so small that we shall not need their labour? Do we want our industries here to close down and establish industries where the labour is, near the Bantu homelands? How can we progress if we do not have labour? There we have a population of 15,000,000 to 16,000,000, each one of whom is needed to make the wheels turn. The Government is encouraging the industrialists from day to day. I do not wish to discuss the position that will arise once we have a surplus of goods which we cannot sell. But if we succeed in doing so, and the labour is not there to do the work, if this thing is going to be a success, it spells the doom of our industries in our country. If it is not going to be a success, and they have starvation and poverty in those Bantu areas, and the majority of them have to come and seek employment in the Republic where they have no rights, or where they have very few rights, will we not have prepared the ground for the germination of the seed of other influences to come here and to incite the people within our borders against us? Mr. Speaker, I am asking this with all the seriousness at my disposal. Are the Whites in this country afraid to accept the responsibility it has accepted during the last 300 years? Apart from the fact whether anybody asked for independent Bantu areas—and nobody asked for it— is our ratio of Whites to non-Whites worse than it was a 100 years ago? And if we could do it 100 years ago, and we could be good guardians to the non-Whites, have we now become bad guardians? Is there an hon. member opposite who can rise and say that he does not see how we can continue to be the guardians of the non-Whites any longer? [Interjections.] On my land and on that of the hon. member for Cradock there are dozens of Bantu who are living there peacefully. [Interjections.] On the small piece of land I own there are dozens and dozens also, and throughout the generations they are some of the happiest people we have in the country. To me it is a crucial matter that before we do things we cannot revoke, before we create a precedent that will lead us to a road from which there will be no return, we should ask ourselves whether we can go ahead for a foreseeable period by keeping the people of the Republic together, irrespective of colour or creed, or whatever it may be, and let them carry on and produce so that the country may enjoy the prosperity it has enjoyed in the past, and so that it may become even much more prosperous? What does this country not have? It has everything the world requires. It has the hands and the human material to do the work, for that is the greatest asset we have, not its gold and not its minerals. Those are not its riches. You can only exploit those when you have the human material, who also regard themselves as members of the State. Then a country is wealthy. A country is only wealthy when it has the labour to do its work, and when it maintains human relationships in that State in such a way that all may share the fruits of the wealth of the country, and that is the policy my leader and this party advocate, and I wish to make an appeal that we should think deeply before we go too far and are unable to return.

Mr. Speaker, we have now once again heard from the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Mool-man) and from all the others on his side of the House who spoke before him, the story of the fragmentation of the Republic of South Africa. The hon. member has only couched it in slightly different language, but it has not made an impression upon us. I think conclusive proof has been produced by the hon. the Minister as well as by the hon. the Prime Minister on occasion, as to the historical background of the occupation of Southern Africa, and in particular the Republic of South Africa. Simultaneously with the occupation of Southern Africa, the White man came from the south and the Black man came from the north, and occupied certain areas within the Republic of South Africa and traditionally resided there. It is true that in the course of history there have from time to time been friction and conflict, that there have been border disputes, and stock theft. It is true also that the Black man sold his labour to the White man in his area. Historically that is correct, and I do not think we have to go into that any further. It is absolute wilfullness on the part of the Opposition and in particular of the hon. member for East London (City), who ought to know better how the occupation of Southern Africa took place more than 300 years ago.

The hon. member has asked us whether we want to satisfy world opinion in this manner. The time has arrived for us to ask the Opposition how they wish to satisfy world opinion, by merely remaining passive, or are they prepared to do something? I am putting the question to the hon. member for East London (City) now: Which principles is the United Party prepared to surrender to satisfy world opinion? But in the first place we should ask ourselves what will satisfy world opinion? There is only one thing that will satisfy world opinion here in Africa, and that is the principle of one man one vote. I am putting this question to the Opposition. [Interjections.] Why do the hon. members not rise and tell the world and the electorate what the alternative method of satisfying world opinion is? What does the world demand from South Africa, and indeed from the whole of Africa? It demands only one thing, and that is equality between White and non-White politically also. I challenge any member to deny that. That alone will satisfy world opinion. First of all it is not the task of this Parliament or of this Government to satisfy world opinion. It is in the first place the task of this Parliament, in view of the background of the country in which we are living, with its various national groups, to arrange its racial relationships in such a way that the White man’s continued existence will be secured for all time. That is our task. We as the civilized ones, on a higher level, who also accept the guardianship of the culturally less privileged and politically less developed races that are entrusted to our care, have to see to it that they also have the right of existence. [Interjections.] I am glad that the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) agrees with me, for I think it is the sincere endeavour and attempt of both of us to contribute something, not to try to gain political points at an election here and there, but to seek the welfare of the people we are governing, and not in the first place to satisfy world opinion. Where do we get world opinion to-day? World opinion manifests itself in UN and what does UN look like to-day? How is it constituted? With the increased admission of non-White members, it is aimed at the White man, and let us agree on this point. It is not aimed at the National Party or at Dr. Verwoerd, but at the White man in the Republic of South Africa, and wider than that, aimed at the White man in Africa. That lesson we have learned.

The hon. member for East London (City) has put certain questions, and one of them was on the satisfying of world opinion. We shall have to surrender many of our great principles to satisfy world opinion in this respect. and I should like the Whites in South Africa to stand together in that regard, that they should be united in respect of the colour issue.

You are now agreeing with us.

No, I cannot agree with you, for you have no point of view, not what the White man wants nor what the Black man wants. The United Party has sided incontrovertibly with the liberals and the liberal Press in this country, that Press and those organizations who are constantly inciting people in the Transkei and agitating to destroy self-rule for that area, and that is a great pity. The hon. member has asked whether we are now afraid after we have experienced this state of affairs for 300 years? [ want to say there are three courses we could possibly pursue. The one is to maintain the status quo, to let the situation continue as it is now, but then we shall have to be prepared to accept the consequences flowing from that.

What are those consequences?

I am glad you have asked that question. Perhaps that hon. member’s view and mine may differ on what the consequences are going to be, but when I read the reports of people who have investigated this matter of what the consequences will be, then I say we cannot maintain the status quo. But now I ask the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) who is so verbose: Is it the policy of the United Party to maintain the status quo? I think the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) will also enjoy receiving the answer. Is it their policy to preserve the status quo? Do the Opposition want the present state of affairs to continue? [Interjections.] I am asking the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson), but he must reply on behalf of his party. Is it the policy of the United Party that the status quo between Whites and non-Whites should be maintained? [Interjections.]

Yes, we should very much like to do so, as keenly as the Nationalists, but they know they cannot do so and we also know that.

Have I now to infer from that that the United Party have two policies, one of the maintenance of the status quo and the other the race federation scheme? I should now like to put this to the Opposition with reference to the question for the hon. member for East London (City): Does the Opposition wish to preserve the status quo?

What is the status quo?

I shall tell you what it is. It is a very important point.

May I ask a question?

No. I may not use certain words, for I am afraid they will be malodorous.

The hon. member has now asked the same question four times. May I reply to it?

No, the hon. member will just have to table his reply. He has sufficient opportunities of asking one of his colleagues to answer. It has been asked whether we have now become afraid?

The reply is yes.

You see, Mr. Speaker, that is the convenience of the United Party, but they cannot get away with it at an election. No, we have not become afraid, and that is why we are undertaking this legislation we are discussing to-night. We have not become afraid, but we are not simply going to sit still. The White man in South Africa is not going to be treated like the Whites in Kenya and in other African states. That is why we are now giving effect to the mandate of the electorate. This Bill is giving effect to the mandate from the electorate of South Africa, and not only that; we are not only giving effect to the mandate of the electorate, but also to the wishes of the mouthpieces of the Transkei, after due consultation. [Interjections.] That is exactly where the hon. member for Transkeian Territories and all the hon. members opposite are making a mistake, because they have not taken the trouble to read the minutes of the Territorial Authority of the Transkei. If he refers to pages 35 to 37 of the minutes of the session of the Territorial Authority of the Transkei in 1959, he will see that there was a motion by a chief, and the proposal he made in his motion was this. [Interjections.] I should like to put another question to the United Party. Do they recognize Kaizer Matanzima as the mouthpiece of the Bantu in the Transkei, or do they recognize Albert Luthuli as the mouthpiece of the Bantu in South Africa? [Interjections.] Some say yes and some say no. We should have clarity on that, for if the United Party recognize Matanzima as the mouthpiece of the Bantu in the Transkei … [Interjections.] I accept him as such. I am glad the hon. member for Transkeian Territories says I am in the minority. The terms of this motion I have referred to was that a telegram be sent to the Minister of Bantu Administration, in which appreciation and approval is expressed in respect of the Development of Bantu Self-government Act, and that Act was the precursor of this Act, and do you know, Mr. Speaker, that everyone who had participated in the debate, including Matanzima, voted in favour of that motion, and that there was not a single dissenting vote after the chairman had asked that if there was anybody against it, he should rise and speak against it?

Read the motion.

I shall read it. The Chief proposed as follows—

That was the motion, introduced on Wednesday, 27 May 1959. That Act was the Act that paved the way to this Bill before us to-night. That Act was in succession to the Act of 1951. It is all linked up and I am trying to prove that on two occasions not only the White electorate in South Africa gave a mandate to this Government to bring about a separation as was the traditional policy of all previous Prime Ministers and of the National Party throughout its history. We have to see the other side of the picture also. If the United Party is going to persist in its opposition to this Bill, can they tell us what they are going to put up in its place? I do not know yet whether they wish to preserve the status quo, that is to say, whether they want the state of affairs that has existed for 300 years to continue …

What is the status quo?

Let me put the question this way: Is the Opposition not prepared to give the Bantu representation in a legislative assembly at any time? I am putting this question for I have the answer here—in a pamphlet published by the United Party during an election. Of course it is a very fitting pamphlet to publish during an election. The United Party should stop playing a dual role—one kind of role during an election and another when it opposes measures we introduce here in the best interests of both the White and the Black man. The United Party also is in favour of the development of the Bantu areas, as well as the conferment of selfrule upon the Bantu in those areas. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville will have to be careful now, for he drafted this pamphlet. But as I have already said, this pamphlet was published during an election, that is to say, at a stage when they were still hoping to persuade a few more supporters of the hon. member for Houghton to vote for them. That is why they introduced it. But it caused my hon. opponent in the Western Transvaal considerable embarrassment, because the relevant portion of the pamphlet did not fit in there. Whether the United Party differs from the National Party in matters of principle does not matter so much to me, because we can have a debate on that. The National Party— and that is the difference—at least is honest in the application of its policy. That cannot be said of all the parties in this House. [Interjections.] If the hon. member for Yeoville is a babe in politics, I am not one. So I shall not allow him to dictate to me how my speech should be made. Heaven forbid that I should make such speeches as he does. I should like to refer to his pamphlets however. When this topical matter was before the electorate, the United Party issued a pamphlet for the express purpose of misleading the voters. They then had this map printed. The hon. member for Hillbrow says that it is correct.

That is in accordance with the Tomlinson report.

Oh no; this was not taken from the Tomlinson report. Now I should like to ask hon. members opposite where the Black people are on this map? Even the High Commission Territories controlled by Britain are presented to the electorate as White. The fact of the matter is that they underestimated the intelligence of the electorate and the electorate caught them out. I wish this map could have been reproduced in Hansard. In any case the voters caught them out, for subsequently we could point out that according to the policy of the United Party it necessarily will have to look like that—with great black spots. I should like to lay it upon the Table, but hon. members may get it from me for inspection. Here is the map as it will appear—the High Commission Territories in black and the rest of South Africa will look almost like a zebra with the black stripes a little wider than the white stripes. If the United Party chooses to say that we want to fritter away South Africa, then let them say that for all time. But I agree with the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister that in that portion of South Africa that will remain, the White man alone will have authority and will make laws …

How much will remain?

I know what the hon. member has in mind with that question. He wants me to say something he can go and use in the country during an election. If we are serious in trying to secure the position of the White man in South Africa for all time, the Opposition should discontinue playing that dual role. That is why I have much more respect for the attitude, though nor for the policy, of the hon. member for Houghton, for she says candidly what they want. She and her party are honest in their point of view. The United Party, on the contrary, is always trying to satisfy everybody. As long as it tries to do that, it has no hope of coming into power. At two elections the National Party and its organization—which is a mighty organization—spread this pamphlet. Every candidate of the National Party in the provincial elections of 1959 and in the parliamentary elections in 1961 explained self-government for the Bantu in the Transkei. They explained it to the electorate and answered questions about it from United Party questioners.

What does that pamphlet say?

If that hon. member thinks he can dictate to me what I should read, he is making a big mistake. I am in any case quite willing to read what it says to people who are open to conviction, but certainly not to people who are blinded by liberalism. I am prepared to read it to United Party supporters during elections—indeed, we have already done so. But the fact of the matter is that on two occasions during two elections we explained Bantu self-government to the electorate—and it was accepted by the majority of the electorate with acclamation. Furthermore, the desire was expressed by the recognized mouthpieces of the Bantu in the Transkei that self-government should be conferred upon them.

One Opposition speaker after another rose yesterday—to-day the theme has altered somewhat—and spoke not on self-rule to the Transkei but on the principle contained in this Bill, but trying to make the country believe that we are granting absolute independence to the Transkei.

The Prime Minister said so.

I challenge any member of the Opposition to point out to me in any of these clauses, or in the schedules to the Bill, where independence is granted to the Transkei. We are not discussing the speeches of the Prime Minister now—I am not ashamed of those speeches for one moment now, and I stand by them—but we are discussing the principles contained in this Bill. The principle contained in this Bill is self-government to the Transkei. Hon. members should read the Bill. Why do they participate in the debate if they do not know what the Bill means? Don’t they know then how the territorial authority concerned is constituted? Don’t they know that there have from time to time been conferences and that from time to time there was consultation between the Department of Bantu Administration and the Transkeian Territorial Authority. Do they not know then that that led to this Bill now being dealt with in this Parliament? Do they then not know that before independence can be conferred upon the Transkei, this Constitution, in terms of its own provisions, will have to be amended by this Parliament? Before that can happen, this Parliament will have to amend this Bill, if it becomes law, itself? Then the Opposition will have an opportunity to discuss this matter. But the difficulty with the Opposition is that they either anticipate a matter or argue backwards about it. In any event, they are never prepared to discuss the provisions of the Bill before the House. They will always try to throw sand into the eyes of the electorate and thereby to paint something more hideous than it really is. We have ample proof of that. [Interjections.] I challenge the hon. member for East London City to prove to me where in this Bill provision is made for the granting of absolute independence to the Transkei. This Bill simply seeks to confer self-government upon the Transkei. That is the only principle contained in it, and we are now discussing that principle. That also is the only salvation for the White man in South Africa as well as for the Black man under the gradual development worked out for him under the guidance of the White man.

What is the ultimate objective of your policy.

That you should not become Black.

The ultimate object of our policy is to keep the White man White and dominant in his own area, and to keep the Black man Black and dominant in his own area. That is the ultimate objective we are aiming at, and in spite of the obstruction we are experiencing from the Opposition to that, we shall continue with it. The Opposition have only one object, and that is not only to make things difficult for the National Party, but also to shipwreck self-government in the Transkei. Nor is that a nice object. It is clear from the speeches of members of the Opposition who have participated in this debate thus far that they have inseparably bound themselves to the Liberals and the Liberal Press who are engaged in propagating agitators in the Transkei who could then oppose this policy, and do that in spite of the fact that the majority of the people are in favour of this Bill.

When somebody was making comparisons here this afternoon and referred to the activities of Poqo and said that Poqo would also still flee for its life like that, somebody—I do not know who it was but it was one of the Opposition—passed the remark “You have got a hope ”. I am very sorry about that remark for the inference may be drawn from that they are hoping and trusting that Poqo will stay there to help to make this legislation a failure. The Opposition is engaged on making the operation of self-government in the Transkei impossible, and with that object in view they are prepared to sacrifice South Africa and not only the National Party. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Germiston District may feel differently, but analysis of the speeches of his colleagues makes very clear what the object of the Opposition is in their opposition to this Bill.

It is to save South Africa.

Their opposition to this Bill may be based on two reasons: Firstly, because the United Party prefers that the state of affairs that has prevailed heretofore, should continue. Let us in this regard look at what has happened in the rest of Africa in particular to the tour made by Mr. Macmillan through Africa, with his speeches on the winds of change. With those speeches of his he planted certain ideas in the thoughts of primitive peoples—ideas for which they are not ripe as yet, but for the realization of which they then began to exert pressure.

But that is precisely what you are doing now.

With the speeches coming from members of the Opposition they are planting ideas in the minds of the Bantu in the Transkei—ideas of not accepting self-government. They are inciting the Bantu to insist upon immediate independence while at this stage they are not ripe for it as yet. That is the attitude of the whole United Party, and I am accusing it of this, that in a very subtle manner they are now inciting the Bantu in the Transkei to ask for more than is being given to him now, and that with the sole object of causing self-government to be a failure. They want to compel the Bantu to ask for independence—a thing for which they are not ripe yet.

I hope the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) will forgive me if I do not follow him in some of his more extravagant utterances. The Government, Sir, has now got a bee in its bonnet. Anybody who opposes them, is a communist, or an agitator, or a liberal working only for the purpose of undermining what is good for South Africa. The hon. member asked quite a number of questions. I do not propose to answer all of them. There is, however, one important statement which he made and which I should like to dispute because of its inaccuracy. He said that the world wanted only one thing of South Africa, namely to introduce a system of “one man, one vote That, Sir, is utterly untrue! The world does not demand that South Africa introduce a system of “one man, one vote ”. It demands only one thing of South Africa and I can say this because I spent quite some time listening to debates at the UNO at its last session and talking to politicians throughout the United States. There is, as I said, one thing which the world does demand of us and that is that we abandon racial discrimination as a policy per se. That is what is demanded of us.

What about Rhodesia?

Hon. members are always asking “what about Rhodesia?” The Western countries did not line up against Rhodesia on that issue! Unfortunately, Rhodesia waited too long before implementing its policy of partnership. If hon. members would look at the Cape Argus of this evening, they will see there a very interesting article written by Mr. Rend de Villiers. They will then notice that he says what I said a few weeks ago in this very House, namely that Rhodesia did too little too late and that partnership never really got off the ground. It was never given a real chance. But whatever happened in Rhodesia, it must not be forgotten that the situation is different in South Africa. The hon. member for East London (City) has already pointed out in this regard that the ratio of Black to White is different. There are, however, two further very important differences. The one is that South Africa has the economic resources to support a contented population if it would only utilize those resources correctly. The other difference, which everybody ignores, is that the Africans of South Africa have had contact with Western civilization for generations longer. They have come to appreciate its values far more than is the case with Africans elsewhere in Africa. But there is yet another important difference, namely that our Africans have never yet been offered a fair deal as far as the abolition of racial discrimination is concerned. Until they have turned such a deal down, nobody will be in a position to say that the only thing they want is one man, one vote.

These are the arguments I want to advance against the inaccurate statement made by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad. The hon. member also alleged that there was nothing in this Bill which gave independence to the Africans in the Transkei. In that he is quite right, because there is nothing of that in this Bill. The hon. member must, however, remember that this Bill has two faces: a local face and a face which has been prepared for foreign consumption. The hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) referred to it this afternoon and I should like to argue further about this especially as the hon. member for Wolmaransstad referred to it again. I have here two advertisements which were placed by the Minister of Information in English papers in England: one in Punch and one in the Illustrated London News. The advertisement in Punch is headed “Focus on the New Foreigners” and the one in the Illustrated London News was headed “Focus on a New Nation ”. The whole text of these advertisements, seen with the pictures and the headlines, can mean only one thing: independent nations.

Eventually.

Now the hon. member says “eventually ”. [Interjections.] These advertisements were placed last year and do not say “eventually ”. They say that “next year an African nation will vote for their own national Parliament". What is the implication of “Focus on a New Nation”, of “their own Parliament taking control of their affairs ”? It implies only one thing, namely independence. The overseas version emphasizes only the sovereign independent states which Bantustans are ultimately to become. And the reason for it is—I am not going to go into all this again in detail—is that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs came hot-footing it back from UN the year before last, desperately worried at the turn of events there, and knowing that South Africa should take a step which would go beyond that which up to that time had been mooted by the Prime Minister who talked only about placing the Native on the road to self-government when he made his famous “new vision” speech in 1959. It also had to go further than Dr. Eiselen wanted to go when he wrote in Optima in March 1959 that the utmost degree of autonomy in administrative matters which the Union Parliament was likely to concede (i.e. to the Bantustans) would stop short of the actual surrender of sovereignty by the European trustee. That was said three years ago. Now, however, we have all this about a “focus on a new nation”, etc., and we have the Prime Minister talking about ultimate sovereign independence as soon as the African peoples are ready for it. Nobody knows when that is going to be but one is entitled, since these advertisements are already talking of the new independent states which are going to be created, to believe that it is the Government’s intention. I personally do not believe that that is the Government’s intention, but one is entitled to deduce from this propaganda that that is its intention.

I say that the Prime Minister is doing this because of pressure from outside. That is obvious. But he really could have saved himself the trouble, thereby removing quite a lot of ammunition with which he has provided the Opposition, because even the new version of independent Bantustans was only glanced at by the world and ignored. It did not create a stir! And that is because people in the outside world have a lot more knowledge of South Africa than members opposite would like to believe.

But they are wrong!

The hon. member might think that they are wrong, but the fact is that they only took one look at this bargain and dismissed it for what it is—a thoroughly bad bargain! And a bad bargain because Africans in a small area of the country would be given very limited self-government in exchange for all the rights they hope to enjoy in the rest of the Republic. They know that two-thirds of the people live outside of the reserves and that they want to enjoy rights where they live, work and will probably die.

You should be pulled up (kortgevat word).

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. member entitled to make threats?

The TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr. Pelser): The hon. member may proceed.

I do not wish to spend more time on what I call the overseas version of this Bill, and I therefore come now to the local version—that version which is intended for consumption by the electorate of South Africa. Hon. members opposite, with a few exceptions, including the hon. the Prime Minister perhaps, will be going around the country emphasizing the limited rights of self-government which is being conferred by this Bill. There will be talk of restoring South Africa to those traditions which existed all these years during which land was set aside for the Bantu.

I want to make some comment on what has been said in regard to this Bill being the result of the desires of the Bantu themselves. In this connection I wish to state categorically that that is not so. All the reports which were quoted and referred to by hon. members are two years old. Even last year’s Transkeian Territorial Authority’s minutes do not reveal the position as it is to-day. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad quoted from a report dated 1959. What happened in 1960 however? Then we had Proclamation No. 400. Does the hon. member know what that proclamation means? Does he know that it is the most stringent emergency declaration ever declared in this country? Does he know that it is still in force, now, three years later, and for this ideal, peaceful, and independence loving people of the Transkei? Proclamation No. 400 is still there and the hon. the Minister will not remove it. And what is the more, the self-governing Bantu will not be able to remove it because the powers being given them in this Bill are not powers to that effect. Now, Sir, we know that many meetings which were called to consider the constitution presented by the recess committee to the authorities, were forbidden. Under Proclamation No. 400 all meetings of more than ten persons are prohibited. Permission has first got to be obtained for any such meeting. At the meetings which were held, the Tembu turned down the constitution and so did the West Pondo. Four meetings were held amongst the Tembu and they rejected it altogether as did the West Pondo. The only approval which was given to it came of course from the Government’s pet African, Chief Kaizer Matanzima.

The attitude of the Transkeian African is a very simple one—or at least the attitude of most of them, i.e. apart from the followers of Kaizer Matanzima—and can be summed up in three points. Firstly, they say that if they accepted this so-called self-governing Bill, they would be allowing the Government to stop them from seeking work in Port Elizabeth, Cape Town or Johannesburg: Secondly, they say that Parliament controlling them will still be in Cape Town and not in Umtata; and thirdly, that this is just an extension of Bantu authorities which have brought them nothing but misery, corruption and tyranny. They do not want to be tyrannized over by people whom the Minister is going to ensure will control the Transkeian Assembly. As other hon. members have already pointed out, no attempt has been made to consult the million Transkeian Bantu living outside the territory. To talk therefore about this Bill emanating from the people themselves, is just so much nonsense. I should also like to ask whether this new Bill has been submitted to them? The hon. the Minister is so fond of talking about consultation! Was this done? We know that the Bill as first introduced has been changed. Did the hon. the Minister rush back to the Transkei to consult the people about the changed position? Can he assure us that this is an indigenous Bill coming from the Bantu themselves? Of course he cannot. I am sure the Transkeian Africans do not even know what was in the original Bill; nor do they know what is in the new Bill. But most important of all is the question “what free discussions could possibly be held under the shadow of Proclamation No. 400?” It is the most draconian measure; it prohibits meetings; it gives vast powers to Bantu commissioners and to Chiefs to banish people, to detain people, to remove them from where they are living, to burn their crops and their homes, Now, what sort of free election can be held under this proclamation …

I thought you said the West Pondo held large meetings against the draft constitution?

Those were the meetings which could be held. But what sort of elections are going to be held? Will anti-Trans-keian authority people be allowed to stand for election? These elections, Sir, in my opinion are going to be as free as these of the anti-Khruschey candidates in the recent Soviet elections. That is just about the degree of freedom which will prevail in these elections for a self-governing Bantustan. Let us examine further the claims to self-government, and the claims that this Bill is going to satisfy the political aspirations. This is made out to be one of the theoretical aims of the Bill, namely that it is going to satisfy the political aims of Africans in and outside the reserves. But just look at the Bill! It falls ludicrously short of giving even limited self-government. So the hon. member for Wolmaransstad can quote me in support of his statements that independence is not coming. All the main centres of economic life are excluded from this Bill. After all, all economic life of the country is centred in towns, but yet every single urban centre is excluded from the purview of this Bill. These urban centres remain under their White town councillors and under all the repressive regulations of apartheid. The actual power being given to the Transkeian authority is strictly limited. If one examines Clause 49 carefully, one will also see that the Attorney-General of the Eastern Cape Division of the Supreme Court can remove any case which is being tried in the Transkei to a court outside in the Republic. So that is very limited jurisdiction indeed. All the laws passed by the Transkeian Assembly are subject to veto, and, what is more, before they reach the State President who can veto them and send them back—I do not know what happens when they get referred backwards and forwards—they have to pass through the Great Place of the hon. Hans Abraham, they have to get through the Bantu Administration Department, before they even reach the State President. That is the autonomy which is given to the Transkei under this Bill! Worst of all, Sir, Clause 65 lays down the continuation of all the existing laws that bear down on the African people—the Bantu Administration Act, an Act which allows powers of banishment without trial; that is retained. The Urban Areas Act, the Prohibition of Interdicts Act all remain in force until repealed by the competent authority. It is not stated in the Bill who the competent authority is. Can the Transkeian Assembly repeal those laws? Of course not. This Parliament is the competent authority and this Parliament is not going to repeal those laws. It is nonsense for people to go talking about “Focus on New Nation ”; they know quite well that only the most limited powers of self-government are in fact being given to them. I am not even going to discuss this much-vaunted universal franchise of one-man one-vote, which is so generously being given to the Bantu in the Transkei. It does not mean a thing under these conditions. If one looks at the Assembly you see that 64 of the members are to be nominated and 45 are to be elected. What is the value of one-man one-vote in an assembly of that kind? As I say, under Proclamation 400 what sort of free election is there going to be? Even for those 45 elected members. So much for satisfying the political ambitions of the Africans inside the Transkei. How much less will this satisfy the political ambitions of those outside the Transkei. Have hon. members forgotten that the urbanized Africans are the most Westernized and most advanced of our African people? Do they seriously think that postal votes in the Transkei are going to satisfy the aspirations of those people? What absolute nonsense, especially, Sir, as this is meant to be the substitute for all claims to all normal civil rights within the Republic of South Africa!

As for the Africans living on the White farms, nobody gives them a thought. Nobody even talks about them. There must be at least 3,500,000 of them living on the White farms. Where are their political aspirations going to be satisfied, Sir? One does not hear hon. members opposite talking about those Africans becoming temporary sojourners. Oh, no, there are far too many Nationalist farmers in this House for that and there are far too many platteland supporters of the Government to hear any talk about any movement affecting farmers in respect of the loss of their labour. No, they will have stability on the White man’s farm as long as the White man wants their labour. That is all one hears about the Africans in the White farming areas of South Africa. They are unable to move to the urban areas and there is no land provided for them in the reserves. They must stay on the White farms as long as the White farmers want their labour. Now, Sir, what about the African’s economic aspirations? Even the Prime Minister stated that economic viability was a pre-requisite to this scheme having any feasibility whatsoever. Let us look at this economic viability. I have no time to deal with it in detail, but just let us take a look at it, Sir. According to figures given to me by the hon. the Minister himself, we have already spent R120,000,000 over the past eight years on Bantustans. I regret to announce that out of that R 120,000,000 R60,000,00 was spent on administration. Can you imagine that, Sir? This is the taxpayers’ money to build up the reserves—and nobody would object to that —but to spend R60,000,000 on administration, well, if ever there was a waste of money there it is. Those reserves are crying out for proper development, crying out for the so-called infra structure of industry, for roads, for railways, for power stations, for the basic essentials that have to be provided before there can be any economic development of the reserves, before they can supply even 1,000 of the 30,000 alternative jobs per annum to people which the Tomlinson Commission’s report says is essential, i.e. we need 30,000 jobs a year away from agriculture and into other occupations. R60,000,000 was spent on administration and the other R60,000,000 was presumably spent on agricultural development because there is nothing else as far as factories etc. are concerned. We hear that over the next five years we will be spending another R114,000,000 on the reserves. This is very fine, Sir, until one analyses what it is going to be spent on. Two-thirds of this money is going to be spent on housing. Housing!

Like the Ministers.

Two-thirds of this money is going to be spent on housing. Why? I will come to that in a minute. [Interjections.] This is not on Cato Manor; this is on rural villages in the reserves and for a very different reason; a much more sinister one and I shall come to that in a minute. The point I am trying to make is that one-third will be left over to develop this infra structure for industry and tertiary occupations. Only one-third, that is all; the rest is going into housing. We have a long, long way to go before we can fulfil any of those 30.000 alternative jobs that are going to be needed.

We have had 14 years of apartheid legislation. We have already spent R 120,000,000 on the reserves and we are going to spend another R114,000,000. As I say, far too much of this money is being spent on administration and on housing. I want to point out that 14 years is the half-way point between the Government’s getting into power and 1978, the magic year; the magic year when somebody is going to press a button and all the Africans who have been streaming into the towns will turn back and stream back to the reserves again. So we have 14 years to go. What have we achieved in the past 14 years? Have we even, Sir, achieved what the Prime Minister called an “immediate forcing down of the curve of influx into the towns ”? Not even that, Sir. I do not have to go into the census figures; they have been quoted over and over again. We do know, however, that there are 1,000,000 more Africans in the towns than there were ten years ago and this is after all that expenditure of money. And we are half-way towards the magic 1978!

Now what can possibly happen in the Transkei during the next 14 years that has not happened already which is going to make this difference? No amount of money that is ever provided will enable the Transkei or other Bantustans to compete with industrial South Africa where all the real resources of the country lie. The real solution to poverty in the reserves is to remove the population not to put them back. Every commission that has sat on this subject has said this. The answer to poverty in the reserves is to reduce the population and not to increase it. In fact, the whole concept of the reserves ultimately should be that they should only be there temporarily. They should only be there to protect people who are under-privileged elsewhere and who are unable to move around. The real answer, of course, is to allow people the opportunity of education and employment opportunities throughout the whole country. That will solve the problem of the reserves; in fact, the reserves themselves will then ultimately disappear.

Now, Sir, there are some Nationalists who have some understanding of economics. Yes, there are some and they accept this. They know that they are never going to be able to provide enough jobs inside the reserves to take people away from agriculture. It cannot be done. They are placing their faith in border industries and here is where the secret is of the R76,000,000 which is going to be spent on housing. This housing is going to be supplied inside the reserves to supply dormitory labour for all these great factories which are going to be erected on the borders of the reserves.

If you look at another Government publication you see that R45,000,000 has been set aside for the development of border industries over the next ten years and it is hoped to provide employment for 30,000. It should be 300,000 over ten years according to the Tomlinson Commission’s figures, but anyway this is 30,000. I am not going into the effects of Hong Kongs on the borders of the reserves as against Hong Kongs inside the reserves and the effect on existing industry inside South Africa. But the real point is that this is a drop in the ocean; it is not going to make the slightest difference and entrepreneurs, despite all the tax concessions, are still going to locate their factories according to the ordinary locational factors that determine where entrepreneurs locate their factories and that is access to raw material, proximity to markets, the availability of suitable labour, proper transport and proper power. Those are the factors which have always determined where factories shall be and that is all that will ever determine it despite anything the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs thinks he can do with his R45,000,000 for the setting up of these factories on the borders of the reserves, to the detriment of existing industry in South Africa. Even this expenditure of R76,000,000 on housing is not going to make any difference because most of these houses will be inhabited by the families of migratory workers who will have joined the ranks of the people in the towns, in the so-called White towns. This bring me to the real objective behind this Bill; the real objective which is not sovereign independence or self-government but the real objective and it has been piping in and out of debates in this House ever since I have been here. And that is to turn the entire African population into one vast migratory labour force with no claims on any permanent rights in the so-called White areas of South Africa. This is the so-called return to tradition. Sir, that the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) mentioned, this temporary sojourner idea. He thinks that because the White traders in the Transkei are only there temporarily and should have known it, it is going to be just as simple a matter, as he thinks it is going to be to remove the few hundred White traders from the Transkei, to remove all the millions of Africans in our White areas, whom he says are also temporary sojourners. He wants to go right back to the Stallard Commission and so does this whole Bill and so does the memorandum of the original Bill that started this whole thing, the Promotion of Bantu Self-government Bill. This is it, Sir. Here I have it and the hon. member over there admits it. What did the Stallard Commission of 1921 say? It said—

That is the basis of this Bill, Sir, and nothing else—to turn the whole Black population of South Africa into a vast migratory labour force. The next Bill that is coming, the Bantu Areas Amendment Bill, is going to carry on with this plan, that is going to be the other leg of this whole plan. It is as clear as daylight. Back to the concept of 1921, back to the concept of the Black man as a chattel, there for the whim and at the mercy of his White employer as if nothing has happened since 1921. As if there has not been a Second World War, as if there has not been a social and economic revolution in South Africa, as if there have been no vast changes on the Continent of Africa and, Sir, as if there have not been any profound new attitudes on colour discrimination! All this is ignored by this Government; it does not exist; we go back to the days of the Stallard Commission; back to 1921. And specifically in South Africa, the fact that Africans have become permanently urbanized is completely ignored; they are no longer the migratory workers they were in 1921. What was the position in 1921? There were 500,000 Africans in the towns in 1921, less than 12 per cent of the total African population and there were 80,000 employed in all the industries in the whole of the Union. What is the position to-day? The position, as I say, is to-day that there are nearly 3,000,000 Africans in the towns, one-third of the African population, there are over a 1,000,000 employed in industry and they do one-third of the semiskilled work in this country to-day. Therefore they cannot be migratory workers, which is a point to which I shall refer in a moment. All these facts are ignored, but worst of all— the very worst of all—the fact is ignored that we are dealing with human beings and not just labour units. That is what this Government forgets. I want to tell the hon. member for Heilbron that even if he succeeds and he turns the whole of the permanently urbanized African population into a vast migratory labour force, those people are still with us; their labour is here; he will not deny that he is going to use their labour. They may come in as long as they serve the wants of the White man and the wants of the White man will continue; and the person who performs the labour has got to be here too, Sir. The member for Heilbron cannot have his labour without the person of the labourer. This is a very simple fact mentioned long ago by the Native Economic Commission. And if that is the case you have to cater for his needs. You have to cater for his political needs, for his social needs, for every sort of need and he will not be any easier to deal with because he is a landless, rootless migratory labourer, than he is if he is a permanently urbanized person. On the contrary his demands will not cease but he will be a very much more difficult person to deal with because he will have nothing to lose. He can be as reckless as he likes in his demands, whereas your stabilized labour force has got something to lose and will settle for far less. This is the danger of this whole policy which hon. members have completely forgotten. Whatever happens the basic needs of South Africa will continue because we have economic resources, for that simple reason. Those resources have to be exploited and of course because the White man in South Africa enjoys his high standard of living and is not prepared to lower that standard of living …

Are you?

Of course I am not, therefore I do not accept this absurd plan. Do not rely on immigration because, whether we get immigrants or not, it is a fallacy to think that White hands replace Black hands. History has shown that with every further employment of White people in South Africa we have needed more African labour, not less. There is already a shortage of White hands to perform jobs in industry; only 1 per cent of our White population is unemployed and that is considered full employment. Indeed 2 per cent to 3 per cent unemployment is considered full employment in any other country. There is no reason to suppose that the basic situation is going to change in South Africa; however, drastically the laws of the urban areas are amended, the situation basically will remain the same; we are going to need labour, the people will be here. What is more, industry in South Africa cannot do only with migratory labour because it needs semi-skilled labour. The whole industry has changed its face since 1921. It does not only use unskilled workers, it uses more and more of the semi-skilled type of worker and one cannot turn a migratory worker into a proper semiskilled worker because he is not in one place long enough to be trained.

Sir, I am prepared to wager everything I possess that when we meet again in Parliament next year or when this Parliament meets in any subsequent year, we will have to face exactly the same problems that we faced before this Bill was introduced. This solves nothing, Sir. It will not alter in any way the basic structure of the Black/White relationship—except to worsen it because racial grievances build up with every drastic measure which comes into being. Therefore I say that this plan is doomed to failure before it starts. What is more, Sir. the Government knows it is doomed to failure and that is why it is building up this vast Defence Force, not to protect us from external aggression, but to protect us against internal risings. If this Government really thought that the plan could succeed, that “good neighbourliness” would be established by it, would it be building up this vast armoury with which to face its new good neighbours? Of course it would not. Sir. Just sometimes I amuse myself with a vision. It is a 20th-century version of the Nonquassi vision. I imagine it is 1978 and I see streams of happy Black faces, men and women, smiling faces with bundles on their heads streaming back to their homelands, back to the Bantustans, to Zululand, to the Transkei, to Northern Transvaal. I see them streaming back. Then I think of the faces of the White farmers when this happens; I think of their untended lands and their untended livestock. I think of the mine-owners with their empty compounds, and stationary shaft wheels; I think of the factory owners with their silent, motionless machinery. And I wonder whether after all those guns are not going to be used to stop these people from streaming back to their homelands and to turn them back into the White Republic of South Africa so that they once again can dig our gold, plough our fields and man our factories, as they have always done and as they always will do.

That is her death knell that has tolled, Mr. Speaker. That is the first sign. That hon. member will hear the truth in a minute. Mr. Speaker, the last portion of the speech of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) to-night is a picture that could only be conjured up by a lunatic …

*The TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr. Pelser): Order!

Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that. It is a picture that could only have its origin in the mind of a person who has begun to evaporate completely politically. It reminds me of the saying that if the gods wish to destroy you, they make you mad. I think that applies after having listened to the hon. member’s speech to-night.

The hon. member, in brief reply to what she has said, says that our defence forces are being built up with the object of subduing internal unrest. We are becoming heartily sick and fed up with that hon. member’s squealing in this House about what we as Whites are doing to protect ourselves. I should like to ask why Britain last week announced its biggest defence budget in her history? Is that only to keep in check the small number of Irishmen? I think that hon. member should show a greater sense of responsibility when in South Africa she enjoys the privilege as the representative of so few people to enjoy so much liberty to say so much and to talk so much nonsense. That hon. member should begin to realize that now. But she quarrels with us; she should not quarrel with us. Her party has given us the recipe of whom she should quarrel with. She should quarrel with the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Mool-man). I should like to read out to you how her party quarrelled with him. I have here an election pamphlet relative to this Bill. In that election the hon. member for East London (City), who has shown us the way to-night, was involved in a violent conflict with the party of the hon. member for Houghton. The Progressive Party’s candidate was Mrs. Curry. Here is Mrs. Curry’s election pamphlet. I should like to read it for the information of everybody, for it sheds light on the whole attitude that side adopts in respect of this Bill. I read—

Now that member comes along and quarrels with us. She should quarrel with the hon. member for East London (City). But I proceed—

I had thought they would have said “hear, hear ”—

In other words, by implication that hon. member’s party candidate accuses the candidate of the United Party that their policy is based on racial discrimination. They are denying it every day. I continue reading—

“Have you courage ”? But here is a much more enlightening pamphlet. It was used during that selfsame election. The Progressive Party begins this pamphlet thus—

with a big exclamation mark—

Now we should listen closely. What does this hon. member’s party say? Then she gets up and quarrels with us. She should not quarrel with us; we are honest—

Mr. Speaker, who showed up their double-facedness more than that Progressive Party during that conflict in which the hon. member for East London (City) participated? Now the hon. member for East London (City) comes along and teaches us a lesson. That is substantially the explanation of the whole tenor that we have observed in the actions of that party during this debate. Now to return to this Transkei Bill. And in order to place it against the proper background it is my duty this evening to briefly outline the historical background. No historical fact bears out the claims of either the United Party or the Progressive Party to open the door for the Bantu in the White man’s area. Secondly, no act of aggression by the White man against the Bantu is revealed by a study of history. Thirdly, after the White man had been involved in nine wars with the Bantu, before they arrived at the establishment of a fixed boundary, they did not act like victors. On the contrary, the White man played the role of the victor working with the tender healing hand. No land was taken away. On the contrary, it is without equal in history that in spite of so many conflicts between the White man and the Black man, the Bantu now, after all those conflicts, possesses more land than he is historically entitled to. The White man always respected the Bantu areas. The White man never intruded in the Bantu areas, but steered away from the Bantu areas. And what did the White man do to the Bantu? Historically the White man did not go to the Bantu to seek employment. It was the Bantu who came to look for employment among the Whites. It was the Bantu who obtained his health services from the Whites. It is the Bantu who was compelled to leave his devastated and trampled areas, after the first land was granted to him under Act No. 17 of 1913, and who had to seek labour and a refuge among the Whites. It was with the White man’s help that the Bantu was placed in the position to increase at such a tremendously great and speedy tempo. It was the White man who emancipated the Bantu female, for the Bantu never was an agriculturist. He was never a tiller of the soil; he was the soldier and the Bantu woman was the labourer in the fields. So the Bantu never shared the privilege of private possession of land. Now the United Party comes along, namely the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) and he makes a whole debating point in regard to the system of land ownership within the Bantu tradition. He has no idea how the Bantu throughout the ages developed his system of land ownership. It was the White man who changed the Bantu from a soldier to a productive labourer, so that the hon. member for Houghton to-night can refer to semi-skilled Bantu labour. If the White man had not been there, where would the Bantu have been? Mr. Speaker, the Bantu owes the White man very much more than, the White man owes the Bantu. Indeed, the Bantu in South Africa is living in a welfare state; he enjoys the same privileges that a Briton enjoys in England to-day. The Bantu is living in a welfare state in South Africa in so far as it concerns the privileges the Bantu is enjoying to-day. I know of no greater welfare state in the world than that in which the Bantu is living and working in the White areas. There is no greater welfare state. So we cannot give any more than we gave in the past. In the first place it is historically wrong to demand of us to give more land. It is morally wrong to demand from us that we should grant more rights within our own areas. That is why I reject the demand of the Leader of the Opposition when yesterday he stated by implication that we should open the doors to eight Bantu in the Parliament of the Whites. We dare not allow that. It would be betrayal of the Whites. Nobody morally has a claim to that. It is not borne out historically; it has no historic justification. This Act we have before us is not stealing anything. The hon. member for Houghton refers to the small piece of land the Bantu has, and to the over-population that will in due course arise in the Bantu areas. I should like to tell hon. members opposite that it is not the White man in South Africa who committed the injustice of robbing the Bantu of land. The “British South Africa Act” tells us that when the protectorates are added to South Africa’s enlarged Bantu areas, the Bantu will possess 45 per cent of the best and most fertile and most productive land of the greater South Africa. We did not rob the Bantu of land. Do not come and accuse us of that. Those areas have been trampled underfoot by their own doing and by their own neglect, by their recklessness as against the Bantu, to such an extent that within a period of short duration we now have to restore what has been neglected during all those years. So this Bill is not concerned with land hunger at all. If anyone, if any member of the Opposition complains, if any member of the Progressive Party complains that some of these Bantu, on account of their numbers, will not all have the right to possess land, I should like to say this only: There are millions of Whites on earth who have never had the privilege of possessing land. In our own country there are hundreds of thousands of Whites who will never enjoy the privilege of owning their own piece of land. This Bill has clearly shown up a break between the right wing within the United Party and the rest. The right wing! There sits the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher), one of the right wing within the party. Here sits the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl). If that hon. member who now sits glaring at me like that will open his heart like a wise man, he will talk the language of his son in Rhodesia, that son of his who has now won a seat there. I should like to warn the hon. member: He must never permit his son to come to Green Point, for he will be in opposition to him. Here sits a right wing member of the United Party. He is a good lad. There sits the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman). I am not saying that he is the right wing of the United Party. The Progressive Party says so. Surely he is a right wing of the United Party. Surely he cannot associate himself with the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell). Surely that is impossible. Surely it is impossible for the hon. member to associate himself with the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson). They simply do not belong together. I saw that breach clearly in the debates. Here sits the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). What a good strong conservative Englishman would he not have been in England. And if there is one thing that England needs at the present time, then it is a strong, sound conservatism. That hon. member would have been a good conservative force in Britain. [Interjections.] Do not bother me now. You know I never disturb anybody whilst he is making a speech. [Laughter.] If the hon. member for Germiston (District) would only apply the conservatism he is endowed with in the interests of politics in South Africa, that hon. member could become a great asset in our politics. There are many other hon. members opposite who experience has taught us are trying to sit on so many stools that I dare not mention their names tonight. The United Party experiences its greatest shock with this Bill, and the United Party really is without a platform now. If I may use the word, we have “deplatformed” them, we have pulled the platform away from under them, and because we have pulled the platform from under them, they are now engaged on “fragmentation ”. What now is the psychological, underlying reason why they are using the word “fragmentation ”? What is the meaning of “fragmentation ”? Fragmentation in fact means the old imperial idea of “divide and rule”, and it is at the back of their minds, and it has particularly emanated from the fertile political brain of the hon. member for South Coast; the old small tail of the old policy of “divide and rule” has remained, and they come along with fragmentation now. The second thing they are saying is that we should make concessions. Do not come along with this Bill, make concessions. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says: “Introduce eight of them into Parliament.” What will that lead to? Everybody knows it. But I should like to mention a few examples of what concessions have led to in recent history. I shall never forget how in 1941, while the world war was on, we suddenly read that Stalin and Matsuoko, the lapanese leader, had concluded a peace treaty. Stalin gave in and made peace with Japan. What was his object? His object was to free the hands of Japan to strike America at Pearl Harbour and Singapore and Manilla so that Japan could become weaker and America could become weaker, and in order that Stalin could make stronger demands of the Western powers, and he succeeded brilliantly.

Order! The hon. member is wandering too far away from the Bill.

It is just to prove, Mr. Speaker, what concessions will lead to. The Opposition wants to force us into making concessions.

Is the Bill itself not a concession?

First concede a little, at first qualified franchise, at first only eight representatives; so few in Parliament, and you will have to open the door wider and wider.

First self-government to the Transkei, then …

This Parliament will become Black once there are eight, and the Provincial Councils will become Black, and the streets of our towns will become Black. It will become a Black integrated state. The United Party will not be able to stop it due to the weight of numbers. This policy of concessions will inexorably surrender us to the tyranny of the weight of numbers. That is inherent in the race federation scheme of the Opposition. I should like to ask the hon. member for Green Point: They come along with the race federation scheme; at first with only a limited number of Bantu in the White Parliament. If they come along later on and ask for more political rights, how then can the hon. member withhold political franchise from a fellow citizen, in a communal state? How can one do it?

How can you limit the number of Coloured representatives?

We are now dealing with the Transkei, but I have an equally conclusive reply to the hon. member, and I shall give it on another occasion. Mr. Speaker, this breakthrough which is made by this legislation, has left the United Party with only one answer, and that is the Leader of the Opposition’s alternative of race federation. In all sincerity I had expected that now, in regard to this Bill, in the course of this debate. I would have received a reply from the Leader of the Opposition in respect of his alternative race federation scheme, but it remains as nebulous as it was.

But this legislation has also disarmed the Progressive Party. They have only one member left, the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) and there she is sitting without a platform, abandoned. In South Africa there are no longer any Whites who support the Progressive Party. Even the Leader of the Progressive Party, after his visit to Rhodesia said that two things had struck him, and that is that the tide in Rhodesia had turned against the policy of the Progressive Party and secondly that there was only one hero in Rhodesia, and that was Hendrik Verwoerd. Her own Leader, Dr. Steytler, said that. They are alone and forsaken; they have also been denuded; their political garments have fallen from them one after another and there she is sitting tonight clothed in a political bikini. By “political bikini” I mean that the political garment she has over her political body is very meagre. But I think she has a very much better chance, if she were to take a stroll along the beach in a proper bikini, for then she would attract many more admirers than in the political arena.

Order!

But there is a third party in South Africa which is stabbed through the heart by this legislation, and that is the Liberal Party. But the Liberal Party was cleverer than the United Party and much cleverer than the Progressive Party. This Bill caused the Liberal party to shift their field of battle. Where to? They have lost their support among the Whites, and they have gone along and established their headquarters on the borders of the Transkei and within the Transkei. They have moved their field of battle as close as possible to the heart of the Transkei, and this Liberal Party has now, simultaneously with their retreat from the White area where they have lost the battle, gone along and borrowed their weapons right inside the communist camp. They have fetched their weapons from the camp of the communist and they are using the same weapons as those used by the United Nations Organization. I should like to mention it by name, namely the Afro-Asian Group. The Liberal Party now wants to do battle with us in the Transkei. It is this Afro-Asian group, the UNO that has provided the weapons to destroy the only pro-Western Black man in Africa, in the Congo, and it is the Liberal Party that will use every possible method and weapon to undermine our authority in the Transkei. This UNO has smuggled weapons to the underground revolutionary movement in Angola, in order to get to our heart through the destruction of Portuguese authority in Angola. This Liberal Party is most closely linked with the underground movement and incitement right inside the Transkeian territory. It is this UNO which has started off a world-wide campaign of vilification against Portugal, and that has conditioned the world to such an extent …

Order!

Yes, Mr. Speaker, by your leave I am merely making comparisons. When India invaded Goa, the world organization did not speak, and they want to influence the situation in the Transkei in such a way that an incident will be caused so that they can go to the General Assembly of UNO and take it to the Security Council and by so doing create trouble for us in the Transkei. That is my analysis of the matter. In this respect the Liberal Party has taken the lead before all the Opposition Parties in South Africa. And whereas the United Party has nothing more to throw into the conflict, as we have emasculated and disarmed them, as we have completely divested the Progressive Party of its political garments, there the Liberal Party, under the style of a “Liberal Party”, and under the guise of being the bearers of the true liberalism, has become similar to the organizations that have already been banned in South Africa. They are fulfilling the same function. Is there an hon. member opposite who will say I am wrong? No, they want to bring UNO right into the middle of the Transkei, the Liberal Party, and I say that the Liberal Party uses all the weapons with which Communism fights, throughout the world, throughout Africa: Treachery, murder, conflicts, lies, false reports and the creation of incidents. Those are the weapons of the communist with which he wants to undermine the White stable authority, are they not!

Mention one instance.

As long as the Liberal Party has a free hand in the Transkei, as long as it enjoys a free hand on the borders of the Transkei, and as long as the Liberal Party uses the liberty that democracy in South Africa offers them to undermine the stability that should be inherent in a well-ordered democratic state, we shall be playing precisely into the hands of the hon. member for Houghton with this Transkei legislation. We shall not achieve what we should like to achieve. This Liberal Party wishes to break the indivisibility between peace in the Bantu areas and peace in the White areas, but that peace is indivisible. I should like to affirm to-night that conservatism as it is revealed by our party, and as it is manifested in this Bill, that that conservatism and the successful evolution of development in the Transkei also are indivisible, and I should like to say also that co-operation and goodwill between the parliamentary institutions in the White areas and the parliamentary institutions in the Bantu areas also are indivisible. But the false philosophy of the Liberal Party in South Africa is irreconcilable with peaceful co-existence as it exists within the conception of our philosophy of separate development. Then I should like to say furthermore that this Liberal Party with its so-called lofty pragmatism—I am so sick and tired of this word, the abuse of “human dignity” and “human rights ”—that they with this lofty and self-glorifying pragmatism that has to hide their political immorality, are irreconcilable with the honest facts as they appear in the historical and geographic and political fronts, and as created in this Bill. It is irreconcilable with those historical and geographic facts. It has never been clearer that the leadership which carries on this opposition to this Bill, was in the hands of a small handful of intellectuals, concentrated not in the hands of English-speaking South Africans, not in the hands of the Afrikaans-speaking South Africans—Just look at the people who have been banned, note the names. Those leaders are a small number of intellectuals among one particular group in South Africa. They are clearly separable from the two great conservative groups in South Africa. They are the ones who are holding up the false cloak of liberalism. True liberalism is by far not the direction of thought which this false liberalism at the present time wishes to profess as the true liberalism. It is this liberalism of the present time, with their false cloak, that exerts its influence upon the United Party and particularly on the Progressive Party, and I cannot as yet see the difference between the Progressive Party and the Liberal Party in South Africa, although I have tried very hard to do so.

So I say that this legislation can run in three normal directions. Firstly it may lead to peaceful development within the framework provided for in this Bill to-day. Many years will be required for that, much time will be required to give the parliamentary institutions that are established there time to acquire traditions and to achieve a status. Time will be needed to build up administrative proficiency and knowledge, and time will be needed to develop joint responsibility for what they do, mutual co-operation inter se and co-operation with us. This peaceful development to separate parts of a greater unity where the two components will develop separately but inter-dependently, in such a way that there will be no alternative but to accept joint responsibility for the weal and the woe of greater South Africa, of which there are two components, separate but inwardly bound and inwardly inseparable from each other. That is possible within the framework of the Bill before us.

But there is another possibility to which development can lead as embodied in this Bill, and that is that the development may go to a completely free and independent state. That is the bogey of hon. members opposite. That is the line of thought with which they wish to scare the public. Now I should like to ask whether it is such a bogey. And when they are thinking of total independence, complete autonomy, they couple this question to it: Who will defend us if they were to enter into military alliances with others? What will become of external policy? To that I should like to put this question: What state in the world is in a position at the present time to enter into a secret military alliance? I know of no state on earth. We find large military blocs. We have NATO, we have the Baghdad Treaty States; we have the Warsaw Treaty States and so we have various military complexes, but I do not know of any secret military alliances that have been concluded. On the contrary, if within the framework of sound conservatism among the Bantu as set forth in this legislation, if on that basis of sound conservatism we can establish peaceful co-existence, why should we now, decades and decades before such a stage of development can be possible, concern ourselves and be worried about possible anticipated military treaties in the future? Surely that is to build on mistrust, and surely that is not worthy of a party which claims to be the alternative government. No, in order to achieve peaceful development, we shall therefore (1) have to restrict the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party, as presented in its present guise, is a deadly sting in regard to this development contemplated by this Bill. I should like to repeat that it is my honest conviction that we shall have to contend with an everlasting cancer in the Transkei, a cancer on the normal peaceful development of good relations between White and Black in South Africa, as long as the Liberal Party continues to enjoy the freedom of action they are presently enjoying. This Liberal Party will have to be replaced by a more conservatively inclined opposition in South Africa which, peculiar to a democracy, can make its criticisms, but which will not be destructive of the relationship between White and Black in South Africa. We shall be obliged to reduce the fronts against us. We have many fronts to fight against, fronts that are being reinforced against us to a greater and greater extent. We cannot permit more fronts to be established in South Africa. We shall have to take stronger measures also, with a view to making possible peaceful development, as the basis upon which this Bill can come to full fruition, and in order to achieve that which we want to achieve, against those who are the inciters and the instigators of that which they want to break the order. I wonder whether the time has not arrived that we, in common with other countries such as France e.g., should indict these saboteurs and these inciters before special courts, because they enjoy the forum that the court in South Africa offers them to spread their iniquitous propaganda even further. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) said in the beginning of his speech that those whom the gods want to destroy they first make mad. I ask myself whether that is not what is happening in the Nationalist Party to-day.

The hon. member devoted a large part of his speech to accusing the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) of having spoken nonsense. But what did he do? For 10 minutes towards the beginning of his speech he spoke about the so-called quarrels there were in East London during the election. He had a long story to tell about what our history was and what it was not. He made unfounded statements and drew the wrong inferences. He spoke about the United Nations, about tendencies and fragmentation, he expatiated on the difficulties in the Progressive Party, and he became particularly personal towards the hon. member for Houghton. He had a long argument about the Liberal Party, and then he really spoke nonsense, so much so that you, Mr. Speaker, could eventually stand it no longer, and you are a very patient man. Here we have a case of the pot calling the kettle black, and I am afraid the pot is much blacker than the kettle. The hon. member spoke much more nonsense than did the hon. member for Houghton.

Towards the end of his speech he referred to the spreading of liberalism in the Transkei. But as the result of this legislation not only liberalism but also Communism will be disseminated, and that is something he pretends to be very much afraid of. No, Sir, with all respect he spoke more nonsense than the hon. member for Houghton, but I will leave him there.

I now want to deal with a few of the statements made by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg). Firstly, he put questions to us in regard to the status quo. He asked what the status quo was. The status quo we have in this House is the one created by the Nationalist Party, and not by us. The status quo which we honour is when the Coloureds are again put on the Common Roll and when the Bantu in this country will be represented in this House by Whites. That is the status quo by which we stand and which we want to develop.

Then the hon. member spoke about one man, one vote. He knows that that is an empty slogan which is meaningless. It is true that it is a slogan which has meaning in the Afro-Asian countries, but it is not one which we hear amongst the people who know South Africa, the people of the West. We see it in their periodicals, we read it in their newspapers, we hear it in the speeches of their leaders, that one man, one vote, is not what they expect of South Africa. Those of them who know South Africa know that it is impossible in South Africa. One man, one vote is not what our friends in the West expect of us.

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad said that we as White people in this country should stand together. I cannot agree with him more. It is high time. But what does he say in the same breath? He says: “I do not wish to stand together with you because you have no standpoint; you are the protagonists of liberalism ”

You tell us what your policy is.

That shows that he does not want it. His argument is: “You must do as I do or you can remain where you are ”.

Then he made another statement. He said that this Bill does not give sovereign independence to the Transkei. That is quite correct. But what he does not want to admit is that sovereign independence must follow on this initial step. And what is more, neither the Nationalist Party nor anyone else can determine the time. It is out of their hands, and that is where we differ from those hon. members.

The hon. member goes further and accuses Mr. Macmillan. Mr. Macmillan is alleged to have travelled through Africa and to have incited the people and told them about sovereign independence, and now they all want it.

I only stated the facts.

Mr. Speaker, no Bantu in South Africa has asked for sovereign independence yet. It is this Government with its policy which put that idea into the head of the Bantu.

What did Luthuli ask?

I am glad the hon. member did not come along with the story we have been hearing for the past few days that it has always been the policy of the Nationalist Party to give them this status. to-day still we heard from certain hon. members that they want to do to the Black man just what they want for themselves. I ask myself what the old members of the Nationalist Party would have said about that if they were still with us, and what so many of them who are still here think about the matter. I think, e.g. of the Minister who is now piloting through this Bill. Is he not the man who throughout the years always told the electorate of South Africa that the United Party did too much for the Bantu when they were in power? Was he not the man—I think so— who evolved the word “Kafferboetie ”? He spoke yesterday about the golden thread running right throughout the history of South Africa, but this accusation against the United Party that they do too much, or did too much, or want to do too much for the Bantu, runs like barbed wire throughout the history of the Nationalist Party.

I see the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) is smiling. He knows that it is true. There is not a single member on the opposite side in this House who did not make use of it and who did not catch a lot of votes through it. Now they say it is we who are wrong. No, surely we have had these statements of policy throughout the years. What about the statement of policy in 1912,1913, in regard to the Black danger? That was the same old story. Later we heard about segregation, about domination and about apartheid, and the hon. member for Wolmaransstad is one of the greatest sinners in this respect. Now they come and tell us this has never been the policy of the Nationalist Party.

We also heard about the stick used from the outside.

This has never been the policy of the Nationalist Party in the past. This is something new which has been hatched out here. It is something quite new. The proof of it is the concern on the part of some of their followers outside. They are upset, they hold meetings, and they tried to stop it, but those hon. members who are in a position to stop it will not do so. Surely it is complete nonsense to say that this has always been the policy of the Nationalist Party. Those hon. members always told the country just the complete opposite.

When?

Even in the 1961 election they denied that it was the Prime Minister’s plan to grant independence to those states.

Prove that. It is not true.

What is most peculiar of all is that even the Minister does not believe in it sometimes. There is still a small White spot in his heart, even though it be only as big as a bikini. The hon. the Minister recently still told us that he hopes that this evil day would never come.

This Bill, as has already been said, is for foreign consumption. The hon. member for Wynberg has told us what is being paid for advertisements abroad to tell people overseas that this is sovereign independence. Then the hon. member for Wolmaransstad quite rightly said that it was not sovereign independence. No, it is not true that this has always been the policy of the Nationalist Party.