Mr. Speaker, seeing that I have only five minutes left, I should like to summarize my speech. I have tried to sketch the general development which is taking place in Africa amongst the Bantu, that they are determined and that nowhere in Africa is their attitude other than a relentless attitude of Black domination. This attitude cannot be expressed better than in the words which appear on Nkrumah’s monument: “Seek first the political kingdom and all the other things will be given to you”; those are the scandalous words which appear at the foot of that monument. That illustrates the general attitude of the Black nationalism which is developing. Having said that I tried to ascertain in what respect the United Party was following a policy which conformed to that and I mentioned three points. In the first place, we are all in favour of it that the White man should remain in control. Secondly, both parties are in favour of it that the Bantu areas should be developed. The United Party stated that in very strong words in their Bloemfontein statement where they said that they were in favour of that development taking place with the assistance of White skill, White capital and White initiative. Thirdly both parties admit that certain political rights should be given to the Bantu at this stage. The big difference between us is how those political rights are to be conferred with the White man retaining control over the Republic of South Africa. In the first place, like the National Party, the United Party admits that greater rights should be given to the Natives in their areas. The United Party put it this way: “To give a greater measure of self-government in the Bantu areas,” In that respect there is no difference between the United Party and the National Party either. They, too. are in favour of a greater measure of self-government. That is in accordance with the statement which the United Party issued on 18 August 1961. The National Party says that political rights should only be granted to the Bantu in the Bantu areas and that the Native people should be separated, as far as his political rights are concerned, and placed in the Native areas. The United Party says that a greater measure of self-government should be given to the Bantu areas without defining that greater measure of self-government. There, too, we are in agreement but then the United Party say that as a result of the self-government which is given to him he should have a say in the White Parliament of the Republic. I think it would be stupid on the part of the Protectorates not to accept such a policy if it were offered to them.

Then you come to the big difference between the two parties and that is in respect of the White areas. The Leader of the Opposition divides it into various sections. Firstly, the United Party say that if they come into power they will immediately repeal some of the discriminatory legislation. The question is what yardstick are they going to use and to what extent are they going to repeal it. but unfortunately I cannot enlarge upon that. The hon. member for Vereeniging also referred to that the other evening. Secondly he says that the more responsible type of Native should be given greater direct responsibility and the franchise and that he should furthermore have the right to own land in the White area. The Leader of the Opposition is very vague on the third point but he suggests that the Bantu should be given representation in this Parliament by way of a separate voters’ roll.

Mr. Speaker, that is broadly the difference between the two parties. The National Party is adamant that they should only be given political rights in the Bantu areas and the United Party says that they should have political rights in the White Parliament. That is the clear-cut difference which confronts us. I want to conclude by saying to the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) that the biggest mistake which the British Government apparently made in South Africa was to annex the two Boer republics at that time.

There is a great deal in the speech of the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) with which I agree. He said firstly that both parties envisaged the development of the Bantu reserves. That is indeed true but there is, of course, this fundamental difference that unlike hon. members opposite, we on this side of the House believe that that development should not be the responsibility of the taxpayer alone, but that independent White capital should be allowed in the reserves; secondly the hon. member is not right when he says that both sides of the House are in favour of it that a greater measure of self-government should be given to the reserves and to the Transkei. I also admit that, but here again we have the absolutely fundamental difference in that the object of the policy of hon. members opposite is that the Transkei should become an independent state, whereas it is the policy of this side of the House that the Transkei should always form part of the Republic of South Africa.

We can, however, draw two conclusions from the statement of the hon. member. Firstly, that although this Bill can be passed by this House that does not mean that we will have crossed the Rubicon, that something cannot still be done and that the wrong which is being done by this legislation cannot still be undone by a United Party Government in future. Secondly, the Rubicon will be crossed, the point where the roads part will be reached, the day when sovereignty is conferred by this Parliament on the Transkeian Parliament. That will be the fatal day to which the hon. the Minister referred. I should like to ask the hon. member for Christiana to ask himself this question: What is more dangerous to South Africa, the position in which you have one Central Government, one Republic with one Central Government in which the non-Whites have limited representation, or the position which the hon. member favours in which you will have seven or eight Ghanas within the borders of the Republic? I think that the Government has seldom in any debate appeared as weak and as undecided as in this debate. Three-quarters of the speakers on that side ran away from the consequences of their own policy and they left their two Ministers shivering alone in the cold without any support.

I was furthermore struck by the fact that we hardly received any replies to the charges levelled by this side of the House. Let us consider a few of them. Firstly, nobody has replied to our allegation that the Bantu of the Transkei were not sufficiently consulted in connection with this matter. The decision passed by the Territorial Authority does not represent sufficient consultation. There has not been any reply to our charge that we believe that the Natives in the Transkei do not want this independence, this Uhuru, but that they indeed still want White leadership with justice. You must remember, Sir, that in 1878 when the Transkei became part of the Cape Province it was not incorporated at the point of the sword but it was annexed at the request of the majority of the Bantu in the Transkei themselves. Our third charge which has not been replied to is that absolutely no provision is made for the millions of Transkeian Bantu who remain in the White areas. According to the Tomlinson Commission report—the Minister was a member of that commission—there will be between 8,000,000 and 12,000,000 Bantu in the White areas in the year 2000.

There has been no reply to our charge that this policy will not lead to any abatement in, or lessening of, the violent attacks on us by the Western world. I know hon. members opposite had hoped that that would happen but I challenge them to show where the attacks on us have become less as a result of this Bill. There has been no reply to our charge that this policy will not establish peace in the Transkei. What a stupid state of affairs, Sir. The Transkei is being given its freedom but Emergency Regulation No. 400 still applies there and the Government dare not withdraw that regulation. Nor has there been a reply to our charge that the boundaries of that area were not defined in such a way that everybody would know where he stood and so that the White farmers did not have to live in uncertainty and frustration on the borders of the Transkei. There has been no guarantee from that side of the House that this independence which is to be given to the Transkei will not in future lead to it that we shall have a second Ghana within the borders of the Cape Province with its own army, its own police force, with its own representatives at UNO and harbouring its own degree of hostility towards South Africa. Sir, we have not had one reply from that side of the House.

No guarantees have been given to the traders in the Transkei. It was stated in the draft Bill submitted by the Recess Committee last year by the Bantu themselves that compensation would be paid to the traders but not a word is said about compensation in this Bill which is being submitted by a White Minister. There is no reassurance to the Whites in the Transkei or to those who live on the borders of the Transkei. There has been no reply to our statement that no prospects are held out to the 14,000 Coloureds who live in the Transkei, those Coloureds who shudder when they think of their future if the Transkei should one day become independent. We have not had any assurance that this policy will not lead to the total fragmentation of the country which we love, that it will not lead to the establishment of a small White republic surrounded by Black states. There they sit, Sir, they have on the brain, fear in their hearts, the puppets of the new king of the Transkei, Kaizer Matanzima.

Let us look at some of the principles contained in this Bill and let us see where the Government has gone wrong. The first principle is that there should be one state and that that area will eventually be consolidated in the Transkei. It is stated in the law itself that if the Government wants to alienate the Native areas from the Transkei it should obtain the permission of this Parliament but that if it wants to give land under the 1936 Act to the Transkei, land which is occupied by Whites, it need not come to this Parliament.

Let us see what plans the Minister has to this area. I have here the draft Bill as published in the Burger last year and reference is not only made there to the Bantu areas in the various districts of the Transkei which will become part of the Bantustan of the Transkei, but it also says the following—

There are 11,000 Whites living in Queenstown to-day. What do they mean when they say that it is the policy of the Government to add Queenstown to the Transkei? What is meant by another report in the Burger to the effect that the Transkei and the Ciskei will be consolidated at a later stage to form one big state which will, as the hon. the Minister knows, completely surround the city of East London? I asked the Minister a question in this House. I asked him to give us the assurance that that was not the intention of the Government and he refused to give that assurance. It is not surprising therefore that Chief Matanzima is talking about claiming the land from the Fish River to Zululand and that he thinks he possibly has the support of the hon. the Minister to-day to talk about organizing the Bantu labourers in the White areas.

The second principle contained in this Bill is that of the citizenship which is to be conferred on the Transkeian citizens. Has the hon. the Minister already considered some of the consequences of that? We have hundreds of Native constables in our Police Force to-day whose homeland is in the Transkei. When this Bill goes through those Bantu constables, members of our Police Force, will become citizens of a foreign state. Has such an impossible position ever obtained in any country in which the police, the police who have to look after the safety of the state, are citizens of a foreign country? Or is the position perhaps—and I should like the hon. the Minister to tell me—that those citizens will at the same time be citizens of South Africa. [Interjections.] Here I have a statement issued by the hon. the Minister, according to the S.A. Digest of 4 February 1959, in which he said the following, and you can judge for yourself, Mr. Speaker, to what extent the Minister has been consistent in his policy—

He did not say “citizens” and then he added the following—

Is that correct? When they are given this Transkeian citizenship will they still be regarded as South African citizens or not? If so, is he not introducing that same so-called evil to which he and all hon. members on that side of the House objected, with tears in their eyes, only a few years ago from platform to platform? Because he is actually introducing dual citizenship in South Africa. They were the people who complained about dual citizenship when we were still a member of the Commonwealth and now they will possibly create dual citizenship in South Africa.

Read the Bill.

Another principle contained in this Bill is that the Transkei will get its own Parliament, its own Legislative Assembly. All the 18-year-olds who pay taxes and everybody over 21 years of age will have the vote on the basis of “one man, one vote”. The Government wants to introduce the principle of “one man, one vote” there in South Africa.

That is your policy, is it not?

Chief Matanzima says that there can even be political parties in the Transkei but he added a peculiar thing to that statement; he said that there would not be a Nationalist Party in that Transkei of his. What a statement by somebody whom the Government applauds as being a big supporter of the Nationalist Party policy! He does not even see his way clear to have a Nationalist Party in his own Transkei.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill remains silent on one matter. Reference is made to certain powers which will be given to this Transkeian Parliament on the one hand and certain powers on the other hand which are to be reserved—I take it temporarily—for this Government itself, but a number of important portfolios are not mentioned in this Bill. I have in mind, for instance, commerce and industry. What is going to happen to that? Will the Transkei be given control over that? Then you have mines, health, labour, immigration and information. I accuse the Minister of this that he intends shortly to transfer most of these portfolios which I have mentioned to the Transkeian Parliament. The one reason why I say that is that it is stated in the draft Bill that those various portfolios will eventually be transferred to them, but here is further proof: The Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development wrote an article in the S.A. Patriot in which he stated that the Department of Labour would also be transferred to the Transkei. Is that true or not? There he sits; let him reply; he wrote the article.

Read the Bill.

I am giving him the opportunity of denying it. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that Chief Matanzima himself said the following in a statement which he issued at Umtata—

Will the hon. the Minister tell us what his plans are in that connection? He must not confront this House next year with a fait accompli. We should like to hear from him to-day what he envisages in that regard. Mr. Speaker, here I have the article by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. He says—

“And Labour”. Why do we find ourselves in this impossible mess in which we are? I think I can give the reply to that. The Government has gambled with the future of South Africa, it has lost and it has to pay the price to-day. That is proved by a speech made by the hon. the Minister of Defence at Rouxville last year. The hon. the Minister was deeply concerned about the position and I am not surprised at that. He said this—

Because there is distress, because that distress is overwhelming them. That was in February last year. He then added the following—

“the old way” that it would maintain the Western votes at UNO so as to prevent a majority decision of two-thirds. The distress is overwhelming.

In February last year he said that this Bill would be introduced in a gamble to see whether we could prevent a two-thirds majority at UNO. They have lost that gamble. A two-thirds majority decision was taken against us and to-day they have to pay the price and that price is South Africa itself and its own independence as a state.

This policy is in conflict with all the economic laws of our country. Modern economy is based on production for profit. The economy of the Native is based on another system; you can describe it this way, Sir, that it is based on production in your spare time, for relaxation, when you retire, for rest. Then we find a third economic philosophy and that is the peculiar philosophy of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs who said that they were prepared to bend the economic laws, to break them, and to sacrifice them for this policy.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude by saying that this policy is a terrible and ghastly policy for the future of South Africa. The Government has lost the gamble and we have to pay the piper. But we on this side of the House will not allow them to continue with this policy and when we come into power we shall undo what has already been done. We shall be true to the words of our National Anthem: “Laat die erwe van ons vaders vir ons kinders erwe bly”.

It was my intention to deal immediately with the contents and the significance of this extremely important Bill, but after the speech of the last speaker I feel that I am obliged to address a few friendly words to the Opposition, in view not only of the wild statements which have been made here by the hon. member who has just sat down but also in view of the speeches of the hon. members for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk), Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp), not even to talk about the hon. members for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) and Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw). The hon. member says that we are rather confused. Let me put this question to him: Is the way in which he acted the way to act in this year 1963 when such an important Bill is under discussion here? Is the Opposition not aware of the fact that both the world and South Africa are living in one of the most difficult periods in the history of mankind as far as human relationships, race relationships, national relationships and political relationships are concerned? The hon. member comes here and makes the accusation against us that we are confused and that we are not being serious, but the whole of his conduct is characterized by a thoughtless, irresponsible, frivolous attitude. He acted here in a way which is certainly not becoming in this House. Sir, the fighting tactics used by the Opposition in this House are unscrupulous and reckless.

This Bill, of course, is inseparably linked up with race relationships and the difficult adjustments that we have to make and the difficult decisions that we have to take in connection with colour relationships. The Bill states perfectly clearly that it is tied up with the policy of separate development which visualizes the gradual development of self-governing Bantu national units in the traditional Bantu homelands. This Bill is being introduced specifically with the object of placing race relations in South Africa on a better footing and to find a final and lasting solution to this difficult problem that we have to contend with to-day. And what do we get from the Opposition? We had the reproach the other day from the hon. member for East London (City) that the heart of hon. members on this side is not in this Bill. The technique that they are using in this debate is to suggest to the world that this side is not united, that the heart of the Nationalists is not in this Bill and that we are not in earnest as far as this Bill is concerned. Mr. Speaker, is it not one of the most ardent desires of the White nation to find a solution, by way of the traditional policy of the White man in this country, for the problems with which we have to contend at the present time? Has the Opposition forgotten that unprecedented political test of strength that took place in the year 1948? In that election two policies were put before the electorate in South Africa—the policy of the hon. member and of his party against the policy of this side of the House. In that election the Whites had to make the most important choice that they had ever been called upon to make with regard to colour relationships in this country. I say that they had to make a most important choice, but in that election the electors also gave the most important mandate, not to that side, because the electorate kicked them out. but to this side of the House. It is this side of the House that has to implement that decision, and now that we are implementing that decision, the most important decision that the electorate has ever taken in the sphere of colour relationships in our fatherland, we have no time, as they have to act frivolously. We are acting with a sense of responsibility, with farsightedness, with statesmanship, with purposefulness and also with faith. It is political wishful thinking on their part therefore to think that we are divided; they are simply wasting their efforts. They will find no division in our ranks. This debate has also been characterized by a second feature. The Opposition have come along with the argument that we have departed from the policy of Dr. Malan and Mr. Strijdom and others, and although speakers on this side have quoted from the manifesto of 1948 and have quoted Dr. Malan and other Prime Ministers of South Africa to show that we have not deviated from that policy, they simply refuse to believe us. Sir, there is something wrong with the faith of that party!

Mr. Sneaker, here we have the important report of the Colour Problem Commission of the Re-United National Party. In those days the hon. member for Orange Grove was still a Nationalist. He was editor of the Kruit horing and at that time, in the year 1947, he also hugged this policy to his bosom. Sir, do you know who was the chairman of the commission that instituted this exhaustive inquiry into the colour problem in this country? The chairman was Mr. Paul Sauer, our parliamentary leader, and the other members were Dr. Gerdener, the late Dr. E. G. Jansen, the present Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and Mr. J. J. Serfontein. It was from this report that the whole of our policy emerged later on after this exhaustive inquiry into the colour problem in this country. I should like to read out to the House a few paragraphs from this report and then I want to ask the hon. member in what respect we have deviated from our policy. First of all I want to read out the introductory remarks. The hon. member has said that there is a fundamental difference between their policy and ours. I want to show that as far back as 1947 this commission came to the conclusion that these two policies were irreconcilable. The conclusion to which the commission came was the following—

There you have the fundamental difference between the two policies and. Sir, the people of South Africa will never endorse the United Party’s policy. That is the choice that was put before the electorate in 1948. It seems to me that hon. members on that side are living in a political fool’s paradise and that they are conveniently overlooking that fact.

A little louder.

Yes, I wish I could speak sufficiently loudly to penetrate the dull mind of that hon. member who suffers from political lockjaw. Let me quote the following paragraph from this report—

There we already talked about “a national structure of their own”—not one national structure, a multi-racial Parliament and a multi-racial nation and a multi-racial state. As far back as 1947 we talked about—

I just want to read out the three general propositions of our Bantu policy and then I want to use the next ten minutes rather differently. I quote—

Then I come to the second general proposition which is significant—

And, Mr. Speaker, in spite of this we find that Opposition members go through South Africa like people politically possessed, proclaiming in election campaigns that Dr. Verwoerd, the present Prime Minister, has torn this party away from its anchors as far as our colour policy is concerned. But let me read out the third general proposition—

I hope that hon. members on the other side will now stop their political wilfulness or their sly political tricks; that they will stop proclaiming to the world that there is no such thing as continuity in our Native policy.

Mr. Speaker, on the implementation of this policy will depend whether we are going to survive as a White race, whether we are going to make our contribution in Africa and whether we shall be able to take our place amongst the nations of the world. Hon. members opposite say that our heart is not in our policy, and the hon. member over there said that we were running away from the consequences of our policy. Mr. Speaker, that statement only reveals what is going on in their own minds. I want to make the accusation against them that they cannot oppose this Bill with any conviction. How can they oppose this policy when they cannot even justify and defend their own policy with conviction? Has there ever been a party in the political history of this country which has run away so much from the logical consequences of its own policy as the United Party does? They have run away to such an extent that the fair lady on the other side, the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), to-day belongs to another party. Why? Because they refuse to face the logical consequences of their policy. It is a well-known fact that the United Party always refuses to face the ultimate logical consequences of its policy—the inexorable, criminal, pernicious end-result of Bantu domination in our country. They cannot deny that throughout the years they have refused to reveal to the country what the ultimate consequence of their policy will be. They have always talked about the “foreseeable future”. They have always refused to tell the voters what South Africa will eventually look like under their policy in the cultural, social, economic and political spheres; they have always hidden the logical consequences of their policy, and then they come along and say that we are running away from the logical consequences of our policy. It is because they refuse to face the logical consequences of their policy that they are losing so much ground, and then the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) says that like some sort of cake or other, we are losing the crumbs. They say that the crumbs have joined their party. But think what they have lost. Think of all those who have joined us. They have lost their conservative group, their intellectual fighting power. Because they refuse to face the logical consequences of their policy they have not only lost seats; they have not only lost Members of Parliament, but in this debate they have abandoned the political integrity and the morality which they have always associated with their policy. But there is another reason why the United Party is so bitterly opposed to this Bill and that is because this Bill, in my opinion, gives an adequate and damning answer to the enemies and opponents of fair racial development in South Africa. Amongst these enemies I would mention the communists, of course, who also differ fundamentally from us and who want to make use of a violent revolution and incite the Black man against us by suggesting that we are the oppressors of the Black man. Then we have the Progressive Party and the Liberal Party, the small little parties to which the United Party gave birth in the days of political pregnancy in this Parliament, in the days of fret and fury. Their policy is one of equality. But the third great enemy of the traditional policy of the White man in this country is the Opposition. The Opposition is the political armaments factory that has moulded the political weapons which are in the hands to-day of the agitators and others in this country who are revolting against the traditional policy of the White man in this country.

That is a scandalous remark.

Do members of the United Party want to deny that ever since we assumed power in 1948 they have continually fought against this traditional policy of the White man in this country and that they have represented the Nationalists and the protagonists Of apartheid and the Whites as the destroyers, the oppressors and enemies of the Black man in this country? Is it any wonder that the Black people feel that they have to get assistance from the Black man in the north in order to liberate the Black man in this country from the yoke of the White man? Is it not that same party which has been representing this policy of separate development, which rests on an ethical basis, to the outside world as a policy of enslavement and oppression of the non-White races in our fatherland? They hoped that a shock would come for this country from outside; that is the reaction which they thought they would elicit from the outside world by besmirching this fine policy of the White man’s as they did in the past. But they did more than that; ever since 1948 up to the present day they have unscrupulously represented this fine positive policy of fair racial development to the world as a purely negative policy, and to-day, after years of opposition, we come along with this Bill which proves indisputably that our policy is not one of oppression but that our policy of fair racial apartheid is inherently a positive policy.

Mr. Speaker, here the White Christian guardian comes along and gives the subordinate, immature non-White race an opportunity to bring about a constitution, a constitution which gives them an opportunity to develop along ideal lines. This constitution is regarded by them as their own; this Bill is their own creation. It has come into being over the years not as a result of revolution but as a result of evolution with the result that the Bantu regard it as a national growth from within. The United Party, however, tries to represent it as something that has been foisted on them from outside, but they will not succeed. [Interjection.] It is no use interrupting me; the hon. member will not succeed in getting me off the rails. He himself is so confused that he will not succeed in confusing me. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) in particular has spoken in this debate of the Christian guardianship of the White man, but he forgot to add that that guardianship is not permanent; it is of a temporary nature, and the only thing that the White Christian guardian is doing here is to take into account the fact that we are the bearers of the Christian religion. We are taking into account the deep-rooted cultural differences between the Bantu and the White man. At the same time we are also taking into account the fact that we are in a superior political position of power, and that is why we are the guardians of the non-Whites in the whole of South Africa to-day. But will the “baasskap” (supremacy) of the White man, this disguised everlasting “basskap” of the White man, as the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) called it, endure for ever in the homelands of the Bantu as he alleges? Here we come along to-day as the White Christian guardian with a measure which sets in motion the process of emancipation. Mr. Speaker, this Bill is one which is worthy of the White Christian guardian because in this measure the White Christian guardian adopts the attitude that we are not dealing here with just one big Bantu nation, with a homogeneous Bantu population; we adopt the attitude that in the Transkei we are dealing with people who belong to the same ethnic group, people who also have a calling and a destiny and who according to world opinion also have the unalienable right to govern themselves at some future date when they are capable of doing so. Here the Government, the White Christian guardian, comes along and seeks by means of this Bill to create the machinery to guide the Bantu in an orderly fashion along the road to nationhood but we find that the United Party sets its face against it.

What about the Bantu in the cities?

I shall come to the cities in a moment and I shall also come in a moment to the hon. member’s political burial in 1966. Mr. Speaker, hon. members are trying to put me off; they do not want me to deal with the contents of this Bill. They refuse to look at the contents of this Bill. This Bill provides for these people to get their own flag, their own national anthem and their own citizenship and it entrusts many administrative and legislative functions to them. I say that this Bill takes into account not only their history but also their language, their traditions and their culture; it recognizes their national aspirations and that is why the Natives in the Transkei have given their approval to this measure. This Bill is evidence of our good faith and affection for the Bantu in our fatherland, but hon. members opposite have emerged in this debate as the destroyers of good faith between White and non-White. They have tried—particularly the hon. members for Drakensberg and Durban (Point)—to convince the White man that he should regard every Black man in South Africa as an enemy. The hon. member for Wynberg on the other hand has used the technique of practically saying to every Black man that every White man is his enemy. That is how they have been kindling the racial fire, and our country will be burning and they will still be playing the violin like Nero and saying that we are abandoning South Africa. That is the way in which they act. They want us to assume the role of leader in Africa, and yet after 300 years of contact with the Bantu they are not even prepared to emancipate the Bantu to the extent where they can say, “There stands my potential ally”. No, they create a feeling in the mind of the White man that the Bantu is his enemy. They say: “There is the Transkei, your inexorable enemy; there is your leader, Dingaan; this step will lead to the extermination wars of former years.” That is the frame of mind that they reveal, and that is the frame of mind which leads to their destruction. Sir, it is only logical in the South African political set-up that they should disappear and pass away, and if they do, nobody will mourn their departure.

Seeing the fervour of the hon. the Chief Whip with which he put up such a stout defence and such an emotional defence of this Bill even the Opposition can scarce forbear to cheer. It staggers me, however, that the hon. the Chief Whip should base his defence that this is the traditional policy of his party on a Nationalist Party Committee document of 1947. I want to crave his indulgence rather to regard the action of the Nationalist Party over a period of more than 40 years to see what in truth is the answer to the question with which he dealt. In doing this I hope I shall introduce less of the warmth and emotion which he showed so bravely in his speech. and which I believe it is so necessary to avoid if we want to appreciate what the true road is to-day. I think it is most important that we do regard the oast in this matter. I say that I consider it decisive aeainst the claim of the Nationalist Party that this is the traditional policy of South Africa that they are following when we have regard to the question of the Protectorates. I shall go through it and show what has been the attitude of successive Prime Ministers in this country towards the incorporation of the Protectorates: how they have pressed for this incorporation: and now we are told that it is traditional not only to abandon the Protectorates. but to give away other portions which are equally Protectorates, land of South Africa, and the people in them. I say that so far from its being the traditional policy of this country. this is a revolutionary policy: it is a new prescription. If hon. members opposite would only say that, and stop bluffing the people that it is traditional, one would have more respect for their attitude.

It also crept into the speech of the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) that the traditional policy of South Africa was one of “partisie”. I think that I shall be able to answer that, as well, during the course of my speech.

Hon. members have made it clear that they do accept that these reserves in the Transkei shall have sovereign independence. What could be more opposed to such an idea than that we in fact previously wished to incorporate the Protectorates?—-Not only were they not our territory, they were somebody else’s territory—yet that has clearly been the attitude over the ages. There has been steady pressure, indeed threats as I shall show, to bring about that state of affairs. It has come from successive Nationalist Party Governments over the past 50 years.

Let me say at once. Mr. Speaker, that the incorporation of the Protectorates was foreshadowed at the time of the Act of Union. It was envisaged in the agreement between the four Prime Ministers of the colonies, and it was the view of the peoples of South Africa at that time. In 1939 General Hertzog very nearly achieved it. In 1954, Dr. Malan, the Prime Minister of this country and Leader of the Nationalist Party, moved a motion in this House to incorporate those protectorates. These were the terms of that motion supported by many members now sitting on that side of the House and telling us that the present policy is traditional. I quote from the House of Assembly Hansard. Volume 85, Col. 3769—

And let me say that the present Prime Minister. Dr. Verwoerd. voted for that resolution in the Other Place on 14 April 1954. Let me repeat: “It was to be administered upon the terms and conditions embodied in the Schedule to the South Africa Act, 1909.” Let us consider those terms and conditions. I shall show that this request to incorporate the Protectorates was made as late as 1957. These were the terms upon which they were to have been incorporated. Clause 1 of the Schedule reads—

In other words, the legislative authority was to have been this Parliament, not the Transkeian Assembly.

Let me remind hon. members of Clause 14 of the Schedule—

In other words, there could even have been alienation of the land of those Protectorates (not being reserve land) under the Schedule and under the terms under which we would have taken over those Protectorates.

Now listen to Clause 18 in terms of which we should have taken over those Protectorates—

There was to be free intercourse for those people throughout the whole of the Union of South Africa. Does the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development mean to tell me that that will be the position after the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill, 1963, becomes law? It was quite clear that it was on those terms that the Government was prepared to incorporate the Protectorates and that basis is the very antithesis of the direction in which this Government is to-day moving.

Let me tell hon. members opposite what the Prime Minister, Dr. Malan, said in the Other Place in 1954, Senate Hansard for 1954, Col. 1682—

Those were the negotiations for incorporation—

That was what Dr. Malan said in 1954.

Let me read to this hon. House what Mr. Strijdom said in the Other Place in 1955. I quote from Senate Hansard for 1955, Col. 4396—

What has that to do with the Transkei?

I shall try to make it clear to you if it is not yet clear.

In the Burger of 12 September 1957 we had an article under the heading ‘ “Inlywing van die Protektorate nou dringender ’—Mnr. Strijdom.” The report went on—

We are now asked by the hon. the Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, to believe that Mr. Strijdom, in the 11 months between that statement and his death, turned a complete somersault and came round in favour not only of not incorporating the Protectorates, but of giving away chunks of what has always been South Africa. I say that is asking us to believe too much. The only Prime Minister whom we have ever had who has been prepared not only not to incorporate the Protectorates but to give away South Africa, has been the present Prime Minister, and it has amazed me how the Nationalist Party has been able to follow him through his acrobatic somersaulting in this regard.

Let us look at the reasons why successive Prime Ministers have been so in favour of incorporating the Protectorates. For the benefit of the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Schoonbee) let me say that so much more must it be so that you do not give away pieces of your country. We first of all have Dr. Malan who said the following in 1954, House of Assembly Hansard, Vol. 85, Col. 3775—

Namely that we should incorporate these Protectorates. Then Dr. Malan said in col. 3777—

Just what these Bantustans are going to be— right in the heart of the Union.

Let me read some other things to hon. members to show what caused these great figures of South Africa to insist on incorporation. This is Dr. Malan speaking in 1954, Col. 3782—

Let me remind hon. members opposite what the present Minister of Finance (Dr. Dönges) said in regard to the incorporation of the Protectorates. I quote from col. 3806 of the same volume—

What else do we find? In May 1954 the former Minister of Defence, Mr. Erasmus, said this, as reported in the Cape Times of 6 May—

He was speaking about the Protectorates here, Sir, and let me tell you what Mr. Erasmus said on 15 November 1954—

I have shown how the people of South Africa have felt about the incorporation of the Protectorates for over 50 years, and yet hon. members opposite are asking where the additional danger of this policy is! Sir, not only have we abandoned the incorporation of the Protectorates but we are giving away chunks of our own territory and weakening our defences in a most disgraceful way, more particularly at a time when we are spending R157,000,000 on defence. On the one hand we are spending more than we have ever spent in our history on defence and on the other hand we are breaking up our whole defence system, the whole strategic defence position we have here. Everybody knows that if you want a strong defence position at a critical time you should rather be seeking to push your borders out, in order to protect your homeland and so forth. But we are doing quite the opposite.

So when the hon. the Chief Whip says that this is the traditional policy of the Nationalist Party I say “rubbish”; it is clear that it is rubbish.

I say this, Mr. Speaker, with great respect, that so far from saving the Western standards of this country, if you weaken your defences in the face of a Pan-Africanist challenge (as we have it to-day), you are obviously undermining the continuation of Western standards here; and that is why we are saying to hon. members opposite that they are destroying Western civilization, that civilization which we want to maintain.

In the last minute that is left to me let me just ask this question of the hon. member who will speak after me. They are so fond of saying that the eight M.P.s that this party is prepared to give to the Blacks will become 80. (May I remind them that in 1957, when the late Mr. Strijdom said that he wanted to incorporate the Protectorates, he was not afraid of the Natives who were here; and he was prepared to incorporate another 1,500,000 Natives in our country.) If they say that these eight will become 80, will the hon. member who follows me tell me why the round zero of M.P.s which they will give them will also not increase to 80? If anybody thinks that Poqo or the African Nationalists will be bought off by this gift of these reserves, while there are 7,000,000 Black people left in “White” South Africa, he is wildly mistaken. When you come to our defence position, we are going to be in a much more difficult position to maintain what is sensible and reasonable, namely a limited measure of representation for the Native people, who are clearly not in a position to have more.

Let me ask this question too of the next speaker: If we cannot maintain the number of eight or any other number that is appropriate, how are they going to prevent the Natives from pressing out from the Bantustans and taking more land? If you tell me that you intend to be firm where necessary, I tell you also that people must stand firm where necessary in other regards. I sincerely hope that I shall be given answers to my questions. I hope hon. members opposite will chew over those questions.

I want to conclude by saying that we are not defeatists. We are full of confidence on this side that we can maintain this country together. We are confident that we can keep all these great racial groups together and that we can go forward together. We are confident that there will be a desire to increase the standard of living and the standard of civilization. If firmness is necessary there will be firmness from this side. We are firm in that faith. Hon. members opposite, on the other hand, despair of living in one country with the other groups of the population. They have consequently done a complete somersault on the old traditional sensible policies of successive Prime Ministers. They are now taking this gamble. I am telling them that they are escaping from nothing. They are not escaping from anything, because they will still have as many Natives in the “White” part as there will be under our policy—indeed more. I believe that you will have more under your policy than we will have under our policy. Within a short time you will be handing agriculture and control of soil erosion in the Transkei over to those people, and soon those lands will not be able to maintain as many people as they have hitherto. Those people will consequently return to us. You will not have the economy to attract people from overseas to equalize the numbers somewhat. You are distorting the economy in so many ways that you will find it impossible to equalize the numbers, and thus make possible that which would otherwise not be possible.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude by saying that we are the ones who have faith that these things can be done; not the members opposite. We believe that this policy of ours is both a realistic and an idealistic policy because it envisages taking these other great and backward races forward with us into the future.

This is the second time during this Session that the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) has had the formidable task of trying, at the end of the discussion, to explain and defend a lost cause. After listening to him to-day as on the previous occasion, I must say that it does not surprise me at all that he left the Bar to embark on another profession. I think he just does not have it in him to defend a lost cause. I think the theatre would be more in his line. The hon. member referred to the Protectorates, and I think it is necessary for me just to remind him that the National Party, as far as this matter is concerned, has a better and a more favourable record than the United Party can ever hope to have. I do not have the time to deal with this matter; it came upon us unexpectedly and time does not permit me to do so either. However, I should like to ask him to go and check the records and then he will come to different conclusions.

I should like to remind hon. members that in 1938 an agreement was entered into between General Hertzog and the British Government. In terms of that agreement it was agreed that each of the two parties would do its best to try to prepare the people of the two territories for a future step that would necessarily follow and that a memorandum would be drawn up by each to say what they had done and what they intended doing. The South African Government drafted its memorandum and the following guarantees were expressly given. These are guarantees that are consistent with the demands that were originally made when Union came into being. The first guarantee was that tribal unity and the authority of the chiefs would be preserved. It was at the insistence of the British Government that this was conceded. The second guarantee was that no land in Basutoland or in the Bantu areas within Bechuanaland and Swaziland would be alienated. Thirdly, no Bantu would be brought into Basutoland or into the Bantu areas in Bechuanaland and Swaziland without the approval of the inhabitants. I leave the other points at that; they are not at issue now. I merely wish to remind the House that the Union Government at that time fully honoured its obligations under that agreement. I want to ask that hon. member what his party has done in regard to this matter? I shall tell him, because it seems to me he does not know his history. Lord Hailey said this in his report—

To show that that is still so, that not only the then Government but also successive Governments, followed the same course, I should like to quote a passage from the Rand Daily Mail of 19 March. There it says—

Then they proceed to deal with further possible schemes that are to be applied there to uplift the country and its people and I should like to read one to you—

I leave the hon. member and his allegations there. I hope he will go and read up the history and that he will revise his calculations in connection with the last question he put. If he does that, he will discover that 1 × 0 is still nil.

The course of the discussions in regard to this Bill honestly caused me to come to the conclusion that the United Party has not made the slightest progress in its political line of thought from the British colonial policy, the policy that was calculated to obtain for the longest possible time the greatest possible benefits at the least possible expense from that country and its people who were subject to its authority. It is that policy which never did anything out of consideration for the people and the country under discussion, but only got so far as to do something by the force of inevitability, save in such cases where it was in their own benefit. I say the United Party has produced proof in this debate that they have not advanced one inch from that policy.

I go further and say that the United Party uses all these misgivings—the hon. member who spoke before me also has those misgivings; economic misgivings, military misgivings and imaginary misgivings—as a smokescreen behind which they try to shelter to hide their own unwillingness. In actual fact the United Party does not want to do anything for the upliftment of the non-Whites and to make the non-Whites in this country more independent. I am absolutely convinced that they are using these misgivings here as a smokescreen behind which they are sheltering in order to hide their own unwillingness. Note that I am not saying “inability” (onmag) but “unwillingness” (onwil), because I am convinced that they would prefer to keep the Bantu in his present subordinate state in this country. They are not prepared to co-operate to help to create better prospects for him. They have raised a series of these misgivings, these so-called dangers. The time at my disposal does not permit me to deal with all of them, but in any event I should like to deal with two of them. In the first place I wish to return to the accusation which has been levelled at us, that there has been no consultation, and if there was consultation, who were consulted? How did that consultation take place? The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) exclaimed very dramatically: “No one asked for this Bill.” I should like to test that statement here according to what happened in the Protectorates, to which the hon. member for Pinelands referred. The authority I am quoting here—and I should like to ask him to go and read this also—is the Report on Basutoland Constitutional Discussions of 1958, and the aide-mémoire drafted after the discussions on this matter in London. I should like to tell him briefly what happened in that process before a Constitution was granted to Basutoland. The General Council of Basutoland which has existed as a consultative body since 1910—note, not even advisory body—in September 1955 asked for higher constitutional status. In May 1956 it was asked for its recommendations. Now remember the date, because it is important. In September 1955 we already had the first indication that partial self-rule would be extended to Basutoland, the Basutoland which, according to hon. members opposite, constitutes such a threat to us. Now I ask this hon. member and all his colleagues: Where were all their misgivings then? Would it not have been a good thing if they had then raised all these misgivings which they now raise? Would they not then have effected more persuasion among us nationalists as well as among their own members and people overseas who thought as they did? No, they did nothing.

We have consistently asked for incorporation.

In October 1956 the Basutoland General Council established a so-called Constitution Amendment Committee, and in November 1956 a Committee of Paramount Chiefs was constituted, and since March 1957 those two committees have collaborated under the chairmanship of Professor D. V. Cowan of the Cape Town University. In July 1958 the report of those two committees, jointly adopted by them, was accepted, and a deputation was nominated to go and submit it to the British Government. The deputation went overseas and in December 1958 the agreement was reached that is incorporated in this aide-mémoire to which I have referred, and on which the Constitution of Basutoland is based.

What happens in our own case? Whom did this Government consult? Obviously, with the existing bodies it was able to consult with. You cannot accost a man in the street and consult with him on a matter such as this. The Government is not as naïve as the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. Field), who wants a referendum on this matter, thinks. They consulted the people who had been chosen in one way or another, and constituted a body with whom there could be consultation, and although this review should be known to you, I should like to mention a few facts from it in order to contrast this case with that of Basutoland. In May 1961 there was a resolution by the Transkeian Territorial Authority asking for greater self-rule; in December 1961 a deputation from the Territorial Authority interviewed the hon. the Prime Minister in Pretoria; in January 1962 the Recess Committee met in Umtata and they reported on their discussions with the Prime Minister; in March 1962 the Recess Committee once again interviewed the Prime Minister in Pretoria. Now I admit that consultation was easier between Pretoria and Umtata than between Maseru and London. In April 1962 the Recess Committee again had discussions with representatives from the cities. Now I ask the hon. member: Where do they get the idea that we want to force the urban Bantu into something he does not want?

There was consultation with urban representatives, and I should like to mention the name of Dr. Nkomo to whom the hon. member for Bethal-Middelburg also referred last night. At the end of April the Territorial Authority adopted the report and in December 1962 the draft Bill was submitted to the Territorial Authority, the draft on which the Bill now before us was based. I should like to ask hon. members again whether they can indicate to us the difference between the procedure followed in these two cases? I do not think that one of them will be able, or even in his zeal will be prepared to say that we have done less as regards consultation than the British did in the case of Basutoland. But I should like to ask them: Where were they when the first signs of this self-rule for Basutoland became apparent? Where were they with all their protests; where were they with all their dangers? Where were all their clever writers who are now so extravagantly wielding the pen in the various newspapers? I ask whether that is not the proof of what I said, that in fact they are unwilling to move a finger for the upliftment of the Bantu in South Africa?

Only under the compulsion of inevitability do they begin to move. In other words, I would describe the policy of the United Party, in the words of the well-known English adage, as “a sop to Cerberus”. When a dog barks and tries to attack you, you merely throw a piece of meat at it to keep it quiet. That is exactly what the United Party is doing now. They want to try to ward off the attack with trivial concessions, but in the times we are living in one cannot get away with that sort of thing, and that is why you have the difference between the policies of the United Party and of the Government as incorporated in this Bill.

The second sub-division I wish to deal with is the statement made here that the inhabitants of the Transkei are not ripe for self-government. I think that is a relative idea. Part of it may be true, but I merely wish to remind you that in the Transkei we have over a period of 60 years ensured that the people have received training in the responsibilities of government. There may be differences of opinion as far as the content and the extent are concerned, but it has been much superior to the training the people in Swaziland and in Basutoland received regarding the responsibilities of government. My time has almost expired, but I hasten to make the further statement that the infra-structure for such a self-governing territory has been created there. I need merely refer to the matter of the road I have just quoted: One mile of macadamized road during the whole period of 60 years of British rule and control in Basutoland, in comparison with our 220 miles of national road alone, apart from all the other roads. My other colleagues who spoke before me, inter alia the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Heystek) and the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Sadie) quoted statistics confirming what I have said here. We saw to it that a proper infra-structure was provided for the establishment of such a state. But in the third place I should just like to say this, that we saw to it that the people were educated, and here I might just mention that we saw to it that 70 per cent of the Bantu in the Transkei enjoyed school education. I could quote various data to corroborate that further, but time does not permit me to do so, but 70 per cent of the children of the Transkei are attending school there, which certainly cannot be said about any one of the Protectorates about which the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) had so much to say. I could also mention here the posts that have been created for the people in administrative and executive capacities. I could mention the Bantu police, Bantu inspectors of education, the participation of Bantu parents in the activities of their school boards and school committees. I could summarize it in the brief statement that we have provided for the day when, in accordance with the policy of the National Party, there will first be a greater measure of self-rule, and who knows, possibly in the distant future full independence to follow, for the inhabitants of the Transkei.

In the speech of the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. van der Spuy) and in speeches of other hon. members opposite, I who have known the Nationalist Party from its inception, have been unable to recognize the party which I know so well. I can tell them that they are deceiving themselves utterly and completely. The hon. member who has just sat down has referred as a great contribution to the building of some 200 miles of road. Surely the hon. member knows that that was the result of plans of the previous Government, the United Party Government, in order that we would have adequate roads for our defence system, which account for a very big portion of the road to which the hon. member refers. I would like to say this that even in the bitterness and division of the debates, my faith in the eventual triumph of common sense remains completely firm and unshaken. I have no doubt that when this Government is removed from power …

Wishful thinking!

No, when this Government is removed from power by this Opposition, a united White people in South Africa will build one South Africa in which Whites and Coloureds and Blacks and Asiatics will work in peace to develop a great South Africa and develop each race to its highest potential. Like hon. members on the other side, and I believe all White South Africans, we do not believe that the future of South Africa can be based on breeding down to a common denominator, and we are just as determined as hon. members on the other side to preserve the position, This of course can only be done on a basis of justice. But I would say immediately that I reject entirely the plan which is before this hon. House at the present time. Sir, this plan takes no account of the fact that even if it is carried to its logical conclusion and all the Bantustans are established we will have dealt with the smaller segment of the Native problem. We leave unsolved the greater portion of that problem, which is how we are going to find a way to live in peace in the great urban centres which have developed throughout South Africa. Not only that, but we will have within these Bantustan areas, even if developed at a far greater rate than the Government is contemplating at the present time, not more than a third of the Native people of South Africa, and of course all the other Natives and the other non-European peoples, the Coloureds and the Asiatics will also be in the remainder of South Africa. We believe that that is where this plan of the Government must inevitably fail. The comparison which the hon. member for Westdene has made with the case of Basutoland is a false comparison. Sir, the British Government was responsible for the future of a Black state; we are in an immeasurably more difficult position because we have to deal not only with a series of Black areas, but we must deal in addition with the two-thirds of the Native peoples who are living in the areas which all of us refer to as “White South Africa”. Sir, in browsing to find some of the things which are apt to this situation, I felt I should turn to some of the speeches of a man whom I was pleased to follow as leader, General Smuts, and he expresses in beautiful language the situation as I see it, and I would like to quote from the speech, sections of which have often been quoted in this House, a speech which he made in the year 1917.

We have quoted that already.

Yes, the hon. gentlemen on the other side are careful just to quote here and there. I am prepared to stand on the basis of the speech as a whole. I believe that the spirit of his approach was right, and this is what he said in closing that great speech—

Then he went on—

In the spirit of that speech we should approach this matter, and if we would follow in that spirit, I believe we would get very much closer to the solution of this tremendous problem. Sir, hon. members on the other side very often have said—I know it has been said to me: It is easy for you, you can always leave South Africa and find a home elsewhere. Let me say at once that I am as much a South African as any Afrikaner. I am equally determined that this shall be my home and the home of my children, and I accept that this is a fight which we must fight together. But, Sir, I see no hope of fighting that fight successfully on the policy of the Nationalist Party, none whatsoever! They refuse to open their eyes and face the real problem which we are facing in South Africa. They believe that they can deal with it by dealing with a section of that problem only. Sir, they ignore entirely, as I have said, the very much more difficult problem of that bigger proportion, the far bigger proportion of the Native peoples who for ever will have their home in what we call the White areas of South Africa. Sir, we cannot escape from that, and I say it is time that this Government faced up to those problems, as well as trying to face up to the problems of the reserves, because you simply cannot build a solution of this problem on the reserves, ignoring two-thirds of the problem, trying to pretend that it simply does not exist.

The problems which arise from this legislation which is before us are enormous, and I believe that it is not going to contribute to the solution of our problems. I believe that it is going to make our problems more difficult. Let me say at once, Mr. Speaker, that so far as these consolidated areas are concerned, I believe it has always been common to the peoples of South Africa that they accept that those areas which are to-day predominantly Black must remain so. The Transkei was regarded from the time of the 1880 legislation as an area which would be predominantly Black. The fact to which this Government is not facing up is that at the tempo of development of the Bantu world, you simply cannot develop that area at a great enough rate, unless you are prepared to allow White skill and initiative to assist in the building up of the area. I believe that is essential. I believe that the wealth of South Africa gives us a great opportunity to keep in the van of progress, but we could never do it if we follow the policies of this Government. Sir, in the modern world, with modern education, with the wireless and with the challenge of the whole of Africa, it is time that we South Africans realize just how difficult a task we face, and I do not believe that anybody on the other side of the House during this debate has really faced up to the true challenge of this situation as I see it. So far as the legislation is concerned that is before us, I would like to say that I believe that one good thing has come out of this debate, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will have the courage in his reply to be quite honest with us, and with South Africa and with the world, in stating exactly what is the end consequence of this policy of the Nationalist Party. One after the other, hon. members on the other side have accepted in the plainest possible terms— and the Minister is in duty bound to make it plain that the Government accepts that position—that they realize that the end result of Government policy in South Africa is a series of eight Black states in South Africa, within the boundaries of which something under one-third of the Native peoples of South Africa will be living. The Government can no longer run away from that conclusion as the Nationalist Party has been doing. It has been running away. I on political platforms have been challenged, and only during the last election meeting—we had a very good time—when a Nationalist got up and said: “Mnr. Tucker, jy is ’n eerlike man. Hoe durf jy hier kom en sê dat die uiteinde van die beleid van die Nasionale Regering aparte state gaan wees?” Let me say at once that I am glad that apparently the hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration denies that. Let him and the hon. Minister go out into the highways and the byways and be honest with the people of South Africa and say “the end result of our policy is separate states, which eventually, if they so wish, can become completely independent”.

I can show you that in print.

Yes, Sir, but if we could find all the times that those particular statements have been denied and on which we were challenged, I am sure the hon. Minister would take a very different view of this matter. But I wish to go on and to say that that is the first responsibility of the hon. the Minister in his reply, and I hope that he will face that responsibility, because it is important that we and the world should know where we are going. I therefore hope that he will have the courage also to tell us how he sees the future of the Native peoples who are in White South Africa, because that after all is a real and the most difficult problem, I want to come to some particular matters» and I want to say that this Bill if passed into law will introduce constitutional uncertainly, and I would like to refer to the provisions of Sections 37 and 38 and Schedule B. Sir, in this Bill, this Government is purporting to give for ever to the Native peoples in the Transkei limited powers of legislation in respect of the matters which appear in Part B of the First Schedule to the Bill. That gives to the Government of the Transkei certain powers which, could be highly dangerous. It is questionable, but I believe that they will claim that these powers are exclusive, and I want the hon. the Minister to deal with this point. One of the matters over which the power of legislation is passed into the hands of this Transkeian Territorial Authority is the protection of life, persons and property. Sir, if this Bill is to be accepted at its face value, the power to legislate in respect of all the matters set out in Schedule B—and I am referring in particular to those that have just been quoted—will no longer be vested in the South African Parliament but will be vested in the hands of the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei. Sir, it is up to the hon. the Minister before this legislation is passed into law to make it perfectly clear if he claims, as I believe he will claim, that the sovereignty of this Parliament remains unabridged. It is a tremendously important point, and I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa will remain a fully sovereign Parliament and if it will have the power to intervene and pass legislation which it considers necessary notwithstanding the provisions which I have quoted. It is better that it should be done, Sir, and if necessary made clear in the legislation. Both this Parliament and the Territorial Legislative Assembly will then know what this Government intends the position to be. I say that it is absolutely essential that the sovereignty of this Parliament should remain unchanged under this legislation, which will of course lead to further constitutional developments. I hope, however, that those developments will take a new turn when this side of the House takes over the government of this country.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Is the hon. member against a Black man sitting in this Parliament?

I am not prepared to answer irrelevant questions, I am dealing with a matter of very great importance, the sovereignty of this Parliament, and I say it is irresponsible of the hon. member, and I say it is a discourtesy, to introduce an utterly irrelevant point in the course of that discussion. It is obvious that the hon. member is extremely worried about this question of sovereignty. He is seeking to distract attention from that point, but I say to the hon. Minister, and in fact I demand from the hon. Minister that in his reply he will tell this House in the clearest possible terms whether the sovereignty of this Parliament will be preserved. I ask further, as it is not as clear as it should be, whether if he believes that it is to be preserved, he will include appropriate provisions into this Bill before it is passed into law. There are other matters of very great moment which are dealt with in the legislative powers which are contained in the Bill before us, but the example which I have given is, I believe, the most important of them. I do not want to go very much further, but I would like to refer to one other point, Sir, and that is the question of the traders in the Transkei.

I say to the hon. the Minister that it is just not good enough to leave the traders of the Transkei—I do not refer to those in towns, such as in Umtata, which remains a White area, but the trading stations—I say it is not good enough, it is not fair to those persons, not to protect the trading rights which they have enjoyed and in respect of which they have paid licence fees. I do not suggest for a moment that the people of the Transkei should not be allowed to carry on trade, but I say that an enormous responsibility rests on the Government to protect those who have helped to build up the Transkei by the trade which they have carried on there, the contribution which they have made. They are entitled to an unequivocal statement from this hon. Minister and the Government as to what their position is to be for the future.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I am not answering any more questions after what has happened. I have very little time left and I propose just to conclude my speech. I would like to say that I believe that we will find that the form of this legislation will undoubtedly lead to the possibility of an attempt by UNO to intervene in our internal affairs. I do not want to go into details, but I say again that the hon. the Minister is under a heavy responsibility so to change the legislation that it cannot possibly be treated as legislation leading to that conclusion.

It is a tragic thing that a Government which fought a long fight for one flag in South Africa should now be introducing legislation which will lead to nine flags in South Africa. I believe that this proposed division which this Government is seeking to impose on South Africa is utterly out of tune with the thinking of the people of South Africa, and I say to this Government that I for one am convinced that proceeding on this utterly illogical line which they have followed up to now will in the end lead to the removal of this Government from power. We on this side will continue to fight for one South Africa in which all can live in one country. We see no hope for South Africa on the lines followed by the Government. Sir, this legislation leaves untouched the major problem facing us. The Government in this legislation is doing nothing to solve the biggest and most difficult problem, that of the Natives permanently established in the European area of South Africa.

The most important point the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) and others before him laboured is that they want to hear from the hon. the Minister, and particularly from the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, that they should say clearly and unequivocally that the policy of the National Party will lead to the establishment of separate states for White and Black in South Africa. He pretends that this is something we have been hiding behind chairs and benches. I would like to read to him what the hon. the Deputy Minister wrote in a pamphlet that was published on behalf of the National Party before the Provincial elections of 1959 already. In a pamphlet drafted by Mr. M. C. Botha, M.P., information officer of the National Party, he said this already—

He said this clearly in 1959—

I do not think I need dilate upon that any further. That merely shows how little notice the hon. member has taken of the declared policy of the party during past years.

But before coming to my subject, I should like to say a word or two to the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson). He had a lot to say here about what previous Prime Ministers are supposed to have advocated in regard to the incorporation of the protectorates and he says they, the United Party, consistently tried to have them incorporated. But that is not true. In 1954, when the late Dr. Malan rose here and made that proposal, before doing so he went to the then leader of the United Party, Mr. Strauss, and asked him to come and discuss the matter with him in his office. Mr. Strauss sent him a message that if Dr. Malan wished to see him, he could come to his office, so arrogant was he. Ask the hon. member for Vereeniging and the Minister of Information. They know it. We were shocked. Then Dr. Malan went to him and discussed the matter with him, and Mr. Strauss said he wanted it in black and white, and Dr. Malan then wrote him a letter to which he replied, and he marked the letter “Confidential” and Dr. Malan wrote back confidentially to him, and when Dr. Malan came here with his motion for the incorporation of the protectorates, Mr. Strauss rose and opposed it, and he read out those letters that he himself had marked “confidential”, to the House. The hon. member does not know that piece of history. [Interjections.]

I should like to confine myself strictly to the basic principle of this Bill, namely the principle of division or partition, and I should like to do so in the light of an example with which I am acquainted because I wrote a book about it. I do not want to take India and Pakistan, but I want to take a country where partition was applied because there were two different races living in that country, a White race and a non-White race. That territory is the former British mandated territory of Palestine, on both sides of the Jordan, which was inhabited by a small number of Jews and a large number of Arabs. I wrote a book on the problem, “Israel, die Sondebok”, and in the tenth chapter I gave the solution that the only possible solution is not that an area in Central Africa be set aside for the Jews, but that their ancestral lands should be restored to them. I then mentioned that there were people who would say that it was a fantastic mirage, but exactly eight years and one day after I had written the foreword to this book, Israel was declared an independent Jewish republic, and then the British mandated territory, which had been a geographic unit for centuries and centuries, was divided into a Jewish State and an Arab State. [Interjections.] How did this partition come about? It followed on a resolution of UN. I want to read from the International Year Book and State-men’s Who’s Who, page 371, col. 1. There this is written—

UN, which presently is criticizing us so much, and even Israel which criticizes us, insisted that the mandated territory of Palestine should be divided into two states because there were a White nation and a non-White nation.

Let us see what happened in this divided territory. Let us compare the action of the Jewish State in respect of the Arab State with the action of our White Republic in respect of the Transkei. Let us note the similarities and the differences, and I want to say now already that where there are differences, they are in favour of South Africa’s actions and not in favour of the action of Israel. We have our White Republic and we have influx control. We permit the Bantu of the Transkei to come in and work in the White area. We also permit them to enter from Basutoland. But what does the Republic of Israel do? They do not permit a single Arab from the neighbouring state to enter Israel to work there. There are the most drastic laws against what they call infiltration. We permit these people to come in on producing an identification book, and if he has employment he can work here, and only those who are superfluous or do not have employment, and are a burden, are sent back by us. But in Israel, if an Arab crosses the border he is arrested and tried by a military court, and that court is empowered to impose the extremely heavy penalties for infiltration. When in 1948 partition was applied to the mandated territory of Palestine, thousands of Arabs fled across the border from the Israeli state, and then a law was passed in 1950, the Law of Return. They may not return to Palestine. Even if they were born there and had lived their for generations they may not return to Palestine unless they have documentary proof that they lived there formerly. Now we know that illiteracy is much more prevalent among the Arabs than among the Bantu. They do not have identification books. How many of them can produce documentary proof to show that he and his ancestors lived in Palestine prior to partition? And if they cannot prove that, they are forthwith charged before a military tribunal and convicted.

There is the Nationality Law of 1952. I quote here from the book of Mr. Oscar Kraines “Government and Politics of Israel”. On page 163 he says this—

At page 152 he says—

We permit them, the Bantu, to come in and work here fairly freely, but in Israel they are tried and punished severely by military tribunals if they dare enter.

Now I should like to come to another illustration of how we act under this legislation towards the Bantu of the Transkei who works in the Republic. After partition a small number of Arabs remained in Israel. They are accommodated in separate residential areas; they have group areas, just as we do. There are Jewish towns and settlements, the Kibbutzim, and there are Arab townships. Even Jerusalem has been divided into a Jewish section and an Arab section. At the end of 1960 there were 740 Jewish agricultural settlements, the Kibbutzim, and 103 Arab townships. The Bantu towns we have in the White area we are allowing to be governed to an increasing extent by the Bantu themselves. We have given them a measure of self-rule there. How are the Arab townships in Israel governed? They are under military control, and then they call us a police state. In Israel they have separate courts and separate legal systems for the Arabs and the Jewish respectively. There are separate Jewish courts, and then there is the Sharia for the Mohammedans, and they are all in one and the same state.

They are sworn enemies.

Yes, but we are not the enemies of the Bantu. We are living in peace with these people. There they do not only have separate courts for the various races, but they have separate courts for the Catholics, for the Protestants, for the Orthodox Greeks, for the Milkites, for the Marionites, for the Druses, and they have tribal courts for the Bedouins.

Do the Arabs in Israel constitute an independent state within Israel, or not?

The hon. member has not been listening. The division we now wish to make between the White Republic and the Transkei has been made in the mandated territory of Israel in 1948 already, and now I am showing how the small number of Arabs who have remained in the state of Israel, like the Bantu who have remained in the White Republic, are being treated as compared with the manner in which we are treating the Bantu. [Interjections.] In Israel they have separate schools for the Arabs. The Jews have Jewish schools with Hebrew as the medium, and the Arabs have Arab schools with Arabic as the medium. They have job reservation. No Arab can be employed on a Kibbutz; he may not go and work in a Jewish town. He must live under military control in the towns that have been set aside for them. I should like to quote the discrimination applied in Israel against the Arabs who are subjects of the State of Israel. Under the “Nationality Law” Kraines writes at page 169—

They are now complaining that the Bantu have to carry identification books in the White Republic, but what is the position in Israel? There is freedom of movement, but only for the Jews; there is no freedom of movement for the Arabs. At page 190 of his book Kraines says—

That small minority, because they comprise less than 10 per cent of the population of Israel, have the vote. In 1961 there were 1,911,000 Jews and 166,000 Arabs of whom 50,000 were Christians. They have an electoral system of proportional representation, and in 1959 there were 26 parties that put up candidates, and then it goes according to the number of votes a party has polled, and it gets proportionally as many representatives in the Knesset. The consequence was that because they founded seven parties among the Arabs, there were only two that qualified and elected members, and of the 120 members of the Knesset there were only four Arabs who were elected, and there can never be more because they are a small minority. I have gone through the entire list of members of the Cabinet, and there is not a single Arab in the Cabinet, and he has as much hope of getting into the Cabinet as small Moses said in America when the school mistress explained to him that in America anyone who was an American by birth could climb to the highest rung of the ladder and could even become President when he raised his hand and said: “Miss, may I sell you my chance for a dollar?” The only party in Israel that permits Arabs to become full-fledged members of the party, as is done by the Liberal Party in our country, is the communistic Mapam. I think we have an illustration there of how a country which had been a geographic and administrative whole has been divided into two states by order of UN, into two states where Whites and non-Whites respectively live, and I firmly maintain that in South Africa the non-White is treated much better under this legislation than the Arabs in Israel.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat must forgive me if I do not reply to his speech. I need hardly say, Sir, that South Africa is facing a crisis of the greatest magnitude. We are reaching a turning-point in our history from which there may be no return. The writing is on the wall, and that wall is above the heads of the Government benches. The decisions taken now may spell the doom of the White man in South Africa, and possibly for the whole of our country.

I face this crisis as one who has been very critical of the British policy in Africa. I have condemned the liberalistic policy of handing over to primitive people, people who are not ready for civilization. I have spoken in this House of the Black danger from the North, the Black nationalism creeping down upon us. We have to guard our heritage and the cross of civilization that we have carried for 300 years. I have considered South Africa as one solid block ready to face any trouble from any direction, particularly the nationalism from the North. I have watched with horror Whites being kicked out of Africa, and I have said to myself and to others that that cannot and will not happen here, but what do we find? The picture is changing. Right here, in the heart of our own Republic, a Black state is emerging, almost based on the British pattern. The Whites are already being threatened in that area, and do we fully realize what all this means? The Whites in the Transkei will be on the run. Our focus must move from the north to the south—this southern tip of Africa the last bastion of civilization, right here, in our own Republic, a Black state is being formed which will resent the White man and his control, a state which will increasingly make demands upon us, a state which will take all and then tell us to get out altogether. Sir, I have talked to scores of settlers from Kenya, people whose lives were threatened and who suffered and lost a lifetime’s work, people whom we have welcomed in this country as settlers. Those people will tell us what will happen in the Transkei; they know; they have the experience. Must we prepare ourselves as White South Africans to see them flocking back to South Africa from the Transkei, having been kicked out? This is indeed a very sombre thought, and I hope, with a certain amount of confidence, the confidence I have in the South African nation, that the Government will surely never let these people down, and that they will get compensation and a helping hand to readjust and rehabilitate themselves within the Republic. But what of the thousands of Coloureds who have lived there for generations? We must surely see that they get compensation and that they, too, must be rehabilitated in the borders of the White Republic. They know they must get out and that they, too, are on the run, or else they will be swallowed up, or worse still, destroyed. If we accept that as far as South Africa is concerned this is a new experiment, the granting of sovereign independence to the Transkei, why did the Government not confine this to the Transkei? The Government has not only given the Transkei away, but they have promised that there will be seven or eight other sovereign independent states. Surely the Government should have tried the experiment with the Transkei first. To me this is a tragic mistake. We will possibly have a major police action in the Transkei far sooner than we thought, but knowing all this the Government presses on regardless, with promises to Zulu Chiefs and others. Was it necessary to go so fast? Why not halt the Zulustans? We will have enough on our hands in the Transkei. Sir, I first heard of the Bantustans in about 1959, but speakers of the Nationalist Party as sured us that this would take 50 years before independence was granted. But that was less than five years ago. How much faster will it go when Kaiser Matanzima is made Prime Minister? How long will he be allowed to wait? Will his people let him? Black nationalism will go like wildfire and there will be no holding it back. How long before the new Prime Minister possibly threatens to go to UN to force the pace? Will he wait five years? What action will the Government take? Will this mean all-out action, or will it continue to be a cold war? We must face the facts. South Africa has never shirked its duty. We are playing for high stakes and the cost will be high. We will run the gauntlet and tragically UN may be pleased at the opportunity to get into the Transkei. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government has rushed into this matter. Sovereign independence in the first place was not necessary at all. Much could have been done for the good of the Transkei without burning our bridges behind us. Not for the foreseeable future should sovereign independence have been granted.

Because of the film, “Sabotage in South Africa”, which has in some way affected the Transkei, I would like to make mention of it. The U.S.A. has always appeared as a great big-hearted country. What evil force is there trying to do us so much harm? The average American citizen surely does not understand the truth. Every person who has seen this film “Sabotage in South Africa”, must be terribly shocked and grievously wounded if he or she has a love of South Africa at heart. It is difficult to realize that the U.S.A. would allow people to produce such a film.

Have you got your Whip’s permission to say that?

I doubt very much whether America would produce anything like this about a communist state. There must be a master mind, a master brain behind all this, a master plan aimed at the destruction of Western civilization in Africa, a master plan that to me spells Communism in big letters. I wonder if the same gentleman produced a film about anything in the Congo with all its sabotage and murder and destruction? It would be interesting to see their Congo reaction., to see which way they slanted their ideas, to see what sort of image they would have the world see of the Congo events. I wonder what sort of film they produced about Cuba. Which way would the slant go? Perhaps this type of man only picks on smaller countries. Their possible Cuba film would no doubt take into account the might of Soviet Russia. Sir, I mention this sabotage film only because it mentions the Transkei. I shall never forget the part which dealt with Kaiser Matanzima. The impression I have is one of grave doubt. If this film portrays him correctly, his attitude and the words he used, I do not think it will be very long before we hear a great deal from this gentleman. Sir. I think the Government is buying trouble at the highest possible price. Before reaching the point of no return I think we should halt and think again.

I do not think there is a single South African who will not appreciate what the hon. member who has just resumed his seat said in respect of the sabotage film we saw, and therefore I have no quarrel with him and his views in that connection. As a South African I believe that his kind and my kind together will be able to make South Africa a safe country for the White people. But I should like to leave him there and to thank him for what he said and return to the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). I should like to ask the hon, member whether he agrees with what the previous speaker said in regard to this film?

I have already made my speech.

Now I should like to come to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) To begin, with I am going to ask the question I asked at the commencement of this Session, and that is the simple question whether hon. members opposite, and particularly the hon. member for Germiston (District), are prepared to have a Black man sitting in this Parliament? I am asking this question because I wish to proceed further from there. I am asking the hon. member this question because I accept him as a South African.

Is that in the Bill?

The hon. member asks whether that is in the Bill. Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here with a constitution for the Transkei, a constitution which provides for self-government, and as we are concerned with a constitution, we are in the first place concerned here with principles. The question of policy is a secondary matter in this whole thing. We are primarily concerned with principles. Let me say only this to the hon. member for Germiston (District) to explain of the questions I am going to ask him this afternoon. Let us first settle between us what our principles are and then we can discuss policy. Our policies differ, but do our principles differ? What is a principle? It is your rule of living; it is the basis on which you build your policy. It is the origin of your policy. This Transkei self-government Bill is based on a principle. Hon. members opposite have advocated a policy here. That policy is founded on a principle, and I merely want to ask that we should first see whether we cannot find common ground from the point of view of principle. We may well differ as regards policy, for the policy is only the plan or the programme for carrying out that principle. The hon. member for Germiston District has said here to-day: “I am equally determined that this is my home and that of my children. We are just as determined to retain that position”.

Even the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) said this the other day: “My concern is for the future and the safety of the White man and my own. The Black man can look after himself. The Black man can look after himself in the long run”. Coupled to these two things they have said, they came forward here with a federation policy under which there will be eight White representatives to represent the Black people in this Parliament. I now wish to ask the hon. member on which principle that policy of his is based. Let me explain to him what my point of view and that of the National Party is. The attitude of the National Party, from which everything flows, is that there shall be in South Africa a place to live in and a home for the Whites who will be governed by Whites only.

Throughout the whole of South Africa.

I say very clearly that in this Parliament in which we are sitting there will be only Whites, and that the Government will consist of Whites only; that the Black man will have no place here in the Government of South Africa. This legislation results from that attitude. We do not deny the Black man the right to sit in a Parliament and in the Cabinet, but he does not get it here; he gets it in his own Parliament in his own territory. Now I should like to ask the hon. member for Germiston (District) what the principle is that compels him to say that the Black man should be represented here, not by Black people but by White people. What is his view of the principle? His point of view also is that the White man in South Africa should govern South Africa and should form the Government of South Africa. We do differ in regard to policy. The hon. members tell us that their policy will satisfy the world. However, we know that the policy of the United Party will not satisfy the world. Their eight White members of Parliament to represent the Bantu will not satisfy the world. Why not? Because that policy also is founded on the principles he has at heart, namely that the White man has to hold sway here and must be dominant in his own area. May I put this question to the hon. member…

Why do you not put questions to· yourself?

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) was not prepared to say at the Cape Town University to-day whether he would be prepared to serve under a Black Prime Minister. I am prepared to tell him that I am not prepared to serve under a Black Prime Minister in South Africa. To tell the truth, I am not prepared to stay here if there is a Black Prime Minister here. Is he prepared to serve under a Black Prime Minister? Mr. Speaker, that is a simple question. That is the point at issue here. I am prepared to give the Transkei a Black Prime Minister and self-government and ultimately independence if they are able to exercise self-rule. That is the policy of the National Party and we are not ashamed to say it. But I am not prepared to have a Black Prime Minister or a Black Member of Parliament here in the Republic of South Africa. Is he prepared to have it? I shall tell you what the policy of the United Party is. Their policy is that eight White men should represent the Black people here. Why eight? Where do they get the eight from? Because there are eight ethnic groups. Their eight members flow from the eight ethnic groups. Is that correct?

Yes.

The hon. member says that is correct. In other words, they now want to give the Transkei one White man in this Parliament, and one for Zululand and one for each of the other ethnic groups.

Where is the Zululand area?

According to them the Zululand area will be represented here by one White man. I do not want to interpret their policy incorrectly. They say there must be eight White representatives in Parliament, and that they stand by that until the people by way of a referendum decide otherwise. That is what the hon. member for Germiston (District) said the other day. Did I understand him correctly?

Or by way of an election.

I should now like to ask the hon. member how a referendum or an election takes place. Surely it does not fall from the heaven. A Government or a Government Party has to go to the people and say: “Our point of view is that Black people can now sit here in Parliament, and we are asking you to vote on that now Is his party prepared to go to the public of South Africa and put that question to them? You cannot have an election or a referendum on this matter unless somebody asks for it. In other words, the policy of the United Party is that they want eight Whites in this House of Assembly to represent the Bantu, but then they will go to the people and say: “Are you not prepared to vote for it that Black people should sit in Parliament?” Let me say candidly now, that if such a referendum were to take place, I am not prepared to accept it, even if the people were to decide that they are prepared to permit it. That is the crucial issue in this whole constitutional conflict. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, why the hon. member will not answer. There sits the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher). Does he wish to tell me that it is not his principle that the White man should govern this country, otherwise he has no future here? Is he not even prepared to answer that question?

You may just make your own speech.

Hon. members opposite want to get away from this crucial issue. It is the crucial question we have to answer in South Africa. The dilemma of the United Party is that they also want White supremacy in South Africa, but that they are not prepared to say so.

What will be the race of the members of the central authority of your proposed confederation?

Our policy is very clear. The hon. member knows as well as I do that a confederation has no Parliament of its own.

They do not even know the difference between a confederation and a federation.

A confederation has a federal Parliament, such as the one that is now breaking down in Rhodesia. A confederation, if there is something of that nature, is simply a state alongside another state. They do not have a joint Parliament. The States of Europe, as far as I know, are a confederation: France vis-à-vis Italy; Italy vis-à-vis Spain; Spain vis-à-vis Belgium; Belgium vis-à-vis Holland; that is a confederation of European states. [Interjections.] There is a Parliament of France, there is a Parliament of Belgium and there is a Parliament of Holland and of every country in Europe but there is no joint Parliament.

What about the U.S.A.?

The hon. member knows as well as I that the U.S.A. is a federation of states; there you have a joint Parliament. But I do not intend holding a lecture on this matter any longer. I should like to put this question to the hon. member for Benoni. When he told us “the future and the safety of the White man is my concern”, was his attitude not that that future and the destiny of the White man should be determined by White people? Is that not his point of view of principle. If that is not his point of view, is his point of view then that of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) that the destiny of his descendants should be determined by a multiracial Parliament?

You are now fighting the Black man.

No, I am not fighting against the Black man. I am quarreling with that hon. member who does not wish to admit the principle in his soul. Mr. Speaker the picture in South Africa is very clear: In future you are going to see in South Africa, a Southern Africa, in the same way that you see North Africa, West Africa and East Africa. West Africa is a collective expression; it does not refer to any one country or state. There is not a Prime Minister for the whole of West Africa. East Africa refers to a couple of states, Kenya, Tanganyika, Uganda and Zanzibar, and we have to see Southern Africa in that light for the future, a Southern Africa comprising the Republic of South Africa, the Black Bechuanaland, the Black Basutoland, the Black Transkei and other Black states that may emerge later on. We say that in that constellation only White people will sit in this Parliament under the shadow of old Table Mountain in our mother City. The United Party says for the foreseeable future there will be eight White representatives sitting here to represent the Bantu.

How far can they see ahead?

It is not only a question of how far they can see. What I should like to know from hon. members opposite is this: What is their attitude? What is the attitude of the hon. member for Germiston (District)? What motivates him? Why does he say that White people should represent the Bantu in this Parliament.

Tell us something about the representation for Coloureds?

We are now dealing with the Bantu of South Africa and of the Transkei. Let me now try to bring these questions of principle and policy a little closer to each other. In 1936 three representatives were given to the Natives in this Parliament. What was the principle when this was done? The attitude was that the White man should retain control in this Parliament. That was the policy pursued at that stage, but that policy was not true to the principle. We purified the principle, we rectified the principle, when we removed the three representatives of the Black people here. Now I should like to put this question to the hon. member for Yeoville. (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). He is a reasonable person.

The hon. member should not digress from the subject under discussion.

With this Bill we want to ensure that the Xhosa will not be able to claim that he should be represented in this Parliament, but that he should have his own representation in his own Parliament. The hon. member for Yeoville’s attitude is that the Xhosa should have representation not only in his own Parliament, but also in this Parliament, and his attitude is further that those Xhosa representatives should be Whites. Now I ask the hon. member: What is his motive? What moves him to say that Whites should represent the Blacks here to start off with? If his motive for that is that he wishes to retain the control and government of South Africa in the hands of the Whites, then we do not differ on the principle but only on the policy. That is the whole issue in this matter, and that is why I am putting this question to the hon. member for Germiston (District). Mr. Speaker, hon. members of the United Party cannot oppose our policy until such time as they tell us that they are not prepared, or that they are indeed prepared to allow Black people to sit in this House of Assembly. That is the crucial question. We are prepared to reply to that question, but the United Party are not. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) is sitting over there looking at me now; let me ask him whether he has decided whether he will be satisfied with Black members of Parliament, and whether he will be prepared to give the Black man a seat here?

How are the members of your confederation going to remain in touch with one another?

The word “confederation” has been mentioned in this debate, but confederation has never yet been the policy of the National Party. If you wish to describe the policy of the National Party thus, you may do so, but the National Party has never yet said in its policy announcements, that our policy is a policy of confederation.

A League of Nations.

The Prime Minister very clearly referred to a League of Nations or a Commonwealth. But we are not fighting over terms. It is immaterial whether you call it a confederation or a Commonwealth; the fact of the matter is that in South Africa, under the Nationalist Government, the destiny and the future of. the White man will be in the hands of White people and of a White Government, and in order to achieve that we are prepared to give the Black man his own Government, his own Parliament, in his traditional territory. The question hanging over the United Party and to which they must give an answer to themselves and to the liberals in their Party, is whether they are prepared to have a multi-racial Parliament in South Africa, yes or no. At the moment they say it shall be only Whites. What is their motivation? What is the motive of the hon. member for East London North (Mr. Field) when he says that the Blacks should be represented by Whites. Surely he must have a principle or basic attitude that moves him to that, and that question will have to be answered in this debate. I hope the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) will tell us whether they as a United Party will ever allow a Black man to sit in this Parliament. Will they ever permit a multi-racial Parliament to sit here?

It seems to me that the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has an obsession about Black men who will sit in this Parliament. The hon. member is under the impression that if political rights are granted to the Xhosa in the Transkei, they will forget all about their political aspirations here in South Africa, in spite of the fact that we have a permanent Bantu population here. Sir, an investigation which was made by the C.S.I.R. has already shown that 70 per cent of the industrial workers are no longer tribal Bantu. They are permanently industrialized. Does he really think that if they are given political rights in the Transkei, where they will never go to live, they will be satisfied with that? The hon. member asked many questions here. Let me now put a question to him. Supposing that the position were reversed and that we had a Black Nationalist Government here and that they tell the hon. member, whose forefathers originally came from Holland, that he should exercise his political rights in Holland, although he knows that he will never go to live there, would he be satisfied with that? Would he be satisfied if they told him that he could exercise his political rights in his country of origin?

I would not have been satisfied to be represented in this Parliament by Black people either.

That is the futility of the policy of the Nationalist Party, to think that if you give independence to only a small percentage of the Bantu, namely the Xhosa living in the Transkei, the other Bantu, the other Xhosas living here in the Republic will be satisfied and that they will have no further political aspirations. The hon. member specifically stated that the policy of the Nationalist Party is that a Black man will never sit in this Parliament. I want to ask him whether an Indian or a Coloured will ever sit here?

They will not sit here. We are not ashamed to say so.

Where are their homelands? Where can they exercise their political rights?

In India.

The Indians may perhaps still, in terms of this type of logic, go and exercise their political rights in India, but where can the Coloureds exercise their political rights?

They are already represented here.

Then I want to put a further question to the hon. member. We now have four representatives of the Coloureds here. Will they eventually be Coloureds? The hon. member is very concerned to find out whether, in terms of our policy, the representatives of the Bantu will eventually be Black men.

Mr. Speaker, during the course of my speech I will refer further to the illogical arguments of that hon. member. I just want to come back to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker). I told him that I would reply to him this afternoon, but unfortunately he is not here yet. He made a comparison between the position in Palestine and apartheid here in South Africa. What he did not tell the House was that the 300,000 Arabs living in Palestine enjoy equal political rights on a common roll with the Israelis. If the hon. member wants to make that comparison, is it then also the policy of the Nationalist Party that the Bantu who live here in White South Africa will eventually be able to exercise their political rights on a common roll? I understand further that in Palestine there is no economic and social discrimination. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort is of course a great authority on so many matters that he sometimes becomes confused. Once upon a time he was also a great authority on apartheid. I refer to an article he wrote in die Suiderstem of 23 October 1948. There was a nice photo of him as a young man, and in that article he wrote the following—

So much for that authority! I want to come back to the matter under discussion. When I heard about apartheid for the first time I made an honest attempt to understand it. I was not even a politician in those days; I was an official. One of my Nationalist friends then explained to me what apartheid meant, and the hon. the Minister should tell me whether this is right or wrong. He said that the logic of apartheid was the following: We have economic integration in South Africa, and that economic integration will lead to political integration; this political integration will lead to social integration, and before we know where we are we will be landed with a whole number of other troubles. Is that correct? Is that the logic of apartheid?

Sakkies Fourie said that.

During the first session of this House which I attended I heard the Minister of Finance saying so, too, and all the pamphlets of the Nationalist Party put it that way. That is the logic of apartheid; economic integration must necessarily lead to political integration, which in turn has to lead to social integration. I think that most hon. members opposite who want to be honest with themselves realize that that is the only logical basis on which apartheid can be defended. If that is the case, surely one should start at the root of the evil, namely economic integration. Does the Minister agree with that? Should one not start with economic integration? The Minister does not want to reply. One should start at the root of the evil, with economic separation, with economic apartheid. Those big Native cities, as big as Johannesburg and Durban, which are continually arising in the imagination of the hon. the Minister ought to arise in the Transkei. That is what ought to happen. If those cities had not existed merely in the imagination of the Minister but in the Transkei, if it were a fact that the Bantu were now going back to the Transkei because the Transkei is developing so rapidly economically, that would have been a splendid policy such as the Minister always describes it. Just think of what the consequences would have been if the numbers of Bantu in South Africa were continually decreasing instead of increasing, as in fact they are. Then none of these discriminatory measures would have been necessary. It would not be necessary to have influx control if the Bantu were already going back to the Bantu areas. Job reservation would not have been necessary because there would have been too few Bantu. They would not have competed with the Whites. All these additional discriminatory measures we passed during the last 14 years would not have been necessary, because if one starts with economic apartheid the problem resolves itself. Social discrimination will then disappear like dew before the sun to the extent that the Natives will go back to their own areas. That is what one would have expected if the Minister’s policy were a practical one. If to-day already the Bantu were busy moving back to the Bantu areas on a large scale, then the problem of partition could of course also have been solved much more easily. All the examples of partition mentioned by hon. members opposite are of course examples of countries where the majority group of one nation or one religious faith are in one area, and the majority group of another nation are in another area. Then one can of course effect segregation.

Surely the trouble in regard to partition here in South Africa is that we are as intermingled as we are. So that problem should also have been solved. The great question we should ask ourselves is why the Minister did not start off with economic apartheid. Why does he start with political apartheid? Why does he put the cart before the horse? Why does he build the house from the roof downwards? That is in fact what the Minister is busy doing. He does not begin at the logical beginning of apartheid. This leads one to only one conclusion, namely that it is impracticable and impossible, and that is what General Smuts said in 1948 already when he first had the opportunity to discuss apartheid. He said that it did not matter how fine a policy it was, because just because it was so impracticable it was a dishonest policy. If that is not the case, we should ask the Minister why he did not start with economic apartheid. That would have been the logical thing to do. Is there anyone in the Government who is busy sabotaging this nice policy? If it is practicable, why is it not being implemented? If we want to have this flowing back of the Bantu to their areas, if we want this economic separation, it will be the first time in our history that the economic development in the Bantu areas takes place on a larger scale than in the White areas. The Minister will admit that. Unless we reach a point in our economic development in this country where there is more economic development in the Bantu areas than in the White areas, apartheid simply cannot be applied. Surely that makes sense, because the greatest population increase takes place amongst the Bantu. Therefore unless there is a greater measure of economic development in the Native areas, one will not have them going back to those areas.

What have we seen during the last 14 years? There was hardly any investment by investors in the Union in those areas. In fact, in terms of the policy of the Nationalist Party, they are not allowed to invest money there, but I think that even if they had been encouraged to do so the ordinary private investor would not have invested money there. One would have expected the Government to set an example. Let us look at the Government’s investment over the last 14 years. We find that more than 95 per cent of the Government’s investments were made in the White areas. In other words, an attempt was never made to bring about economic apartheid. That would have been the logical development of apartheid. To-day we immediately start with political apartheid. This Bill will put the Xhosas on the first rung of the ladder to apartneid. What are we going to solve by that? We find ourselves in a position where we are more economically integrated than ever before in our history, and now the Government comes along with its political apartheid. What will that solve? I suggest that it will create more problems than it will ever solve. What we are doing is to divide between two Governments the political control over people who are in the same economic position as we are. That is all we are doing. Hon. members opposite have often pointed to the stupid actions of the imperial powers which gave independence to countries like the Congo, and the chaos which followed on it. They criticized the independence granted to Kenya, and the chaos which may prevail there. I want to suggest that this establishment of independent Black states in our midst will cause South Africa more trouble than the developments in the Congo and in Kenya caused. I say so for the simple reason that the Belgian living in Belgium was not much affected by the independence granted to the Congo. The only people who suffered were the Belgians in the Congo. Here in South Africa, however, we are so economically integrated that what happens in the Transkei will have direct repercussions in South Africa. Because the great majority of the Xhosa men will still work in the Republic, every economic problem in the Republic will become an economic problem in the Transkei. The Minister already has examples of that. He knows what Kaizer Matanzima said recently. If hon. members opposite do not realize it, Kaizer Matanzima realizes only too well that if in future he gets his independence there and the great majority of his people work in the Republic, the economic measures applied in the Republic will cause political problems in the Transkei. The converse is also true, unless the Government completely abandons the Whites in the Transkei, in which case the latter will create a political problem for the Republic. Surely that is logical, Mr. Speaker. In fact, we are not solving a single political problem by establishing an independent Transkei. All we are doing is to create political problems.

Take the question of racial discrimination. Racial discrimination, which was always a domestic matter, will now become an international political matter. In the past our Minister of Foreign Affairs quite correctly adopted the attitude in UN that the question of racial discrimination in South Africa is a domestic matter and that they should not interfere in it. What will happen now? Are hon. members opposite so naive as really to believe that just because the Xhosas become independent they will no longer mind if there is discrimination against them in the Republic? Do they really believe that the moment the Transkei becomes independent the Xhosas will be satisfied with job reservation in the Republic? Of course not. All that will happen now is that if there is discrimination against the Xhosas here, they have a Government to which they can complain. If that Government of theirs wants to remain in power it must give heed to their complaints. Where will they take those complaints? They will take them to UN. They may also try to gain the support of Russia and China. I predict that if they raise the question of discrimination at UN, no Western country will vote against it, just as the voting is to-day. This policy therefore does not solve a single problem; all it does is to elevate political problems from the domestic level to the international level.

I want to come back to the argument of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr de Wet). Is he so naive as to think that if one grants political independence to a minority in the Transkei, the other Xhosas here in the Republic will be satisfied with all our discriminatory legislation? Are hon. members opposite really so naive as to believe that? Do they not realize that they are going to create much greater problems? Unless they are prepared to change their whole policy they are simply creating an international political channel for the complaints against discrimination. This policy of abandoning Western civilization over large areas of South Africa and in regard to the majority of our population will not solve a single political problem. There is only one hope, and that is to go back to the traditional policy of South Africa. The real traditional policy of South Africa is to try to Westernize the non-Whites as fast as possible. If we want to preserve Western civilization here, we must Westernize the non-Whites as speedily as possible. The hon. member over there laughs, but that is the policy our forefathers always followed. They tried to Westernize them by educating them and giving them the Christian religion. One can only maintain a Western society if these people are Westernized. This idea of surrendering large areas of South Africa and abandoning a large proportion of the inhabitants, instead of trying to preserve Western civilization, is such an incomprehensible concept to me that I cannot understand how an intelligent person like the Chief Whip can accept it. To tell the truth, it appears to me to be so unrealistic and impossible that I want to come back to what the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) said the other night. He said that there was a great plot in South Africa to undermine Western civilization.

You are telling a lie now.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

If the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) says that I said that there is a plot to undermine Western civilization, then I say he is telling a lie.

The hon. member must withdraw the word “lie”.

I withdraw the word “lie” and say the hon. member is telling an untruth in his stupidity.

Mr. Speaker, I was trying to summarize a long and very confused speech. Perhaps I was wrong, but he definitely mentioned a plot in which all kinds of evil forces were concerned to undermine Western civilization, even though he did not say it was here in South Africa.

Evil forces are at work here.

That hon. member says it is so. If I now look at this policy which in my opinion is so stupid, then I cannot think that it is an accident. I think hon. members opposite should investigate to see whether their own ranks are not involved in this plot to undermine Western civilization.

The hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) is starting to adopt a more and more high-handed attitude in this House. In his eyes, everyone is naive; nobody has any insight into this matter and nobody is able to draw his own conclusions. My reply to his whole speech is that we are willing to take a calculated risk on the Transkei and in regard to all the other Bantu homelands. We are prepared to do this but he is prepared to take a far greater risk with the whole Republic of South Africa. That is my reply to his question.

Mr. Speaker, we have almost reached the end of this debate. We have had to listen to stories of terrible disasters that are going to strike South Africa if this Bill is adopted. We have been told that this Bill will promote pan-Africanism in our midst; that we are going to expose our eastern coastline to attacks from the East, and that if this Bill is passed we are going to give Russia a springboard from which to launch an attack upon us. In the words of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), we are even going to provide Communist China with a spring-board to launch an attack upon us. Mr. Speaker, these prophets of doom do not frighten us. We have had the same predictions in the past. Fifteen years ago the members of that party said: “Put the Nationalist Party in power and the banks will close.” Not one single bank has closed down; four new banks have been opened here and the hon. member for Jeppes is the chairman of one of them. As far as I know things are going very well with his bank. When we became a Republic they predicted bankruptcy and misery for us. We have now been a Republic for two years and things are going better with South Africa than ever before. When we left the Commonwealth they said that that was the end of South Africa; that we were finished. We have now been out of the Commonwealth for two years and just look at us! We are flourishing economically, and that is the case throughout South Africa, Just as little as their predictions proved true in the past, so little will their present prophecies prove true. They are trying to shake this Government to its foundations by making these predictions; they are trying to cause the downfall of the Government. I want to put this simple question to them. Do they think that a Government that survived a constitutional crisis and emerged stronger than before, a Government that survived a Sharpeville and emerged stronger, a Government that survived an attempt on the life of its Prime Minister and emerged stronger, a Government that survived the crisis of becoming a Republic and emerged stronger, a Government that survived withdrawal from the Commonwealth and emerged stronger, is going to be frightened their idle threats?

I do not want to belittle hon. members’ objections to this legislation. I do not want to minimize the possible dangers that may flow from this legislation. I think that I would be acting irresponsibly if I did so, but I think it is simply being childish to suggest that the dangers that they have painted here will inevitably arise from this legislation. I do concede this point to the Opposition: There would have been a great deal of substance in their objections if we had been doing something today which was completely different from what we arc in fact doing at the moment. If we had given the Transkei complete independence there would have been some substance in their objections. In that case we would have been planting the germs of a Congo in South Africa. But we are not doing that. In this Bill as it stands there is no question at all of the granting of independence to the Transkei. [Interjections.] I am not afraid to discuss the results of this Bill; I am not running away from them. I am discussing the legislation that we are dealing with at the moment. The dangers that the Opposition visualize would have existed if we had proceeded to grant independence to the Transkei overhastily and injudiciously. But we are not doing that. We are following an orderly, slow and methodical process in this regard, a process which must lead to the friendly emancipation of the Bantu. To see in this step the dangers which would have been implicit in immediate independence for the Transkei is not only irresponsible but appears to me to smack of political dishonesty. What are we doing to-day? We are laying the foundation, the only foundation for the peaceful co-existence of the White nation and the Bantu nations in South Africa. We are laying the foundation for a new dispensation for all the peoples in Southern Africa. We are laying the foundation here for solving the most intricate problem of human relationships, the problem of human relationships which Providence saw fit to thrust upon its creatures throughout the world. We are laying the foundation on which a Commonwealth of Southern Africa states will still rest in the future, a Commonwealth in which each state can build up what is its own, states which will be able to consult one another in matters of common interest to the whole of Southern Africa. We are laying the foundation of a new political structure in Southern Africa, a political structure which, under the guidance of the White nation, will be the happiest, the most prosperous and the most peaceful on the whole Continent of Africa. What is important to remember is that we are laying that foundation to-day. Nobody can predict how long it will take to erect that political structure but to proceed too slowly with its construction would be just as fatal as to proceed too swiftly. This endeavour will demand great statesmanship, great wisdom and a great deal of skill. But to try to suggest that this process amounts to the immediate granting of independence, as happened in the Congo and other countries, is being politically dishonest; it is completely unjustified and merely serves to prove that those hon. members have something to hide. That is the great mistake that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made. He missed the whole fundamental principle. For two hours he tried to break down an edifice which existed only in his mind’s eye. If in everyday life a person tries to break down a structure that does not exist we send that person to an institution, but when that is done in politics, that person is simply kicked out; one does not feel sorry for a person like that, one banishes him to the political desert.

The objections of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and that side of the House must be divided into two groups. The first group of objections concern the Bill as it now stands, a Bill giving self-government to the Transkei. The other group of objections consists of objections to the Bill as though it has already given full independence to the Transkei. What is the main objection of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to this Bill as it stands? His main objection is that the Transkei is being given its own flag and its own national anthem. He says that the result of this will be that the Bantu there will build up a loyalty to the Transkei instead of a loyalty to South Africa. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) wrote as follows in a week-end newspaper—

Then the Leader of the Opposition asked why we did not rather do what is presently being done in Euromart—to combine independent states into a European Common Market, a step which at a later stage may lead to greater political unity. Mr. Speaker, my reply to him is that that is precisely what we are doing. That is precisely the foundation that we are laying to-day. I want to predict that we are to-day laying the foundation of a Commonwealth of Southern Africa nations, a Commonwealth of Southern Africa nations which will be active in the economic sphere, states that will consult one another at Prime Minister level in the political and economic sphere. I want to predict that the Protectorates, the Rhoedesis and other States will be just as anxious to join this Commonwealth of South African nations as England was to join the European Common Market. When England wanted to join the European Common Market did they ask England to sacrifice her flag and her national anthem? Did they ask her to sacrifice her loyalty to England? No, Mr. Speaker, those countries have their own flags and their own loyalties and their own national anthems. Their first loyalty is to that which is their own. Why should they show more loyalty to that body that they have brought into being? I ask hon. members opposite why that could not be the case in the Transkei? Why can France have her own flag and her own language and yet belong to this Community? Why can England and Germany and Holland and Luxembourg have these things and not the Transkei? Why cannot we build upon this structure in South Africa?

May I ask a question?

No, my time is too short. Moreover, the hon. member does not have the permission of his Whips to ask me a question. The great mistake made by that side is that they say that a common loyalty is going to be cultivated by those people, not when they are given their own flag, not when they are given their own national anthem, but when they are given representation in this Parliament. Will they have respect for our national anthem and our flag then? After all, we had it in this country. The Bantu were represented in this House but did they show any signs of respect for our flag and our national anthem? Did they sing Die Stem van Suid-Afrika or did they still sing N’Kosi sekeleli Afrika? They sang N’Kosi sekeleli Afrika with great enthusiasm, but they did not sing it out of love for what was their own; they sang it out of hatred for the White man in South Africa. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said: “A common loyalty should be cultivated”, How does he want to cultivate that common loyalty? He wants to cultivate it by giving the Bantu representation in this Parliament. That was done in Northern Rhodesia, in Southern Rhodesia and in Nyasaland, but did those people show a common loyalty to those countries? Did Dr. Hastings Banda show a common loyalty to Nyasaland when they had partnership there, or did he only show loyalty to a Black Nyasaland? The same thing holds good for the other Black leaders. Do those people in Southern Rhodesia sing God Save the Queen or do they sing their own national anthem? Are they loyal to the Rhodesian nation consisting of Black and White, to the partnership, or are they only loyal to one idea—the idea of a Black Rhodesia? If Black people are to sit in this House, eventually who are they going to be? They will be Mandelas, Luthulis and Sobukwe, the people whom Harold Wilson is already saying are the leaders of the people of South Africa, are hon. members opposite really in earnest in saying that those people have a loyalty to South Africa as we know it to-day? Do they think that those people will be loyal to a multi-racial South Africa as we know it today with the Whites as the senior partners? Or will they only show loyalty to South Africa as they see it—a Black South Africa, as was the case in Rhodesia and Nyasaland?

There is only one way to bring about a common loyalty. In the first place there is the specific loyalty to what is one’s own, to what one cherishes in one’s heart, like the loyalty of a Frenchman to France or an Englishman to England or a Xhosa to the Transkei. Then there is a broader loyalty that springs from the mind and which will not clash with the other loyalty and which, if it does clash, will be subordinate to the other loyalty. They ask us how we are going to control the timetable. How could they control the time-table of “partnership”? What happened in Rhodesia? It was not the Federation that failed; it was multi-racialism that failed there; it was “partnership” that failed there. The Federation collapsed tragically on the principle of “partnership”. The tragedy of Sir Roy Welensky was that he could not control the timetable of “partnership”, just as little as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will be able to control the time-table of “partnership” in South Africa.

They ask what impression this Bill will make on the world. I have not the slightest doubt that this idea of the hon. the Prime Minister of a Commonwealth of Southern Africa states will grip the imagination of the world; it is already gripping the imagination of the world on a small scale. We had the Vice-President of the French Parliament here the other day and we know what he said. I predict that when we experience the development which will flow from this legislation— the Commonwealth of Southern Africa states—it will be a mighty Commonwealth, an economically prosperous Commonwealth; such a stable Commonwealth that I do not think we will have to curry favour with the West any longer but that the West for the sake of its position in Africa, will have to curry favour with the Commonwealth of Southern Africa states.

Where does their policy get us in the eyes of the world? The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) has the idea that their policy will sell us to the rest of the world. That is what he said in a speech not so very long ago. He said that if the United Party came into power the country would enjoy the full moral and financial support of America; we would again become a full-fledged member of the Western Community and not merely a stinking appendage. He said further that on his recent visit to America he explained the policy of the United Party of a Race Federation to the Americans—

I hope that hon. member will have the courage—he put questions to me last night and I answered all of them—to answer my question: What did he tell the Americans about the policy of the United Party which made them assure him that they accepted it? Did he tell them that the policy of his party was one of blatant discrimination on the basis of colour? Did he tell them that? Did he tell them that under their policy a Bantu, no matter how civilized he might be, could not live where he liked in the Republic? Did he tell them that under their policy, as it stands at the moment, a Bantu, no matter how civilized he might be, could not sit in this House? Did he tell them that? Did he tell them that under their policy the United Party was not prepared to admit a Bantu to their Cabinet or as a member of the Party? Did he tell the Americans that? I want to put a further question to him: Did he tell the Americans, when they told him that they accepted the United Party policy and that they would stand by South Africa if the United Party came into power, that under the United Party policy Luthuli, the Nobel Prizewinner, could not travel on the Blue Train with that hon. member? Did he tell the Americans, those Americans who had to use 50,000 troops to get one Bantu student enrolled in a university in America, that under his party’s policy a Bantu child would not be admitted to White schools? Did he tell them that? No, he did not tell them that.

I shall tell hon. members what he did tell them and they can draw their own conclusions. Any sensible gathering of people with whom he discussed his policy would have asked him certain questions. They would have asked him: Why cannot Luthuli—I am sure that his name must have been mentioned— sit in your Parliament under the policy of the United Party? Of course he would have told them that that was merely a temporary arrangement; that Luthuli would be able to sit there later on. I am convinced that they also asked him why Luthuli’s children could not attend the same school as that attended by his children. His reply was: At the moment there are still practical difficulties, but that will eventually be the position and we shall not need 50,000 troops to enroll Luthuli’s children at Marist Brothers or one of the hon. member’s schools. That must have been what he told them, otherwise they could not possibly have said that they agreed with the policy of the United Party. He told them that the Bantu could not become members of the United Party at the moment; that this was not possible for practical reasons only, but that in the future the Bantu would be able to become members of his party; that the Bantu would in future be able to sit in this House and in the Cabinet; that they would be allowed to fill any position, and that they would be accepted socially as the Negro was accepted in America. It is as clear as daylight that the world is against us because of race discrimination. I say to that hon. member that when the Americans gave him the assurance that they would stand by the policy of the United Party, he had either not told them the truth or else they were not telling South Africa the truth. The hon. member can now decide where he had lied and where he is still lying. You know, Sir, the attitude which hon. members on that side of the House adopt is really a shocking one.

I want to conclude. They say they will be able to control the timetable, and that they will be able to control the timetable in the same way as we have fixed our Coloured representation in this House at four. Well, that is not the sum total of our colour policy; that is not our whole colour policy. But I leave it at that. Let us assume for a moment that that is indeed the case and that that is the sum total of our colour policy in South Africa and that we have fixed it at four members in this House. Hon. members say that they are going to control the timetable in that way. And they say something else as well. They say that they are going to limit the Bantu to eight representatives as we have fixed the number of Coloured representatives at four, and that before those eight become Bantu members, a referendum will have to be held. This is a point that has already been made by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet). But, Mr. Speaker, when we said that we were going to hold a referendum before declaring South Africa to be a Republic, we made it very clear that we were going to vote for a Republic at that referendum. I want to put this question to the hon. member for Yeoville: They say that they are going to hold a referendum before they decide to have White members replaced by Bantu members. I want to put this to the hon. member: If they hold such a referendum, how will the hon. member vote? I ask him how he personally will vote. Will he vote for the change or will he vote against the change? [Laughter.] They are not holding a caucus meeting now but I see the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asking his Whip’s permission to reply—and he is very pleased indeed that his Whip has told him that he may not reply! But I want to put a further question to him before my 20 minutes are up. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said that he is going to limit the Bantu to eight members. I want to ask him if he is prepared to give the people of South Africa the assurance that he will never agree to the Bantu having more than eight members? These are practical questions but this is the tragedy that we are faced with. It is the hon. members on the other side who ask the country to give them the chance to govern, but they are afraid to reply to a real question of this nature. Is the hon. member for Yeoville prepared to say that his party will always stop at eight members? Of course he is not prepared to do so. He is not prepared to say that those members will always be White members. Another fact is that if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party do come into power, the Republic will collapse just as tragically as the Federation collapsed. They will not be able to prevent it. The tragedy is that Sir Roy fought openly but these people do so by falsely hiding their true policy from the people.

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) this afternoon again put a number of questions to this side of the House. This is not the first time that the hon. member has asked those questions. That is the only way in which he can make a speech. I want to tell the hon. member for Vereeniging that he should not be so impatient; he should have a little more patience. In just another three years he will have the chance of seeing the implementation of the policy of this party which will then come into power and then he will be able to criticize as much as he likes. Our policy is not the policy that is being applied to-day. It is the policy of this Government that is being applied. The hon. member has asked us what we will do and when we will be prepared to increase the eight representatives of the Bantu. But is his party not faced with the same question in respect of the Coloured representatives? Why do they not answer the question? SABRA told this Government a few years ago that not only would the question of Coloureds being able to take their seats in Parliament have to be considered but also whether the Coloureds in the northern provinces should have representation in this Parliament. What is the policy of this Government? Why do they not answer us? They ought to reply because they are the Government in power and they form the party that is applying their policy. But the hon. member has told us that they now want to give the Bantu their own independent states and that thereafter we will have a larger organization in the form of a Commonwealth of Southern Africa states.

All of which will be completely independent!

Yes. A few years ago South Africa was a member of a Commonwealth in which the White members were in the minority, and what happened to South Africa then? Did she retain her membership of that Commonwealth? What assurance does the hon. member for Vereeniging have that if South Africa becomes a member of this Commonwealth of States in Southern Africa she will be able to retain her membership? What assurance do we have that if a Commonwealth of this nature is formed, they will invite South Africa to become a member? Hon. members on the other side are worried about the eight representatives of the Bantu who will have their seats in this Parliament, but they must not forget that they have in mind eight independent states within the borders of South Africa and, as the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) described it, some sort of “confederation”. On what basis will that confederation operate? What will be of importance?

They can be independent states.

Under the leadership of White South Africa? I want to put this question to the hon. member for Kempton Park who has given South Africa this idea, and the hon. member for Vereeniging who agrees with that idea: Will White South Africa be one of the leading states in that confederation, yes or no?

There is not the slightest doubt about it.

The hon. member says that there is not the slightest doubt about it, but then of course their whole argument that the Bantu as a nation will have the same amount of authority on an equal basis with us, collapses, because the hon. member for Vereeniging and the hon. member for Kempton Park are telling the Bantu in advance …

He will have authority in his own country and we in ours.

They are telling these independent states in advance that they will have to accept the leadership of White South Africa.

On her own merits.

What then is the moral basis of this future Commonwealth of Southern Africa states?

Is true leadership immoral?

Do you know what will happen? Hon. members opposite are now avoiding their policy of independent states in South Africa because they want to be able to tell the electorate of South Africa that this policy of theirs will continue to mean real and permanent White leadership. That is the reason.

The hon. member is too stupid to understand it.

Is France not the leading nation in Europe?

Order!

It is quite correct to say that a European nation may be the leader in Europe. There is nothing to stop it, nothing to hamper it, but the hon. member for Vereeniging has already said that this confederation will be such that the Black man’s chances of being leader in that confederation will be non-existent because White South Africa will retain that leadership. The hon. member for Vereeniging has told us that they are prepared to run a calculated risk with their policy of independence, of self-government in the Transkei, and he has said that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition need not be afraid because that question is not relevant at the moment; that he should object on the day when these people receive their independence. But the hon. member has said that they are prepared to take a calculated risk.

Of course.

I believe that any government has to take a chance, but why are they not prepared to learn from what is happening at present to the north of us? [Laughter.] They ought to learn something from those happenings in regard to the calculated risk that they will have to take. We had the examples to the north of us, the example of the Congo, the example of Ghana where the Bantu were given self-government. It was only a question of time before democracy as we know it disappeared completely and anarchy reigned in its place. Does this Government want the same thing to happen here in South Africa? This may well be the result of their calculated risk. When this legislation was introduced the hon. the Minister made me think of a speech made by Mr. Hans Abraham, Commissioner-General, towards the end of 1961 praising the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. According to the Burger of 11 November 1961 he said—

We accept the fact that the Minister will be the midwife.

He looks a lot like a midwife.

Yes, he will be the midwife. The baby has come into the world—it has been born. The hon. the Minister assisted at the birth. But on the day he introduced his legislation in this House, when the ceremony of baptism took place, neither the mother nor the father was here and everything was left in the hands of the midwife. He had to stand up here and pilot the legislation through this House. The hon. the Minister had to do it alone without the support of the hon. the Prime Minister; he had to stand alone before the altar at the baptism ceremony. The hon. the Minister introduced legislation which in my opinion the people of South Africa were not in the least expecting and which the people of South Africa did not welcome in the least either. Why do the people of South Africa not welcome this legislation? Because over the years this Government has told us that the Black man is a danger. They have told us over the years that the Black man cannot have any political authority in South Africa. He may not have it.

Over us.

He may not have it because he is a danger to us. That policy of the Nationalist Party has not only been advocated for the past 15 years. It is still being said to-day that the Black man is a danger to us. The hon. the Minister himself has told us that the Bantu in the cities, for example, constitute a very great danger to us. The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) told us last year—

Now the hon. the Minister has come forward with this legislation While in the past he told the White man: “If you see a Black man and he can obtain political rights of any kind, that is dangerous”. They compared him with “Antjie Somers”—a tremendous danger to the people of South Africa. But now they have to tell the people: No, he is not a danger; we must give him political rights. The “Antjie Somers” has now been changed merely by telling the people that they need not be afraid—it is only old Father Christmas that they see! Do you see the difficulty in which the hon. the Minister and the Government find themselves? Although they have always told the people of South Africa that the Bantu are a danger, politically speaking, the hon. the Minister now has to justify his policy and tell the people that this legislation aims at giving the Bantu more political authority. That is why this legislation is viewed with so much suspicion outside, not because of “kafferboetie” (negrophilist) propaganda on the part of the United Party but because of the propaganda made by this Government over the past 15 years against the Black man. Politically speaking, they have built up a psychosis in our country against the Black man and against any political rights that he may obtain. That is why I was not at all surprised to read in a local Afrikaans newspaper over the week-end that they are going to have the greatest difficulty in instilling confidence into their own people in regard to this matter because they have themselves built up this psychosis or neurosis amongst their own people—that the Black man is a great danger to the White man when it comes to political rights. All those terrifying stories told over the past 15 years by the hon. the Minister and other members of the Nationalist Party have to-day to be neutralized for public consumption. That is why I say this legislation is not welcomed. That is why one finds that people are surprised at the Government’s introducing this legislation.

Which people?

The electorate in the country. They are all surprised in view of the record of this Government over the past 15 years. And I say that this policy of theirs will fail, not only because of the strong opposition on the part of this Party but because there has never been any great enthusiasm amongst Nationalists in South Africa for this policy. There are only individuals on that side—and the hon. the Prime Minister is one of them—who have in the past been enthusiastic over this policy. The run of the mill voter, the White voter, has never had confidence in the political ability of the Native because of the propaganda of the Nationalist Party. It is no secret that the average Bantu also realizes that he will not be able to govern himself without the guidance of the White man in South Africa. We do not deny that there are capable men amongst them, but in the implementation of this policy the task of those capable Bantu will be made very difficult indeed by the agitator and by the extremist, because the average educational standard amongst the Bantu makes them an easy prey for unscrupulous demagogues and exploiters. It is not only here that this happens. It has happened everywhere. I would like to quote for you what Pieter Lessing has to say in his book “The African Kaleidoscope”. On page 333 he has the following to say about Ghana—

He goes on to say—

And how did that man succeed? Was it only because he was an extremist, because he was an agitator? No. He succeeded because of the kind of people he had to deal with and the way he dealt with them. And that is the difference in the approach to this problem between the United Party and the Nationalist Party. We say that there have to be certain selected Bantu who will have the franchise and political representation in South Africa, but the Government tells us that they must be given “one man, one vote”. And those people, the underdeveloped type—and the hon. the Minister knows that the vast majority of the Bantu fall into this group—will become the prey of unscrupulous exploiters and agitators. The field for this kind of political gangsterism which is to be witnessed throughout Africa is also being prepared in the Transkei because of the policy of this Government. This policy of the Government is delivering the unenlightened and underdeveloped Native over to unscrupulous people. The relinquishing of White guardianship does not only constitute a danger for the White man. It holds even greater dangers for the millions of Blacks who have not had that development because this policy of the hon. the Minister and the Government is going to remove that stabilizing factor—the influence of the White man in that sphere. This Government is much inclined to warn the Black people against the two-legged wolves who are exploiting the interests of the Bantu everywhere. But by means of this legislation the hon. the Minister is not protecting the poor Native against exploitation by these two-legged wolves. No. He is prepared to throw them to the two-legged wolves in South Africa. That is what will happen. I want to make another quotation for the hon. the Minister and this time I quote from “World Order and New States” by Peter Calvorcoressi who has this to say about the new states—

The Government has, of course, made provision as far as the “anthems” are concerned—

He goes on to say—

Then he says—

This is a warning to us. There you have the instability of the young states. And we here in South Africa want to associate with those people! We want to create eight of these states within our own borders, states which will be characterized by instability. Is this what we really want in South Africa? The hon. member for Pinelands made what I consider to be one of the best speeches in this House. He told us that it ought to be the policy of this Government, or should have been in the past, to incorporate the Protectorates. He said that we would now have these hostile states within our borders but that the Government was not satisfied with that. It was now prepared to ignore the Protectorates and not incorporate them, but it was seeking to create new states over and above the Protectorates with which it was already experiencing difficulty. I ask myself: If I have to choose between policies will I choose these eight possibly hostile states within my own borders or eight representatives of the Bantu in this House? Surely that is a realistic approach to this matter? Can one prefer eight Black Ministers outside who can be exposed to all the influences of the world, of a world hostile to South Africa, to eight representatives of those people in Parliament? I say immediately that I choose the eight representatives in this Parliament because then I am making the same choice as a man like General Hertzog who preferred the Bantu to have their representation through the medium of White people in this Parliament.

I move—

I second.