I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Sir, I ask for the privilege of the half-hour. In the present Government the hon. the Prime Minister has no portfolio. He has no portfolio because in fact he has the responsibility for all the portfolios of all his Ministers and he is primarily responsible for the direction which Government policies are taking in South Africa at the present time, and for that reason he takes the responsibility for a situation which has been building up over the period in which his party has directed the destinies of our country and in which they have been in office, a situation which, I believe, he in his heart of hearts tried to avert by making major adaptations and major changes in the traditional policy of the Nationalist Party. But these devices failed, and as a result the hon. gentleman and his Government face, I believe, a worse position perhaps than they would have if these changes had not been made. Sir, when the Minister of Foreign Affairs has finished perhaps I can continue.

Cannot he hold his caucus somewhere else?

On a point of order, is it not provided in the Rules that members are not allowed to loiter in the aisles.

The trouble has been that the policies of this Government have been based on fear, the exploitation of fear amongst the people of South Africa, and when the time came for adaptation and to consider changes, the hon. the Prime Minister found himself in the position that he was unable to consider changes or adaptations which did not make full concessions to those fears which he himself had helped to create amongst the people of the Republic, and the fact is that even the Bantustan policy in respect of non-European affairs is merely an attempt to escape from the realities of the situation. The situation is now building up. It has built up in such a way that there are now certain aspects which are worrying the public perhaps more than others and worrying them perhaps more than at any time in the history of the Republic, certainly in the last 20 years. I think the first of these, and for the moment perhaps the most dramatic of them, is the question of the internal security of the Republic. This is a matter which has been aggravated by the unsatisfactory nature of the statements of the hon. the Prime Minister himself in respect of the situation as it exists at the present time. The hon. gentleman asks us to believe that we are going through a period of crises in South Africa but that at the same time there is more peace and order in South Africa than in most other countries in the world. The hon. the Prime Minister cannot blame us if we interpret those statements in the light of the events which immediately succeeded his making them and decide for ourselves where the emphasis should be put. More especially, I would say. as most ordinary people regard a country in which there is peace and quiet as one which is free from recurrent crises.

What have we had since the hon. the Prime Minister made that statement just before the recess? We have had fresh reports of raids and arrests of so-called Poqo members; there has been another organized attack upon a police station in King William’s Town; there has been a shooting affray between alleged Poqo members and the police at East London. We have received notice that the hon. the Minister of Justice will ask for new powers; there have been instances of other race groups than the Bantu co-operating in essentially Bantu organizations engaged in terrorism or sabotage. Both the Coloured and the Indian race groups have been involved. We have had a conviction of Coloured men for sabotage down here in the docks; we have had the arrest of Indians on the allegation of attempted sabotage.

And Whites.

The hon. the Minister says “and Whites”. We do not yet know what the charges against them are; perhaps he has more knowledge than I have in that regard. I shall be very happy to have a statement from the hon. the Prime Minister on that subject. [Interjections.] My hon. friend is talking about Patrick Duncan. The hon. the Minister of Justice missed him. He is not here; they have not arrested him. All this is happening in the country despite that most stringent legislation first in 1950, then in 1953, then again in 1960 and then again last year, legislation which, we were told, would result in the maintenance of law and order, in the crushing of these organizations and in the Government being in a position to take action which would destroy them completely. We were promised that organizations like the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. and Poqo would be destroyed by this legislation. We now find that they are vying with each other or co-operating; I do not know which; perhaps the hon. the Prime Minister will tell us. We hear from members on the Government side that the threat of Communism has never been more serious than at the present time.

All over the world.

My hon. friend says all over the world. He may be right; I doubt it. I believe that most nations in the world believe that the threat of Communism is receding. I believe that the United States of America and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have done a great deal to reduce that threat. I accept that in this country under this Government, and because of the way in which this Government has administered its policies and the way in which it has carried on, the threat is greater than it has been. Hon. members agree with me; there is no doubt about it. All this is happening in a country in which violence, death, sabotage, etc., are more prevalent than anyone could have believed ten years ago. While that is the situation our Police Force is protecting the lives and the property of the Republic in a manner which, I think, deserves the profound admiration of every single person. I think, Sir, we must realize that our Police Force is dealing with the position in growing difficulty, because more and more they are being called upon to carry out their duties in a situation which I believe is increasingly unfair to them. Because in many parts of the country they are not in the position to protect those sections of the population whose co-operation they need most. No Police Force can act efficiently without the active co-operation of those people amongst whom they have to enforce the law. I think that was demonstrated most clearly in connection with the liquor laws and I think it is being demonstrated, unfortunately, at the present time.

I think when one goes into the causes of the situation then there are two aspects most particularly which force themselves into your consciousness and which you have to consider; I think that those two aspects have been accentuated by the result of Government policies during the period in which this Government and its immediate predecessors, rule by the same party, have been in office. You see, Sir, for years we warned this Government that the implementation and the practical administration of the belief that the Native workers in our urban areas were only temporary visitors from their natural homelands where they were truly domiciled, might lead to trouble of one kind or another. The hon. the Prime Minister is now faced with vast complexes around our cities where hundreds of thousands of those people dwell as, can best be described, a rootless proletariat and where they lack the steadying influence of elementary privileges like home ownership and assured family life. It seems to us that the hon. the Prime Minister is trying to force people who have already become detribalized back into a tribal pattern and a tribal existence. He is trying with, I believe, ruinous results to treat permanently urbanized people as though they were still tribal peasants. Although he is trying to do that, Sir, what do we find? We find that even in an area like the Western Province, from which the hon. gentleman believes they should be removed so that the evils which I have mentioned could be eradicated, that according to a statement made over the week-end the hon. the Prime Minister is not prepared to face the full consequences of his policy. Because the full consequences of that policy must be to damage the economy of the Western Province. It cannot be otherwise. Where are the jobs for these people to go to, Sir? What is going to happen to the jobs they vacate? What unhappiness are we not going to have as a result of the implementation of that policy? There is much talk about carrying it out, Sir; there is much talk about the sacrifices but it seems that the courage is lacking to fulfil the policy.

The hon. gentleman is reported over the week-end—I want to do him justice in this regard—to have said that if they could provide 500,000 jobs for the Bantu people in industry in 50 years’ time they could look after the Whole Native population. When one examines that. Mr. Chairman, you find that that is so ridiculous that it must be a mis-report. At the same time the hon. the Prime Minister must have said something. He must have said something in respect of the industrialization of the Bantu people. Perhaps when he replies he will give us some idea of what it was he really said so that we can judge the statement at its true value. Because 500,000 jobs in 50 years means 10,000 a year. According to the report each one is going to provide work for five others and those five others, in turn, will provide work for five more. That means ten people dependent on one man engaged in industry. That is jobs for 10,000 a year. But that is not going to cope with the Native population. That is not going to cope with the natural increase in the reserves and the people he has to take off the land because they are destroying not only the soil but are unable to make a living there.

There is another implication of that statement. Does that mean that this policy which is being applied to the Western Province is to be applied to the rest of South Africa as well and to migratory labour in general? The trouble with all this is that once you start pushing people around, once you start breaking up families, once you start eradicating them from areas just because you believe those areas should be reserved for other kinds of labour, those people tend to fall an easy prey to agitators and to inciters. The tragedy of the whole situation as I see it at the present time is that the hon. the Prime Minister can find no answer to this apparent evil if he is to continue with his policy, because it is the product of a policy and an outlook which is fundamental to the hon. gentleman himself.

Then, Sir, he is faced with something else. He is faced with a second aspect which makes the situation very difficult. For years we have warned him that unless he was prepared to adopt a different attitude towards the Cape Coloured people and towards the Asiatic people we ran the risk that those two groups would make common cause with the Bantu, would make common cause with Bantu nationalism in the Republic of South Africa. We have seen signs of that already, Mr. Chairman. We have seen the first signs of that already in the sort of people who are associating themselves with these organizations engaged in sabotage and terrorism. We should have had those people on our side. Those are people, I believe, we could have had on our side; those are people, I believe, we can still have on our side if the hon. the Prime Minister is prepared to reconsider his position.

[Inaudible.]

The expert on crime, the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee), is back, Sir. He always talks before he thinks and afterwards he wants to contradict what he said before. I do not think it is necessary to pay any attention to those sort of interjections.

We have warned the Prime Minister for years that this was the sort of development which might take place. We see it beginning to develop now. It is not too late to ask the hon. gentleman to let us know what his policies are in respect of these people. As far as the Coloureds were concerned we had talk about a state within a state with apparently two sovereign parliaments. That idea seems to have been abandoned. Now we do not know where we are. We see restlessness even on the part of that Advisory Council on Coloured affairs to which the majority were nominated and those who were elected were all elected unopposed because of the lack of interest in the election. Even they are beginning to cause trouble to the Minister of Coloured Affairs and Community Development.

I think we are entitled to know from the hon. the Prime Minister what his attitude is because up to now we still have not had an answer, no indication of an improvement in the situation of those people. I have great confidence that the police will destroy Poqo as they have destroyed other organizations before it. I have no doubt they will contain the A.N.C. and its sabotage efforts. I have no doubt whatsoever that they will limit and control communist infiltration. But equally, Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt whatsoever that if present trends are allowed to continue those organizations, or organizations like them, will appear again. They will appear perhaps with more experience; they will appear again perhaps more adept. Because the tragedy is that policies unrelated to the reality tend to cause frustration. And when they are accompanied by pinpricks—as is the present situation— then you have developing a classical example of a seed-bed in which the agitator, the inciter and the protagonist of a communist idealogy, flourishes and in which he gets support.

Then the whole world must be a seed-bed.

Mr. Chairman, I wish the hon. gentleman would go overseas and find out for himself. It would make the proceedings in this House so much more peaceful. You see, Sir, already we are getting people who are taking the line that in this confrontation of Poqo, we have on the one side Black nationalism and on the other side entrenched White nationalism facing each other and that it has nothing whatever to do with grievances or the political policies which are being followed. I think, Sir, that it is not without significance that this organization apparently has its origin and its greatest impetus in the bachelor quarters at Nyanga and Langa. It is not without significance that it murders and attacks its own people. One gets the impression that people are not inclined to embark upon a course of this kind unless activated by very strong emotions and probably very great unhappiness.

I think, certainly in the case of the A.N.C. with its readiness to co-operate with other racial groups, we are not facing just Black nationalism; we are facing something else. The tragedy, as far as the policies of the hon. the Prime Minister are concerned, is that they are unrelated to the present. They are policies based not on the present, because they have no solution for the present except force and it will be some time before they start yielding dividends even in the eyes of the hon. the Prime Minister. I should like to remind the hon. gentleman that Edmund Burke once said words to this effect that force is all right as long as it succeeds but if it fails once, it has failed for ever. The hon. the Prime Minister’s policy is only going to start yielding dividends in 1978 when he reverses the trend of the flow from the reserves to the towns. According to him the trend will then be from the towns to the reserves. But that will only be the beginning of the reversal. It seems to me that in hitching his star to that sort of an ideal we are faced with the position that he has completely miscalculated the speed of developments on the African continent, that he does not seem to have come to grips with the situation. In so far as he has, he has not realized the importance of what has been happening. I believe there is only one answer. I believe, if he cannot change his approach, if he is not pliable enough, if he has to make adaptations, there is only one answer and that is that he must make way for people to take over who have policies which are more pliable.

I think there is a second dominant worry which the people of South Africa have and that is in respect of external relations. I believe people are worried and are becoming increasingly so about our isolation and our friendlessness. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been making speeches over the week-end. He said the position was getting more difficult; that things were piling up against us and that we were being threatened; things were getting worse. I am quoting from a Press report. I hope I am not doing him an injustice. He apparently made another speech during the evening of the same day in which he seemed to indicate that he had knowledge of plans against South Africa of which the public had no knowledge. I read from the report—

I wonder whether the public has not got the right to know what the hon. the Minister is warning against. That is not the sort of statement to create confidence in South Africa; that is the sort of statement that indicates that there are further dangers and troubles ahead. He knows about them but he is not telling anybody. He is not telling anybody but we must all stand behind him because he has the answer. It is like 1948, Sir, when he knew how to bring down the cost of living. He had the blueprint in his pocket. When it appeared you know what happened, Sir. You know what a damp squib it was.

I want to say this to the hon. the Minister: We accept that what he says is true, that things are going to get worse. I think under the policies of this Government in the international sphere they must get worse. It cannot be otherwise. We also accept that with this Government in power we have to arm; we have to be prepared for emergencies. I think that is true. I think we accept, thirdly, that the arms and the weapons we have been buying from overseas are for external defence and not for purposes of internal security. Whoever heard of buying frigates and Mirage fighters for internal security purposes? We can produce all the weapons we need for internal security. I want to say that those misguided individuals who are threatening to apply pressure and to cut off the supply of arms to South Africa either do not know what they are talking about or are merely trying to weaken what could possibly be the strongest anti-communist base on the whole continent of Africa.

Under this Government we must realize that in the international sphere our position is lonely and dangerous. And it is becoming increasingly so. The hon. the Prime Minister, as we noted earlier, changed the traditional policy of his party to try to get some measure of world support. But the attempt failed absolutely. The Transkei Constitution Bill, which I cannot discuss, is merely one incident of that policy. All the dangers inherent in the policy remain even though it has failed to bring in any world dividends of any kind or of any importance. One has not to look very far to find out why there have not been any dividends. I believe there are two fundamental reasons. The first is that the change by the hon. the Prime Minister is regarded by the world as not a relaxation, not a change of direction, but an intensification of the apartheid policy of his Government. I believe, secondly, because the actions of this Government in carrying out this policy have created the suspicion that this policy has no moral basis. You see, Sir, they have shown no inclination to embark either on the economic sacrifices involved in their policy or to give their own people a fair warning of what those economic sacrifices may be just as they have failed to produce any moral basis at all for those policies, in so far as we know them, in respect of the Cape Coloured people and the Asiatic community.

Let us adhere to the economic sacrifices for the moment. Let us accept that the development of the reserves and of border industries in artificial circumstances, not consistent with the ordinary accepted principles for the decentralization of industry, must lead to the slowing down of the development of the rest of the economy and the slowing down in the growth of the real living standards of the whole of the population in the Republic. In all conscience, Sir, the sort of growth under this Government of the real income of the population has been poor enough. The figures I have seen seem to indicate that while they were 3.2 per cent in 1953 they were flattening out to round about 1.5 per cent in 1960, showing a jump with the last Budget— whether that will be maintained is, of course, another matter. The rate of growth has been the slowest over the last ten years virtually since 1925.

How many hon. members opposite have told their people that once their policy gets under way progress and increasing the real living standards of the people are going to be even slower than at the present time? How many of them have told their people what the enormous cost is going to be of establishing border industries? [Interjections.] You hear the remarks, Sir. Of course, they have not told their people.

Do try to talk sense.

The hon. member says I must try to talk sense. Has he told his people? He lacks the courage to tell them. Yet almost every economist of repute in South Africa has said: “If you are going to spend money on border industries and on the development of the reserves, if you are going to use capital that could be used for developing established industries in other areas, you are going to decrease the rate of growth of your economy and the real income of your population.” Oh no, they are not going to tell their people that, Sir; they pretend that they do not believe it. How many of them have told their people that they are lagging beind in the programme they have set themselves in 1955 when they accepted the Tomlinson Report and that if they want to catch up they will have to make even bigger sacrifices than they have been making up to the present time? They hoped that in 50 years’ time from 1955 they would have an equal number of Whites and Blacks outside of the reserves. What indication has there been up to now that there is any development in that direction? How can the world regard this policy as having any moral basis at all while the progress is as slow as it is at the present time? Do you wonder that, in many cases, they doubt the sincerity of those who have set themselves the task of carrying out the policy? Professor Tomlinson recommended two years ago … [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I am certain we are all interested to hear what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has to say and I hope he will be allowed to continue.

Professor Tomlinson recommended seven years ago that it would be necessary to find employment for 30,000 Natives a year in border industries in order to save the soil in the reserves and in order to place us in a position to rehabilitate that soil and take the necessary number of people off the land. The Government accepted that policy in principle. What has happened seven years later? Have they found work in border industries for 210,000 Natives? No, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that in the whole of that seven-year period they have found employment in border industries for one-third of one year’s quota. I do not believe there have been 10,000 new jobs in border industries since 1955, despite the acceptance of this policy. But the Government still pins its faith on border industries; it still believes that that can succeed. We all know that practically the whole of Natal consists of areas that are suitable for border industries, that the whole of the King William’s Town-Queenstown complex is an area for border industries. But in spite of the incentives given and the promises made, the whole policy has failed to gather momentum. Sir, what is going to happen in that respect? The Government tells us that they are about to start a new period of vast economic expansion. R2,000,000,000 is going to be spent in the next five years on public projects alone, on things like Escom, Sasol, Iscor, like the Orange River scheme, but only R 114,000,000 under the five-year scheme for the development of the reserves. Will any one of those schemes, except the scheme to do with the reserves, contribute in any way to the unscrambling of the egg in South Africa of changing us from a multi-racial state to an apartheid state? Every single one of them will lead to more integration, greater growth of industry inside the country and greater integration in the economic field. The Tomlinson Report signed by the present Minister of Bantu Administration made it perfectly clear that half-hearted measures would make no impression; and indeed they have made no impression, particularly on the outside world. How, Sir, can this Government persuade the outside world that this policy has got a moral content when that is its record over the period in which it has accepted that policy?

Read what Dr. Esselen said.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp is interjecting. Let him get up after I sit down and tell me what is the moral content of his Government’s policy in respect of the Indians. Let him tell us what is the moral content of his Government’s policy in respect of the Coloured people of South Africa. Where are we? There is no moral content, and hon. members opposite know it. Therefore they cannot argue with the outside world when the outside world says that there is no moral content. You would have thought that in view of the lack of success internationally of these policies, in view of the difficulties with which the hon. the Prime Minister has been faced, he would have been prepared to reconsider the situation. Sir, there has been no indication of any change, and I do not believe that the hon. Prime Minister can change. He has frightened these people into these policies and now he cannot alter them. Now he has got to go ahead stubbornly, and all he has got to try and do is to shout out: “What is your policy?” because he is afraid to discuss his own. I believe the hon. gentleman is losing his grip and he is losing it no more effectively than in the field of the economic affairs of this Government and the effect of the Government’s policies upon the economic growth of South Africa. Let me tell gentlemen opposite that those policies are affecting the economic situation. We were always told of the wonderful percentage of employment in South Africa; we were told that there were virtually no unemployed at all. Of course they did not tell us that they do not register the African unemployed, the Bantu unemployed. Now we hear from the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) and his commission that there must be nearly 500,000 unemployed Bantu in the country, and that is borne out by the chairman of the Wage Board. Sir, that is a very high percentage when regard is had to the population of the Republic. And they are faced with bottlenecks in trying to deal with that problem because of the lack of overseas risk capital and because of the lack of trained technical and skilled workers in South Africa. I believe that they have got so far behind that they cannot catch up. I believe that they are unable to catch up because they have neglected the matter for so long. I think we are entitled to ask what the hon. Prime Minister is going to do about this subject, just as we are entitled to ask what he is going to do about the agricultural position in South Africa.

Sir, we have seen a change of emphasis. Whereas in the past it was the policy of all Governments to try and keep our people on the land, we now hear of the appointment of a Cabinet committee which is going to do away with uneconomic units. Nowhere is an “uneconomic unit” defined. But this is a clear departure from the policies of the past. In other countries where this is done, it is part of the socio-economic development, part of a big scheme to place people in industry, to see that they have a proper income. Here the thing is running ragged already. We do not know where we are. We have seen the great hardships the farming community went through last year. We have seen the Minister prostituting the Marketing Act because instead of sticking to the old basis of price fixation, they have introduced the new element of supply and demand. In the past it was “cost of production plus a reasonable reward for the producer”, and we always hoped some regard for the risks of farming in South Africa. Now supply and demand is brought in as well and they cannot face up to the promises they made to the agricultural community of South Africa. I say in that regard also we must have a statement from the hon. the Prime Minister as to where he is going under his policy and what the future holds in store, what hope the farming community have of stability under a Government of this kind.

It seems the hon. gentleman is losing control. I think the trouble is that he has too many Ministers. I do not think they are all doing their jobs as efficiently as either he or I would like to see them do it. I think the time has come, Sir, for us to clamp down to see that there are changes in the interest of the country.

If this speech had been made by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) we would all have said that it was an extremely irresponsible speech. Coming from the Leader of the Opposition it is not only an irresponsible speech, it is a shocking speech; it is a speech which deliberately undermines our reputation abroad, which deliberately undermines our internal security, which was calculated to give comfort to our enemies abroad and to give comfort to the people who are undermining our internal security. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to know what the moral basis of our policy is. Mr. Chairman, our policy is the only policy, apart from that of the Progressive Party and of the Liberal Party, which has a moral basis and if the world does not believe that it has a moral basis, then it is only because of the untruths and the distortions which hon. members on the other side have been broadcasting to the outside world. They are the people who, when the Transkei policy is discussed, tell the people of this country that that policy amounts to the granting of complete independence to the people in the Transkei; but then the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) goes along and tells the outside world that that policy is the greatest piece of bluff, that our intention is simply to give the Transkei something less than municipal rights. And then these are the people who talk about a moral basis! Mr. Chairman, their morality is such that they are afraid even to discuss their policy. They are afraid to answer any question in connection with their policy. What moral basis is there for the policy of the Leader of the Opposition? What moral basis is there for his whole attitude in respect of the main problems of South Africa at the moment? There is as much morality in it as there is in the attitude of a vulture. It amounts to nothing but preying on the problems of South Africa. And then he wants to know what moral basis there is for our policy! Does he deny that his policy is based on blatant colour discrimination? And the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows just as well as I do that the only policy which the world to-day regards as morally justified is a policy which does away entirely with colour discrimination. And I say that the policy of this Government is the only policy which can possibly do away with colour discrimination in South Africa without resulting in reckless discrimination against the White man in South Africa. That is the difficulty that we have with hon. members opposite. We are faced here with an almost superhuman problem for which we must find a solution, a problem which the world refuses to understand because the world does not believe in any form of colour discrimination, but the United Party, while suggesting to the world that their policy is one which has a moral basis, proclaim in this country that their policy is one which is based on blatant colour discrimination. Sir, this country has never seen a greater exhibition of political immorality. Our trouble is inspired by members on the other side. The difficult position in which we find ourselves is being encouraged, and I say that 90 per cent of the misunderstanding that exists abroad is caused by the United Party. Of course we make mistakes; of course there are certain things with which the world does not agree and with which the word is entitled to disagree, just as there are certain things in America and England and France with which no decent Christian can agree, because we are living in an imperfect world. But I say that 90 per cent of the hatred in the world against South Africa is inspired by the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell), by the English-language Press, and also by the Leader of the Opposition, who represents the true state of affairs in South Africa to the outside world in the most reckless fashion. I say that in all seriousness. I recently quoted the untruths, the deliberate untruths about the position in South Africa, which the hon. member for Wynberg proclaimed to the outside world when he said that every Black man in South Africa was regarded by the present Government as an untouchable. Does he deny that he said it? And he knew when he said it that it was not the truth. When he told the outside world that every Black man was regarded as an untouchable and that Black men were being kicked out of our universities simply on the ground of their colour, he knew that that was not the truth.

Order! the hon. member may describe it as an untruth but he is not allowed to say that the hon. member knew that it was an untruth.

If he does not know that that is an untruth, then it is because of sheer stupidity. Furthermore, I say that it is the friends of those people who give the world a distorted picture of conditions in South Africa. Take a newspaper like the Sunday Express and its comments on the film “Sabotage in South Africa”. Harry Oppenheimer and their friends pretend to condemn that film, but I shall show in a moment that the Leader of the Opposition himself tells the outside world things which are just as bad as the things which are said in the film “Sabotage in South Africa”. And what does the Sunday Express say about that film? I refer to an article by Delius—not that one should take any notice of him, but the English-language Press regards him as a hero, as a very shrewd political observer. He says—

That is what their friends tell the world, that that film is the truth. He goes on to say—

I challenge any hon. member on the other side and I challenge the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, if he has any courage at all, to stand up and to condemn the Sunday Express! And then he is the man who talks about “moral content”! What does the Leader of the Opposition, the man to whom the outside world listens, tell the world? In opening a United Party function he said—

Quite correct.

Is he not ashamed of himself for saying that this Government puts a stop to criticism of the Government? Here in this Parliament we have the mouthpiece of the Government’s critics; we have representatives of a powerful English-language Press which constantly criticizes the Government. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows in his heart of hearts that there is no country in the world where more criticism of the Government is allowed than in South Africa. Now he sits there laughing and then he wants us to take him seriously when he talks about “moral content”. He says—

He tells the world that we oppress the Black people, that they are “oppressed people”. I ask him whether he is not ashamed of himself. Has he nothing better to say about South Africa? But he goes further; he does not condemn Poqo; he does not condemn the murder, the manslaughter and arson in South Africa. No, he tells the world that Poqo has a just cause. He tells the world that the motive behind this murder and manslaughter is not to overthrow the White Government; he does not say that this is the work of criminals; he says that this is the work of poor oppressed people who have no other course open to them. Let me read out what he said—

Sir, I want to ask the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl), who has just sat down next to the Leader of the Opposition, not to be so rude when he knows that I am talking to the Leader of the Opposition. He represents himself here as a man of irreproachable manners.

The hon. member must withdraw that word.

Let him behave like a gentleman. I withdraw the word “rude”.

The hon. member for Vereeniging also said that the hon. member for Green Point was immoral.

He is the man who represents himself here as a man of irreproachable manners.

Order! Did the hon. member say that the hon. member for Green Point was immoral?

I meant politically immoral, of course.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it. It is perfectly clear that I meant “politically immoral”. Only a fool would think differently.

On a point of order, we have not yet heard the hon. member withdrawing those words.

The hon. member did withdraw them.

What does the Leader of the Opposition tell the world? He does not condemn this Poqo movement. He does not tell the world that it is a criminal organization which has no justification at all for its existence. He says that it is there because of well-founded grievances which these people have. Does he deny that he said that? Does he suggest that they are committing murder and arson because they are being oppressed by the Government? [Time limit.]

It is tragic that the Government had to appoint the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) as the keeper of its morality. That it should come to this—that that hon. member is the keeper of the morality of a once great party is an indication of the level to which this Government has sunk. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has charged the Government in calm and moderate terms with maladministration of South Africa, leading to a state of affairs endangering the welfare and future of every citizen of the Republic of South Africa. Instead of a reply from the Government, we find the hon. member for Vereeniging being put in to try to put up a smokescreen to hide the real facts, an attempt to draw the attention of this House and South Africa away from the serious charges made by the Leader of the Opposition. In his attempt to put up a smokescreen, in his attempt to draw attention away from the charges made by the Leader of the Opposition, we find the hon. member for Vereeniging stating that the Nationalist Party is the only party which eliminates discrimination from public life and public policy of South Africa. But that member made no attempt whatsoever to answer the challenge of the Leader of the Opposition to show the slightest moral content in the policy of the Government in relation to the Asiatic or Coloured groups of the population! It was a clear specific charge made by the Leader of the Opposition and that hon. member has the nerve to stand up and claim that their party abolishes discrimination! I want to ask the hon. Prime Minister, because this is a serious matter, to substantiate the claim of the hon. member for Vereeniging that the Nationalist Party abolishes all discrimination from its policy.

I never said that.

The hon. member said that the Nationalist Party policy would eliminate discrimination based on colour in South Africa.

That is an absolute untruth. I said that the policy of this Government is the only policy which can eliminate discrimination without supplanting it by discrimination against the Whites.

That is exactly what I say. Now I am asking the hon. the Prime Minister to either repudiate the hon. member for Vereeniging or to state to South Africa that the policy of the Nationalist Party can or will eliminate discrimination based on colour in South Africa. The United Party has made no bones about its policy. We want to know what the Prime Minister’s view is. The United Party has said that where discrimination is necessary for the sake of orderly government in South Africa or where it is necessary for the protection of backward peoples, it must be applied. We want to know if the hon. the Prime Minister will be as honest and state that he will in his policies abolish all discrimination against the non-Whites of South Africa. We are entitled to ask that either he should repudiate the hon. member for Vereeniging, or that he should substantiate that statement so that South Africa knows where it stands. Either he must say that the member for Vereeniging was talking rot and nonsense, or he must say “We, and I as Prime Minister, state that the Nationalist Party will not discriminate on the basis of colour in the Republic of South Africa in the area where it is governed by this Government”. It is a simple issue. Either the hon. member for Vereeniging is right, or the hon. Prime Minister must repudiate him. It is no use trying to throw the ball back and evade the attack which we are making from this side of the House on the policies of the Prime Minister and the Government which he leads. We have made charges and we demand an answer from the Government, not this sort of answer by the so-called keeper of the morals of the Nationalist Party, the keeper of their morality!

I want to deal with one other aspect of the hon. member for Vereeniging’s speech and that was his completely untrue statement—and if he had a grain of intelligence he would know that it was untrue—his untrue charge that the Leader of the Opposition and the United Party had not condemned Poqo. In speech after speech, from platform to platform, in this House and outside, the Leader of the Opposition and every member of this party have condemned Poqo and all it stands for in clear and unmistakable terms and that hon. member has the nerve to accuse this side of the House of supporting Poqo and of not condemning it. I say it is a disgrace that a member of an allegedly responsible Government should make a statement of that nature, that he should say to the 10,000,000 Bantu of South Africa that half of the White people of this country support murder, arson, attacks on Whites, and all the rest. Because that is the implication. I say that he is inciting the non-Whites of South Africa.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “inciting”.

I withdraw the word “inciting”, and I say that wittingly or unwittingly he is implying to the non-Whites of South Africa that half of the White people of South Africa are on the side of lawlessness and disorder, murder and arson, and I say to him …

Order! The hon. member is now saying the same thing in other words.

Sir, I am saying that by implication the hon. member is saying that half the White people support lawlessness and disorder, by accusing this side of the House of approving of the policies of Poqo.

I said that you were trying to justify their actions.

That is the sort of statement that is leading to the shambles ino which South Africa is moving daily and weekly, a shambles for which the Prime Minister is responsible and no one else, a shambles which he is unable to prevent and unable to fight against because members like that who support his party make this sort of statement. The hon. the Prime Minister dare not repudiate them and has to let them go on. We on this side of the House charge the Prime Minister as Leader of the Government with being unable to prevent the dangers which are threatening South Africa from engulfing us, and we charge the Prime Minister with seeing this happening and not having the ability or the power to prevent it. Furthermore we demand from the Government an answer to the charges which the Leader of the Opposition has made against this Administration.

There is no doubt that we aer living in serious times, and this ought to be a serious discussion. But what do we find? We find that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stands up with a very pious expression on his face—I would say one of feigned piousness—and makes a charge against the Government. And when the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) points out to him what he said recently, the Leader of the Opposition sits there laughing; to him it is a great joke that Poqo is active in South Africa.

The joke was that the hon. member for Vereeniging accused me of giving support to Poqo.

Joke or no joke. I want to read out something which is not a joke, something which is one of the most serious things that any White man in South Africa can do, something which no White man in South Africa ought to do. I want to go further and say that fortunately there are many, many Black people in South Africa who would not make themselves guilty of irresponsible utterances such as I am about to quote in a moment. According to the Cape Argus of the 30th of last month, the Leader of the Opposition, Sir de Villiers Graaff, said the following—

That, according to the report, is what Sir de Villiers Graaff said on the occasion of a United Party function in Pinelands.

What is wrong with it?

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) says “Hear, hear!” Let me see whether he says “Hear, hear!” again when I quote further. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) laughs.

You are very funny.

The Leader of the Opposition went on to say—

[Interjection.] In these serious times in which we are living, the Leader of the Opposition says precisely what Patrick Duncan says and what every communist says. There is no difference between the encouragement that the Poqo movement receives from the communists and from Patrick Duncan and the encouragement that they receive from the words of the Leader of the Opposition. Not even the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) has gone so far as to say that. I say perfectly clearly that Patrick Duncan and the communists inside and outside of South Africa give no greater encouragement to these instigators and murderers in South Africa than the Leader of the Opposition does, and moreover, it is done not only by him but by his party, and his Whips say “Hear, hear!” when he says that there is good reason for the existence of the Poqo movement. [Interjections.]

Order!

The Leader of the Opposition makes that statement because this Government is busy with—

[Interjections.] We know that to a certain extent the people in South Africa are perturbed about the situation here but I am not concerned about the Poqo movement and about whether we shall be able to deal with them or not—because I have no doubt on that score—as much as I am about the encouragement given by White people to this campaign of murder and manslaughter and to the development of the Poqo movement. Who are the people who are being arrested? Who are the people who are behind this movement? In the first place they are not Blacks but Whites, and one of the Whites who has been telling the public in South—he did not repudiate it this afternoon—that there are good reasons for the existence of Poqo is the Leader of the Opposition. That is the position that we have to contend with. And what do his members do? Whenever they get an opportunity to do so, they smear South Africa as much as they can. What did the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) say? “South Africa’s army is useless to the West.” Sisulu and those people now read that that is the opinion expressed by Mr. Russell. I suppose that that sort of statement frightens them; that it discourages them from continuing with their devilish plans! No, it encourages them to continue because they now read in the Argus that the Leader of the Opposition has said that these are the reasons for the existence of the Poqo movement. [Interjections.]

Order!

Let us analyse that. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that the reason why Poqo came into existence …

I did not say anything about its origin.

I concede that. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not talk about the origin of Poqo. He said that the reason for the growth of Poqo …

Ah!

We are not quarrelling about the origin of this movement. Once it is there it grows. The Leader of the Opposition says that the growth of Poqo is due in the first place to “harsher legislation to close loopholes”.

No, that is not so. We shall get the report.

Sir, on the farm we used to have a gramophone which carried on in the same way as the Leader of the Opposition. If he will give me a chance to do so, I shall read it out very slowly. He said the following—

[Interjections.] Let us analyse that statement. What is the “harsher legislation to close loopholes”? What does he mean by “stopping criticism”? The only criticism that we curb and that we do not allow in South Africa is criticism emanating from a communist.

What is a communist?

We say that a communist is not allowed to speak and that what he says may not be published. We say that any person who wishes to overthrow the State is not allowed to criticize. Any other person, however, is at liberty to do so. Take the hon. member over there who represents the Progressive Party and take the Leader of the Opposition. They freely criticize. Or is the Leader of the Opposition advocating now that criticism emanating from communists should not be restricted? Is he advocating that Patrick Duncan should be allowed to say whatever he likes? Because is there any other person whose right to criticize has been restricted? I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to say so and to mention the name of a single person whose right to criticize has been restricted. [Time limit.]

It is becoming impossible to get a reasonable answer, in one voice, about any subject discussed in this House, from that side of the House. In every case we hear the two voices speaking to us, and the net result is, of course, that they say exactly nothing. I want to give one or two examples of that before I come to the subject I want to discuss. The Prime Minister was heard to say that there was peace and order in South Africa, and then he want on to say there is a crisis in South Africa, and then he went on to say further that both statements are true. In the case of a film which I do not propose to discuss because it is not relevant to my remarks, in the case of “Sabotage in South Africa”, we heard and saw the Minister of Lands saying to a world audience: You can say South Africa is a democracy, and you can say South Africa is not a democracy. I heard him saying that myself. In regard to the Bantustans. we heard the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) saying they will be part of a confederation. No, says the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet), not a confederation at all, because a confederation has no Central Parliament, but a federation.

I never said so.

There you have it, Sir. But when it comes to discussing the composition of the South African people, it is the hon. member for Kempton Park who says “the Coloured people are part of the South African nation, but we do not recognize them in toto If I had the time at my disposal, I could draw attention to hon. members, from the Prime Minister downwards, and to the kind of double-talk we listen to in this House year in and year out. No wonder that the outside world, which perhaps has misjudged us. has done so because this Government has succeeded in confusing them completely as to what our real purpose in South Africa is. And it is still less wonder that in South Africa itself there is doubt and uncertainty and misgiving. because you cannot keep on speaking with two voices without causing doubt, and the same applies to our relations with the outside world, which is the subject I wish to discuss.

My hon. Leader referred to the speech the hon. the Prime Minister made in Cape Town on Friday dealing with this question of our relations with the outside world, and he is reported as having said that there was concern about South Africa’s apparent isolation. This apparently is a quotation from his speech—

I want to deal with that for a moment. The hon. member for Vereeniging in the course of his attack on my hon. Leader, said the whole world hates us, and he said that in order to gain his point.

He never said that.

He said it this afternoon, and he said it in order to pin an accusation on my hon. Leader. He may have talked himself into a difficulty, but he went on to say that 90 per cent of the hate of the world against South Africa was due to the United Party, to the hon. member for Wynberg, to the Leader of the Oppositon and to the English Press.

I said that, not the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark.

There they are speaking with two voices again. That is again the kind of crazy double-talk of which one cannot make sense, but it is my duty to try to make sense of it on behalf of my constituents.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “crazy”.

I withdraw it, and say it is good, solid double-talk. Now, if our relations with the outside world are so good that we have many friends, as the Prime Minister told us on Friday, why it is that we are told that the whole world hates us? Why is that, if not to gain some political advantage, in order to put the fear of something or other into the people of South Africa, to make them stand solidly behind the Government, until they and the Government fall into the last ditch that the Government itself has dug? This talk about the outside world hating us must be taken with a pinch of salt. It is true that we are not unduly popular in the outside world, but it is equally true that if there were another Government here with another outlook, this hatred of which the hon. member for Vereeniging complains might readily change into something else.

Dealing first with the question of our relations with the people of this continent, it is obvious that we in South Africa sit between the rest of the Continent of Africa on the one hand and the sea on the other, and on this continent there are some 220,000,000 people and over 30 independent states. With which of those countries has this Government made any effort to enter into friendly relations? The argument is always advanced that we dare not become friendly with them because all they want of us is a policy of “one man, one vote” and the undermining of the White man. But the fact of the matter is that two months ago a groups of 17 students from the University of Stellenbosch travelled some distance through this continent, and in the supplement of the Burger of 16 February 1963, there is a story about these students going up as far as the Congo, and this is what they say, inter alia—

I want to make the simple point that this Government has made up its mind that there must be this situation of the South African people at the foot of this continent being in isolation—not in splendid isolation, as the hon. the Minister of Defence knows, but in isolation—and purely in order to maintain itself in power as the result of the fear which it instils into the hearts of the people of South Africa.

And going beyond this continent I had occasion to ask the Prime Minister a question in regard to the friendship which he said existed between this country and the outside world, and I put the same question to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who gave me a rather evasive answer. I wanted to know whether his Department during the period 1948 to 1962 issued any invitations to Heads of State or the Prime Ministers of foreign countries to visit South Africa, and if so, how many were accepted, etc., and he said that all visits of this nature were announced in the Press at the time but in the circumstances it is not considered necessary for his Department to consult the relevant records from 1948 onwards. I want to say that any South African does not have to investigate any departmental records in order to search for evidence of that friendship between this country and other countries in terms of visits paid by Heads of State, because we know that there has been practically no contact of that kind whatsoever. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I had thought that the discussion of the Vote of the Prime Minister should afford the opportunity to both sides of the House to set their standpoints one against the other in a calm, dignified, and as far as possible, a logical manner. Unfortunately the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not initiate that sort of debate. He took the opportunity of repeating his various points of attack in a more or less stereotyped manner. I shall be compelled to reply to the various points he raised and to analyse them, instead of, to my regret, having to deal only with the important points of policy, so as to be able to contrast them.

Before dealing with the arguments of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, I just want to reply to one point which, in the midst of the noise made by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw), was put to me as a challenge. It is something in regard to which I already adopted a very clear standpoint years ago, but it is quite clear to me that the way in which he raised it now was intended for petty political gain. He alleged that the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) had adopted the standpoint that the policy of separate development could lead to the disappearance of the strife and quarrels caused by discrimination, and could lead to the disappearance of discrimination itself. Then peculiarly enough, he stated that in so far as the United Party was concerned they stood for discrimination in various rexpects! It is clear that they say that to create the impression outside that that is a party which ought to enjoy the support of White South Africa because they want to discriminate against the Black man, but that the National Party does not deserve to be supported by White South Africa because it does not want to do that. Now I remember very clearly that the United Party right throughout its history since 1948 has posed as the strong and sincere protagonist of integration, meaning by integration the intermingling of Whites and Blacks in the Government and in the economy and even, within certain limits, in our social life. [Interjections.] Amongst other things, they want integration in the universities. Now, however, the attention of the public must be diverted from that by the statement that they stand for discrimination, as contrasted with this side of the House. It is obviously nothing but a political manoeuvre we have to deal with here. But supposing we tell the world outside that it is the policy of the United Party consciously and deliberately to apply discrimination, let us now ask ourselves what confidence the world can have in their morality when that is compared with what they said earlier? I should like to hear from the Leader of the Opposition whether he supports it if his party lays down as the basis of its policy that it is in favour of discrimination. I know he spoke about White leadership for the foreseeable future, but he has always created the impression that he accepted that there would be an increasing amount of integration between White and non-White. Now I should like to know how he reconciles that with what was said by the hon. member for Durban (Point), viz. that they stand for discrimination. [Interjections.] That is the standpoint.of the United Party. Let me now state the standpoint of the National Party.

A few years ago I very clearly adopted this standpoint, that in South Africa we have inherited discrimination. That discrimination is still part of the situation we have to-day. It is something which is inevitable as long as White and non-White live together in a society like ours. If, however, one’s object really is to remove discrimination, it can only be done along the road of apartheid, because the eventual consequence of apartheid is complete separation. In the first place it will be complete separation in the political sphere, and if that separation is complete, surely there can no longer be any question of discrimination, and if there is complete political apartheid each one exercises his full political rights separately. If in the economic sphere this separation becomes complete, no points of friction will remain, and therefore that type of discrimination will also disappear. I gave the analogy of the position between nations. I said that we should take our own case, namely the position of South Africa in the international sphere. There we cannot discriminate against India or China. In the international sphere we are all separate states which have contact with each other on an equal footing. In the international sphere the non-White nations have as much right to their country as we have to ours, and therefore there is no discrimination. That is why I said—and that is what the hon. member for Vereeniging said too—that along the road of apartheid we find the only hope of getting away from discrimination. The more complete apartheid becomes, territorially as well, the more will discrimination vanish because one increasingly lands in a position similar to that between separate states. Therein lies morality, but there is no morality in saying, as the United Party now avers, that on the one hand they want integration whilst on the other hand they want to apply discrimination permanently. In spite of that, they want the world to think that they will oppress nobody, and that was in fact the theme of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member for Durban (Point) afforded us the opportunity to emphasize the basic difference between that party and this one. That party sits on as many chairs as possible, whilst this party follows a clear and straight course.

I want to deal with the argument of the Leader of the Opposition. He said that I tried to improve the difficult position in which South Africa finds itself vis-à-vis the outside world by drastically changing our policy, but that South Africa, in spite of that, is now faced with a much more difficult state of affairs than ever before. He says that this is the result of the fact that the Government’s policy is based on fear, and that the opportunity exists for making adaptations but that the Government is simply not able to do so. The changes I have introduced to combat this fear have not succeeded. The Bantu homeland policy was an attempt to escape from these difficulties we have vis-à-vis the outside world, but it has not succeeded, according to the Leader of the Opposition. Now, it is not necessary for me to repeat all the counterarguments, because those hon. members will continue to make that type of allegation, however much we prove that they are wrong. For purposes of the record, however, I just want to repeat that the standpoint we adopt to-day in regard to the Bantu homeland policy, in respect of the Transkei and the other areas, is nothing else but part of the objectives we had right from the beginning. Various speakers from time to time have dealt with the various steps taken and have, inter alia, referred to a committee report of the National Party under the chairmanship of the Minister of Lands even before we came into power. Our course has been clear right throughout, and it was made clear that it would include the development of Bantu authorities into Bantu Parliaments in free Bantu homelands. That was always stated clearly, so clearly that the United Party used it continually to challenge us by saying: You say you want to do it, and if in fact you were to establish Bantu states in would be a moral action, but you do not really want to do so and never will do it.

Now that we have reached the stage in the development of Bantu self-government where we think that we can take a step forward, however, it is suddenly alleged that this is a drastic change of policy introduced by the present Prime Minister. If any of the political parties think that we will win the favour of the outside world by means of any amendments or adaptations, other than handing over South Africa to the Bantu, it is making a big mistake. The Nationalist Government will not be able to satisfy the Afro-Asian majority in UN, however much progress we make in the application of our policy, no matter how good our intentions are or how far it takes us along the road of Africa, i.e. that Black nations should govern themselves. They want one thing and one thing only, namely that in spite of all the injustice that might be done to the White inhabitants who have developed the country, the White Government of South Africa should be ousted and the Whites should eventually be forced to leave the country. That is the only thing that will satisfy them. We know very well that nothing which we can fairly offer them in terms of our principles will satisfy them. Nothing will pacify them. Therefore we should always act in accordance with our principles, and not try to seek outside support by abandoning our principles. Along that downhill road South Africa will then continue to slide even further. But at the same time nothing the United Party can offer in terms of its announced policy will lead to contentment or peace. If the United Party says: “We are going to discriminate and we will ensure that the Whites remain the masters; we will allow a few Bantu (not White representatives of the Bantu, but Bantu) to sit in Parliament, as well as a few Coloureds and perhaps also a few Indians”, although they have not actually said so yet, they should not imagine that this will pacify and satisfy everybody. I tested this proposition at the Prime Minister’s Conference, namely when the question was put there: “Will you not make one concession, namely to give the Coloureds the vote?” Then I put the question: If we do that, will it put an end to all these quarrels: will it mean that South Africa’s policy will never again be discussed at a Conference of Prime Ministers, and that you will never again interfere with the internal affairs of South Africa? To that the reply was: No. of course not, but it would be a splendid start “and will give us hope”. That is precisely what will happen to the United Party. Even if it were to make the greatest concessions, that would only intensify the demands of those people for more and more concessions from what they would regard as a weak and undecided Government. That is why it is so essential that South Africa should allow this Government to remain in power because, as far as we are concerned, every person in the world at least knows whether he is our friend or our foe, whether he supports us half-way, or supports us behind the scenes, or attacks us openly. Everybody knows precisely where we stand and what we are going to do, and the people of South Africa can be assured that along this way their continued existence will be assured. If we have to fight for our existence we will do so, but then at least the people will know that they have not been led by their leaders along a downhill road until we fall over the precipice and are destroyed for ever. Therefore my reply to that first charge is that I did not try to escape from a difficult position by introducing changes of policy. I admit in the first place that I, together with my party, have gone further along this already clearly demarcated road. We have taken a step further along that road, a step which we all expected that we would have to take one day. That is in the first place. In the second place, we did not do so in order to bring about a change in world opinion, because we have no illusions in regard to the ambitions of certain nations. However, I just want to add that in the minds of many people in Government positions and also influential bodies in the world the fact of our implementing the Transkei policy and the proof of the genuineness of our intention to progress step by step along the road which we always said we would follow (inter alia, along the road which I said in the South African Club at the time we would follow) has led to a realization of our sincerity and our honesty. Even Bantu leaders in Africa are prepared to say to-day that in so far as the British Government is concerned, nobody knows what it will do, but in so far as the South African Government is concerned they can always be sure that the Government knows where it stands. This is at least a testimonial of honesty, which is hardly a laughing matter but something to which value can be attached.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went on to a second point. He said that the critical problem to-day is in regard to our internal safety. In that regard he accused me of inconsistency, namely that I had said on the one hand that there was a crisis and on the other hand that there was peace and order. But I repeat it.

More peace and order than in most other countries.

Yes, more peace and order than in most other countries. That puts it a little more in my favour than I myself would have put it, but I appreciate it because I want to argue objectively. I still say that is so, and I say that every man with common sense should realize it. Would you say that there was no peace and order in Britain because Canon Collins and a number of followers recently held a disorderly demonstration? Would one say that there was no peace and order because for the umpteenth time crowds in Trafalgar Square had to be subdued into orderliness by the police? Do we imagine that because in Scotland people marched in order to demonstrate against the Polaris missiles there is no peace and order in Britain? Do we say that in the United States, where various types of riots regularly take place, sometimes racial clashes of quite a serious nature, and where the police have to be called out, and where sometimes a whole division of soldiers has to go into action for a long time in a certain area, there is no peace and order? Of course nobody would be so foolish as to say that. Of course they are modern, orderly Western states, but at the same time the fact remains that from time to time one gets these disorderly incidents in those countries. What is more, can one say that Britain, and in fact the whole of Europe including Russia, or the United States, never have crises? They do not all experience the same crises with which we are faced; they have the crisis of a cold war between them. They are in fact passing through a very critical period, more serious probably and more comprehensive than ever before in the history of the world, crises of the first order, and spread right throughout the world. We are also concerned in this world crisis, but we have to face additional crises, namely the attitude adopted by UN towards us and South West Africa and in regard to our internal policy, as well as the attitude adopted by certain African states. In addition there is the derogatory manner in which all kinds of speakers, prominent figures and others, and newspapers all over the world, think that they are entitled to talk and to write in regard to our country and our policy, often with the object of deriving some advantage for their own country, in the cold war which exists in the world. That is a situation of crisis and we are involved in it and we all know it. We also know that it can lead to serious clashes unless we handle the matter wisely, and we are trying to handle it wisely. We also know that if eventually it develops into a fight for the existence of our country and our people, we shall have to fight for the survival of the White man, even though we do so with our backs to the wall. We know all that, but matters have not progressed to that stage yet. The Government is trying to avoid conflicts as far as possible. In that effort it is hampered by the actions of the Opposition, which give ammunition to the enemies of our country. Very often the most bitter attacks made on the Republic by people in the outside world consist of the type of argument evolved by people in this country who know the circumstances and who misrepresent the position and attack us merely for the sake of political gain in this country. Those are the troubles we have to face, and this position may surely be described as a crisis. But at the same time this position can be reconciled with the statement that there is peace and good order in the country. Of course I frankly admit—I cannot do otherwise—that recently we have had this unfortunate incident in Paarl and that there is a movement like Poqo. What, however, is the characteristic of an orderly country? It is that its police, the State, can immediately cope with developments of that nature, and the Government has dealt very successfully with these miscreants in South Africa. It is true that in these disorderly actions Whites and Indians and Coloureds were concerned as well as Bantu. That has been proved. The arrests show how efficient our police were, and that in whatever circles these inciters moved, the police held their finger on the pulse of these subversive elements and could control them. They could discover the White miscreants in whatever strata of society they moved, and they were able to arrest the Indians who tried to use dynamite. That redounds to the credit of our police and proves that peace and order are being maintained in South Africa. It shows why South Africa is still one of the most stable countries in the world, because the State is able to discover, even in advance, when these small groups seek to contravene the law.

In this regard I want to reproach the hon. Leader of the Opposition for something. It is that, whilst Poqo and all the other bodies which act in this way, consist only of small cells, small groups particularly of Bantu, it is not fair to intimate that the whole of the mass of the Bantu are disorderly. Surely that is not so. Because one or two Coloureds were concerned in these incidents, it is not right to say either that we could have had the Coloureds as a group on our side, but that we have lost their allegiance and their assistance against the Bantu. That emanates from the Leader of the Opposition, who so often says that they want racial peace. Here he is talking about enlisting the Coloureds and the Indians on his side against the Bantu, according to his own argument.

Shame!

The words he used were, “against the Bantu We could have had the Coloureds and the Indians on our side …

On the side of Western civilization.

Against whom?

I understood him to say, “against the Bantu”, but I will accept that; I am not trying to score points. Ido not believe in that type of debate. If the hon. the Leader meant that we could have had all the Coloureds and the Indians on the side of Western civilization, and he did not thereby mean as compared with all the Bantu, but the Bantu generally, then of course he would not have regarded those Coloureds and Indians who committed these Poqo acts as the protectors of Western civilization whom he would have had on his side if he could have implemented his policy. In other words, he would have lost them, too. He would not have wanted to have on his side this small number of agitators and bomb-throwers; nor would we. We do not have them, and we do not want them. But that does not mean that for that reason the great mass of the Coloureds are against us and therefore are not on the side of Western civilization. What right has he to say that they are to-day against Western civilization; that they could have been on the side of Western civilization but are not there to-day? What right has he to say that? My contention is that the great mass of the Bantu are also in fact on the side of peace and good order despite what he said.

My second proposition is that the Coloureds on the whole are in fact on the side of peace and good order and of Western civilization, and are glad of all the steps the Government has taken to assist them increasingly to make progress along that road. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows very well what the policy is that we have stated for the Coloureds as a five-year or even as a ten-year policy, and he knows that we are making progress in that sphere and that the Coloureds realize and appreciate it. Of course their leaders will ask for more. Has an advisory body ever existed which has not asked for more privileges and benefits? Of course they will also ask for their development to be speeded up. Where has one ever seen people who are progressing in a certain direction and whose leaders, particularly if they have to be elected by those people, do not ask for more progress? That is always so; that is the position in every country. I say that the Coloureds stand on the side of peace and good order. The exceptional cases who agitate and do these wrongful things are the ones we would not have wanted as supporters, nor would he have wanted them. Nor would he have obtained their support through his policy, no more than we can gain their support through our policy.

But I also noticed that he spoke about the Indians, and I further noticed that in the statement of policy he published a little while ago there was not a single word of real interest in regard to the Indians. I wonder how, through his policy, he will gain the support of the Indians, because he said nothing positive about them. [Interjections.] Is that wrong? I frankly admit that I could only read summaries of his statement of policy during the recess. If he therefore alleges that in his statement of policy he in fact discussed plans in regard to the Indians, I leave it there. The Leader of the Opposition further said that we had promised that these organizations would be destroyed. Of course we stated that we would try to destroy these organizations one after another—these organizations which threaten disorder—but may I remind him that he made it very difficult for us to destroy such organizations. Just remember how we had to fight when we wanted to ban the A.N.C. We were accused of acting unjustly when we wanted to ban the A.N.C. In the end we had to arrive at a compromise that this legislation would be repeated year after year instead of banning them permanently immediately, as I still consider should have been done, and as I think will have to be done now. In regard to the P.A.C., we had the same position. We fully realize what may still be organized underground, but we will use all our powers as a well-ordered state to destroy these organizations. I know, too, and the Leader of the Opposition knows as well as I do, that in spite of that other organizations may still develop and that even new organizations may come into being which will try to commit the same sabotage. That happens in every state nowadays. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition need not pretend that it is only this Government which has to cope with such troubles. While I was Minister of Bantu Administration, for five years, the same accusations were already being made against us, and I instituted an investigation into the scope of the riots of various types, i.e. tribal fights, but also acts against White people and property and rebellion against the Government, during the last five years of the United Party régime and the first five years of the Nationalist Government regime. It then appeared that the scope of such riots, the number of persons killed, the number of injured, were greater in the last five years before 1948 than in the first five years after 1948! That is something which one sometimes forgets, but we have always had this type of disorderliness, whoever was in power. In a country like this with a large number of comparatively uncivilized, undeveloped people, some of whom are rebellious, and with political agitators, as we have already had since the 1920’s, one must expect this sort of thing.

The hon. member then went further and said that the police did their work well but that one needed the assistance of the mass of the people concerned. The hon. member intimated that the police or the Government do not have this assistance. I say that we in fact do have it. I say that we have the support of the great majority of the Bantu because they are the first people affected when this sort of thing happens, because they are frightened and intimidated into joining these terrorists, against their will, and in some cases they are even murdered if they refuse to do so. Therefore they really want to be on the side of peace and good order. I think it is wrong of the Leader of the Opposition to help to sow panic by intimating that there are great dangers with which we cannot cope because we do not have the support of the mass of the people concerned. I think that is very wrong indeed because it directly plays into the hands of the communists who are at the back of all this, as we all know. It is the object of the communists to establish disorder and uncertainty. The communists do not attack a state or society openly by direct force of arms; they undermine the morale of the state and the self-confidence of the citizens. It is a psychological war. They want people to become panic stricken. Our task is to ensure that this does not happen. Instead of the Opposition helping to establish an atmosphere of confidence in the country, which it deserves to have, it plays directly into the hands of the communists by helping to spread unrest and uncertainty. I therefore unequivocally condemn it when, as happened recently in Roodepoort, Krugersdorp and Rustenburg, according to reports, people allowed themselves; to be frightened to such an extent by rumours that they started organizing themselves into separate groups with the object of protecting themselves. The police are prepared to give the public an opportunity to take part in its own protection, but under their control and with the right discipline so that the maintenance of peace and good order can be ensured in a proper way. In the course of his speech the hon. member referred to the recent incidents in King William’s Town and East London. What really happened there? We know what happened and I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition referred with reproach to these two places. Ιn King William’s Town and East London there were certain attempted attacks during the week-end of 7 and 8 April. That was the time fixed by Leballo from Basutoland as the time when trouble should ensue everywhere. The police had their finger on the pulse of the situation to such an extent that they destroyed the cells everywhere, with the result that they were completely immobilized. Only in King William’s Town did a number of persons gather near the police station, but the police were not caught unawares. When these people congregated near the police station, the police immediately took action. One was shot. The police immediately brought the situation under control. Most of the attackers were immediately arrested and those whom the police could not arrest then and there were arrested within a day or two. In the case of East London such a group also congregated near a wood in accordance with this so-called great plan (which was completely destroyed). The police simply arrested them there. Now is that something to be mentioned in Parliament as proof of the disorder which is supposed to· prevail in South Africa? In fact, here we have clear proof that the police were in control of the whole situation. I am surprised that anyone should try to exaggerate this “danger”.

I want to add that when the Leader of the Opposition goes further and intimates that there are reasons for the growth of a movement like Poqo, and finds those reasons in the fact that some of those people live in hostels?—because he said that riots take place particularly in such places—and says that the reason is that we do not give the Bantu property rights in the locations (not only the right to own a house but the right to own land),. then he is busy giving a justification for the growth of Poqo. Then he is trying to say that it is understandable why such an organization comes into being and grows. I think that is quite wrong because this is not an organization—and I think the Snyman Report has already proved it in addition to what we can infer from newspaper reports—which was born from grievances. It is simply a murderous gang which has other objectives and which is incited by leaders who are far away. It just made misuse of the fact that many people were gathered together there. What would have happened if the opposite policy had been followed in accordance with the aforementioned points? What will happen if the United Party is taken at its word and those people are all given the right to own land and houses and no restrictions are imposed on their movements and one relaxes or abolishes the identity book system, or if influx control is abolished partially or entirely? What will be the result if one eliminates that type of alleged grievance? Then still more of those dissatisfied Bantu will be able to congregate there, who can be incited to the same extent by the grievance that they canno obtain the franchise, because that is the type of thing which the leaders of the Poqo movement like Leballo teach these people to demand! That, which the Leader of the Opposition is not prepared to give them either, is the demand in regard to which these troubles are incited. In spite of that, he wants to try to defend the existence or growth of an organization like Poqo. I think that is very irresponsible and deplorable.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition accused me of having said something nonsensical in a speech the other day, or else I was wrongly reported, he said, when I spoke about the 500,000 additional jobs which would have to be provided in the next 50 years in primary and particularly in secondary industries to comply with the demands of the increasing number of Bantu. I have often used this argument already, even in this House, and I thought that hon. members understood it. I will repeat my argument. Sociologists have determined in various countries, including Japan, and also in Western countries, that if a person is employed in secondary industry he is, on an average, the direct provider of the needs of five people, his wife and three children. There are some who have more children, but there are some workers, on the other hand, who are not married.

Is he included in the five?

Yes. On an average, five people are provided for by the wages of one person; that is their direct maintenance, as a family. In other words, if 100,000 persons are employed, it means that they provide directly for 500,000 people (the man, his wife and children). If there are 500,000 workers it is therefore 2,500,000 people who will be provided for in that way. So far that is simple. After that the point is that in the areas where those people live and where they spend the money they earn—not the place where they earn the money, but the place where they spend it—there then develops, according to those sociologists, a large variety of tertiary activities, consisting of all the various industrial services, other services, educational facilities, church facilities, commercial facilities, arising from the machnery of local government, from the maintenance of roads, etc. etc. According to the sociologists, the jobs occupied in this way are always five times as many as are occupied in the basic activities. In other words, if there are 100,000 people directly employed in secondary industries, it means that in the tertiary activities five times as many people earn a living as the result of the continued circulation of the money and the various services that have to be rendered. It would then be 500,000, and every one of them also provides for an average family of five persons. In other words, in the tertiary activities which are built up on the earnings in primary and secondary industry, the number of workers and their dependants is multiplied by five.

Has this tertiary group a fourth group?

No. The tertiary activities form the whole superstructure of this society which depends on the earnings of those who earn their money directly in the manufacturing processes. Surely that is very simple. [Interjections.] If hon. members do not believe it, let them make calculations and test it in their own society. How many of our people are engaged in secondary industries and in the primary activities, i.e. in agriculture, in the second case, and in industries on the other hand?

[Inaudible.]

No, not those who are employed there but those who live there.

What one has to take into account is the number of men earning wages in industry on which their families live. And then one has to find out how many persons there are who earn their living in that way, and then how many are employed in all the other branches of activity, and then work out the ratio. I give the hon. member the assurance that what certain sociologists have worked out in many countries—and he can check it—is that there are five times as many workers in tertiary activities as there are in basic activities. I have adopted this scientific standpoint, and on that basis it means that if we can succeed during the course of the next 40 or 50 years in employing an additional 500,000 Bantu workers in secondary industry it will provide employment for four or five times as many in other occupations if they form their own communities which will require their own superstructure. Together with their dependants that will be 12,500,000 people.

Now you are contradicting Professor Tomlinson.

No, not at all.

What about the other Bantu? [Interjections.]

Order!

I set out from the supposition that there are many people who already earn a living through existing jobs. I am talking about the position when there will be 500,000 additional new jobs in secondary industry. That means that 12,500,000 men, women and children will be cared for in their own community and in their own areas if these jobs are there or near by. That is my contention.

May I ask you something with reference to that?

Let me first conclude the argument. My contention is that where this possibility exists theoretically, it simply means that we must just succeed in having such industrial development during the next 50 years, and it will be based on the stage of industrial development we have already reached. Then I really expect no more development during the next 50 years than the development we have had during the past 50 years, when we started with no industries at all. In other words, I assume conservatively that there will be less increase in employment, relatively speaking, during the next 50 years than there has been in the previous 50 years. The hon. member may put his question now.

The Press Report stated that with the creation of 500,000 jobs during the next 50 years the Prime Minister would create a position where the total Native population would be in employment. I should just like the Prime Minister to explain to us what the difference is between the 12,500,000 and the 20,000,000 to 30,000,000 Bantu who will be there then.

The assumption is that in the year 2000 the Bantu population will number 19,500,000. I am talking more or less in terms of the position in the year 2000. We already have to support something like 9,000,000 at the present time. In other words, if an additional 12,500,000 can be taken care of by creating new avenues of employment for the breadwinners, then you will reach the position where there is full employment and where everybody will be cared for. That is my contention. I repeat that in making this analysis it is not just an estimate; it is based on inferences drawn from statistics which have been collected and broken down. I may say that on one occasion I asked Dr. van Eck whether such a calculation appeared to him to be correct. My question was: “This is the information which has been furnished to me. Is there any factor which to your own knowledge refutes this argument?” He informed me that as far as his knowledge went it appeared to be correct.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has also made the accusation against me that we have dawdled with the development of border industries. Surely that is not true. Let us analyse for a moment what has happened with the planning of border industries. As a Government we could have established many border industries if we had wished to do so. We all know perfectly well, however, that the policy of this country is to use and to encourage private initiative. It is only in respect of certain key industries that the Government intervenes directly. In other words, it was essential to do a certain amount of educative work so that not only the politicians would support this policy but also so as to obtain the co-operation of the entrepreneurs in private industry. Great resistance had to be overcome ten years ago when I first advanced this idea of border industries as the most likely way in which Whites could be persuaded to establish industries of their own in such a way that it could promote Bantu development in their areas—industries which the Whites could create and build up and retain for themselves. The proposal was ridiculed by the Opposition—and most of the industrialists are supporters of the United Party. All that opposition either had to be overcome through persuasive work or we had to face the choice of State intervention, in a socialistic way, in order to bring about the establishment of industries in border areas. We chose the course of persuasive work. I readily concede that such persuasive work is a lengthy process, as a result, amongst other things, of the continual agitation against it by the Opposition. In other words, this Opposition has proved a great stumbling-block in the way of South Africa’s progress. The Opposition lack drive but they do have the power to apply the brake, particularly in these spheres. In the past few years, however, thanks to the efforts of certain committees appointed by the Government under the leadership of economists of repute, and also as a result of the establishment of my Economic Advisory Council, through which we have been able to bring home to the private sector an appreciation of what is really involved here, this scheme has made tremendous headway. This process of establishing industries is growing in various areas. Natal is one of the areas which is already benefiting by it and which will derive ever-increasing benefits from this very policy. I see that the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) looks askance at me; but I think the time will come when he will still thank me for the fact that Natal to-day has so many industries because of this policy of border development. Another area which will benefit greatly is undoubtedly the Eastern Province, which is also an area that is suitable for border industry development. I know that there are going to be difficulties. There are difficulties even in an area like East London, but East London has already derived great benefit from the establishment of the Lords textile factory, and it will certainly be grateful. I hope, that we did not listen to the United Party but that we went our own way. This will continue to be the position, and I have no doubt therefore that although the development of the border areas has been slow, it is now getting into its stride. It will be able to grow in such a way that if the average is taken, it will be found in the long run that the hope expressed by the Tomlinson Commission will not prove wrong. It must be remembered that a snowball starts from small beginnings and then gradually grows.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that I contended that the policy of separate development would only begin to show dividends in 1978. That is obviously a nonsensical statement. Dividends are not only reaped when the turning-point is reached in the curve as far as the growth of the Bantu population in the White areas is concerned. That is only one of the things that can be achieved through our policy. As far as the apartheid policy is concerned it is not only a question of when we are going to succeed in turning back to the reserves the influx of Bantu and in reducing the numbers of Bantu in the White area more and more. It was only in that connection that the date 1978 was mentioned. The curve of growth of the Bantu population within the White area would have risen much higher if the United Party had been in power. In other words, as far as that point is concerned dividends are already being obtained in the shape of a flattening of the curve; that curve is becoming flatter and flatter and will reach its turning-point in 1978 or sooner if we can expedite the process. That is simply the date by which it is estimated that we will reap the fruits of the policies that we are carrying out. Apart from that, it is by no means the only or the main result that can be regarded as one of the dividends of our policy. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition can take my word for it that as a result of the development of the apartheid policy and, amongst other things, as a result of this development in the Transkei, the Bantu are becoming better disposed towards the White man. Note well: I do not shrink back from anything at all; I do not retract what I have always said in connection with the Transkei and its potentialities and the implementation of our policy. And my party does not shrink back from it either because we know that that is in fact where our salvation lies. I can assure the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the Bantu masses today are much more favourably disposed towards us than they were in the past. I say that with absolute certainty. We would have had an opportunity to bring an early end to this racial strife if we had only been left in peace. I must accept, however, that the events in the outside world and in the way in which the outside world has acted, particularly in parts of Africa, and the examples which have been set on our borders where Britain is taking whole territories out of the hands of the White man and placing them in the hands of the Black man, have had a certain amount of influence on the South African Bantu. In spite of this, however, the Bantu are becoming more favourably disposed towards the White man. I also firmly believe that if the Opposition had only been a little more responsible, if its leaders and members had not seen an opportunity of gaining votes by continually causing difficulties here for our policy, thus inspiring the Blacks to cause trouble, we would have reaped the fruits of our policy much sooner and to a much greater extent than we are doing to-day.

I want to deal now with another point which the Leader of the Opposition made here. He levelled a reproach against the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs by suggesting that the hon. the Minister had spoken without his book or had said something which he should not have said when he stated during the week-end and on other occasions that he had reason to believe that the position might become more difficult for us, that the scope of the cold war was expanding and that that meant trouble in the future. The Leader of the Opposition says that that is something which one ought not to say. That was the implication of his statement. I want to remind the Leader of the Opposition of the great respect which he, together with his whole party, has for Mr. Churchill. I want to remind him that one of the things for which Mr. Churchill was renowned was the realistic way in which he was prepared during the war openly to admit the hard times which lay ahead of England, but at the same time he also stated if they stood their ground and fought back with their backs to the wall, all their sacrifices and sorrows would be compensated for by victory. When the leader of Britain warns his nation and says. “We face difficult times, but let us stand firm; let us fight with our backs to the wall and then we will achieve victory”, then he is expressing a fine sentiment. But when Eric Louw or anybody else on our side encourages our people and at the same time warns them that difficult times lie ahead of South Africa, that pressure is being exerted from abroad, that we are being attacked by UNO. that those attacks are growing in intensity, then it is no longer a fine sentiment; then it is folly. When we tell our people to stand firm and, if necessary, to fight with their backs to the wall for their survival, then it is not a good thing. When we do it then it is not a good thing.

What did the hon. the Minister refer to?

I shall come to that. I am first dealing now with the basic morality of that attitude. I want everybody to understand perfectly clearly that when such warnings are issued and the Leader of the Opposition and his followers try to accuse the persons who issue those warnings of doing the wrong thing and try to belittle them, I must condemn that attitude. I think South Africa ought to be grateful for the fact that this Government is prepared to point out on the one hand what dangers lie ahead of us but is prepared on the other hand to send out a message of hope and courage. That is why I personally never hesitate to point out that there are dangers ahead of us and that those dangers may be very serious; that in a sense we are standing with our backs to the wall if we as a White race want to continue to govern South Africa and if we want to survive here. If we want to retain the prosperity that we have, instead of giving if away gradually like the United Party, then we are standing with our backs to the wall. In addition to that, however, we have faith—I say so too— that if the nation stands together and fights for its rights and for its survival, that we shall be. victorious because the forces which are mobilized against us neither have the morality nor the strength to be able to achieve victory in the long run.

I come now to the second question which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked in this connection. It was not even necessary for him to put that question; all he had to do was to look at what is blatantly taking place to-day. What is blatantly taking place is that UNO has now appointed a watchdog committee which is making more and more serious and acrimonious allegations, which is trying to elicit evidence, even from South Africa, even from Opposition circles, and which has gone so far as to say that it wonders whether it should not invite the United Party to come and give evidence. In other words, this is a body which has been established to interfere continually in South Africa’s domestic policy. There are also other committees of UNO which are making vociferous attacks upon us. There is the secretary of the General Council at UNO who, although he is purely an official of a body of which we are a member and in which we also have a say, went to a meeting of that committee and arrogated the right to himself to take part in attacks on the policy of a member state in a way which in our opinion was improper. These are signs which are unmistakable. We find that at those meetings the representatives of some of the bigger states expressed the opinion that South Africa should make more concessions although they did not support us when we made a concession in receiving the Carpio Commission, a concession from which great benefits accrued to South Africa. After all, it was Mr. Yates of the United States who, amongst other things, asked for new concessions, and it was Mr. King of Great Britain who supported the U.S.A. in this request. Thus we find direct public statements which show which way the wind is blowing, and when the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs says that he has certain information then he is naturally aware of other facts over and above these perfectly clear signs that these attacks are being intensified, but these facts are sufficient to justify what he said in public. Furthermore, we have all read in the Press that Russia has stated that the time is past when ordinary steps should be taken; that the time has come when other methods will have to be used. We know that some of the African States are appealing to the bigger nations to go so far as to resort to violence against South Africa. We cannot pretend to be deaf and that we are not aware of this; why then should we be asked why this particular Minister said, “I have reason to know?” We all have reason to believe what the position is and that it constitutes a threat to us, but we all have reasons to believe too, if we want to pass a sound judgment, that if we stand together in South Africa and offer resistance, there is no reason why such an attack should be successful. South Africa is following a policy which offers decent opportunities for every section of the population. What has really been the desire of mankind throughout history and is still its desire? Every nation prefers to govern itself, even if it does not do it so well, rather than to be governed by the foreigner. That is our policy. We are prepared to allow every Bantu nation to govern itself but by the same token we want to govern ourselves. That is what Ghana wanted to do, and that is what every state in Africa desires to do. Nowhere do we find that it was the desire of any nation to hold the reins of government together with the foreigner; nowhere do we find that it was the desire to introduce multi-racialism. The more we stand together therefore to make the world realize that in fulfilling that fundamental political desire of the human being, in making it possible for each ethnic group to govern itself, we are following a course which is a highly moral one, the more we will succeed in avoiding trouble. If it is clear that we also stand together in the building up of our economic prosperity—which fortunately is the case in South Africa—then it will be realized more generally that this is a prosperous country which cannot lightly be attacked and, which, moreover, as a friend, is an asset to every powerful country, because it is the only country in Africa really that will be in a position to do something for Western civilization. If we can make the big Western nations realize of what value we are to Western civilization in the struggle against Communism and that we occupy one of the key positions, economically and geographically, if the U.S.A. and Britain will only realize that in us they have the strongest friend in Africa, it will be both to their advantage and to ours. Unlike others we do not vacillate between Communism and Western civilization. We do not try to obtain the support of the U.S.A. by ostensibly leaning over to the other side. The Republic of South Africa states its attitude quite candidly. Let the poliical paries in this country act jointly in this regard. All that we desire in return from Britain and the U.S.A. is the realization and the acceptance that we must be allowed to solve our internal problems ourselves and that we are trying to do so as Christians and that as far as our foreign relationships are concerned, they have in us a strong, a good friend who together with them can oppose Communism and help to save Western civilization. If we all stand together to bring home this realization then there is absolutely nothing that can undermine South Africa and our future.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that the morality of our views is not trusted. He also suggests that he does not believe that there is a moral basis for our attitude. I cannot understand how it is possible for him or any other person to believe that honestly because if there is anything which is moral it is the very thing which they find repugnant in our attitude, as I have just explained it, and that is our willingness to grant the right to every group of people to govern themselves. In our desire to do what is right, we go one step further, however. We say that we have seen what has happened in Africa and that we have learnt this lesson, that those states who wished to govern themselves and who were given the opportunity to do so only after some measure of assistance and education, succeeded in doing so after a fashion, but in those states where the metropolitan powers suddenly withdrew, they did not succeed and it led to chaos. We say that we do not want to hand over the reins of government over our fellowmen to a small clique to rule over the masses, even if to begin with those masses prefer it to a White government. We prefer to lead them step by step to the stage where they can take over the reins of government so that it will be possible for the broad masses to advance step by step. In other words, we want to ensure that they advance politically on democratic lines. Does the Western world regard it as moral to leave them to their own destinies, or, worse still, to hand over the reins of government in South Africa to Bantu who have not even proved yet that they are capable of governing themselves? Is it prepared to allow everything that the White man has built up and everything that countries like Britain and the United States have invested here and have built up here for themselves, to be lost? Is everything that such countries can get out of South Africa through harmonious international trade to be lost? Is it moral, if all this is sacrificed, to do an injustice to the White, Coloured, Indian and Bantu masses by handing over the government of the country to this small group of Bantu agitators, which is the only thing that can happen? Nobody would suggest that it is moral. I do not think that they believe that. On the other hand, is it moral to say, as the Opposition says: We are going to establish a form of government in which the White man will entrench himself for ever with the other groups dragged in as junior partners, in a way which we believe will not be permanent but which, as in other parts of Africa, may lead to the sacrifice of the White heritage? Are we to regard it as moral if a party says it will continue to discriminate, and will continue to dominate although it wants to form one nation in one fatherland with large majorities of Blacks? Or is it moral to say that one grants to the other man what one wants for oneself; that one grants him what was traditionally his area, and one grants oneself what was traditionally one’s own area? Is it not moral to say that I grant him self-government over what his forefathers left to him, and I grant to my people self-government over what my forefathers left to us? Which of these two standpoints is the moral one? What is the moral and honest course to adopt in this regard? How is it possible that there are still people who cannot understand this?

Now I come to the reproach made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that we have lost our grip because we cannot say what our policy is and that we are simply asking them all the time what their policy is! If there is one thing which I am sure we have done throughout the years—and perhaps more particularly I—it has been to indicate in the greatest detail what our policy was. Not only did we say what we are going to do at the moment; we also said what we would do in the distant future. We did not only say what we would do in the near future, but we said how the implementation of this policy would develop. As against that, we get from the United Party (they who always ask what our policy is) dozens of different answers in regard to their colour policy—never one definite reply; never one clear direction. When we get, as we did again recently, another so-called new statement of policy, which is only an old statement of policy in a somewhat different guise, we find that the Leader of the Opposition again remained so vague that even his own newspapers and the people who write letters in those newspapers say that they still cannot understand what he really wants. Nobody understands his policy, not even the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker), although he pretends to understand it. Therefore I say to the Leader of the Opposition that for him to reproach me for having lost my grip because I have no policy, or have not expounded my policy, applies more to him and really ridicules him.

The Leader of the Opposition referred to agriculture, and said that we should adopt a clear standpoint in regard to agriculture. Let me tell him this—he can discuss the details under the Agricultural Vote—that if ever there was a Government which consistently assisted the farmers in all their difficulties, it is this Government. Never has so much been done for the farmer from year to year and step by step as this Government has done. I should like to know what the Leader of the Opposition would have done for the farmers when they were suffering from these vagaries of nature. I am not even referring to the fact that he would have left the farmers to the mercy of a multi-racial Government which would have treated the Bantu farmer on an equal footing with the White farmer, and would have been compelled to do so, with all the trouble that would have caused for the White farmers. I say that he on his own could at least have done no more for the farmers than has been done by this Government. We have not finished dealing with this problem yet. Every time Nature creates a new situation—I am now referring specifically to the Northern Transvaal where the recent drought has created a specific new situation—the Government will not hesitate to ensure that the farmer will be able to remain on his farm, and if necessary begin anew. The Government will even do more than that. It will ensure that a man will not simply remain on his farm where his misery will just increase because it is not an economic unit, but it will take steps, inter alia the steps recently announced by the Minister of Lands, to consolidate those uneconomic farms into economic units so that the farmer can make a decent living there. The other farmers will also be given an opportunity under new irrigation schemes. In other words, we are not interested in the farmer’s vote, but in his family and his progress. On the other hand, the United Party is more interested in the farmer’s vote and tries to exploit their difficulties in troublous times, in the same way that in regard to that story about discrimination it was interested in White votes and not in the actual colour policy.

I regret that this debate had to be characterized by these attacks by the one side on the other. A positive analysis of our serious problems would have been more suitable. I want to say that if South Africa were to do what the Leader of the Opposition says it should do, namely to have a change of Government, it will be the greatest mistake it has ever made, because internal peace cannot be bought in that way and stability will not be obtained, nor will there be industrial progress. Everybody should realize that the United Party policy is the course followed in Nyasaland and in Northern Rhodesia, namely partnership, and the troubles Southern Rhodesia are now experiencing would also have been the troubles of South Africa. The United Party would not have been able to make peace with the outside world because it would have had to refuse the demands made, or else its Government would increasingly have slipped down the downhill road until South Africa eventually was no longer a White man’s country. Therefore the appeal he made that South Africa should vote for his party and that there should be a change of government is one of the most futile appeals that could ever be made. It would be dangerous for South Africa to listen to that appeal.

The hon. the Prime Minister has raised two questions which I do not propose to deal with. The first was his claim that it was the traditional policy of his party ultimately to develop independent Bantustans. I shall leave that to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) to deal with as he has dealt with it before.

The second matter which I do not propose to deal with—quite frankly I must admit that I do not understand it—was the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement in respect of the 500,000 jobs. All I can make of it is best expressed—

The hon. the Prime Minister has seen fit to regret the turn the debate has taken. I too regret the turn the debate has taken but if he will put into the debate the sort of speeches that he did and make the sort of accusations which he did, he could have expected that this would happen. I have the report of the Cape Argus of 30 March of what I am supposed to have said at Pinelands. I also have the report, which I see is a summarized report,, which was read by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee). It is a pity that there were two reports and that he should have taken the worse one of the two. It is also a pity that he did not read the whole report. What I said was—

Here is what the hon. member read out—

I do not believe I ever said that, but no matter—

No quotation at all; this is a summary—

And there the hon. gentleman stopped quoting. Why did he not read further?—

Sir, there is a vast difference between those two, because this movement I do not believe would have grown, no matter where it started and how it started, were it not for the policies of this Government and the sort of seed-beds which it has germinated for the growth not only of this movement but also for Communism in South Africa.

May I put a question to the hon. member? From what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, was it not quite clear that what he conveyed was that the Poqo movement grew because they had justifiable grievances. Is that so or is it not so?

This is another attempt by this hon. gentleman as we have had from him so often to put words in the mouths of speakers on our side and to try and reach conclusions which are entirely unjustified. Let the hon. member read my speech and then he will see what I meant. The position is perfectly simple. This is the sort of shocking allegation we are getting. It is a pity the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs is away, because here we have again the suggestion that the Opposition is trying to justify Poqo and that the Opposition associates itself wih Poqo.

Read your own speech.

Let the hon. Prime Minister know now what his own party is doing.

Assuming you said what you say you said, is not justification the implication?

I said there were reasons why it grew. I did not justify its growing. There is a vast difference between the two.

May I put a question to the hon. Leader of the Opposition? Surely one cannot understand the difference when the attack is that they should own land, etc., and that then Poqo would not have arisen. Surely it can only mean that these are understandable and justifiable reasons.

I am surprised at the hon. the Prime Minister.

My surprise is greater.

Does the hon. the Prime Minister not know the difference between “understandable” and “justifiable”?

It can be both “understandable” and “justifiable”.

“Understandable” in the condemnatory way, understandable because you have created a seed-bed here in South Africa which has led to the growth of Communism and which has provided a fertile seed-bed for the growth of these organizations once their seeds are planted. As we have said time and time again.

What is much worse, what is much more irresponsible, is the attempt by these hon. members to associate half the White voters of South Africa with a movement of this kind, to try and create the impression that they are going to get support from this side of the House, and the hon. member there knows, because he sat in the House when I said it, that the United Party was the greatest enemy that Poqo had in South Africa. And despite that…

Prove that.

It stands in Hansard. Let him go and read it. I stand by that, and I challenge the hon. member to disprove that I said that. Having heard that, he comes and makes an irresponsible statement of this kind.

I am sorry that the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs is guilty of something of that kind. He made a similar statement during the week-end. It is quite clear that this is to be the line of Government policy.

Let us now deal with the reply of the hon. Prime Minister. What do we find? That the hon. gentleman who was accused of losing his grip in that with the aid of an efficient Police Force he will, I have no reason to doubt, destroy Poqo and other organizations of that kind, but is making no attempt to find the causes for that organization having taken root in South Africa, or the causes for it having spread.

Mention them?

I believe there are many reasons, and I believe one of the reasons is that under the policies of this Government you have established a rootless proletariat in the urban areas with no stake in the maintenance of law and order.

Is that understandable or justifiable?

Can I put it to the hon. the Prime Minister in this way: A man gets drunk and has an accident. That is the cause. It is understandable that it happens when he is drunk. It is no justification for the accident.

But you say that that is sufficient explanation for the accident?

The fact that he was made drunk was the cause of the accident, and it is understandable that it happened, but there is no justification for it. Surely now we understand the position. Let us take it a little further. I said secondly that there is a position in respect of the Coloureds and the Asiatics—we warned the Government that if they wanted to retain their support, they should treat them differently from what they were doing. We have warned that there were the first signs of them making common cause with the Bantu population. I thank Providence for the fact that the vast mass of the Native population are a law-abiding population. I thank Providence for the fact that the vast mass of the Cape Coloured people are a law-abiding population. But I am afraid that the hon. the Prime Minister is creating a situation in which the possibilities of the germination of activities of this kind are such that he may well lose that support and may well lose that responsibility. [Time limit.]

A leader in this House has never yet made himself more guilty of trying to defend the acts of sabotage, the communistic propaganda and the agitation of these irresponsible people in South Africa, than the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has just done, not only in the way in which his speech has been reported, but also as he has just stated it now. What other significance has it when the Leader of the Opposition says here that the Prime Minister and the Government are not taking any steps to remove the causes of sabotage and the causes of the acts of Poqo? What does he say are the causes? The causes, he says, are that this Government does not govern by consent but because this Government acts in a dictatorial manner. In other words, he says to South Africa that as long as the Black man does not have the vote with us, as long as the Coloured man does not have the vote with us …

I did not say that.

He says that as long as those people do not give this Government permission to govern, they have the right to try to overthrow this Government with the help of a Poqo movement. That is all his speech means. It is of no avail for him to try to explain away his speech at Pinelands and to misinterpret the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) here. He comes to the House and repeats that because this Government does not have the consent of the Black man and of the Coloured man to govern, he can understand why there are Poqo and sabotage movements, and we have to stop them. In other words: Give them the franchise and permit them to vote with us.

Nonsense.

But that is all the speech means. The hon. members do not do that here alone. I should like to bring to the notice of the hon. the Prime Minister, where the members now come and blame us for no longer enjoying the goodwill overseas that we enjoyed in the past, what is written overseas from here, and I am reading from the Daily Mirror of 12 April 1962, a newspaper that is published in Sydney, Australia—

Those are the headlines. Then it says this—

Now listen to this—

By Government decree little Tlou, not yet in his teens, was banished from his homeland. That happened in 1954. Now, eight years later, Tlou is still in exile. He is Case No. 6 in a horrifying document called “The Banished People” compiled by a Human Rights Welfare Committee of White, Brown and Black South Africans concerned with the plight of people the Government has doomed to live indefinitely in often semi-desert spots, which are South Africa’s Siberia.

Then he continues—

The Government of Dr. Verwoerd keeps tight-lipped about its method of dealing with those who have dared to stand against or criticized its “White-man-boss” law-making. The list of case histories sometimes has often pitifully scant information.

Beside some names there are such remarks as “no further information … may still be banished or “disappeared from place of banishment about 1959”.

He continues in this vein and then he paints a picture of how we in South Africa are sending people to Siberia in a much harsher manner than they do in Red Russia. Mr. Chairman, do you know who is the writer of this article? One Stanley Hurst. And now I wonder who Mr. Stanley Hurst is? And then I find that the Sunday Times of 21 October 1962 reports, with reference to the return of the immigrants to South Africa—

To go and vilify South Africa further. Sir, when a newspaper such as the Sunday Times with a Stanley Hurst, writes such things about South Africa, it is a matter that concerns not only the Minister of Justice, for it is the worst form of treason against South Africa emanating here from South Africa, and that is the newspaper, the only newspaper, in which the Leader of the Opposition now publishes his new policy.

Which Sunday Times was that?

The Sunday Times of 21 October 1962.

Is that the same Hurst who wrote the article?

It is the Stanley Hurst who wrote this article in the Daily Mirror of Sydney, Australia, and who is now sent by the Sunday Times to continue his mud-slinging. I should like to ask the Opposition why they continue to defend this kind of newspaper? [Interjections.]

How do you know it is the same Stanley Hurst?

Of course it is the same one. It is an article sent from Johannesburg by Stanley Hurst, and that news editor of the Sunday Times is going to Australia. But here we again have a good example of a whole lot of hon. members opposite who want to defend him and his campaign of vilification. Those people who are betraying South Africa in this way, who are carrying on the worst possible agitation against South Africa, are being defended by members of the United Party.

They are defending the traitors.

Yes, in the same way in which they defended Patrick Duncan. The hon. member for Green Point is here now (Maj. van der Byl). Let us read now what they are saying in Basutoland about Patrick Duncan. This now is someone in Basutoland who is writing about Patrick Duncan to his relatives here in South Africa—

Listen to what he says:

And then the hon. member for Green Point comes along and says that we should not regard this Angel Gabriel as a man who is sabotaging South Africa. He says we should not regard this man as virtually red. Thus they have defended Patrick Duncan and so they are defending Stanley Hurst of the Sunday Times. And then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says in Pinelands that the people must understand well that the Government does not rule by consent, and because it has not had permission from the Black voters and the Coloured voters, for that reason there is a Poqo movement and that is why there is sabotage. [Time limit.]

I do not propose to follow the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) as far as the examples of people who may have misconducted themselves are concerned, for we are busy with the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister, and we should like to discuss with the hon. the Prime Minister the great matters of policy for which he is responsible.

I am sorry the hon. the Prime Minister is again persisting to-day with a statement that has already been contradicted by his own Press, namely, that the idea of the Bantustan policy is the traditional policy of the National Party. We have already settled that matter in this House on a previous occasion, and in consequence of that a leader appeared in the Burger in which it said that if the complaint of the United Party had been that the policy of the National Party had not changed, it would have been a serious charge, but to say that the policy of the National Party has changed is a compliment to the National Party. It has changed to adapt itself to the times. I do not wish to repeat the quotations we have already made on a previous occasion, but I do think it is interesting when we look at the booklet I have here in my hand. I have here a booklet, “Die Nasionale Party se Konstitusie” (“ The Constitution of the National Party”), published in the year 1960, after the hon. the Prime Minister had already assumed his high office, and on page 10 of the booklet under the heading “Staatkundige Posisie en Toekoms” (Constitutional Position and Future), the party states very clearly—

And then paragraph (6)—

What has that got to do with it?

If one gives away parts of the country, and if one creates independent states, surely one is then derogating from one’s sovereign independence. But I continue reading—

1. (9) The unitary basis of a united South Africa shall be maintained as laid down in the South Africa Act, and no power or right that could be exercised in conflict with that will be conferred upon any province.

And if that is not enough, I read Clause 16 on page 14—

They are taken together—

If the first quotation has not convinced the hon. the Prime Minister as yet, I should like to ask him when Clause 16 of the Constitution of the National Party was changed after he became Prime Minister?

But we all know that the Prime Minister stated in this House—I have the quotations before me—that this policy is a policy which was not desired by the National Party. It was foisted upon the National Party by the circumstances that had developed and that had “headed” for us to use the words of the hon. the Prime Minister. As my hon. Leader has said, it was an attempt by the National Party to try to mitigate the criticism, the condemnation of the world outside. The hon. the Prime Minister himself admitted it when he announced it. But not one of us to-day will try to show that the change of policy has succeeded in bringing about that better situation. In that respect it was a total and complete failure. Since this policy was announced, we have lost the support of great Western powers at UN such as Great Britain, the United States and France who stood by us in the past and tried to mitigate the position in the interests of South Africa. They are no longer on our side.

They are not even on the side of Rhodesia.

Even Portugal could not support apartheid. And that was after the announcement of the policy, after the Prime Minister had stated that he was not keen to have this process of fragmentation, as he called it. He did not want it, but he said he had to do it because of the circumstances that were building up against South Africa. It has failed. Why then should the people of South Africa be asked to support a Government still further in regard to a policy that has failed in one of its main objectives, and which is landing our country in greater difficulties and dangers and uncertainties from day to day, a policy that forces the hon. the Minister of Justice to state in the Press that he will come along time and again for greater and greater powers? What a Government! When will the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Justice be able to say to the nation: We now have sufficient powers; we are now going to put a stop to these things. He cannot. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has put it so clearly that the causes of our country’s difficulties must be sought in the policy of the Government.

What do the people say?

The hon. the Prime Minister relied upon theory in his apology to-day, in his attempt to justify his policy. That to me is the most tragic aspect of Government policy to-day: It denies reality; it denies the facts, and it relies completely on a theory of racial separation in all spheres which does not exist in reality, and which really cannot be achieved, certainly not during the life-time of any member sitting in this House now. Why should we try to combat an existing problem, present difficulties existing around us, with something that exists purely theoretically in the imagination of the Prime Minister and one or two members of the Cabinet? I should like to mention two examples of how this theory of the future is full of contradictions and full of new dangers. I hear the Government proposes to get rid of Alexandra Township in Johannesburg. There is something to be said for that, at that. But we also hear that the Government also proposes to build, on the site upon which Alexandra Township stands to-day, no less than eight hostels for single Natives, male and female, and every hostel will accommodate 2,500 people, single, unattached Natives.

What is so funny about that?

I wish it were funny, but it is one of the most dangerous and most tragic proposals that has ever been made in South Africa. It is one of the few places in which there are conditions of misery and slum conditions prevailing that will have to be cleaned up. To go along now and destroy the family life of the people there and to expect married men and married women to leave their wives and husbands and to live in hostels in their thousands, every hostel having 2,500 little rooms, and to live there, deprived of the elementary rights of any human being, the right to a family, the right to a domestic life, the right of the husband, wife and children to be together, and to expect that that will bring about peace, is one of the most dangerous ideas there could be. What has to happen there? What are we going to do with the prostitution, what are we going to do with the illegitimate children, what are we going to do with the unnatural practices that will arise under such circumstances? To deprive tens of thousands of people of the right to which human beings are entitled, and to say that that is a policy that possibly may bring a solution to the racial problems in South Africa, is too ludicrous to be taken seriously. It is dangerous. But of what is that a symbol? It is a symbol of the unwillingness of the National Party to apply their policy consistently and to give it a moral basis, as my Leader has said. If one believes that partition is the answer, you have to carry it through. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) has now made two submissions. The first is that in the constitution of the National Party we have stated that we shall defend the sovereignty of South Africa in every respect, and now that we are carrying out the Transkei policy, we are derogating from that sovereignty, he says. It is one of the most foolish arguments I have ever come across, for it would have amounted to the same thing that because Great Britain granted sovereignty to South Africa, because Great Britain has granted sovereignty to all her dominions, she has now abandoned her own sovereignty. The concept of sovereignty is not a quantitative concept; it is a qualitative concept. It is the substance of sovereignty that you are sovereign to manage your own affairs. The fact that you are granting sovereignty to another really lends force to your own sovereignty. It shows you can do so. It is not a quantitative conception, it is a qualitative conception—the concept of the substance of sovereignty. To say that we have less sovereignty by granting self-government to the Transkei is an argument that does not hold water.

His second submission was that in Clause 16 of our Constitution we have said that we recognize the Coloureds and the Bantu as sections of the people of our country. That is true. We admit that, and the inhabitants of the Transkei are now a part of the people of the country, and the fact that we are granting them certain powers of government, will not make them any less a part of the people of this country. It is simply inconceivable that one can argue that way.

I wish to come to the third point made by him, on the hostels at Alexandra. The hon. member has stated that that township will be cleaned up and hostels will be erected for single Bantu. What right has the hon. member to assume that we shall break up families and will put women in one hostel and men in another? Where does he get that from? The married Bantu will be moved and accommodated at Diepkloof and other places. The single Bantu there who are working there at the present time, will be accommodated in those hostels. At the present time there are more than 50,000 Bantu in Alexandra, and there are all the evils he has referred to. These hostels will be as great a blessing to the Rand as Meadowlands has been. They also condemned Meadowlands in the same way they are now condemning this matter in anticipation, but this will not deter us from our duty.

I should like to raise another matter. I should like to focus attention on what is really happening overseas, something that must perturb each one of us. There is a process of conditioning of the public against South Africa, and not for purposes of a cold war. I cannot see it in any other light than that the people overseas, in America and Britain and elsewhere, are being conditioned against South Africa, that something more than merely a cold war should happen in South Africa. Where this conditioning is taking place, such as by that T.V. film “Sabotage in South Africa”, I can come to only one conclusion and that is that those untruths have to condition the people overseas against South Africa for something more than merely a cold war. In the past we have seen such conditioning taking place in the form of propaganda, and that is what is still happening to-day, to find justification for destroying this small nation of South Africa. There are the opinions quoted by the Prime Minister, of Mr. Yates and Mr. King. We could mention many others. As recently as a few days ago certain judgments were expressed on South Africa by leading politicians overseas. This state of affairs should perturb all of us, and I am very pleased that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has drawn the attention of the public to the fact that we are experiencing a crisis and that we should know what we are in for, and that we should stand together. But now the tragic part of it is that the Opposition thinks that when it says things here, it is half the people of South Africa saying it, and I want to deny that. Half the S.A.P.’s who voted for that Party are not supporters of Poqo as the Leader of the Opposition and his people in this House are. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may not accuse the Opposition of being supporters of Poqo.

But their conduct shows that.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that the United Party are supporters of Poqo.

I find it very difficult to withdraw it, but I do withdraw.

That is a conditional withdrawal, and it has to be unconditional.

The hon. member may proceed.

As that is the position overseas, I say it is such a tragic thing that the Opposition, as they have again done this afternoon, is strengthening the hands of Poqo. They should remember that it is not how they understand their words, but how Poqo and the P.A.C. understand their words. They do not understand in the sense stated by the Leader of the Opposition that “it is understandable but we do not justify it”. Those people regard it as justification for their conduct, and they are boasting that the attitude of the Opposition fortifies them. It is tragic that this should be so, and it is time the Leader of the Opposition should stop saying this kind of thing. It is a quarter to twelve as far as South Africa is concerned, and it is high time the Leader of the Opposition should act with a greater sense of responsibility, and that he should not usé expressions, as he did this afternoon, that are so ambiguous that he understands it in one sense but that Poqo understands it as justification for their conduct. If he is in earnest with his argument, is the action of the government of Basutoland against Leballo also attributable to this Government? If he is serious with his argument that our Government’s policy is the cause of the growth of Poqo, is that also the reason why Southern Rhodesia has to take drastic measures against subversive organizations and activities? [Time limit.]

I was really surprised to hear the hon. the Prime Minister saying that the Leader of the Opposition has made himself guilty of sowing panic, and that we on this side are the people who are sowing panic. But was that speech of the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) not a splendid example of scaremongering? Did the hon. member not say that it is a quarter to twelve for us? Did we not hear over the week-end the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, saying that the so-called cold war in which our country is involved will be extended to other more drastic directions? Is it the United Party that is sowing panic? The Minister of Finance told the voters in Worcester over the week-end they must not become panic-stricken. Is it not the hon. the Minister of Defence who told us a few years ago that we should be prepared to fight until the blood rose to the horses’ bits? Is it not the Minister of Indian Education who told us during the election in 1960 we should get a stronger Government so that we could be powerful against the Bantu of Africa who might want to attack us? Who is sowing panic all day long? We of the United Party say that if there is trouble, this Government should be silently engaged in carrying out its duty and subduing those elements. But what is happening to-day? The difficulties there are in the country, the subversive elements that are in existence—the Government is exploiting the fear of the nation for political purposes. That is why this type of speech is being made, that it is quarter to twelve. They want to exploit the dangers facing South Africa for political purposes, and why should they then hang the Poqo tag round the neck of the United Party? It is because the Government is disappointed because the United Party is prepared to banish and to destroy that kind of organization. They are disappointed because my Leader has said that Poqo will find that the United Party is its greatest enemy. The Nationalist Party are so keen on telling the people that we are on the side of these subversive elements. But the Prime Minister also tells us that nothing will satisfy the Afro-Asians. He found that at the Commonwealth Conference, but not long afterwards he told us he was going to implement his Transkei policy, and what did we find? Even Bantu leaders are saying they know where they stand with the Government. By implication I have to assume that the Bantu leaders in South Africa, and not only here but in the rest of Africa, are satisfied with the policy of the Prime Minister.

I said they would never be satisfied.

I noted down that the Prime Minister said that even if we were to give the Coloureds representation in Parliament, those people will not be satisfied, but to-day the Bantu leaders in South Africa are satisfied with his policy.

I said they would not be satisfied with our policy, nor with your policy.

If the Bantu and the Afro-Asians are not satisfied with any policy pursued by us, there is no quarrel between this side and that side, for we have always said that we are not prepared to have one man, one vote, but we have to show the Western world the direction to be followed here. [Interjection.]

But you want a multi-racial Parliament.

Does the Prime Minister not know that to-day there is in this House an example of our multi-racialism? Are we sitting here without Coloured Representatives? Have we to remove them also? The Prime Minister’s policy amounts to this that there will be no discrimination between nations; the more complete apartheid becomes, the more discrimination will disappear. If that is the policy in respect of the Bantu, where are the territories for the Indians and the Coloureds in South Africa? How much longer must those people wait before discrimination in respect of them will disappear? And in respect of the 6,500,000 Bantu that according to Dr. Tomlinson will be in our White areas only in the year 2000, how long have they to wait before discrimination will disappear?

All of them will have the franchise.

One man, one vote.

The Prime Minister has said there will be equality and no discrimination between nations. Where are the 1,500,000 Coloureds going to be given the opportunity of being their own nation? We know they have an area in South Africa; but all of them are not living there. Can you have a different status for those people? In 1962 the Prime Minister told us that where foreign nations lived squeezed together in one state, it was an everlasting cancer until the whole body politic disintegrated. But in the year 2000 it will still be the same. With the 6,500,000 Bantu there will still be foreign nations in this country. So if the Prime Minister wishes to give effect to his own philosophy, he has to pursue a policy of removing all the Bantu from the White areas, and not only the 250,000 in the Western Province, but all of them in the rest of South Africa. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Ventersdorp says surely I know that is not their policy. Have I to take it then that the political philosophy of the Prime Minister, announced by him on 22 January last year, conflicts with the policy of the National Party? When one says that foreign nations living together can only lead to clashes, we must have a clash in the year 2000 when we shall still have 6,500,000 Natives in the White areas. [Time limit.]

First of all I should like just to reply to the statement of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) in which he said that we have departed from our traditional policy. I do not wish to review the interim period of Advocate Strijdom and Dr. Malan, but I should like to quote some extracts from speeches of the late General Hertzog as the real founder of our policy of segregation, and I should like to test it by reference to the pronouncements and the statements of policy made by the present Prime Minister. I should like to start with what Senator Brookes wrote in his book on the policy of segregation of General Hertzog—

As early as 1927 General Hertzog made the following statement in the House of Assembly—

And that is the same dishonesty the hon. member has developed here to-day, and to which the hon. the Minister has replied—

Underlying this was General Hertzog’s statement of 1913, when he said this—

In a subsequent statement in 1927, General Hertzog said this—

At Malmesbury in 1927, General Hertzog made a speech and he then said this—

That is exactly what we are doing to-day, but I proceed. Now I should like to read what the historian, Preller, says about General Hertzog’s policy, the basis of the policy upon which we are continuing to build to-day, and which is subject to further development. According to Preller, General Hertzog expressed the view at the National Convention already that the Cape Colony did not appreciate the dangers involved in the Native franchise, in the same way that a person playing beside a river sometimes does not see the wave that carries him away. And then Walton says—

That is precisely what the United Party wants to-day. Then I should like to read a final quotation of what General Hertzog stated in 1921—

And not a race federation where you will introduce the Native in your authority—

What guarantee has the Leader of the Opposition that in his race federation this fear of General Hertzog will not be realized, and that he who resorts to voluntary segregation will not be squeezed out by the pressure of the host of votes of the Native? Then General Hertzog says this—

Now I ask whether there is any difference between what General Hertzog as the founder of our policy said, and what the hon. the Prime Minister is saying now? Is this Transkei development not a natural development of a natural process that was started and which must culminate in that which we aim at with the Transkei policy? Surely that is so. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout sits looking at me, but the night before last he said the exact opposite at Schweizer Reyneke. I continue reading from Brookes, and wish to conclude with this. He says this—

I want to say that South Africa will still owe the present Prime Minister a great debt of thanks in the future for having in the face of diabolical attacks from outside, which are due to misrepresentations, and which are not all interested in the Bantu vote, or in the weal and woe of the so-called urban Bantu, but an attack that is interested in the heart of the Republic, put to the world the policy of the National Party fully and frankly. If I were to summarize the speech of the Leader of the Opposition to-day, I shall say a man spoke … [Time limit.]

The whole argument of the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) falls away completely on the one point which he failed to mention, namely, that while General Hertzog was in favour of it that the Bantu should be allowed to develop along their own lines to the greatest possible extent, it was fundamental to his policy that the Natives should continue to be represented in this Parliament and at one stage he was even prepared to allow the Bantu to be represented in the Senate by their own people. The followers of the hon. the Prime Minister regard him as a strong leader at the head of a strong Government. I do not intend arguing about that because I cannot really remember when we ever had a weak Prime Minister in the sense in which the present Prime Minister is referred to as a strong Prime Minister. As a matter of fact, in his biography General Smuts is described as “Grey Steel the reputation of the present Prime Minister does not as yet extend beyond “grey granite But what is true is this that our party political set-up and the intensity with which we differ politically is of such a nature that a Prime Minister, whoever he may be, as leader of the majority party is always in a strong position in South Africa and vested with very great powers. That by itself leads to-it that a Prime Minister, whoever he may be, is in the position where he has to carry a great deal of responsibility for whatever happens in and to the country; and my appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister is for once to use that strong position which he as Prime Minister holds to improve the relationship between the various population groups, and externally,, the relationship between South Africa and the Western countries. Or must we take it that the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government are powerless and do not know how to get South Africa out of the difficulties in which she finds herself to-day? What struck me in the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister, a speech which lasted for over an hour, was that you could summarize his entire plea in the following words: “I am powerless; what can I do? It is the circumstances.” I listened attentively and I waited for the hon. the-Prime Minister to make a suggestion to this House, to give hope for the future, to tell us that he could lift South Africa from the biggest morass in which we have ever landed in our whole history. Never before in our history has South Africa, both internally and externally, been in the morass in which she finds herself to-day. I hope, if I have an opportunity at a later stage, to be able to show in what a morass we are as far as our external relations are concerned but with a view to the speeches made by Government members let us study the internal position in which South Africa finds herself to-day objectively. After 15 years of apartheid and after a record programme of legislation not a single racial problem has been solved. If I am wrong let hon. members opposite get up and tell us which racial problem has been solved during these 15 years. As a matter of fact, the only thing that has happened and the only thing which the apartheid policy has done has been to create new problems for us internally and externally and to disturb the relationships between the various racial groups. There has been a considerable increase in the bitterness and hostility between the various racial groups. What kind of peace have we got in South Africa to-day? There is talk about peace but what kind of peace is it? Home guards are formed all over the country and people are called upon to learn how to arm themselves. Everywhere people have to resort to their own devices to ensure their safety and people everywhere are forming shooting clubs and pistol clubs. These things are discouraged in other countries because in other countries the State sees to the security and safety of the public. But here women are encouraged to form pistol and shooting clubs because the Government is in fact powerless to create a climate in South Africa which will ensure that the public feel safe. A year or two ago it was even suggested at a congress of the National Party in the Free State that all the school-going children of South Africa over the age of 12 should be trained how to handle firearms.

What is wrong with that?

The Memel branch suggested that in September 1961. I understand that the suggestion was not accepted but what we do know is this that at a girls’ school in Port Elizabeth the girls are indeed being trained in the use of firearms. Even the wives of Cabinet Ministers have so little faith in the ability of their husband to ensure the safety of the public that they take part in the activities of shooting clubs. What is worse is this: Every time a leading member on that side makes a speech he tells the country—not this side—that we can expect the position to worsen. The hon. the Minister of Defence is the person who talks about “fighting till the horses are up to their bits in blood”. He is building up an army which will be even stronger than the one we had during the war. The hon. the Minister of Transport recently made a speech at De Wildt and what did he say? He said: “We must prepare ourselves for armed attacks”. It is members on that side who are talking about war; they are the people who are creating uncertainty. The Minister of Foreign Affairs is already talking as if we are fighting in the last ditches in South Africa. It is not difficult to realize what the effect of this type of speech must be on the world outside. Sir, can you think of a sadder comment on the position in which we find ourselves than that a form of Mau-Mau is now beginning to rear its head in South Africa and that it is growing while we know that the majority of the Native want peace? The tragedy is this: The greater the powers which the Government take and the more they curtail the processes of democracy, the more serious does the position become and the more serious is it going to get according to the leaders on that side. The fact of the matter is simply this that more and more people have in recent years lost respect for the law for the simple reason that they no longer regard the law in the hands of the Government as being just. That is why you find that the hon. the Minister of Justice held a meeting at Kroonstad where he said: “The prison population has increased considerably during the past year and at the moment 67,000 people are retained in prisons every day in South Africa.” Mr. Victor Verster, the Comissioner of Prisons said in a speech: “Crime in South Africa is much worse than anything in Europe”. In a country like Holland with 12,500,000 people 2,000 people are in prison every day; in Belgium with 15,000,000 people 3,000 people are in prison daily; in South Africa 6,000 Whites and a total of 67,000 people are in prison every day. The position in respect of the Natives is absolutely disturbing. According to figures given in this House, 3,500,000 Natives were convicted between 1951 and 1960 for contraventions of the pass laws alone. No wonder that we have the position which we do have to-day. According to the Chief of Police at Pietermaritzburg 101 persons out of every 1,000 persons in South Africa are prosecuted by the police for one or other reason. What else can you expect if you have laws in this country which create crimes, crimes which are not regarded as such in any other country in the world?

Do you want to repeal them?

The hon. the Prime Minister will, of course, blame everybody else but the Government and himself, but as long ago as 8 November 1960 the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration made a statement to the country in which he said that he was going to appoint a committee to review all the laws and regulations in respect of the Bantu. These were his words: “This is being done with a view to eliminating all irritating measures”. I admit that their policy contains irritating measures but something worse follows. He said further: “The elimination of all measures which cause unnecessary hardship to the Bantu”. “Hardship” is a strong word; it means suffering. That was in 1960—and how has the position been improved? [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) has now only fouled his own nest here. We are of course faced with tremendously difficult racial problems, but curiously enough race relations in South Africa are better than they are in any other comparable country in the world. They are better than in Southern Rhodesia, better than in Northern Rhodesia and better than in Nyasaland and Algeria. There many worse things happen than have taken place here, but all this hon. member can do is to foul his own nest. What surprises me is that race relations are in fact as good as they are in this country, and have remained so in spite of the mischiefmaking of hon. members opposite among the various races in spite of their incitement (opstokery) of the Bantu and the Coloured and the Indian against the White man. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is developing into the greatest mischief-maker between the races in South Africa, and I leave him there.

On a point of order, the hon. member is accusing us of incitement (opstokery). Is he entitled to do so?

I spoke about “kwaadstokery” (mischief-making), not “opstokery” (incitement).

You referred to “opstokery”.

The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) is not telling the truth. I spoke about “kwaadstokery”. I did not use the word “opstokery”.

Order! Did the hon. member use the word “opstokery”.

No. I did not say that. I want to come back to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the accusation he made against me when he alleged that I had mis-quoted him and had not read out the whole report of his speech. What I quoted from his speech was evidently reported in the early edition of that day’s Argus. He has now handed me the later edition of the Argus. I did not read that; I cannot abide two editions of the same newspaper on the same day. But what is peculiar is that there is nothing in this second, lengthy report which is in conflict with what I said. But I found one interesting sentence in this long report, namely this: “Government by coercion will put South Africa on the coalition course”, precisely the same words used by Patrick Duncan in the film “Sabotage in South Africa”. I want the Leader of the Opposition to understand quite clearly what I am accusing him of. I am not accusing him and the United Party of siding with Poqo. I am not accusing them of justifying the actions of Poqo; I am in fact accusing them of something much more serious, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should now tell me if I say something which is not correct or which is not in accordance with what he said in Pinelands. In Pinelands he said that Poqo is growing because they have grievances. Is that true or not? In other words. Poqo’s struggle is one for the removal of grievances; it is a struggle against oppression. What the United Party is therefore doing is to find moral justification for the existence of Poqo. They now give Poqo a moral basis for its existence. They tell the world that Poqo is in fact a freedom movement; that Poqo is in fact a movement to save the poor oppressed Bantu, who is being governed without his consent, from a Government which is oppressing him. They therefore give a moral basis for the whole Poqo movement. That is what I accuse them of, and that is the most serious accusation I can make against them, because the fact is that Poqo is not based on grievances. It does not grow from grievances. There is no moral justification for its existence. It is nothing but a murderous organization which kills people and which will do the most terrible things, not to remove grievances, not to have single quarters abolished, not to obtain property rights in the White area, but to get rid of the White Government in South Africa—not only of this Government but of the possibility of having any White Government in South Africa. That is my charge against the Leader of the Opposition and against the United Party. Instead of telling the public what the hard facts of the matter are, viz. that Poqo is a political movement which does not mind committing murder and sabotage in order to chase the White man out of South Africa, they seek moral justification for the existence of Poqo. That is my quarrel with them, because those are the facts, as I shall prove in a moment. But they tell the world that Poqo is not a revolutionary organization which exists for one purpose only, namely to conquer the White man in South Africa. They tell the world that Poqo is a movement which has come into existence among the Bantu because they are being oppressed; that is the moral justification for its existence, and the members of Poqo are in fact not criminals but freedom fighters.

But let us look at the grievances mentioned by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) at a meeting, and which he repeated again to-day, namely that one of the reasons for the existence of Poqo is the matter of single quarters and that Poqo has its origin in the single quarters at Langa; in other words that the actions of Poqo are based on a well-founded grievance. Surely the hon. member for Yeoville knows South Africa better than that. There are 400,000 Bantu from the whole of Africa in single quarters in the compounds of the gold mines. The whole of the gold mining industry is based on single quarters for Bantu where they live for six to 18 months or longer, if they wish. Why did Poqo not originate there? Why is there no trouble there? Why are the Bantu in the compounds of the mines the most peaceful section of the whole of the Black population of South Africa? The United Party surely knows what the reason is. The simple reason is that the gold mines exercise strict control over their Bantu. They do not allow a single Bantu agitator in those single quarters.

And they are primitive tribal Natives.

What difference does that make? Is the growth of Poqo in the Transkei not based on primitive tribal Natives also? It only proves that this movement did not originate from grievances. No, this movement only grows where agitators are allowed. My quarrel with the United Party is that they say that these people are not agitators, that they are not communists, and they are not the people who want to upset the White Government by violence; no, it is a movement which arises from justified grievances. Their standpoint is this: Remove all those grievances and Poqo will disappear. What grievances do they want to remove? They do not want to have single quarters; they want to grant them property rights in the White areas; they want to give them representation in this House. But, Sir, Rhodesia has already done all those things and much more. In Rhodesia they do not have single quarters. They are given 15 Black representatives in the Southern Rhodesian Parliament. All social discrimination has been removed. They can enter White cafes and hotels and swim in the White swimming-baths. In Rhodesia they go infinitely further than the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to go. Has that put a stop to violence in Southern Rhodesia? Was the Southern Rhodesian Parliament not compelled recently to pass an Act making compulsory the imposition of the death penalty for the throwing of petrol bombs? Cannot the United Party see how wrong they are? That is why we say that by their attitude they lend strength to this organization, because they do not want to realize precisely what the object of this organization is, what is behind it, and that it has nothing at all to do with grievances. This is a struggle, as we have seen it in the rest of Africa, with just one exclusive object, and that struggle will not stop as long as we allow the agitators to do what they like. That struggle is to chase the White man out of the whole of Africa, out of Northern and Southern Rhodesia and out of the Republic of South Africa. It has nothing to do with grievances. My charge against the United Party is that they refuse to admit that that is the position. No, according to them it is a freedom struggle by the Bantu against the oppression of this Verwoerd Government; that is what is so shocking, whilst the whole history of Africa proves that it is not so. In Southern and Northern Rhodesia they obtained everything they demanded, but the violence against the Whites did not decrease in the least. I now want hon. members opposite to reply to this charge. As long as they tell the world that this violence is based on serious grievances, for so long do they fail to realize what the real problem is, and they therefore should not blame us if we say that they give moral support to those people and try to find a moral basis for this murderous organization. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) goes on like an old gramophone record to try to create the impression that we on this side of the House are on the side of those people. Does the hon. member not understand what the position is in regard to an organization like Poqo? The millions of Bantu in South Africa surely are not all members of Poqo. We know that and admit it. According to the information available to us, it is an organization with a membership in South Africa of approximately 20,000, but what happens is this: You have an organization like this in a place like Mbekweni in Paarl or in Nyanga or in Langa, and those people are intimidating the peaceloving Bantu and exploiting all kinds of grievances even amongst the orderly Bantu in order to recruit members for Poqo. That is the position and that is all that the Leader of the Opposition tells the Government. It is an illegal organization and nobody approves of it, but if one wants to prevent such an organization from growing in South Africa, one must avoid the circumstances in which it can grow. How the hon. member for Vereeniging can say that we on this side are paving the way for that organization I simply cannot understand. I put this question to the hon. member for Vereeniging: It has been put to that side of the House before: Do they not think they are playing with fire if they create the impression amongst those people that a large number of the Whites in this country are in favour of the objects of Poqo? I now want to put this question to the hon. member for Vereeniging: If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asks the Prime Minister to remove the seedbed in which an organization like that can grow and the hon. member tries to create the impression that the greater majority of the White voters of South Africa are in favour of such an organization, who is doing more harm, the Leader of the Opposition or the hon. member for Vereeniging?

Tell us where Poqo, as an organization, comes from. Is it indigenous to South Africa? Is it based on the grievances referred to by the Leader of the Opposition?

The hon. member should by this time accept that I have also read the Snyman Report, and it is quite clear from that report that Poqo is a continuation of the A.N.C. and the P.A.C.

It was just re-established here in South Africa.

As the Leader of the Opposition reminds me, it was started here years ago. It had quite a different object from the one it has to-day. We will admit that Poqo’s actions are aimed against the Government of the day, and not only against the Government of the day, but against the Whites in South Africa. That is so, but what we on this side want to prevent is an organization like Poqo being able to grow in strength as the result of the fact that there are certain grievances amongst the Bantu which such an organization can exploit for its benefit, and that was the suggestion made by this side of the House through the mouth of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Will Poqo disappear if we get out?

Sir, we all want to establish better race relations in South Africa. We all accept that the great majority of the Bantu are law-abiding citizens, but not a single hon. member opposite has yet told us that they accept the advice of this side of the House that we should try to avoid and eliminate the grievances of the Bantu.

What grievances?

My hon. friends know that the matter is still being investigated by Judge Snyman. He will submit his report, and then hon. members opposite should be prepared to say that they accept that report.

I want to revert to the matter I was dealing with when I spoke last, when I was pointing out to the hon. the Prime Minister that if he wants to abide by the philosophy underlying the policy he gave us in 1962, he will not only have to remove the Bantu from the Western Province but from all the White areas of South Africa, whereupon the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) said: “Surely you know that that is not the policy.” But did we not have statements from prominent members opposite that the Bantu should in the course of time not only disappear here, and did the hon. member for Moorreesburg not tell us that the spirit prevailing in the south should also prevail in the north; in other words, that the Whites should increasingly do without the Bantu in the economic sphere? The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration told us in 1959 already that the Bantu in our cities constitute a danger to the White man. Well, if in 1959 already the Bantu constituted a danger to us, and in view of the fact that to-day there are thousands more of them and that their numbers will still increase by thousands, is that danger not going to increase, and will we not reach the position where the Prime Minister will have to implement that philosophy of his? But what do we now learn from the Prime Minister? During the week-end he told the Afrikaanse Sakekamer in Cape Town that the Government would not allow what had been built up in the Western Cape to be ruined by the implementation of the policy of removing the Bantu in that area. The hon. the Prime Minister did not say that he would suspend that policy. He merely said that the removal of the Bantu from this area would not lead to economic stagnation. In other words, we can expect those Bantu to be replaced by somebody else. By whom? It is suggested that they will be replaced by Coloureds, but are there enough Coloureds in the Western Cape? It is suggested that the Bantu will be replaced by the 300,000 Coloureds in the Eastern Province on the other side of the Eiselen line. Is it possible to bring them to the Western Province? Who is going to take the place of those people on the eastern side of the Eiselen line? What is going to happen to a place like Port Elizabeth where approximately 60,000 Coloureds take part in our economic life? If the Government removes them from there and induces them to come to the Western Province, who will take their place in our industries? Surely not the Bantu who are being removed from here to the Eastern Province, because it is not the policy of this Government to take them from one urban area to another urban area. Those people will have to make a living in the border areas, in the industries on the borders of the reserves, or otherwise in the reserves themselves.

Mr. Chairman, whilst listening to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to-day, I gathered the following from his speech, namely that he linked Poqo with the National Party as the result of the following: Firstly, the frustration amongst the urban Bantu. He accused the Government of breaking up families; the reckless removal of people; discriminatory measures and a whole series of pinpricks in our administration in respect of the Bantu. Secondly he said that the National Party was powerless to handle the position, and he based that on the unsuccessful raids and the amount of legislation we have to pass in this House from time to time in regard to the combating of subversive activities. He finds further justification in the fact that the increasing number of attacks and the sabotage and the isolated instances of terrorism are the result of it, and that we cannot handle the position. He further says that the Bantu and the Coloureds and the Indians are now starting to take part in this wave of sabotage. Then he says further that our policy is immoral and that hitherto we have received no dividends on our policy.

I think we must furnish the Leader of the Opposition with a reply in this regard. I want to start by making this first statement. The Leader of the Opposition again intimated to-day that he finds himself helpless in a maelstrom of indecision. He seeks for three things. Firstly he seeks a sound conservatism in his own policy, and this pressure within his own ranks is becoming increasingly stronger, just as it is becoming stronger right throughout the world and particularly in the Western world. That is why the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw), in his search for a sound conservatism within their own ranks, made the statement that their party was based on discrimination. That is just one expression of their desire to find a sound conservatism within their own party, to comply with that steadily increasing pressure.

Then the Leader of the Opposition is looking for a second thing. He is seeking an anti-thesis against the Liberal Party, that false liberalism which is now linked up with a series of front organizations in South Africa and elsewhere in Africa. He also seeks a third thing. He is looking for localized measures to combat Poqo, this combination of liberalism and the so-called front organizations of which Poqo is one. He seeks these localized measures in concessions; he lays the blame on the hostels and on the rights which are denied to the urban Bantu. Sir, where the Leader of the Opposition is seeking for measures of salvation and for conservatism, for an antithesis, where he is seeking for localized measures to help him out of his trouble, I want to say this to the Leader of the Opposition; He will not find it in his race federation. Because we are not combatting Poqo as a South African Bantu movement or a movement amongst the Blacks; Poqo is not localized; Poqo is a front organization which adopts the same methods by which Communism throughout the world fights, particularly in Africa. When we fight Poqo we are in fact fighting an extension of Pan-Africanism which in Africa co-operates with Communism in so far as their methods are concerned, and which, just like the communists, have organized themselves in action fronts, the so-called front organizations of which Poqo is one. They are similar in their methods, although I do not want to allege that Communism and Pan-Africanism have the same objectives. I want to give a splendid example of how Communism and Pan-Africanism, of which Poqo is an outflow, run together for a certain distance. On the eve of the attack launched by Holden Roberto in Angola, a man who was trained in Moscow and financed by Moscow and who used the same slogans as the communists, he directed this appeal to the Blacks in Angola, He said—

That is the Portuguese name of the organization—

Then comes the crux of his battle-cry—

Who was the Devil?

Russia, Communism. Now I say this, Mr. Chairman. In regard to communist methods, Pan-Africanism, of which Poqo forms part, and Communism are one and the same thing. I am not saying that Moscow looks at Africa with the intention that Africa should look after itself. I think Moscow looks at Africa with the intention that Africa should look to Moscow. But in essence Pan-Africanism is not nationalistic. Pan-Africanism, of which Poqo forms a part, is in essence imperialistic, but Pan-Africanism fights behind the cloak and makes use of the support of the so-called solidarity committee meetings which frequently, after every session, sends a message to the so-called freedom movements in Africa. They also make use of victimization, of violence and of terrorism. They fight under the cloak and in the form of political organizations or action fronts. That is what Poqo is in essence. Now the Leader of the Opposition tells us: You are the cause of Poqo; South Africa is a seedbed for Poqo. He says that on the basis of the fact that we have created certain grievances on the part of the Black man. He says that is the reason why Poqo is there. I want to tell the Leader of the Opposition that his view in regard to Poqo is quite wrong. No localized remedies will put a stop to any front organization or action front here. His search for a moral basis for a policy within the framework of a race federation is of no use. His search for a sound conservatism on the basis of his race federation will be equally useless. It will in fact—and I want to emphasize it—give an opening to this Black imperialism to comply with the battle-cry of Lumumba to kill the Whites. His race federation will facilitate that. [Time limit.]

The speech by the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) was interesting. I am very pleased to see that he has read the book by my friend, Pieter Lessing, “Africa’s Red Harvest”, and that he quotes from it extensively. It reminds me, Sir, that Pieter Lessing has something to say, which the hon. member did not quote, about the very points we are discussing with the Prime Minister this evening, namely, Sir, that it is not enough, although it is necessary, to suppress subversive movements by force. If one is intelligent and wise one should also determine why subversive organizations flourish and seek to remove or to lessen the reasons why such organizations flourish. It is tragic, Sir, that in the very intelligent time which my hon. friend has spent on Pieter Lessing’s book he missed this statement on South Africa by Mr. Lessing—

That is pretty damning, Sir.

You swallow everything, I do not.

No, the difference between the hon. member and myself is that he selects from a book such as this one by Pieter Lessing that which suits him and we remain objective in our judgment of the book and of the South African situation.

The point is that the hon. the Prime Minister must realize that his policies are assisting subversive organizations to ferment difficulty and trouble in South Africa. It is a fact, as I mentioned before to-day, that the Prime Minister’s policies are policies for the future and not for to-day. In so far as it is a policy for the future the Government is not prepared to call upon the people to make real sacrifices to-day in order to achieve the policy in the future and that is aggravating the position for South Africa.

Of course he does.

No he does not. He speaks to the Afrikaanse Sakekamer here in the Western Province and he tells them not to worry. He wants to remove the Natives from the Western Province but he will not do so at the expense of the economy of the Western Province. The simple fact is that he cannot; there is not enough labour available. He cannot remove the Black labour from the Western Province except at the expense of the economy of this area. For that reason the Prime Minister shows that he lacks the courage to call upon the people to make those sacrifices to-day which are required to implement his policy for to-morrow.

The hostels to be built at Alexandra Township to house 20,000 single Natives is another monument to the lack of courage on the part of the Prime Minister and his Government. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr.Fronean)—I am sorry he is not here—told us to-day that those hostels would be exclusively for unmarried Natives. I say with due respect that I do not believe that. The hon. member for Heilbron might believe it I do not doubt his integrity, but I am convinced that he is wrong. If I remember statements by and the attitude of the Government correctly, the purposes of those hostels is to bring migrant workers to the Witwatersrand to cater for the needs of the northern suburbs of Johannesburg. And in those hostels will live married men—I am not sure whether married women will not live there—who will not be allowed to bring their wives and their children with them when they come to work. The way to test what the hon. member for Heilbron has said is this: Will the Government undertake, through the Peri Urban Areas Board, that every man and woman in those single quarters who gets married will have the right to apply for a proper home in which they can produce and rear a family? If they do not give that undertaking then the hon. member for Heilbron was obviously under a misapprehension about the policy of his own Government. Our trouble is this, Sir: When we discuss the policies of the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Heilbron intervenes and makes a statement like that he confuses the issue. I shall be most glad if the Prime Minister or the Minister of Bantu Administration will get up and confirm that only unmarried men will be allowed to live in those hostels and that married women will be properly catered for in homes where they can bring up a family.

But that is a red herring which confuses the arguments which the Prime Minister should hear in the interests of our country. He should heed these arguments. Those hostels to be erected will stand there as eight vast monuments to the lack of courage on the part of the Government, the Government which wants apartheid and territorial separation, which wants separate political institutions and states, but which at the same time wants to use Native labour for the enrichment of the Republic of South Africa.

They, of course, do not want to work here; they are forced to come here are they not!

After that speech, Mr. Chairman, I think I am entitled to another ten minutes. Of course they are not forced to come here, they are not forced to come here by any vis major on the part of the Government; they are forced to come here because they have to eat and live and their wives and children have to live. What is more we encourage them by our policies to come here. Why was the poll tax introduced in South Africa? Cecil Rhodes introduced it in the last century, to use his own words “as a gentle stimulus to the Black people to come out of the reserves and to come and work in the White man’s economy”. Because unless they needed cash it was not necessary for them to come out; they could live in their cattle economy. But when you have to pay taxes in cash you have to work to find that cash. This Government does exactly the same. Is this Government prepared to encourage the Black people not to come and work here? Why does the Government not start in the Western Province? Why does the hon. the Prime Minister give assurances that he will not do that if it means dispensing with the labour of those people in this province? The hon. member for Vereeniging can argue as he likes but the simple fact remains that this Government’s policy is one of words and promises for the future but lacking the necessary action because it has not got the courage to face the consequences of that policy.

Look at the sort of argument the Prime Minister now adduces in order to persuade the people that his policy has some practical meaning. He told the people to whom he spoke over the week-end that in 50 years’ time 500,000 jobs will have been created along the borders of the reserves and that that will mean that 12,500,000 will be able to live. What an astonishing statement, Sir. I can understand that each man employed in industry can support four others. I can understand with some difficulty that each one of those four will support another five in tertiary activities but it becomes almost impossible to understand that having accounted for tertiary activities to keep people in secondary activities served with the necessary services that those tertiary activities are now going to create another 10,000,000 “fourth degree” jobs. I can raise this function to the power of two and to the power of three but when I raise it to the power of four where does it end? If people engaged in tertiary activities can each create work for another five people engaged in fourth degree activities then the Prime Minister may as well say that those last five engaged in the fourth degree activities must create jobs for another five in a fifth set of activities. Where does it end? [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat tried to show that the subversive elements in South Africa can be combated if we investigate the causes for their existence. His argument amounts to this, as his colleagues also repeatedly said, that the subversive elements in this country are the result of Government policy. Will he deny that? No, he cannot deny it. I give it as my opinion, Sir, that the greatest stimulus for subversive elements is their being depicted as heroes in the newspapers of the country. The easiest way of making heroes of them is when their names and the names of their subversive organizations and of their leaders are continuously used across the floor of this House. It is my opinion that these subversive elements are quite certain that excuses will consistently be made for them in this House. That is what we deplore. We ask the Opposition to be careful in their choice of words in this House. The words of the Opposition echo not only in every part of South Africa, but in every part of the Continent of Africa. Most of those subversive elements depend on the fact that they have strong protagonists in this House. That is their greatest encouragement. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) again made him-self guilty of that because he very subtly let them understand that their existence was justified as the result of Government policy. The Opposition ought to do their duty and say that they unreservedly condemn those subversive elements and organizations, but not a single member of the Opposition has got up here to say anything about Poqo without ascribing their existence to the policy of the Government.

That is not true.

The hon. member says it is not true. I call you, Sir, and the whole of the Committee as witnesses. That was the crux of his attack to-night. I have the right to make that appeal to hon. members, because they think that as an Opposition they have the right, in spite of everything, to do anything and to think that they are justified in doing so because of the fact that they are the Opposition. There is such a thing as a responsible Opposition, but that is still absent in this House, even in these serious times.

The hon. member for Yeoville says that the Government lacks the courage to appeal to the people of South Africa to make the necessary sacrifices to implement the policy of the Government. I do not think that 10 per cent of the people in the country will agree with him when he says that this Government lacks courage. I think that if this Government has one attribute, it is that it has the courage not only to announce its policy but to implement it in one piece of legislation after another in spite of all opposition.

The hon. member referred to Alexandra. I do not know why he did not wait until legislation was introduced to deal with that subject before voicing his criticism. I do not know why he raised the matter now. I do not know why the hon. member now voices all kinds of criticism which is irrelevant. He said we should provide for the families of migratory workers. That is an old bone of contention, which dates back to the days when General Smuts was Minister of Native Affairs. Allow me to say that General Hertzog’s criticism of that suggestion, which has now again been made by the hon. member for Yeoville, was so devastating that General Smuts was forced at that time to withdraw it. What would South Africa have looked like if that policy, which the hon. member for Yeoville is again suggesting here to-night, had been implemented in 1923? What would the Witwatersrand have looked like?

The hon. member for Yeoville knows very well that it is their policy to implement integration in the fullest sense of the word. That is why they want to allow the maximum number of Bantu to enter the White areas. That is why they, when the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) was still Minister of Native Affairs, allowed the Bantu of the Eastern Cape to enter the Western Province without imposing any control. To-day we pluck the bitter fruit of that policy. Do you know what one result of it is, Sir? To the regret of everybody in this country, we now have a brand new bastard generation in this country as the result of that policy. If the policy of the Leader of the Opposition is to be implemented, namely that we must integrate the Coloureds of South Africa with the Whites, I foresee great difficulties for him. Because to-day we have a type of Coloured who differs only a hair’s breadth from the Bantu. He is much nearer to the Bantu than to the White man. And that is the type of person who must be integrated with the Whites in terms of their race federation policy. Time does not allow me to discuss the policy of the Leader of the Opposition, but I just want to say one thing. I have always regarded the Leader of the Opposition as a brave man, but it seems to me that he has less courage than I thought he had. When the opportunity offered itself for him to discuss that policy of his, which he had announced to the world with great publicity, namely during the second reading of the Transkei Bill …

Then he did not have it yet.

No, he had it, but he did not want to put it before us. But the previous year the hon. member for Yeoville announced that same policy. But the Leader of the Opposition waited until the opportunity was passed and then he went to the Press and published it in the Sunday Times. In spite of that he criticizes the Government’s policy in regard to the Transkei to-day under this Vote, knowing full well that there is no opportunity for us to discuss his policy as contrasted with the Transkei policy of the Government. Therefore I say that the Leader of the Opposition is not as brave as I thought he was. One almost feels inclined to move under this Vote that the salary of the Leader of the Opposition should be reduced, something which they generally move when a Minister’s Vote is under discussion. [Time limit.]

I shall not follow the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg). If the hon. member suggests that my hon. leader lacks courage because an article on race federation was published in the Sunday Times a week or two ago and that we cannot therefore discuss it, he shows abysmal ignorance of the Rules of Parliament. There are many other opportunities where these matters can be raised. He can raise it now or he can raise it under the Appropriation Debates which still have to come. The hon. Leader of the Opposition published that article in the most widely read paper in the Republic and if anything was calculated to invite discussion that certainly did so. And to think that such a suggestion could come from an old soldier like the hon. member for Krugersdorp!

Mr. Chairman, I was expressing my surprise at the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement over the week-end that 500,000 jobs in border industries, could support 12,500,000 Natives. I made the point that the Prime Minister expected us to accept a peculiar geometrical progression, the answer to which is infinity. I can understand that people occupied in secondary occupations can create tertiary occupations but to suggest that people in tertiary occupations will create further occupations opens the door to the inescapable conclusion that it can go on to infinity. The Prime Minister said that each worker will support four other workers which gives you five.

Who spoke about tertiary occupations?

May I tell the hon. the Prime Minister what he said? He can tell me if I am wrong. He said that each of these workers will directly support four others which will bring the total number of workers to about 2,500,000. He then suggested that those people occupied in tertiary occupations will in turn create work for 5,000,000 people, otherwise where does he get the figure of 12,500,000 from?

I shall explain it again.

I shall be most grateful, Sir, but in the meantime I must accept that the Prime Minister told us that 500,000 workers in industry could support 12,500,000 people. That was the figure he created. If you reduce that to individuals you will see how preposterous it is.

Why are you arguing then if you do not understand it?

I am arguing because I want the Prime Minister to know what he must answer. I want to be fair to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said that 500,000 workers in industry would support 12,500,000 people. I then got up and said that the Native population will be between 20,000,000 and 30,000,000 in 50 years’ time. The Prime Minister did not challenge that. All he said was that it would be 19,500,000 at the end of the century. We then agreed that the end of the century would only be 37 years hence and not 50 years hence. I did not misunderstand the Prime Minister. I may be stating his calculations incorrectly but the answer to the sum is 12,500,000 workers.

12,500,000 people.

Very well, 12,500,000 people. The Prime Minister wants us to believe that one worker in secondary industry can support 125 people. That does not make sense. There are 250,000 Natives working in our industries at the moment and do they support 125 times 250,000? Do they support over 30,000,000 people?

Your whole argument is wrong.

The way the newspapers reported it was most confusing. And further, what he explained in regard to what the newspapers reported this afternoon was worse. The hon. the Prime Minister can argue as long as he likes in trying to tell us that the 12,500,000 people can have a living because 500,000 people are employed in industry. He cannot get away from that, and I say it is preposterous—common sense tells you that it is preposterous. But what is more significant to me, and that is why I am willing to leave this for a further explanation, was the interchange between him and myself when he had to admit that even 12,500,000 would not mean support for the total population in 50 years’ time, and that even in 35 years’ time there will be 7,000,000 more than these 500,000 can support according to his calculations in 50 years’ time.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

The hon. the Prime Minister is not arguing when he ascribes adjectives to what I am saying. That cuts no ice.

But you are quite confused.

No, the hon. the Prime Minister is “deurmekaar The Prime Minister made a statement and he has now qualified it. But do you know what his statement was according to the Press, and he has not denied it: That if you can create 500,000 jobs in 50 years time in the border industries, you will have catered for the whole Native population. That is how the newspapers reported him. I am dealing with the newspaper report and I am asking for an explanation. Let us get this cleared up once and for all. Neither the hon. Prime Minister or I want to argue on a misunderstanding. Perhaps he can clarify this: In 35 years time, according to the Tomlinson Commission’s Report, which the Prime Minister has accepted, our total Native population will be 20,000,000 or 19,500,000 (I think that is the actual figure), and in 50 years time, it will be more, probably double of that, roughly about 30,000,000.

How do you arrive at that figure?

If our Native population can increse by 5,000,000 in the next 30 years, then surely it is not unreasonable to expect it to increase by another 5,000,000 in the subsequent 20 years.

You said in another 15 years.

I said that it would be 20,000,000 by the end of the century and by the time that the century would be 20 years old, one can expect it to be anything from 25,000,000 to 30,000,000.

You said 30,000,000.

Yes, but where does the hon. the Prime Minister get the 15,000,000 from?

I have not known you to be as stupid as this.

Very well, then I am stupid; because I am stupefied by the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister during the week-end. But I’ll be most grateful if the hon. the Prime Minister will explain what he said, if he will explain that one sentence that 500,000 jobs in industry will cater for the whole Native population. That is how the newspaper reported him. 500,000 in 15 years time will cater for the whole Native population. I want to ask him specifically: Does that mean that no more Native labour will be required in the industry existing on the Witwatersrand, in Cape Town, in Port Elizabeth, in Kimberley, because the border industries will cater for the whole Native population? I am not being stupid, I am seeking information. The hon. the Prime Minister tells us about 500,000 jobs in the border industries. In all the time that our industries have been developing, we have only created jobs for 250,000 Natives. He wants to double that achievement in the border industries alone.

That I did not say either.

In view of the importance of this matter and in view of the fact that the hon. Prime Minister feels that he has been misunderstood I would rather sit down and ask him to explain the matter.

I shall not deal with this point alone, but also with a few other points that have been raised.

Let me first of all put this very plainly: I estimate that at the end of the century—-and this is not only my estimate, but the general scientific estimate—our Native population will number approximately 19,500,000. That Native population will then consist not only of the new ones that are added, the increased total; one has to have regard to the number of people presently residing and living here. Of the present group, at least 4,000,000 are already making a living in the Native areas. Therefore when reference is made to the existence of a total number of 19,500,000 at the end of the century, those that are already taken care of must of course be deducted; thus at least the 4,000,000 have to be deducted, if that number will still be the same then, who largely make their livelihood in the Bantu areas as agriculturists. That already reduces the remaining number to 15,500,000. Apart from those, however, there is a large number of other persons who have work in the rural areas and in the present urban areas. The assumption on which we have been working is that there will be a constant decrease in this number of Natives after, as we have said, the apex of the graph shall have been reached in 1978. Hon. members know the whole argument. In other words, towards the end of the century there will still be Natives working in the rural areas, and there will still be Natives working in certain urban areas.

What is the estimate?

Say approximately 3,000,000. In other words, then there will be left those 12,500,000 that I have to take into account. That is the first point. There are 12,500,000, which is an increase, in respect of whom the question has to be put as to where additional employment will be found to take care of them.

Let us now consider for a moment how any community is organized. In the present community in which we live, Whites and Coloureds and Natives all together, there are only a certain number of people who are earning money in the ordinary creative occupations, that is to say, in primary and secondary industry. It is a limited number. All the rest work in the tertiary occupations. Now if one reviews the position in South Africa, it is true that the Bantu do not now have their own large tertiary group depending on the income of its group alone, because they constitute a part of our community. However—and my assumption is based upon this—should there be established within the Bantu areas their own Bantu community, in such a way that the specific group I now refer to put their earnings back into that community, then those earnings will be the basis upon which that entire community will be built.

Let us see what is happening to-day in our own community, and this applies to every community, whether in Japan, in England, or in Germany. There is the number of persons who are engaged in occupational activities created by the circulation of money as a result of what is earned by the comparatively small percentage of people in the primary industries, five times as many. Taking this as my starting-point I argued—and as I have said, this is not only my argument, it is the normal sociological reasoning. If there are 100,000 people employed in primary occupations, then I assume that they may be partly employed in the border areas, but some of them may by that time also possess their own independent large industries within the Bantu area, and therefore Bantu may be employed in those also. (That is why I have said that I was not referring to 500,000 workers in the border areas, but to 500,000 employed in the new industries that are to be developed both in the border areas and within the Native areas. For that reason I said the hon. member did not understand me correctly.)

If now there are 100,000 persons thus earning money in secondary industries, they are at least looking after their families. The families of some will consist of ten or twelve children: some will be unmarried. It is usually estimated that on an average every earner supports a family of five. If, therefore, 100,000 are employed in such industries, then there are 500,000 people directly being supported in this way.

Now those people go and reside in their Bantu area, say in a Bantu township. What happens then? Those children go to school and those schools have teachers; those schools must also have books, those schools must also have cleaners, those schools even have to be built, and bricks have to be made for the buildings. The people reside in a township where streets have to be constructed. They have a municipality with officials; churches are built, and there are ministers. I am now trying to explain in the most elementary manner how a community is organized. I think the hon. member will now understand sufficiently clearly what I meant: It is not a case of one person depending upon the other in the sense suggested by him, or, in the refined language of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, one small flea living on a larger flea. It is purely a case of a whole community’s many-sided structure being built up by the circulation of money derived from primary and secondary industries in its only truly creative form. Everything else rests upon that, and is developed through the continuous circulation of money. That is how it comes about that so many more people and so many more professions—doctors and advocates and postmasters and railway officials and the service industries etc. as well—everything in a community is built upon the earnings in certain creative industries. Surely that is elementary.

Why then did you put a stop to immigration?

If people now choose to make ridiculous interjections, I simply refuse to continue the argument, for then we are dealing with children. My exposition states the economic basis upon which the argument is built. As I have said, this is not an attempt by me to develop a political argument; here we are concerned merely with a normal reasoning of how a community is constituted and works. If 500,000 workers in the secondary industries each on an average look after four others, then it means that the number of persons who are directly dependent upon such industries in this manner (husband, wife and children) totals 2,500,000. But that superstructure created by the circulation of money is in fact going to arise there where it is spent and that is the advantage that will be derived from the border industries: that it will contribute to the development of the Bantu areas in which their employees will be living. It is the greatest development that will then be set afoot, for it will be different there from what it is here where they constitute the substratum of our White tertiary industries also. Here we give them a number of White officials; we give them a portion of the White doctors; we give them the post office officials; we give them the traders, township managers etc. In other words, here we are as White people deriving benefit from what we are building on their earnings, but under the system of border industries it will be just the other way about. Everything will then go to their community, and in this manner it will then come about that in the Bantu area ultimately five times more people will be looked after indirectly than are looked after directly. Is it clear now what I mean?

Then it is five times 500,000?

Suppose you have 500,000 workers in the big industries—some may be in mines or other money-creating industries. On an average, each one of the 500,000 has a wife and three children, and their families together then come to five times 500,000. Surely that is clear, is it not? Thus direct provision for five times 500,000, therefore 2,500,000. But all the tertiary industries are based upon them, and the estimates of sociologists is that the full tertiary group, that is to say, the earners plus the husband, wife and children, amount to five times as much again, thus 12,500,000.

25 times 500,000?

Of course it is a distortion when one says that the one man directly earns the food and the clothes and the education fees etc. of 125 people, for this of course is not what he can earn directly in this manner. But the true position is that in a community it is a fact that through the circulation of money which comes into circulation over and over again through the various activities of the whole community, a very large number of people derive benefit from the labour of a limited group of people in the original money making or goods producing industries. In this manner the great community is built up. That is so in fact. Now the Opposition may call it ridiculous if they wish, but it is not ridiculous because it is a fact. I hope that this at least is clear.

While I am on my feet, I should like to reply to a few arguments used by the hon. member. He tried to pour ridicule upon our statement that we have had the same point of view right from the beginning as to what the development of our policy would be, namely that which we are engaged upon at the moment e.g. in the Transkei. He tried to refute it by quoting certain clauses from the programme of principles of the National Party. He tried to base his strongest argument upon a particular clause in the programme of principles dealing with how we claim guardianship over the Bantu. I do not have the clause before me now, so I am not quoting it word for word. But what does he think is the meaning of the term “guardianship”? Does he think it means that those who are in the care of a guardian by implication cannot develop further? Does he think that we are using that expression “guardianship”, and not “perpetual domination” without any object in mind? Does he not appreciate that “guardianship” includes by implication the meaning of the gradually developing independence of those who are under guardianship? Surely that is self-evident. But I have here before me the report to which I referred this afternoon when I did not have it before me, namely the Report of the Commission on the Colour Question of the Herenigde Nasionale Party dated 1947, the one signed by the members of that commission, namely Mr. P. O. Sauer, M.P. (Chairman), Prof. Dr. G. B. A. Gerdener, Dr. E. G. Jansen, M.P., Mr. J. J. Serfontein. M.P., and Mr. M. D. C. de W. Nel, M.P. That was a Commission the National Party had in 1947. The report of this Commission was then adopted under the leadership of Dr. Malan and before we came into power, and in this report there is an exposition of native policy as it is now being further developed. It includes the following inter alia—there are many propositions contained in it—but under Point G in regard to native policy, it reads as follows:

1. (a) The native must be anchored firmly in what is nationally his own and peculiar to his own national character. He must be taught gradually to appreciate his culture and national institutions and to develop them. He will only be capable of gradually being guided to adapt him-self, where necessary, to the Western civilization. All immoral and other elements harmful to his nation in his culture and national institutions must be eliminated;
2. (b) the natives must be guided to build up a separate national structure of their own within which they can develop in every respect with full opportunities for every individual and every opportunity to realize their national ideals and aspirations in their own areas.

Now I come to the third of these propositions—

1. (c) The policy will aim at gathering together as far as possible the main ethnic groups and sub-groups in their own respective areas, where everyone can ultimately build up its own central system of government, and where they can be guided towards developing as separate national units.

If words have any meaning, what else does this mean than exactly what we are now doing in the Transkei? This has been quoted by the hon. Whip in Parliament on a previous occasion, yet hon. members opposite persist in pretending that there is no proof for my contention that we are giving effect to the aim of our old policy, and that not a single member of the public, even those who voted for us in 1948 to put us in power for the first time, could have been misled, for this was put to them as the policy.

Here is still another clause which it may be interesting to quote. The others I have read out are clear enough, but here the native reserves are being dealt with, and it reads as follows—

What is plainer than that?

Which report is that?

It is a report of the Commission on the Colour Problem of the Herenigde Nasionale Party of 1947.

The Sauer Commission?

Yes.

Why was it not published?

Dr. Malan had it published in 1948.

Not as the official policy.

Oh yes, and it was quoted time and again. Hon. members are now trying to hide behind a new smokescreen by saying that it was not known. What I am proving is that I am accused (let us keep to the argument now) of coming forward with a completely new change of policy, and here I am proving that “separate national units” was proclaimed clearly as the policy in 1947, in a document in which I had no share at all, and which was adopted by the then Leader, Dr. Malan, and was also adopted by the next Leader, Adv. Strijdom, and which was also accepted by me as a member of the party. There should not be attempts to come forward with other excuses now again. Here we have the proof of the uniformity of our policy, and better proof can hardly be produced.

There is another point I should just like to mention. The hon. member for Yeoville now says that the Transkei policy would have caused us the loss of overseas support, or in any event that after the announcement we lost further overseas support. I say in the first place that it is not a correct statement to say that we have lost overseas support in consequence of the announcement of this policy.

In spite of it.

Nor in spite of it either. I contend that the process which is going on is a clear one; it is there for every-body to see if he simply looks at Africa. I want to repeat to some extent what I said this afternoon, but in a different form. I want to ask hon. members to bear in mind that the attacks of the Afro-Asian nations in UNO are directed not only against South Africa with her policy of separate development but also against Portugal with her policy of equality in her territories, Angola and Mozambique, a policy under which Portugal says that the Bantu and the Portuguese are all Portuguese subjects with equal rights. Portugal wants to permit intermarriage; she wants to bring about equality in all other respects between Black and White. But what is the attitude that has been adopted by UNO and by the Afro-Asian States towards Portugal and her territories? Are they satisfied with all this? Are they satisfied with Black and White unity? No. Then there is also the other example of the Rhodesias with their policy of partnership, the implementation of which Britain demanded in those territories. Does that policy of partnership, starting with a junior partnership and going on to equal partnership, together with the announcement of Whitehead that he visualizes that within 15 years Southern Rhodesia will even have a Black Government, bring about co-operation? Has it satisfied UNO? Has it satisfied the Afro-Asian nations? Again the answer is “No”. Here we have three possibilities therefore: (a) Absolute equality, with the White man staying on as part and parcel of a multi-racial State (this has found no favour; it has received no support); (b) partnership, with the Black man and the White man as partners, even with the prospect that eventually the Blacks, with their superiority of numbers, will rule (this has received no support); (c) separation, as in the Republic, and the building up of separate nations. The first two, after all, involve greater concessions; they go further on the road of intergration than the race federation policy which the United Party propagates to-day. In the Portuguese territories and in the Federation territories it is not said that there will be everlasting White rule or White rule for the foreseeable future, as the United Party says! No, in Southern Rhodesia it is even visualized that the Government will be Black within 15 years. If that is so, how can the charge be made against us that our policy of apartheid alienates our friends, the implication being that their policy of race federation has found favour with these people? A policy which goes much further, namely the policy of absolute equality, is not even succeeding in other territories. There is only one demand which is made by our critics; that demand is as clear as a pikestaff and that is that the Black man alone must govern. Everybody who is White must be pushed out with the greatest possible speed. Is that not the only thing that will satisfy UNO? How then can the hon. member allege, and try to bring the country under the impression, that it is the fault of this Government, perhaps even the fault of the Transkei policy, that we are getting no support from at least that section of United Nations States? As far as South Africa is concerned the attitude which is adopted by her opponents and by those who support South Africa’s opponents in order to serve their own interests is an impossible one. To suggest that the policy of the United Party will receive their support is to mislead the public.

Furthermore, it is clear that the hon. member for Yeoville also wants to take part in the attempt on the part of the Opposition to exonerate themselves from the charge which is made by this side that they are responsible for the fact that the idea is gaining ground in the minds of the rebellious elements that they have the support of the United Party and that the way in which the United Party argues must inevitably encourage these rebellious elements to revolt. The hon. Leader of the Opposition personally objected here this afternoon, because he wants to distinguish between the use of the word “understandable” and the word “justifiable”. He says that “understandable” reasons have been given by his Party for these disturbances but that that does not necessarily justify the actions of these people. He says that in suggesting that this is a sort of justification which must have an inflammatory effect upon them we are misinterpreting their attitude. Sir, as intellectuals we can play with words; we can draw fine distinctions between the meaning of “understandable” reasons and “justifiable” reasons. But what is the point? The point is what the effect is on the mind of the Bantu. How are those people going to interpret the argument of the United Party? Sir, how do you think the Bantu is going to interpret it if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition comes here and says, “Yes, this Poqo movement, these other agitator organizations are all very bad things and we condemn them but one must realize that they owe their origin to the fact that what this Government did here was wrong and what it did there was wrong.” Will the Bantu say, “The United Party condemns me, but for certain reasons it does understand my actions,” or is he going to say, “No, I see that the Whites are on my side?” Of course that is how the Native is going to argue, and that is the danger of the United Party’s political attacks. It is not a question of scoring debating points by the use of certain words; the question is what the effect is of the United Party’s statements and those of its Press. The danger lies in the inflammatory effect of the words of the United Party and of its Press on the mind of the Bantu.

Why do you not say so then, so that there can no longer be any doubt in their minds, because I have said so?

Let us understand each other perfectly clearly. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition advances as one excuse, as an “understandable” reason which the Bantu regard as a “justifiable” reason, the fact that the Bantu do not have the right to own land in the White area and that they should be given that right. I cannot say here that I propose to remove that alleged reason for dissatisfaction which has allegedly given rise to Poqo by giving them the right to own land in locations, because I believe that that would be wrong. I believe that if anything it would give them the right to say that they now have a share in the ownership of what I call the White man’s land and that they are therefore entitled to the vote, to a much greater extent than even the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to give them under his federation policy. I cannot concede it to them therefore. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition does wish to concede it. Nor can I say that the Bantu will be allowed to flock into the cities in unlimited numbers, or that women will be allowed to flock into the cities to join their husbands, or that new workers will be allowed to flock into the cities, because I believe that that would be extremely harmful to South Africa, both as far as the Whites are concerned and as far as the other Bantu are concerned. I believe that in some places this would result in the formation of a redundant labour pool as a result of which the Bantu who are there at present would suffer. I cannot remove such an alleged grievance because I think that in point of fact it should not be a grievance. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, however, builds it up into a grievance.

The question is not whether you can remove these grievances or not. The question is a very simple one. I have said that I condemn this organization. If the hon. the Prime Minister is also of that opinion and says that he accepts that I condemn this organization, then it resolves the matter.

No, it does not resolve the matter. I do say that the Government condemns this organization and I go on to say that I accept that the Leader of the Opposition and his Party also say that they condemn this organization. Having said that, however, I must also condemn the further statement made by the Leader of the Opposition in which he advances all sorts of reasons for saying that, after all, it is understandable that there is such an organization.

No

But he accepted the word “understandable”!

That it grows under certain circumstances when the seed-bed is created in which it can germinate.

I accept that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that an organization such as Poqo is entirely wrong, but then I go on to say that I most strongly condemn the fact that the Leader of the Opposition is not prepared to leave it at that but that he sees fit, for political purposes, in order to attack this side, to level the accusation against this side that the Government is preparing a seed-bed in which this type of organization is able to grow. I say that those instigators of unrest and their defenders here and overseas, however piously he may try to interpret and twist those words, will accept and interpret them as a justification for these deeds. That part of my reproach I cannot wipe out. Only the Leader of the Opposition can do so by refraining from saying these things.

But I want to point out to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he is not the only guilty party. His lieutenant, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J M. Steyn), is just as bad. I have before me an article of his which appeared in the Cape Argus of 19 April 1963, an article of which he is probably proud.

A good article.

I knew that he would be proud of it. There he wrote as follows. and this is what he is so proud of—

What else is it but saying that the Government is taking certain powers to deal with illegal opposition organized by people who have been deprived of all opportunity to have their grievances remedied in a legitimate manner, and who will interpret it other than that this is a defence of their actions? What else is it but strong support for Poqo? But apart from that I say that it is an absolutely unfair statement to make. Who dare say that they have been deprived of all opportunity to try legally to get changes made in the policy? [Interjections.] What opportunity had they of which they have been deprived?

They had representation in Parliament.

What chance did three Representatives in this Parliament have to change Government policy? They had no chance at all, and hon. members know it. Now the United Party wants to shelter behind that in order to make this accusation. If the Leader of the Opposition tries to pose as the supporter of this standpoint which was stated by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), I say that I am ashamed of his attitude in supporting such a defence of unlawful organizations. [Interjections.] One need not argue about it further.

When the hon. member for Yeoville got up to speak later, he alleged that we had a policy for the future but none for the present. He tried to prove that by saying that I recently adopted the attitude—and he knows as well as I do that this was not the first time but that I had often said so before—that the removal of the Bantu from the Western Province would take place as a process, and that two things would have to be complied with. The one is that there should first be opportunities for employment elsewhere for these people, because one is not morally justified—and it would not be wise to do so—in removing the Bantu here and sending them to the Bantu areas without creating opportunities for employment for them there. I have always said that this would be done. Secondly, I have always said that there need not be disruption, because if the process is tackled intelligently, the economic development of the Western Province will not be hampered. It is a normal course of action and it does not mean that this policy cannot be implemented soon, because we are continuously busy with the gradual implementation of our policy. By quoting this one example, the hon. member was implying that we have a policy for the future only, just as his leader did this afternoon when he said that our policy would not be implemented before 1978, when we always said the apex of the influx curve would be reached. Now the hon. member says that because we say that there is a gradual process of removal in which there will be no disruption, we are doing nothing now but will do something only later! The application of a policy like this is a lengthy process, and we have been saying that ever since 1948. We are busy gradually, step by step, implementing the policy of apartheid. That is what we did in the Transkei, also in the political sphere, and that is what we are doing in regard to the Coloureds.

It was not such a lengthy process in the Transkei.

When we introduced the Bantu Authorities Act five years ago, the hon. member blamed me for not proceeding faster. Then already the hon. member wanted a representative system there.

They had one, and you took it away.

It was a false one which did not work, and which did not give the Bantu any status or power. The Bunga was a purely advisory body dominated by White officials, and that is what I deprived them of. [Interjections.]

You could have given the Bunga all these powers.

Why should I give a number of Bantu commissioners and officials the powers of a nation to govern itself? The hon. member does not even know how the Bunga was constituted, and in whose hands the power was. Now the accusation is made against us that we have a policy for the future only and none for the present, as if that is a most deplorable thing. Much of our policy is aimed at the future. However, I repeat that that is not true. But let us look at their policy. I have in my hand something I did not have this afternoon, namely the policy of the United Party as published in the Sunday Times, and what does this statement say? The United Party leaders say they are going to apply their policy in three phases. In other words, it is not a policy for to-day only, but also for the future—phases generally follow on each other. The first phase is simply that the United Party is just going to do those things which it might as well do while it is still in opposition, viz. to review the number of Acts and to decide which of them it will retain and which of them it will repeal. That is now the first phase! Then we come to the second phase.

Be fair.

Very well, I will read out everything published here in regard to the first phase. First we have a number of general principles, and then they say there are three phases, and then it says—

That is meaningless. It is vague. Now any reader will ask what these “urgent reforms” are. They say—

I have just heard from the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) that they like discrimination. [Laughter.]—

So far it is still “we shall examine and determine”, but then they say—

This is still just consultation; they are not doing anything yet. We also have continuous consultations.

With whom? With the chiefs?

With the Bantu at all levels of their society and government, by means of every Bantu commissioner, from the highest to the lowest, and with the assistance of the whole of the Department of Bantu Administration, as well as the Department of Bantu Education. But they are first going to create machinery. Nor do they say what machinery. They do not know. Then they say—

I suppose this is one of the anti-Bantu Acts they envisage, because they want to strengthen themselves in this multi-racial nation which has a single loyalty. That is the first phase of their colour policy. They are going to review the laws and they will establish consultative machinery, and then they will see what they can do to get more White people into this country—

All that is in the first phase. What will they then have done in regard to the colour problem in that phase? But still they dare to tell me that our policy is one for the future and not one for to-day! Then it continues with the second phase. That is in regard to how it wants to make the Natives, the Coloureds and the Indians members of this Parliament in various ways, in addition to all kinds of other integration measures. I must say frankly that I have tried to find this third phase but could not do so. Is there a third phase? [Interjection.] What is it?

It is the funeral of the Whites. [Laughter.]

It is the funniest thing in the world that if one reads the headlines they refer to three phases, and they start off with the first and the second and then they remain dead quiet. [Laughter.]

Look alongside the photograph of General Smuts. [Laughter.]

Order! Hon. members should now remain calm.

I am sending over this report so that hon. members opposite may point out to me where this third phase is. In the meantime I will refer to Alexandra in a few words, because the hon. member for Yeoville mentioned it. In regard to Alexandra it is quite clear that we are dealing there with a large, over-inhabited area. At one time it was estimated that there were more than 110,000 people in that area, and as Minister of Native Affairs it was my task at the time to improve that position. I could get no co-operation from the City Council of Johannesburg, which was really the city which got its labour from Alexandra. We therefore had to adopt a different course and the Central Government assumed a responsibility which should really have been shouldered by the City Council. One could rather have considered removing the whole of Alexandra from that White area, but we did not do so, for several reasons. We thought, inter alia, that it could be a residential area from which the Northern Areas of Johannesburg could get their labour. Consequently we tried to reduce the number of people there to 30,000. That led to the removal of quite a few families to the southern location areas. From there some married people went to work in the Northern Areas, because many of them had done so previously. It was then discovered that there was a large number of single Bantu, people who were either married but did not have their wives in Johannesburg, or who were unmarried, and for whom accommodation had to be found. Under those circumstances it is very clear that accommodation could be established in hostels in Alexandra for those employed in the Northern areas. In the meantime there will, however, still be families not living in the hostels. That was as far as my plans went, and I take it that is still the position. Members of families living in the southern locations could also go to work there. Therefore the whole accusation about which the hon. member for Yeoville made such a fuss is meaningless. I think I have now allowed enough time to pass to give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a chance to find his third phase in that newspaper. I hope the beginning of that third phase is marked.

The third phase is the establishment of the race federation. There are three columns dealing with that.

Where does it start?

It is in the last three columns, with a headline in bold black lettering above it.

It is not clear where this third phase is, but the Leader of the Opposition says that I must accept it that the third phase starts where he says: “I have mentioned some of the signposts which the United Party will plot on the road of orderly advance towards race federation. There will be others required by the needs of dynamic policy to meet ever-changing human relations”. Then he goes on to say … [Interjections.] It is a very long article and I cannot read it all, but he says: “I refuse to commit my party to every detail of administration and policy during this period”. Now I want to point out that I am continually being accused of not giving the finest details. I am always expected to submit one blueprint after another. In actual fact I continually give the most detailed explanation of our policy, and the implementation of my policy is actually seen in detail, but those hon. members begin to discuss their third phase, after not having said much in regard to the second phase, by saying that they will tell us as little as possible in regard to the future. And that is what they did in fact. The rest of the article just consists of generalities. He refers to “cardinal principles” and talks about the “concept of the confederation of races”, and says—

These are all generalities and stories which are well known to us—

Hear, hear!

Hon. members may say. “Hear, hear!”, but it only means that they are saying “Hear, hear!” to the greatest vaguenesses one can utter. Now say “Hear, hear!” again to the following—

Hear, hear!

Very good. That is the difference between us. Those hon. members want a mixed Parliament of a mixed people in a mixed State.

We are mixed already. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members cannot keep up a running commentary on what the hon. the Prime Minister is saying. They will have an opportunity to talk. [Interjections.] Order! That applies to hon. members on the Government side as well.

So we get to the crux of the whole difference in policy. These pious words about a race federation are just by the way. The crucial matter in regard to which the public of South Africa will always have to decide is whether they want what the United Party stands for, a Parliament consisting of Whites and of Bantu, first represented by Whites and gradually by Bantu, and with representation granted also to the Bantu areas as well as to the Bantu in the White areas, but how precisely that is to be done we do not know. However, there will first be representation by White representatives and then by Blacks, first by eight and then, after a referendum, by more. How these changes will take place, and whether they will take place, or whether the aims of Black nationalism will all of it, all hangs in the air, but Parliament will be mixed. There will be representation of the Bantu and of the Coloureds and of the Indians by themselves. The consequences of such a Parliament is that there must also be that kind of Government. And the result of such a Government is that there must also be such a Public Service and such a Defence Force. The consequences of that in turn will be that the pressure of the majority of the people in the country for the universal franchise—one man, one vote—will have to come. And history has shown what that will mean. It will be similar to what has happened in the rest of Africa. Whether we call this policy a federation or a race federation, it means nothing else but that one face emerges clearly: That is how the United Party wants to govern South Africa and that is how the Government of the country will develop under its regime.

As against that, we have as our very clear policy that we do not want a multi-racial Government; that we want to retain a White Central Parliament, and that we are prepared to pay the price for it. namely that the areas which historically have become Bantu areas, even though we Whites have governed them during the past 80 years or more, may again become Bantu areas. They should not, as in the Congo, be freed suddenly, but gradually, step by step, so that an experienced Bantu democracy may develop, which will then be our neighbour. We prefer to ensure the existence of a White Parliament, even though it means that eventually we will have Bantu neighbouring States. We also prefer to have orderly Bantu neighbours, and therefore we will regulate that process of development. In the case of the Coloureds and the Indians, we have clearly stated how, by means of their own country-wide control boards, they will be given the opportunity to look after their own interests. Those are the two directions. Now the hon. members of the Opposition may criticize us, and they may find fault with it. They may try to seek defects in our policy, but that is irrelevant. The important point is that the people must decide between those two directions and there should no longer be any doubt in this regard.

In terms of your plan, will the Indians have any political rights?

I have always said that the Indians will have to follow the same process of political development which I have explained in regard to the Coloureds.

Will they be represented here?

No, but they will be given a country-wide Indian Council.

Never.

No. They will be given an Indian Council, just like the Coloureds. The Indians in South Africa can regard themselves as being very fortunate because we want to follow this course, because it is and remains a fact that they are a foreign element in our society. We are now compelled to accept their presence as a fact because India does not want to take them back, nor do they want to return to India, because their position there will be so much worse than it is here.

Do you recognize the Indians as South African citizens?

We have accepted the Indians in the same way that we accept the Coloureds, as citizens of South Africa in connection with whom, according to the principles of apartheid, we should ensure that they have political rights amongst their own people.

I now want to deal with what the hon. member for Yeoville has said, that this Government has a lot to say but has very little courage. I cast that accusation back in their faces and say that we have always had the courage of our convictions, whatever pressure has been brought to bear upon us, both internally and externally, to state our standpoint clearly and unequivocally and to implement it. In spite of all the attacks and all the misleading and all the misrepresentations there have been, we have had the courage to stick to our standpoint. But how much courage does the Opposition have in regard to their policy? They have announced one policy after the other. Is it courageous to announce one policy one day and then, if there is no support for it, to announce another policy a few weeks later? We have already ridiculed the three-point policy, the ten-point policy, and the six-point policy and the Graaff Senate Plan, and now we have to ridicule the vague race federation plan. This exposition of the race federation plan is in fact the most significant proof of a lack of courage one can ever have in a party. What does this article in the Sunday Times written by the Leader of the Opposition say? There are five principles on which the United Party will build, and what are those principles? Firstly, all races must have a share in the civilization which has been built up here, by co-operating under White leadership. What is the object of that? It is simply to catch the votes of the White electorate. Those hon. members said some time ago that they stood for full integration in the political and economical spheres, but they have now discovered that that is not what their supporters wanted. The result is that they have come along with a few generalities to sugar-coat the pill of partnership and integration before they come to the second phase in which they want to give representation to all non-Whites in this Parliament. That shows a lack of courage. After having first tried to sugar-coat the pill by means of such generalities, they sprinkle some more sugar over their first phase. They want the White people really to infer that the Bantu still have to wait a long time for representation, while they sit and think and “examine and review” all the discriminatory laws, while they evolve machinery for consultation, and during all that time the people may be satisfied that they will really do nothing in regard to the Native problem. That is their second coating of the pill. Only then comes the phase where they give representation to the Bantu, and they have so little courage that they try to minimize it by saying that they will give only eight representations to the Bantu. In spite of what happened in Kenya and in Rhodesia, they want the White voters to believe that the Bantu will remain satisfied with that; in addition, it will still be White representatives. In order to give the pill still another coating of sugar, they say that thereafter they will first have a referendum in which the White, the Coloured and the Indian voters together will be able to say whether they want to allow the Bantu more representation. Everybody knows, however, that this is only a way of inducing the voters of South Africa to swallow this pill of a multi-racial Government, whilst everybody also knows that this process will not be so lengthy. The lessons taught by Africa are too clear and too serious. We know what happened in Kenya and in Rhodesia. Everybody knows that when one starts slipping down this road of integration, the pressure from the Afro-Asians will become too strong. Everybody knows that the Bantu in this country is more likely to revolt against such a meagre partnership than against the self-government we propose granting them. But they will then have leaders inside this Parliament who will demand greater representation, and by the Bantu themselves, and South Africa will then be compelled to accede to that demand. Apart from that, it will not be the White voters who will decide this matter in a referendum, if there is the opportunity to hold a referendum; it will have to be the Whites, the Indians and the Coloureds together because they will all immediately have a share in the Government of the country in the second phase. In other words, the Opposition has revealed a great lack of courage by jumping about in this manner, and then they still dare to accuse us. Therefore I repeat what I said this afternoon: South Africa will have to realize what a deadly danger the United Party represents to its survival. If it realizes that, the United Party will never come into power.

Mr. Chairman, a long time ago the hon. the Prime Minister dealt with the question of what I called geometrical progression, the question of creating jobs by employing 500,000 people in industry. Before I come back to that, I want to say that this intervention by the hon. the Prime Minister has been most useful. What was very interesting is that the Prime Minister continued in his allegation that he was still carrying out the traditional policy of the Nationalist Party. I think we have come to the stage now that we must agree to differ. The Prime Minister apparently believes that he is still carrying out the policy of the Nationalist Party, but we and the Burger differ from him, and in this case I am inclined to believe the Burger. Here I want to issue a challenge to the Prime Minister. He quoted the Sauer Report of 1947 to justify his policy, but the Sauer Report is part of the policy of the Nationalist Party which the Prime Minister has torn up, just as he removed all Native representation from Parliament before establishing the Bantustans.

That is not true. There was the Bantu Authorities Act.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) felt it necessary to resign from the Nationalist Party.

Oh no, he was kicked out.

Well, then it was constructive resignation. [Laughter.] But do not let us quibble about it. He joined issue with the Prime Minister on that.

Why did the hon. the Prime Minister not tell us that this very Sauer Report which was to be the blue-print of apartheid and which was quoted by him as an authority said that while they might take away the representatives in this House they would be given seven representatives in the Senate? Is the Senate not part of the Parliament of South Africa? In fact the position is that the authorities quoted by the Prime Minister to show that his party’s policies were unchanged prove in fact how the Prime Minister has trod the policies of the Nationalist Party under foot. What interested me very much was the Prime Minister’s attempt to discredit the article of my Leader in the Sunday Times. He took us amiss for saying that we would institute reforms with the approval specifically of the people of South Africa. He considers that to be a weakness because he himself assumes the right to change the policies of the Nationalist Party himself without reference to its congresses or its caucus. I am proud and grateful to think that the Leader of the Opposition is not a leader like that. I am proud to think that he is willing to derive his authority specifically from the electorate of South Africa for his reforms. That of course is the important difference between the hon. the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition: the one is a democrat and the other is by instinct a dictator.

I should now like to return to this question of the 500,000 workers. I am grateful to the Prime Minister for having made this clear. The report was so sketchy and the explanation of the Prime Minister this afternoon was so confused that we too got confused, but now the position is clear. The Prime Minister’s argument is that the 500,000 workers will support 12,500,000 members of the Native population: They will support tertiary activities, new jobs will be necessary to maintain them and their families, and ultimately 12,500,000 people will live as a result of their employment in industry. If that is so, then I do not understand why it is not the position in South Africa to-day. After all in South Africa to-day you have 623,000 people in industry, another 709,000 employed in mining, without even mentioning the hundreds of thousands employed in agriculture. If the hon. the Prime Minister’s argument is correct and even if we have no agriculture in South Africa we should be supporting a population in South Africa of 33,300,000. I think there is something wrong in the Prime Minister’s calculations. I hope, Sir, he will consider the matter again and discuss it again with Dr. van Eck. We will in that way get some light in due course. This argument of the Prime Minister, however, is facile, over-optimistic and may mislead him as well as the people of South Africa.

But I will not spend much more time on this because I am much more interested in the other admissions made by the Prime Minister that at the time of the turn of the century, perhaps in 50 years’ time—the number of years he used when he spoke to the Sakekamer—there will still be millions of people who will not be supported by the Bantustans but who, as to-day, will still be working in our factories, in our mines and on our farms. They will be part of the economy of the White Republic of South Africa.

The Prime Minister suggests that our policy is also one of the future. He read from the article of my Leader in the Sunday Times about three phases but he carefully omitted to read the very sentence where we state the fact that these phases will run contemporaneously or, to use the words the Leader of the Opposition used, they will overlap. Why did the Prime Minister not read that sentence? My Leader in his article stated that these three phases would be overlapping. While we will be investigating legislation, there will be reforms and even the third phase, i.e. race federation, will not be delayed while phases number one and two are being carried out. We will start implementing our policy forthwith while the Prime Minister and his party have been implementing apartheid now for 15 years with what results? According to the census of 1960 during the ten years from 1950 to 1960 another 1,000,000 Natives came to work in the White man’s enterprises. It is not therefore a question of their postponing their policy but in fact of their going backwards. Such a policy is the most futile that one can imagine—a policy which aims at the one thing and then deliberately produces the opposite! That does not make sense, and that is the policy which aims at making South Africa less dependent on Native labour and at causing a return flow of Natives out of the Republic into the reserves. In practice, however, 1,000,000 Natives during the period 1950-60 went the opposite direction against their policy. How dare the Prime Minister, who is responsible for a policy with such contradictory results, criticize the United Party by saying that our policy is a policy for the future? And even then he does not read properly what he is criticizing! He left out a most important sentence about the overlapping of phases. [Time limit.]

I think we are now coming to the third phase of the policy of the United Party. You know, Mr. Chairman, the Opposition act in a peculiar way. When one of them has finished speaking, as the hon. member for Yeoville has just finished, all the Whips descend upon him and then you can talk the hind leg off a donkey but nobody will pay any attention to you. If one of them is on his feet, however, they expect us to listen respectfully.

I am listening to every word you are saying.

You cannot listen to me and to the Whips who have been bothering you at the same time. That is a sign of bad manners and rudeness.

Order, order!

I was saying, Mr. Chairman, that we were rightly coming to the third phase of the policy of the United Party, namely the grave of the White man. That is the third phase of the policy of that party. If the first and second phases have been put into effect the third phase must necessarily follow. And now the hon. member for Yeoville wants to juggle with words. With a great flow of words he tries to make us believe that the “overlapping” of the three phases of their policy will be the salvation of both the Black man and the White man in South Africa. But throughout the world around him it is totally different. That is why we on this side of the Housg ask ourselves this question: Can the hon. member for Yeoville not understand it then? Can he not see it and can he not understand it? That “overlapping” has not succeeded anywhere else. The hon. the Prime Minister has given examples of that throughout the world. Even the United Nations applied it in Israel. That was the only policy which could prevent them from killing each other there. Then we still have Rhodesia, Kenya, the Congo, as a matter of fact the whole world. But now they say that they will be able to apply it in South Africa. I should like to know a few things from them and I want to ask them this very politely.

They say that the first thing they are going to do is that they will do justice to the Coloureds who have been removed from the Common Roll. I take it that the same will apply in respect of the Indian population of South Africa. Only after that do we come to the Bantu people and to the race federation. As we see it it must lead to only one thing and that is the destruction of all White authority in South Africa just as all White authority is disappearing in the Federation to our north.

I am not quite sure whether I understood the hon. member for Yeoville correctly this evening. When he referred to the Native hostels in Johannesburg he pleaded—I hope I understood him correctly—for it that the wives and children of the men who worked there should be brought from the reserves and allowed to live there. Was that his idea?

Workers are entitled to a family life; that is elementary.

I want the hon. member to state clearly whether it is his idea that the families of the Natives who are housed in Johannesburg in compounds and hostels for men should be brought from the Transkei and other reserves to join their Native husbands? Is that the policy of the United Party?

Detribalized Native workers should have a family.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member again wishes to indulge in a great play of words: it is simply impossible for them to talk straight out. That is precisely what the Prime Minister also said this evening. We do not get anythoug tangible from the side of the United Party. If what the hon. member for Yeoville suggests should happen any right-minded person must come to the conclusion that it will lead to the White man’s ruination.

But that is the case at the moment.

I wish the hon. member for Transkeian Territories would wait a minute; I shall deal with him in a moment. I say that if the suggestion of the hon. member for Yeoville were carried out the White areas will immediately disappear. I think it is senseless to suggest that there will then be order in South Africa. I simply cannot understand how people can argue like that. As an ex-school master I want to work out a few arithmetical sums for the hon. member for Yeoville. When I look at the hon. member it seems that he has somewhat neglected his arithmetic in the distant past. There are 23 Native villages on my farm. According to the census figures there are 210 Natives in those 23 villages. These 23 villages produce 23 workers. There are 11 big boys which makes a total of 34 together with the 23 Native workers. There is a Native doctor, one does cartage work, and there is one who does the ploughing for the others. Of the 210 souls, therefore, there are 23 from those villages who work together with three in secondary industry. That is what the hon. the Prime Minister has tried to make the hon. member for Yeoville understand. If you have people who work it automatically creates other work. That is the argument which has been used the whole evening but which the hon. member for Yeoville simply cannot understand.

While I am on my feet, however, there is one question which I should like to put to the hon. the Prime Minister. I regard this as one of the most important questions as far as we in the Republic of South Africa are concerned. This question deals with those people who slip across our borders to the Protectorates and who apparently take part in underground activities and who organize against South Africa from there. And that is happening ex a friendly area! Areas which are practically completely dependent on the Republic of South Africa for their entire existence. I wish to refer to Basutoland in particular. People like Patrick Duncan and a few Native leaders have recently fled there and have stated publicly that they will carry on with the threat against South Africa from there. Not only do I regard that as an unfriendly act but as an extremely hostile one. No matter how thorny this question may be I should very much like to know whether a protectorate like Basutoland can be allowed to continue with these activities. Is this escape route through Basutoland going to be allowed to remain? I regard it of the utmost importance that we know what the position is in this respect. I do not think the Opposition will find any fault with it when I say that these Protectorates are economically dependent on South Africa. We simply cannot allow things to continue to happen there as is the case in Angola where forces are openly being trained in the Congo next door for the destruction of Angola. As I see the position the Portuguese will be unable to defend themselves unless they can bomb Elisabethville and a few other big cities of the Congo. That is what these States will be asking for if they continue to carry on as they are. I also think that the time has arrived for England to take note of the actions of these Protectorates. She should take serious note of it. Can we in the Republic allow these undermining activities to continue along our borders, activities which may lead to our own destruction? If ever we have been faced with a serious situation, I think we are to-day faced with such a situation in all its naked earnestness. If the hon. the Prime Minister can throw any light on the subject we and the people outside will be very grateful.

I think we have just listened to a very irresponsible speech by the hon. member who just sat down, because he ought to know that negotiations are proceeding between the Republic and the British Government in respect of future relations with the Protectorates. Since the hon. member is a member of the Government he ought to know that negotiations are proceeding between our Government and the British Government in respect of future relations with the Protectorates. But since the hon. gentleman has raised this matter and has pointed to the very dangers I should like to ask him whether he does not believe that they also are going to increase sevenfold when the seven Bantustans get their independence? It is not going to happen just in respect of Basutoland or Bechuanaland; it is going to happen with every single independent Bantustan created by this Government, just as it has happened in Morocco and in Algiers. There the people went across the border and obtained asylum on the other side. Since, however, the hon. member has raised this matter I think we have the right to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that in dealing with this matter he must always bear in mind that he is perhaps setting a pattern for what the relationship will be not only with Basutoland and the other Protectorates but with seven Bantustans in the future. These Bantustans will be just as keen about their independence as Basutoland, Swaziland and Bechuanaland will be about theirs in due course.

Will you concede that our policy will be creating friendly States which we will be taking along with us? It is only when they get their independence that trouble may start.

This is just one more example of members on the other side still sticking to the old policy of the Nationalist Party that these Bantustans will not get independence. They believe they will be able to control it. But this hon. member has not yet woken up to the implications of what the hon. the Prime Minister has said, namely that these Bantustans are going to get independence when the time comes.

But they will be friendly to South Africa.

I have said before that this Government will not be able to control the tempo of development of these Bantustans nor will they be able to control the form of that development.

I have said, Sir, that in relation to this matter the hon. the Prime Minister must always bear in mind that he will be setting a pattern for future relations. I think, Sir, that the time has perhaps come, now that the matter has been raised, for him to indicate to us what he hopes to achieve in these negotiations. Most sovereign States in the world are inclined to give political asylum to political refugees, political fugitives, but it seems, Sir, that there must be a difference between giving asylum to a political fugitive and giving protection to an individual who carries on activities hostile to a friendly State under the protection of the State concerned. The position has, of course, altered as a result of our ceasing to be a member of the Commonwealth. The whole situation has changed in that I am not sure that the old Acts which applied continue to apply and I am not sure in what respect they apply. I do not propose to go into the legal questions now; the hon. the Prime Minister and his Department will know what I mean. It does seem to me, however, that the time has come for us to make it very clear that we believe a distinction exists between granting asylum to a political refugee and giving someone protection who is making use of that protection in order to promote hostile activities against a friendly State.

I quite agree with you.

I will be grateful to have the views of the hon. the Prime Minister on this subject.

Before widening this debate to cover matters of that kind I should like to return to certain of the questions which was put to the hon. the Prime Minister at the beginning of this debate and long before we got involved in all this nonsense of the United Party being allied to Poqo and long before it tried to draw red herrings across the trail by talking about race federation. I should like to bring the hon. the Prime Minister straight back to the questions which I put to him at the beginning of this debate and to which we have had no reply. I ask the hon. the Prime Minister what it was he proposed to do to try and promote more friendly relations with the outside world. All we got from the hon. gentleman, Sir, was that he shrugged his shoulders and asked what he could do seeing that all the Afro-Asian bloc wanted was one man one vote. All the hon. gentleman had to say to us was that even if we made certain concessions it would not mean that the pressures on us would cease. But surely, Sir, that is elementary. We all know that. But what we want to know now from the hon. the Prime Minister is what, if anything, he can do to keep the great Western powers on our side, those powers who are anti-communist and whose assistance would protect us from the activities of the extremists in the Afro-Asian bloc. One wants to know whether he has had conversation with those powers and also whether any suggestions have been made to him in this regard. Is he prepared to consider their views in these matters and has he any proposals which he believes can result in a more friendly attitude between them and us and which could give our friends a case they could defend in our interests when we are attacked by Afro-Asian s and other extremist blocs. It is no answer to say that the extremists want this and that because we all know that. Moreover we are not prepared to make those concessions. That is common cause on both sides of this House. Surely, Sir, this must be a matter which has been the subject of discussion and surely the hon. the Prime Minister can give us some indications whether there could be a change of attitude, a better atmosphere and that as a result of discussions there might be a better understanding of our situation.

I should like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister not to be too rigid or inflexible in conducting talks of that kind. He should appreciate, Sir, that it is only by give and take that we are going to get the Western powers on our side at a vitally important time of our history.

What do you want to give?

I would be grateful if the hon. member will not continue interjecting. I think this is a case of children rushing in where very experienced people must tread very carefully. That I think is also appreciated by the hon. the Prime Minister. By that sort of nonsense we are not assisted at all.

Now, Sir, that was one point which was worrying me. Or, do we have to take it from the Prime Minister that he sees no hope for the future in promoting better relations and that he concedes that his Minister of Information cannot achieve anything? Does he concede that the outside world has set its face against us and that we have to be prepared to continue ploughing the lonely course which we have been ploughing in the past few years since these policies are being applied?

You did not put this point fully before. Anyhow, I will reply to it in due course.

I concede that I have put this matter more fully now than I did before. I also should like to put to him another important point which runs into a third, namely the question I raised with the hon. the Prime Minister of the bottlenecks which were developing in our economy, I believe as a result of his policies and in a sense as the result of his neglect in the past. I refer to the bottlenecks caused by the shortage of tactically trained and skilled personnel and the shortage of risk capital in South Africa as a result of the lack of confidence amongst our people. I also pointed out that in the past when these matters were raised one was met with the statement that we had full employment in South Africa and that we were making rapid strides. But the figures now show that the progress which we have made when it is judged by the growth in real income of the population has been very slow indeed. It compares unfavourably with other young countries of the world and it is even below that of some of the longer-established countries who are far more industrialized that we are. [Time limit.]

I did not think that I would talk on economic matters under the Vote of the Prime Minister but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made certain statements and allegations this afternoon which I cannot allow to pass without comment. I am sorry that he made certain allegations this afternoon with a view to belittling the economy of South Africa and to insinuate things which are not true. We are living in one of the most modern and most progressive countries. The Leader of the Opposition, however, ignored that completely and he made no mention of that. Why did he not refer to the progress which has been made in South Africa during the past 12 months? There is a great deal of money in circulation in South Africa to-day and that can only be the position if there is prosperity in the country. According to Reserve Bank statistics there were R259,000,000 worth of bank notes in circulation on 14 December last year, which is R27,000,000 more than in the corresponding period of 1961. The hon. Leader of the Opposition conveniently remained silent on this fact. When we look at our industries in South Africa we find that during the first half of 1962 the total production of our factories was approximately 4.2 per cent higher than that for the same period in 1961. If we compare the second term of 1962 with the second half of 1961 we find that the increase in the physical volume of manufactured goods was even very much higher, namely 6.4 per cent. When we take the textile industry we find that the production during the first six months of 1962 was 15.7 per cent higher than in the same period in 1961.

The manufacturers of machinery and transport equipment show an increase of something like 11 per cent. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not say a word about any of these increases. When we look at Sasol and its “petrol from coal installation”, we find that the chemical industry there is expanding so rapidly that factories to the value of R 12,000,000 are being erected. Let us look at Iscor. For the year ending 30 June 1962 Iscor’s production was 313,000 tons more than in the previous year. As against that the total sales exceeded those for the same period by R 11,000,000. The Leader of the Opposition, however, conveniently closed his eyes to these things. When we look at the position of our external trade we find that the total value of goods exported during the first 11 months of 1962, excluding re-exports, was approximately R32,000,000 more than in the corresponding period in 1961. And all this in spite of boycotts and agitations against South Africa.

What has happened in the transportation field in South Africa? The revenue of the South African Railways was R21,500,000 more for the period April to October 1962 than for the corresponding period of 1961. And that after it was announced last year that self-government was to be given to the Transkei. According to the Opposition that announcement would have been catastrophic to South Africa but in spite of that all these increases took place. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is as silent as the grave on this. During April and December 1962 9,012,874 more passengers were conveyed than during the corresponding period in 1961. If there had not been prosperity, had the people not had the money and had there not been an upsurge in South Africa’s economy, it would not have been possible to have conveyed so many more people.

When we look at the unemployment figure we find that at the end of November 1962 there were only 21,941 unemployed Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics. This number represents only 1.5 per cent of our labour corps. What is the position in this connection overseas? In Canada the position was that in September 1962 369,000 or 5.6 per cent of their total labour corps was unemployed. In the U.S.A., during October 1962 3,300,000 or 5.5 per cent of the labour corps was unemployed. Furthermore we find that in America they have 814,000 unemployed ten-year-olds, that means 15.6 per cent of the total ten-year-olds. I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition will still maintain that we are worse off in this respect than America. When we take the commercial world we find that according to the monthly index sales figures for garages, traders sold as much as 40 per cent more new and second-hand motor-cars than during the previous year. Surely the hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot say that 40 per cent is very bad.

In South Africa our national debt amounts to only R157 per capita. In the U.S.A. it is R964 per capita. If South Africa were in such a bad position and if the country were in such a precarious position, why is it that immigrants are flocking to the country?

At 10.25 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.